Thread: QUESTION - In your opinion, what should the "life cycle" of a WWE Wrestler be?
View Single Post
Old 04-28-2009, 03:57 PM   #49
Heyman
Father of Hinduship
 
Heyman's Avatar
 
Posts: 21,083
Heyman makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Heyman makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Heyman makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Heyman makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Heyman makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Heyman makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Heyman makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Heyman makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Heyman makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Heyman makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Heyman makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Heyman makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Heyman makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeritron View Post
By your definition Raw should be WWF, Smackdown should be WCW, and ECW should be ECW and/or TNA.
I've thought about this comment for awhile (even though my short reply to this post may imply otherwise) and here is my thought:

Who cares?!?!

Between 1997 and 2001 for instance, the wrestling industry saw more 'stars' created than perhaps in any other time period....and there was a reason for this.

And it's not like the other shows went to the shitter (until 2000 atleast). Given how the WWE can still (in some way) re-arrange wrestlers around, this 'idealized' perennial state can be kept.

RAW can always be the show where new mega stars are created within a year (i.e. CM Punk, Jeff Hardy, MVP, etc.), while maintaining its top 2-3 company stars (i.e. Cena, Orton, Batista).

Smackdown can be full of "6's" then can help "3's" get noticed.

ECW can be full of '1's and '2's.

With my set-up, LONG-TERM main-eventers would be created (as opposed to transitional ones such as Rey Mysterio, Chris Benoit, Eddie Guerrero, etc. where they have a brief run and then get shat on unless they PROVE to be main-event failures.....as opposed to being victims of politics.).
Heyman is offline   Reply With Quote