At what point does someone become a true main eventer in your eyes?

**Snowden** · 07-17-2010, 11:54 AM

Its shades of gray. For me, it seems like its a combination of tenure in the main event with a hint of (in the WWE) being featured on RAW consistently.

As far as tenure goes, its not like there's necessarily a running clock, but if you throw a wrestler into top tier programs over and over, then he eventually "sticks" as a member of the upper tier. That is, unless he's consistently getting squashed, but that hasn't happened in quite some time/would be a complete waste of time.

As for the RAW component, I "buy" a guy as a main eventer when he gets featured on the flagship show, and moreso, if he opens, opens the second hour, or closes the show. For example: Jack Swagger has been main eventing Smackdown for the past 4 or so months, but I think the perception of him is a high upper midcarder. If he did the same thing on RAW, I think we'd be more comfortable with the notion of him being a true main eventer. Of course there are exceptions in the modern era (Jeff Hardy), but for me it seems to be a good metric.

As for a company like TNA, its a lot harder. There's so many "name" guys, who are all "big deals" supposedly, that its hard to define a clear main event. Is Anderson a main eventer because he headlined the last PPV? Joe is a multiple time champ and pretty over, but nowhere near the title picture...is he a main eventer? Its a lot harder, which speaks to either (a) muddled booking or (b) a very fluid title scene. Hell, I could see any number of 10-12 guys holding the title in that company at any one time.

07-17-2010, 11:54 AM	#8
Snowden All Hype Posts: 2,186	Its shades of gray. For me, it seems like its a combination of tenure in the main event with a hint of (in the WWE) being featured on RAW consistently. As far as tenure goes, its not like there's necessarily a running clock, but if you throw a wrestler into top tier programs over and over, then he eventually "sticks" as a member of the upper tier. That is, unless he's consistently getting squashed, but that hasn't happened in quite some time/would be a complete waste of time. As for the RAW component, I "buy" a guy as a main eventer when he gets featured on the flagship show, and moreso, if he opens, opens the second hour, or closes the show. For example: Jack Swagger has been main eventing Smackdown for the past 4 or so months, but I think the perception of him is a high upper midcarder. If he did the same thing on RAW, I think we'd be more comfortable with the notion of him being a true main eventer. Of course there are exceptions in the modern era (Jeff Hardy), but for me it seems to be a good metric. As for a company like TNA, its a lot harder. There's so many "name" guys, who are all "big deals" supposedly, that its hard to define a clear main event. Is Anderson a main eventer because he headlined the last PPV? Joe is a multiple time champ and pretty over, but nowhere near the title picture...is he a main eventer? Its a lot harder, which speaks to either (a) muddled booking or (b) a very fluid title scene. Hell, I could see any number of 10-12 guys holding the title in that company at any one time.