QUESTION - In your opinion, what should the "life cycle" of a WWE Wrestler be?

[Heyman]

EDIT - Short version of my post:

For those that actually are interested in what I wrote, here is a SHORT summation of my initial post...to some extent.

Originally Posted by Hunter Heyman Hindu ECW - Should be full of rookies and mid-card vets that never amounted to anything...or will never amount to anything. Smackdown - Should be full of mid-carders and main-event guys that are no longer in their prime. RAW - Should be full of rising mid-carders that have a serious chance of main-eventing within the next 12 months, and main-eventers that are currently in their prime and still rise to new heights (i.e. by either a heel turn or a long awaited face turn).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


QUESTION - In your opinion, what should the "life cycle" of a WWE Wrestler be?


:::Preface - This post will probably be a semi-long read. I thought of this topic in light of a post I made yesterday:::::

Originally Posted by Hunter Heyman Hindu http://www.tpww.net/forums/showthrea...37#post2433437

Basically - what I feel is this:

The three WWE shows (ECW, Smackdown, RAW) should be "interconnected" somehow so that it allows for a wrestler to 'naturally progress' to a higher level...or main-event level.

In an effort to make things more clear, I think wrestlers should be 'categorized' into 1 of 6 categories that fit the above descriptions. Please Keep in mind that '1' does not necessarily jump to '2' and '2' to '3' (and so forth). These are just vague descriptions. Keep in mind that at any point, a wrestler can get a new gimmick and/or creative direction and switch categories


1) 'Greenhorn': A 'greenhorn' is someone that is just starting out in the WWE has had no 'big company experience' prior to this. So for example, a guy like Jack Swagger is a greenhorn. Someone like Booker T or Scott Steiner however (i.e. when they first debuted in the WWE) would NOT be 'greenhorns' due to their prior *storied* histories in other MAJOR wrestling promotions. D.H. Smith will be a 'green horn' when he debuts.

2) 'Veteran': These are guys that have been around for a LONG time and have pretty much ZERO chance of becoming a main-eventer one day. These are guys that through time, have built up a recognizeable name/gimmick for themselves. People like Mark Henry, Fit Finlay, Tommy Dreamer, Hardcore Holly (when he was employed) and even William Regal could be considered 'Veterans.' A category 2 guy can also be someone that has ZERO chance of being a long-term main-event guy (i.e. '5' or a '6') and could help make a 'category 1' guy look by doing jobs. These category '2' guys are often huge in size (i.e. Vladimir Kozlov, Umaga)

3) Mid-carder: These are guys that have an outside shot of having a 'main-event run' one day...not to be confused with being a main-eventer for the long term however....more of a 'transitional champ at BEST (and even then, this is pushing it). Furthermore - these guys won't have a legit chance of main-eventing on a main show for atleast 18 months...if that). A mid-carder can also be someone that was formerly a rising star, but has been 'held back' for various reasons (i.e. didn't seize the opportunity, size disadvantage, etc.). Guys like this include Carlitto, Mr. Kennedy, Kofi Kingston, R-Truth, etc.

Some of these guys, due to their size, can be 'jobber to the stars' (i.e. Great Khali).


4) Rising Star: These are guys that have either graduated from categories '1' and '3' , OR have been completely re-invented from a category '2' guy. Either way - these guys have a MAJOR chance at having a main-event run within the next 12 months. Furthermore - a lot of these guys have a DECENT chance at becoming a main-event guy for the long-term. Some of these guys may have already won a world title (i.e. have been a 'transitional world champ), but are still in a good position to become main-eventers for good. Guys in this category include MVP, Jeff Hardy, CM Punk, Matt Hardy, Santino Marella, Christian, and Shelton Benjamin.

5) Main-Eventer (growth stage): This is the place where everyone wants to be. THIS stage is the stage where wrestlers are bona-fide main-eventers (non-transitional), and are the center piece of the company. These wrestlers are wrestlers that are at their peak, and can still garner huge (serious) reactions if pushed right (i.e. a shocking heel turn or a long awaited face turn). In my opinion, these guys include John Cena, Dave Batista, and Randy Orton. Chris Jericho and Edge are close to this category as well (some might argue that they are 'category 6' however).
Basically - a category '5' guy is a current main-eventer that still has the potential to take the company to new heights (to a certain degree) if pushed correctly. A category '5' guy, if pushed a certain way, can help bring in fans.

6) Upper-card (peak/maturity stage):

These are wrestlers that have been main-eventers before, have won the world/WWE title atleast once, and have been BOTH heel and face for long periods throughout their careers. For the most part - these guys have reached their peak....and barring any unforseen or sudden character changes, these guys will most likely not bring in any new fans as main-eventers.

For the most part - these guys often get 'nostalgia' face pops (i.e. an extreme example of this being Hulk Hogan and Steve Austin). In some cases, these guys are simply too old and too worn to be 'category 5 guys' (i.e. Shawn Michaels, Undertaker). In other cases - guys have simply been around too long and have had the same character for too many years to draw in new fans (i.e. Big Show, Triple H, John Bradshaw Layfield, Kane). And lastly - some of these guys have simply peaked to the point that even a heel/face turn may not do much for them (i.e. Rey Mysterio).

Some guys in category '6' are also jobber to the stars' (i.e. Kane...JBL?).


So basically - if it was up to me, here is how I would 'categorize' each show.

-ECW would consist of 'Greenhorns' and 'Veteran's ('1's and '2's)

-Smackdown would consist of 'Mid-carders' and ' Peaked Main-eventers' ('3's and '6's).

-RAW would consist of Rising Stars and Main-event growth guys ('4's and '5's)

If I was in charge of a 'life cycle' of a wrestler, it would be as follows:

CATEGORY 1 - GREENHORN: New 'generic' guy starts out in ECW. If he shows limited or no potential, he stays in ECW. If he shows promise, he moves to category 3. In the rare case that he shows a LOT of promise (i.e. like Brock Lesnar and Kurt Angle did), he moves to 'category 4' and skips 'category 3' altogether. If this 'generic' guy continues to show limited or no potential and manages to stay employed, he becomes a category '2' guy (i.e. like Steve Richards was for many years).

CATEGORY 2 - VETERAN: This guy's sole purpose is to 'put over' guys in category 1 in ECW (i.e. Dreamer putting over Swagger). More likely than not, these are have no chance of moving beyond category 2. If God (i.e. Vince McMahon is nice to them), perhaps he can make them into category '3' guys and move them to Smackdown.

CATEGORY 3 - MID-CARD: A wrestler is on Smackdown and gets to wrestle 'Category 6' guys. The main purpose of a category '3' guy, is to look GOOD against a category 6 guy so that he can become a category '4' guy very soon....and put himself in a position where he can get a SERIOUS main-event push.

For example - If Carlito ('3') or Kennedy ('3') get into sustained feuds with Shawn Michaels ('6') and Triple H ('6') and look good at 'get over', then they get elevated to category ('4'). If they shit the bed however (i.e. like Billy Gunn did after he won KOTR), then he stays at '3'....perhaps forever. furthermore - he gets demoted to '2' (i.e. like Val Venis and Test did).

CATEGORY 4 - RISING STAR: These guys are now on RAW....the main show. These 'rising stars' have a serious chance of doing something big if they prove themselves. Category '4' guys will wrestle against themselves on RAW...and perhaps after a TREMENDOUS feud, BOTH guys can get elevated (i.e. The Rock vs. Triple H back in 1998). For example - if Jeff Hardy and CM Punk got into an awesome feud, perhaps it would give both men that much needed credibility to be taken seriously as a 'category 5' guy. Once a '4' has proven himself by feuding with other '4's', he can then wrestle some of the '5's (when they are not feuding with fellow '5's).

The WWE can get creative here as well, and allow for some "interpromotional" feuds on random occassions (i.e. a '4' guy fighting a '6' guy....i.e. CM Punk vs. Triple H).

CATEGORY 5 - MAIN-EVENT GROWTH: These guys are the "king pins" of RAW. While some of these guys may be getting stale, a shocking heel turn...or heel turn of any kind (i.e. John Cena, Batista), OR a long-awaited face turn (Randy Orton) could really explode their characters to new heights.

The danger here for creative, is to turn a guy face/heel too many times. If this happens, then these guys can easily become 'category 6' guys.

Category '5' guys should also be looking to help put over Category '4' guys, so that the '4's can also become '5's (i.e. Austin putting over Angle, back in 2001, Triple H putting over Batista in 2005, etc.).

Category '5' guys can also have "interpromotional" feuds on occassion with 'category 6' guys (i.e. Randy Orton vs. Undertaker).

Category 6 - MAIN-EVENT PEAK:

The sole purpose of these guys is to put over category '3' guys on Smackdown, and put over category '4' and '5' guys from RAW (i.e. Interpromotional feuds). If someone from '3' or '4' is in the dog house however...or isn't ready to be elevated, then the guy from category '6' goes over.

Heyman's proposed rosters....a few examples of people that I can think of...not everyone will be included:

ECW:

-William Regal
-Jack Swagger
-D.H. Smith
-Tommy Dreamer
-Mark Henry
-Umaga
-Vladimir Kozlov
-Chavo Guerrero

Smackdown:
-Triple H
-Edge
-Undertaker
-John Bradshaw Layfield
-Shawn Michaels
-Big Show
-Rey Mysterio
-Kane
-Ken Kennedy
-Carlito
-Kofi Kingston
-R-Truth
-The Brian Kendrick


RAW:
-John Cena
-Randy Orton
-Dave Batista
-Chris Jericho
-MVP
-Santino Marella
-CM Punk
-Ted Dibiase
-Cody Rhodes
-John Morrison
-The Miz
-Shelton Benjamin


I hope you have enjoyed this report, and I thank you for your time.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Interesting post. As always, really.

I'm not sure if I really agree with your allocation of ECW as the rookie/veteran show. While it does seem a simplified way of using the show, I think there are so many more better uses for it. A rising star, for example, could use the exposure that comes with being an ECW Superstar, and used on RAW and SmackDown! as well as Sci-Fi, to really get a footing in the company.

I have to say that something looks a bit weird about SmackDown!, too. Perhaps it is that the gap between mid-carder and peaked main eventer is a little too much?

Besides that, you do seem to have things organised very neatly, which is a definite plus. If the WWE were run like that, I could see it working. Even if ECW got very low ratings.

[Heyman]

Thanks Noid,

Here's my thing about ECW. Almost no one watches it anyways. If I understand correctly, these guys are only getting like 0.8 Nielsen ratings anyways....if that. Putting a guy like Christian or Jericho on there will maybe move that number to 0.9...or 0.95. Furthermore - is really worth putting QUALITY wrestlers on your 'C' show if it hurt the depth on your main shows?

As far as my RAW set up goes, It is my hope that RAW could eventually become a show where there is a very small glass ceiling.....and that guys that can legitimately have a chance at being credible main-eventers one day, could use each other to get over (i.e. if CM Punk were to fight Jeff Hardy in a long sustained feud......just as The Rock and Triple H did back in 1998).

Smackdown's set up would be 'strange', but atleast the veteran's ('6's) might be a little more comfortable in doing jobs to fellow (6's'). Furthermore - the 6's can hold down the 3's all they want if the 3's prove to be unworthy (i.e. Triple H beating the snot out of Ken Kennedy on a bi-weekly basis).

If a '3' guy finally starts to show major promise however, then they can go over a '6' guy......and some more '6' guys.....before moving over to RAW where they can face guys that have trodded the same path.


My problem with "dispersing" the 5's and 6's equally on both RAW and Smackdown, is that there would still be too big a glass ceiling on BOTH shows.

In other words - there would be too many '6's' getting TV time at the expense of the '4's'.


p.s._________EDIT: I also think that if a category '1' guy (i.e. a Greenhorn) was really good, then he could still draw for ECW (to a minor extent) for a year or so.....before possibly becoming a 'category 4' guy. CM Punk was a terrific example of this.

[GD]

Noid stop posting from my Hindu friend's account!

[GD]

Wait a minute you already made a post.

[parkmania]

Originally Posted by Hunter Heyman Hindu In other words - there would be too many '6's' getting TV time at the expense of the '4's'.

See: WCW circa 1999-2001

[GD]

Exactly, the wwe is forming a corporate like structure similar to that of WCW.

[Heyman]

Originally Posted by Guru Dave Exactly, the wwe is forming a corporate like structure similar to that of WCW.

This problem in the WWE has been around for many years (i.e. since 2001!).

One of the WWE's biggest problem, much like WCW's, is that they continuously push '6's' that they think are '5's (i.e. Triple H, JBL, etc.).

Furthermore - an almost equal dispersion of the "5's" and "6's" amongst both shows actually HURTS the WWE more than helping it (as surprising as that may sound)

That quote right there is very important. The problem with the current set-up, is that the 4's get screwed the most...due to lack of TV time (which is instrumental in getting them to that '5' spot) and the fact that there aren't enough 4's going up against one another which elevates both men (i.e. think back to Jericho/Benoit/ back in 2000).

As it stands right now, the "3's" AND the "4's" are getting beaten one too many times by the "6's" and "5's." If it were up to me, only the "3's" would be doing THAT many jobs.

For example - I don't mind if a guy Kane defeats a guy like Kofi Kingston right now....since Kofi isn't anywhere close to being a main-eventer.

What I DO have a problem with however, is when a guy like Undertaker squashes MVP......or if Chris Jericho beats a guy like CM Punk in less than 5 minutes....or if Vladimir Kozlov decimates Jeff Hardy.

I also have a problem if guys like CM Punk, Santino Marella, MVP, Jeff Hardy, Matt Hardy, and Christian aren't being given an appropriate amount of air time....due to the presence of guys like Undertaker, JBL, Vladimir Kozlov, etc.

That is one of the main reasons why I'd like to see RAW be stacked with guys in the '4' and '5' categories.

• 6's don't take away the 4's air time
• 4's get over by feuding with other 4's, and random matches with '5's...and the odd interpromotional match with the 6's.
• We never have to see 2's on RAW or Smackdown ever again
• 6's can dominate/sexually assault all the 3's they want...without doing that to the 4's too many times. I have no problem with a '6' defeating a '4' (i.e. end justifying the means....i.e. a 4 ultimately going over) as long as its done sparingly....which isn't the case right now.

[BigDaddyCool]

This is too long for me to care about, sorry.

[Heyman]

Originally Posted by BigDaddyCool This is too long for me to care about, sorry.

ECW - Should be full of rookies and mid-card vets that never amounted to anything...or will never amount to anything.

Smackdown - Should be full of mid-carders and main-event guys that are no longer in their prime.

RAW - Should be full of rising mid-carders that have a serious chance of main-eventing within the next 12 months, and main-eventers that are currently in their prime and still rise to new heights (i.e. by either a heel turn or a long awaited face turn).

That's the shortest explanation that I could come up with.

p.s. I get the feeling that you'll say something to the effect of, "I still don't care" or "that idea sucks." Or - to prove me wrong, you won't respond.

[BigDaddyCool]

Actaul that is pretty much how I see things. Smackdown would need a couple of guys that have a chance of rising, but for the most part, i agree. I just didn't want to read everything.

[Heyman]

Originally Posted by BigDaddyCool Smackdown would need a couple of guys that have a chance of rising, but for the most part, i agree. I just didn't want to read everything.

Agreed.

However - I think it's important for the WWE to make a distinction between those that...
.
.
.

A) Have a "chance at rising" (i.e. '3's)

B) Are ON the rise (i.e. '4's).
.
.
.

In other words - I have absolutely no problem with a '5' or a '6' or even a '2' defeating a '3' if it makes him look good.

So - If Big Show defeats R-Truth cleanly, I have no beef.

If Shawn Michaels beats a guy like Kofi Kingston or The Brian Kendrick, I have no problem either. If Evan Bourne gets spanked by Kane, no big problem as far as I go.

The only time I have a problem is when "4's" are....

A) Not getting sufficient television time in order to showcase their stuff

B) Getting beaten cleanly and convincingly by "6's"....or even worse "2's" and "3's!"

At this stage in his development, there is no f'cking reason why CM Punk should be getting destroyed by Jericho or doing a job to Regal. In his match with Jericho for instance, it should've been a very close match....with Jericho barely winning the cheating.

CM Punk should have DOMINATED Regal in both their matches.

Jeff Hardy should never have been squashed by a guy like Kozlov late last year.

THOSE are the sort of things that I have a problem with.

Furthermore - if both shows have an even distribution of '5's' and '6's', then it makes it tough for 4's to get sufficient air-time in order to showcase their stuff.

In the last 4 years for instance - is it any coincidence that we haven't really seen anyone NEW emerge from the mid-cards?....and that the same guys still dominate the main-event spots?

Rey Mysterio is basically the only '4' that got converted into a '5' within the last FOUR years.

Long story short - I think it's quite apparent that the current 'set up' is simply not condusive in producing STARS (i.e. 4's converting to 5's). In order for things to change, '4's need an environment where they are not getting shit-kicked by '6's' AND where they can get more air-time.

[Mr. Nerfect]

In my heart of hearts, I wish the WWE treated ECW a little better than the developmental/washed up guy show. I can understand how you could organise it to be such, to optimise your RAW and SmackDown! broadcasts, but I feel it is a bigger waste of an hour than actually putting on a good show for ECW would be.

I take a more synesthesian approach to how I view the rosters, I believe. I generally associate a wrestler with the brand I just visualise them fitting better with. For example, a guy like Jeff Hardy, to me, I associate with extreme, so I can very easily see him being associated with the ECW brand.

If I had to be more pinpoint in organising the brands, though, I'd suggest that ECW be used for guys who have two strikes on their wellness policy. For example, I feel that William Regal and Jeff Hardy could find a nice home there. I suggest this, because as the least important of the three shows, if they fuck up there, it doesn't matter as much. They could also win the ECW Championship, and not instantly become a massive coup for another promotion, should they be released. It allows them to receive pushes, as well as pay dues at the same time.

If there was more heat and backlash for the Chris Jericho incident that recently happened with that fan (whether Jericho was responsible or not), they could very easily move Jericho to ECW temporarily, and have him do something over there.

That's just one idea as to how they could boost ECW with "big names" while also keeping its "third tier" status enforced.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Originally Posted by Hunter Heyman Hindu Agreed. However - I think it's important for the WWE to make a distinction between those that... . . . A) Have a "chance at rising" (i.e. '3's) B) Are ON the rise (i.e. '4's). . . . In other words - I have absolutely no problem with a '5' or a '6' or even a '2' defeating a '3' if it makes him look good. So - If Big Show defeats R-Truth cleanly, I have no beef. If Shawn Michaels beats a guy like Kofi Kingston or The Brian Kendrick, I have no problem either. If Evan Bourne gets spanked by Kane, no big problem as far as I go. The only time I have a problem is when "4's" are.... A) Not getting sufficient television time in order to showcase their stuff B) Getting beaten cleanly and convincingly by "6's"....or even worse "2's" and "3's!" At this stage in his development, there is no f'cking reason why CM Punk should be getting destroyed by Jericho or doing a job to Regal. In his match with Jericho for instance, it should've been a very close match....with Jericho barely winning the cheating. CM Punk should have DOMINATED Regal in both their matches. Jeff Hardy should never have been squashed by a guy like Kozlov late last year. THOSE are the sort of things that I have a problem with. Furthermore - if both shows have an even distribution of '5's' and '6's', then it makes it tough for 4's to get sufficient air-time in order to showcase their stuff. In the last 4 years for instance - is it any coincidence that we haven't really seen anyone NEW emerge from the mid-cards?....and that the same guys still dominate the main-event spots? Rey Mysterio is basically the only '4' that got converted into a '5' within the last FOUR years. Long story short - I think it's quite apparent that the current 'set up' is simply not condusive in producing STARS (i.e. 4's converting to 5's). In order for things to change, '4's need an environment where they are not getting shit-kicked by '6's' AND where they can get more air-time.

Would you not consider Jeff Hardy a rising star that became a main eventer?

One thing that I do really like about your categorisation, is that it pretty much makes booking propsositional logic. I mean, it removes a lot of the variables that trip up the writing staff. If everyone had a code assigned to them, then you'd never get, for example (going back a few years now), a CM Punk losing his undefeated streak to Hardcore Holly.

Regardless of whether they allocate the shows as you suggest, some sort of code that allows the writing team to know who exactly should go over who when they book guys against each other, would be quite handy. I think they do have a priority list, for guys that they really want pushed and fast, but you still get the occasional faux pas in consistent booking, that something like this would eliminate.

[BigDaddyCool]

I'm not going to read any of that, ever.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Then don't post.

I mean, if Triple Hindu really cared about what you thought, he'd include pop-ups.

[Heyman]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Noid Would you not consider Jeff Hardy a rising star that became a main eventer?

I think Jeff is still at the point where he is a transitional champ. If Jeff wants to be a TRUE #5, I think he's going to have to go over another '5' or a some specific '6's' cleanly in a one-on-one match.

Although Jeff has come a long way...and has even been champ....I still get a sense that he just hasn't had that ONE defining clean victory over a major superstar...one-on-one (i.e. Triple H, Edge, Undertaker, etc.).

That is the reason why I still put Jeff in that '4' category. I still see Jeff as a guy that can grow further and can establish more credibility.

One thing that I do really like about your categorisation, is that it pretty much makes booking propsositional logic. I mean, it removes a lot of the variables that trip up the writing staff. If everyone had a code assigned to them, then you'd never get, for example (going back a few years now), a CM Punk losing his undefeated streak to Hardcore Holly.

Thank you. What I also like about this 'set up', is that it may actually allow more stars to be created (i.e. '4's moving up to 5's).

Regardless of whether they allocate the shows as you suggest, some sort of code that allows the writing team to know who exactly should go over who when they book guys against each other, would be quite handy. I think they do have a priority list, for guys that they really want pushed and fast, but you still get the occasional faux pas in consistent booking, that something like this would eliminate.

Thanks.

While I don't think my idea is very realistic, it would be interesting to see if it could be implemented.

Historically speaking however, it's VERY tough to convince a once highly successful '5', that he is no longer a '5'....and is now a '6'.....and should be used to help others get over.

Furthermore - it can take quite a bit of persuading for a '6' to put over a '3' so that he can become a '4' (or helping a '4' become a '5' if it's an interpromotional match).

[Mr. Nerfect]

Jeff Hardy got some really big wins building to his WWE Title win, but granted they weren't in feuds or on PPVs.

This is sort of off-topic, but if we look at the Jeff Hardy vs. Matt Hardy feud, and assume that they are going to have a one-on-one match at WrestleMania, who do you think should go over in that match?

[Heyman]

Originally Posted by Noid Jeff Hardy got some really big wins building to his WWE Title win, but granted they weren't in feuds or on PPVs. This is sort of off-topic, but if we look at the Jeff Hardy vs. Matt Hardy feud, and assume that they are going to have a one-on-one match at WrestleMania, who do you think should go over in that match?

Jeff got some big wins, but were any of those against main-eventers? (one-on-one....cleanly).

I don't watch Smackdown so I wouldn't know.

From what I know however, Jeff Hardy beat guys like Shelton Benjamin, MVP, Umaga (which he was doing on RAW anyways), and......Kozlov I think (not sure about that last one).

As far as Jeff/Matt goes, I would go with Jeff for the big win at Mania.

Some point later on in the year, Matt can beat Jeff by cheating somehow (i.e. heelish fashion).

At this point in their careers, Matt is getting over due to his association in a high profile feud. If Matt loses, it's not too big a deal. I think if Jeff lost however, it would be a serious step back. Jeff should get the win in my opinion.

[Theo Dious]

Originally Posted by BigDaddyCool I'm not going to read any of that, ever.

I read some of it. Like, 3 words.

[KYR]

I'll wait for the movie thanks.

[Triple Naitch]

My head hurts

[Krimzon7]

what

[Krimzon7]

the

[Krimzon7]

fuck????

[Juan]

Real nice contribution there krimzon707

[Krimzon7]

How rude of me. I think that there was too much typing. I tried reading and commenting, but there was just too much wording...

[Mr. Nerfect]

Originally Posted by Hunter Heyman Hindu Jeff got some big wins, but were any of those against main-eventers? (one-on-one....cleanly). I don't watch Smackdown so I wouldn't know. From what I know however, Jeff Hardy beat guys like Shelton Benjamin, MVP, Umaga (which he was doing on RAW anyways), and......Kozlov I think (not sure about that last one). As far as Jeff/Matt goes, I would go with Jeff for the big win at Mania. Some point later on in the year, Matt can beat Jeff by cheating somehow (i.e. heelish fashion). At this point in their careers, Matt is getting over due to his association in a high profile feud. If Matt loses, it's not too big a deal. I think if Jeff lost however, it would be a serious step back. Jeff should get the win in my opinion.

Jeff Hardy beat guys like Triple H and The Undertaker en route to winning the WWE Championship. He beat The Undertaker in an "Extreme Rules Match," and I think he went over Triple H when Vladimir Kozlov got involved, messing it up and giving Triple H an excuse. But Hardy has gone over Triple H cleanly in the past.

I wish I could answer the "who goes over at Mania" question objectively, because I am a Matt mark. I can see why people would go with Jeff, and that would be my gut reaction, but to be honest, the more I think about it, the more I think a heel win for "The Black Cloud" would do him some good.

As you said, Matt Hardy is up there by association, whereas Jeff Hardy is the more established of the two right now. If Matt loses, he looks like a clown, whereas Jeff will always have his "former WWE Champion" status to fall back on. I think of it like Chris Jericho vs. Christian at WrestleMania XX. They were partners, but they split, and they went with the wormy heel stealing the win, to help move him up the roster, because they knew the solidified face would be fine.

I'd give the nudge to Matt Hardy with some evil tactics.

[Mr. Nerfect]

You'd think guys on a forum -- where words are the primary form of communication -- would have no problem reading a little.

[Heyman]

For those that actually are interested in what I wrote, here is a SHORT summation of my initial post...to some extent.

Originally Posted by Hunter Heyman Hindu ECW - Should be full of rookies and mid-card vets that never amounted to anything...or will never amount to anything. Smackdown - Should be full of mid-carders and main-event guys that are no longer in their prime. RAW - Should be full of rising mid-carders that have a serious chance of main-eventing within the next 12 months, and main-eventers that are currently in their prime and still rise to new heights (i.e. by either a heel turn or a long awaited face turn).

[Jeritron]

By your definition Raw should be WWF, Smackdown should be WCW, and ECW should be ECW and/or TNA.

[Heyman]

Originally Posted by Jeritron By your definition Raw should be WWF, Smackdown should be WCW, and ECW should be ECW and/or TNA.

To an extent, but not quite...

-In my scenario, the "6's" on Smackdown would be used to put over "3's"...so that they could become "4's." In WCW, you almost never saw this happen. There were too many people worried about losing their 'spots' due to the fact that these "6's" THOUGHT that they were still "5's." In my scenario, the "6's" on Smackdown would "know their role." Furthermore - the "6's" would be surrounded by each other and since they would be of similar status, they could do free jobs to each other (i.e. sometimes, Big Show could defeat HBK and other times, HBK could beat Big Show). "6's" would usually get the better of "3's" unless a "3" showed great improvment in his ability/charisma.

-RAW would be a place where 4's could feud with other 4's so that they could both go over simultaneously. When ready, they could feud with othr '5's' or have random interpromotional feuds with "6's". So YES - this would be very similar to the old WWF.

-ECW would be a place where 'new guys' can get some more air time and can defeat some fairly established names if worth enough. A '2' in this case could also have a chance of becoming a '3' or a '4' if they use the extra TV time to re-invent themselves, etc. I don't see too much of a comparison to the old ECW or TNA. I do however, see this promotion as being as similar to Heat.....only difference being that new guys could legitimately get over here (I don't know if we saw too much of that in the old Heat days...I might be wrong though).

[St. Jimmy]

tl;dr.

[Jeritron]

this is assinine

[Ruien]

Noid made a new best friend.

[Impact!]

Some of you guys are just retarded...

[Impact!]

Also it sounds pretty good Heyman

[Krimzon7]

Why not rank the three shows like they do Futbol across the pond? I'm not too creative but I like the idea that if a Football club sucks to much, then they get demoted. Only after you hit certian requirements, you get to go to the big dance. I dunno. Like if you have ___ succesful U.S. title defenses, you're able to go after the IC titile, which puts you on the big show. Just an idea I'm throwing out wihle I should be working.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Just a random idea I had again (ran this past a few people a while ago):

What if the WWE just decided to re-assign everyone to their brand of origin? What this means, is that every Superstar returns to the brand they debuted on, or were drafted to in the initial draft. In the case of ECW, that doesn't just pertain to the new ECW, but the old ECW as well.

This would mean the rosters would look something like this:

RAW
Former World Champions:
Big Show
Jeff Hardy
John Bradshaw Layfield
John Morrison
Kane
Matt Hardy
Shawn Michaels
The Undertaker
Triple H

Other Male Competitors:
Cody Rhodes
DH Smith
Dolph Ziggler
Goldust
Hacksaw Jim Duggan
JTG
Manu
Santino Marella
Shad Gaspard
Ted DiBiase
Umaga
Vladimir Kozlov
William Regal

Female Competitors:
Beth Phoenix
Candice Michelle
Katie Lea Burchill
Maria
Melina
Mickie James
Rosa Mendes

SmackDown!
Former World Champions:
Batista
Chavo Guerrero
Christian
Edge
John Cena
Mark Henry
R-Truth
Randy Orton
The Great Khali

Other Male Competitors:
Carlito
Charlie Haas
Ezekiel Jackson
Festus
Finlay
Hornswoggle
Hurricane Helms
Jamie Noble
Jesse
Jimmy Wang Yang
Kizarny
Kung Fu Naki
Mr. Kennedy
MVP
Paul Burchill
Primo
Ryan Braddock
Scotty Goldman
Shelton Benjamin
Sim Snuka
The Boogeyman
The Brian Kendrick
The Miz

Female Competitors:
Alicia Fox
Brie Bella
Eve Torres
Jillian Hall
Layla
Maryse
Michelle McCool
Natalya
Nikki Bella

ECW
Former World Champions:
Chris Jericho
CM Punk
Jack Swagger
Rey Mysterio
Tommy Dreamer

Other Male Competitors:
Curt Hawkins
DJ Gabriel
Evan Bourne
Kofi Kingston
Mike Knox
Ricky Ortiz
Tyson Kidd
Zack Ryder

Other Employees:
Kelly Kelly
Tiffany
Tony Atlas

I haven't really analysed it too much, but it's just something to consider. The most glaring problem I can see, is that SmackDown! is very crowded. That can easily be fixed, though. A lot of the talent that is part of SmackDown! rarely competes. You could simply have them released from their active contracts, and then sign somewhere else. Or have RAW win a match that allows them to draft over a few guys.

[Heyman]

Originally Posted by Jeritron this is assinine

As opposed to the current system?.....where almost ZERO main-event stars have been created in the past four years?

2005

You had - Triple H, John Cena, Dave Batista, Randy Orton, Chris Jericho, JBL, Shawn Michaels, Undertaker, Edge.

2009

You have Triple H, John Cena, Dave Batista, Randy Orton, Chris Jericho, JBL, Undertaker, Edge, and Jeff Hardy.

Glad to see that so much has changed.

In the last 4 years, the only guy that really 'broke through' that glass ceiling was Rey Mysterio.......and for the most part, he shit the bed (and was de-pushed as result).

Remember that one time......oh I dunno.....back in 1996 when the WWE made a concentrated effort to push new stars? "Stunning" Steve Austin, Hunter Hearst Helmsley, Rocky Maivia, Mankind, etc.

If the WWE want a SHOT of getting higher ratings and shaking things up? They need to create a situation where new stars can be pushed without there being a glass ceiling (or a ridiculously small one)

The current system is simply not condusive to creating stars....since an even dispersion of '5's and '6's on the two main shows, makes it almost impossible for a new guy to rise up.....unless they are insanley charismatic and/or talented (i.e. Brock Lesnar, John Cena,).

The WWE NEEDS to create an environment where they are actively building around CM Punk, Jeff Hardy, MVP, Santino Marella, Shelton Benjamin, and Christian for the future.