The Mark Henry Lesson - Page 3

**The Condor** · 06-20-2013, 10:51 AM

Recently I saw an interview with Greg Helms and in it he stated that the "big leagues" used to be the end game for wrestlers. They would season themselves for a number of years in the indys/territories or overseas and once they had honed their in ring skills, mic skills and personalities/gimmicks they would be prepared to hit WWF or WCW. However, now a number of guys are starting in WWE, many of them in their early + mid-20's. Granted, I don't think all guys ought to be held back due to some being more advanced or just plain better than the others, but most of the youngsters probably ought to be held back for a while in order to better themselves and therefore the product (though it can't totally erase much of the bad writing by creative).

This brings me to Monday Night, when for the first time since MITB 2011 I had a mark out moment. Mizark Henry made a cynical man watching wrestling feel like a 12 year old for a minute. Say what you will about Mark Henry, but the past number of years have been GREAT. He has always been a company guy, much like Kane in a sense. Katie Vick angle= Mae Young birthing a hand/Sexual Chocolate gimmick. Since his signing in 1995 there has been a lot of crap from Mark, but I think it can be attributed to the fact that his growing pains and struggles to find himself in business were on display for everyone to see rather than in the shadows of the developmental system.

Mark Henry has finally achieved the level that Vince McMahon thought he would nearly 18 years ago. Through the Nation, tagging with D'Lo, Sexual Chocolate, Hall of Pain and everything else he seems to be a throwback type of the business that needed years of experience and hardwork to reach a certain level.

Was Greg Helms right that these guys need more work and when they are too raw they hurt the product? I've heard enough people complain of certain performers being bad on the mic, or their ring work being sloppy and/or unimaginative. I think that Mark Henry's career serves as a lesson to the WWE that perhaps more time ought to be put into development rather than pushing guys out too soon because they have a "look," or "potential." Am I off base or does this make some sense? Thoughts?

06-20-2013, 10:51 AM	#1
The Condor Re-Branded Posts: 3,992	The Mark Henry Lesson Recently I saw an interview with Greg Helms and in it he stated that the "big leagues" used to be the end game for wrestlers. They would season themselves for a number of years in the indys/territories or overseas and once they had honed their in ring skills, mic skills and personalities/gimmicks they would be prepared to hit WWF or WCW. However, now a number of guys are starting in WWE, many of them in their early + mid-20's. Granted, I don't think all guys ought to be held back due to some being more advanced or just plain better than the others, but most of the youngsters probably ought to be held back for a while in order to better themselves and therefore the product (though it can't totally erase much of the bad writing by creative). This brings me to Monday Night, when for the first time since MITB 2011 I had a mark out moment. Mizark Henry made a cynical man watching wrestling feel like a 12 year old for a minute. Say what you will about Mark Henry, but the past number of years have been GREAT. He has always been a company guy, much like Kane in a sense. Katie Vick angle= Mae Young birthing a hand/Sexual Chocolate gimmick. Since his signing in 1995 there has been a lot of crap from Mark, but I think it can be attributed to the fact that his growing pains and struggles to find himself in business were on display for everyone to see rather than in the shadows of the developmental system. Mark Henry has finally achieved the level that Vince McMahon thought he would nearly 18 years ago. Through the Nation, tagging with D'Lo, Sexual Chocolate, Hall of Pain and everything else he seems to be a throwback type of the business that needed years of experience and hardwork to reach a certain level. Was Greg Helms right that these guys need more work and when they are too raw they hurt the product? I've heard enough people complain of certain performers being bad on the mic, or their ring work being sloppy and/or unimaginative. I think that Mark Henry's career serves as a lesson to the WWE that perhaps more time ought to be put into development rather than pushing guys out too soon because they have a "look," or "potential." Am I off base or does this make some sense? Thoughts?