Reasons why WWE is in a slump...

**#1-norm-fan** · 07-04-2004, 06:25 AM

Yes, continuity is a good way to sum it up.

My major problem with WWE over the past few years has been it's inability to put the wrestlers on a certain level and leave them there. Guys like Randy Orton, Shelton Benjamin, etc. have basically the same win/loss record as everyone else.

The Rock was a prime example of this. He became HUGE despite it but I can only imagine if he was used right. He basically lost every other match he was in. It got to the point where him losing didn't mean a thing. I remember when guys like Hogan would NEVER lose and when they did, it was a big deal.

I remember one of the things that made Steamboat/Flair great when I was younger was the fact that both of them were booked as great wrestlers in the scripted way, as in, on top of their amazing actual wrestling ability, they were booked as guys who were tough to beat. So when they would wrestle, it was almost like you could predict a winner just by how "good" they were.

If I'm not making any sense right now, it's about 3 AM right now. I'll try to explain tomorrow.

**Batsu** · 07-05-2004, 05:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by #1-wwf-fan

Yes, continuity is a good way to sum it up.

My major problem with WWE over the past few years has been it's inability to put the wrestlers on a certain level and leave them there. Guys like Randy Orton, Shelton Benjamin, etc. have basically the same win/loss record as everyone else.

The Rock was a prime example of this. He became HUGE despite it but I can only imagine if he was used right. He basically lost every other match he was in. It got to the point where him losing didn't mean a thing. I remember when guys like Hogan would NEVER lose and when they did, it was a big deal.

I remember one of the things that made Steamboat/Flair great when I was younger was the fact that both of them were booked as great wrestlers in the scripted way, as in, on top of their amazing actual wrestling ability, they were booked as guys who were tough to beat. So when they would wrestle, it was almost like you could predict a winner just by how "good" they were.

If I'm not making any sense right now, it's about 3 AM right now. I'll try to explain tomorrow.

I understood this well enough. You're right about this. WWE attempted to rekindle this kind of credibility building with HHH... I'm not sure if he turned out to be the right guy to do this, though. (I think this both helped and hurt Hogan at the same time... though if this was given to The Rock, I don't think it would have turned out the same way.)

07-04-2004, 06:25 AM	#1
#1-norm-fan Resident drug enabler Posts: 45,473	Yes, continuity is a good way to sum it up. My major problem with WWE over the past few years has been it's inability to put the wrestlers on a certain level and leave them there. Guys like Randy Orton, Shelton Benjamin, etc. have basically the same win/loss record as everyone else. The Rock was a prime example of this. He became HUGE despite it but I can only imagine if he was used right. He basically lost every other match he was in. It got to the point where him losing didn't mean a thing. I remember when guys like Hogan would NEVER lose and when they did, it was a big deal. I remember one of the things that made Steamboat/Flair great when I was younger was the fact that both of them were booked as great wrestlers in the scripted way, as in, on top of their amazing actual wrestling ability, they were booked as guys who were tough to beat. So when they would wrestle, it was almost like you could predict a winner just by how "good" they were. If I'm not making any sense right now, it's about 3 AM right now. I'll try to explain tomorrow.