Thread: Smark Era..... Good or Bad?
View Single Post
Old 11-23-2016, 08:01 PM   #20
Stickman
Stickman
 
Stickman's Avatar
 
Posts: 15,119
Stickman has a relatively large amount of rep (50,000+)Stickman has a relatively large amount of rep (50,000+)Stickman has a relatively large amount of rep (50,000+)Stickman has a relatively large amount of rep (50,000+)Stickman has a relatively large amount of rep (50,000+)Stickman has a relatively large amount of rep (50,000+)Stickman has a relatively large amount of rep (50,000+)Stickman has a relatively large amount of rep (50,000+)Stickman has a relatively large amount of rep (50,000+)Stickman has a relatively large amount of rep (50,000+)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wishbone View Post
Booking has EVERYTHING to do with it. Do you honestly believe that Brock and Goldberg would be over at all if they'd been booked as badly as everyone is today? If so you're daft. Ryback and Reigns falling flat are the most recent proof that size doesn't = success, and there's plenty of others that have proved this point as well. On the flip side guys like Shawn Michaels, Eddie Guerrero, Chris Jericho, Kurt Angle, etc are proof that a guy can be larger than life without being physical giants.

You're also not factoring in the cultural shift that has occurred outside of wrestling. People are leaning more and more every day toward more "realistic" and "relateable." In fact relateability has become a major selling point in most works of fiction these days. People want heroes that they can project themselves onto. Hell, even our action heroes are changing. You don't see many Schwarzeneggers or Stallones anymore. Even in comic books which are the closest thing to wrestling you are seeing fewer and fewer of the quintessential superheroes and more "average" characters. It makes sense that wrestling would make this shift too, especially given the current feeling toward steroids and whatnot.

Anyway onto the actual question. No, I don't totally enjoy the current era, but not because of the wrestlers involved. The talent is fine, and in fact I'd argue it's probably the best roster overall that WWE's ever had (note I said overall. This is because other eras have had a few guys like the Rock who beat out everyone, but outside of those few greats their rosters of peers were often meh in comparison.) The reason I don't quite enjoy wrestling today is because of the 50/50 booking, and the awful writing. It's like getting together an extremely solid cast of actors and then giving them the worst possible script and director.

All of that said I've come to terms with what's going on right now. I manage to find enjoyment in what wrestling is now even if it will never actually be legitimately good again. It's pretty much a guilty pleasure to me now. A Sharknado if you will. Yeah, it's bad, but there are certain moments that are legit entertaining sprinkled in, and even the bad such as Elsworth is so bad that it's hilarious.
I have said on here before and I don't see Ryback as a giant or anything. The guy has huge muscles but is short(er) and doesn't seem strong; he seems to struggle with basic power moves. Also, Hbk, Y2J and Angle were huge compared to guys today. Even though Guerrero was short he was juiced to the gills and was larger than the guys today. They were comparatively small back then but they are still stars today and ohysical size playes a role.
Stickman is offline   Reply With Quote