Thread: DISCUSSION - The current WWE era and their failed strategy to "make everyone look credible."
View Single Post
Old 10-09-2015, 07:38 PM   #46
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 The CyNick View Post
The amount of revisionist history regarding the booking in the Attitude Era and prior is hilarious. WWE has had this same style of booking for at least 15 years. Maybe more.

I disagree. Once a wrestler proved themselves worthy of a push, the WWE got completely behind said guy and pushed him huge. Austin in 97', Rocky/Hunter in 98/99, Angle (to a certain extent) in 2000/2001, Lesnar in 2002, Orton/Cena/Batista in 2004. Nowadays, this 50/50 non-sense in an effort to make everyone look credible, is having an adverse effect.

Quote:
Nobody remembers that Hunter was doing jobs to guys like Hank Godwinn and Marc Mero.

Rocky was losing matches to Savio Vega, and looking like a bitch against Ken Shamrock.
Yes, but that was before their big pushes. The WWE didn't start going 'crazy' with Rocky and Hunter until shortly before Summerslam 1998. After that, both guys were protected big time and only lost to 'bottom feeders/mid carders' in an extremely flukey way.


Same thing with Cena. Obviously - in 2002/2003, Cena was doing his fair share of jobs as part of 'paying dues', but once he proved himself worthy, etc., the WWE strapped a rocket to his chest and protected him greatly. Hence - Cena's rapid rise and dominance throughout 2004, which allowed him to get to the top in 2005.


Orton from late 2003-Summerslam 2004 = same thing. Batista from around mid/late 2004 - Wrestlemania 2005 = same thing.

Quote:
Foley lost to tons of guys.
During his peak (mid 1997-2000), who did Foley really lose to outside of Austin, Kane, Undertaker, Rocky, and Hunter? He lost to NAO who were being groomed to be the top tag team in the WWE.


Between 1997-2000, a clean win over Foley in a feud usually indicated that said wrestler was going to get pushed big time. A victory over Foley usually meant something special.

Quote:
The main difference between then and now is that the TALENT was much better then vs today. It's like comparing a good Montreal Canadiens to the teams of the 70s and going "the coaching just isn't up to par with the 70s".

WWE would LOVE for someone to break from the pack. But nobody wants it. The last guy who did broke his neck to get there. Well Brock did it too but he's on a unique deal. All of these guys can become the biggest star in the company, they just gotta take the ball from Cena. But nobody has the tools or the desire to do it.
I agree with you to a certain extent, but I think the WWE could have done a better job in elevating certain guys that clearly deserved better (i.e. Rusev).


Do you mean to tell me that CM Punk circa 2011 wasn't worthy enough to break away from the pack? How did Hunter squashing Punk in 2011.......when Punk was white hot.......help Punk or the business at all?
Heyman is offline   Reply With Quote