State Your Case: Why do think TNA and WWE are good/bad?

[Sexton-Hardcastle]

You said.. ''theres no truely decent talent''

You've now changed that to 'True Superstar Quality talent'

Theres a world of difference in those two statements...

[Bobo]

Originally Posted by Sexton-Hardcastle You said.. ''theres no truely decent talent'' You've now changed that to 'True Superstar Quality talent' Theres a world of difference in those two statements...

They're interchangeable terms. By decent talent I mean great in ring performers and those who the fans truly want to sing and shout about week in week out.

But then when we talk about truly superstar quality then who is there really apart from John Cena? He's the only one on the roster who is of any note in the mainstream and the true face of the company. Cm Punk comes a very close second.

Lesnar was never around long enough the first time and neither the second time to truly endear himself to the fans. It remains to be seen what Batista will do upon his return. Undertaker should retire rather than strain himself for the one match a year.

Daniel Bryan has the skills and generates a certain buzz from the crowd but is he really someone who has or will take the company to greater heights? Same with Randy Orton. Both great wrestlers but not quite the brand names.

Going back the Triple H comments for those who claim he was the real deal ok imagine if there hadn't been an Austin, Rock, undertaker or HBK and Triple H was then by default the biggest star, do you still think WWE would have been a s popular as it was?