DISCUSSION - When is it 'acceptable' for a veteran to put over an up-and-coming wrestler?

**Heyman** · 03-31-2015, 02:50 AM

DISCUSSION - When is it 'acceptable' for a veteran to put over an up-and-coming wrestler?

I'll be completely honest. Outside of Wrestlemania 14 and Wrestlemania 17, this may have been my favorite Wrestlemania of all-time. However, there was one thing that kind of stuck out to me, and a few others commented on it as well:

Big Show winning the Andre-The-Giant memorial
John Cena defeating Rusev
Undertaker defeating Bray Wyatt
Randy Orton defeating Seth Rollins

In other words, all of the established vets going over the up-and comers.

Now don't get me wrong - Contrary to most of the IWC, I agree with the WWE that all of those booking decisions were the correct decisions. Even Triple H defeating Sting was the correct move in my opinion.

However - in your opinion, when should an "up-and-coming star" go over an established vet?

My answer to the above question is as follows:

ONLY when there is a very realistic chance of said wrestler becoming "THE" guy within the coming calendar year, should an "up-and-comer" go CLEANLY over a main-eventer and/or 'legend' in the business........especially at a place like Wrestlemania.

In the cases of Rusev and Wyatt, I do not see the WWE making either guy "the guy" within the next 12 months, and so I agreed with the WWE's decision to not have them go over at Mania. In both Rusev and Wyatt's cases, both men had already established themselves as being solid future 'blue chip' wrestlers due to having achieved significant victories throughout the year. And again - since neither guy will be going ahead of guys like Rollins, Reigns, and Lesnar on the depth chart anytime soon, going over guys like Cena and Taker would have been wasted. It was in the WWE's best interests to have Cena and Taker look strong here. By making Cena look strong, it adds to the characters of guys like Reigns and Rollins if they go over Cena at some point. By having Taker go over Wyatt, it helps Lesnar's victory over Taker look even more historic/significant.

Seth Rollins jobbed to Orton, but then went on to win the title. For most long term wrestling fans, you know that this is a page out of Owen-Bret-Yokozuna from back in the day. With Rollins winning the title and yet jobbing to Orton, it inadvertently re-establishes Orton as a worthy contender as well. Hence, more parity.

Andre-the-Giant memorial = same thing. None of those contestants in the Battle Royale, are 'over' enough to the point of being worthy enough to receive a significant push within the coming year. There is far more value in having a guy like Big Show go over, so that it makes someone like Reigns, Bryan, etc, look even MORE credible if/when he goes over a guy like Show at some point during the year.

As much as the IWC always seem to want the 'up-and-comer' to go over the established vet, I think the WWE are doing things the right way. If and when a guy is TRULY ready, and is worthy enough of being "the guy" (i.e. Steve Austin going over HBK at WM-14), that's when you bite the proverbial boner and let the guy go over. Daniel Bryan going CLEANLY over John Cena at Summerslam 2013 is another great example. Foley putting over HHH in 2000 all those times......another great example. HHH putting over Batista all those times in 2005, and then Cena in 2006 = yet another example.

03-31-2015, 02:50 AM	#1
Heyman Father of Hinduship Posts: 21,083	DISCUSSION - When is it 'acceptable' for a veteran to put over an up-and-coming wrestler? DISCUSSION - When is it 'acceptable' for a veteran to put over an up-and-coming wrestler? I'll be completely honest. Outside of Wrestlemania 14 and Wrestlemania 17, this may have been my favorite Wrestlemania of all-time. However, there was one thing that kind of stuck out to me, and a few others commented on it as well: Big Show winning the Andre-The-Giant memorial John Cena defeating Rusev Undertaker defeating Bray Wyatt Randy Orton defeating Seth Rollins In other words, all of the established vets going over the up-and comers. Now don't get me wrong - Contrary to most of the IWC, I agree with the WWE that all of those booking decisions were the correct decisions. Even Triple H defeating Sting was the correct move in my opinion. However - in your opinion, when should an "up-and-coming star" go over an established vet? My answer to the above question is as follows: ONLY when there is a very realistic chance of said wrestler becoming "THE" guy within the coming calendar year, should an "up-and-comer" go CLEANLY over a main-eventer and/or 'legend' in the business........especially at a place like Wrestlemania. In the cases of Rusev and Wyatt, I do not see the WWE making either guy "the guy" within the next 12 months, and so I agreed with the WWE's decision to not have them go over at Mania. In both Rusev and Wyatt's cases, both men had already established themselves as being solid future 'blue chip' wrestlers due to having achieved significant victories throughout the year. And again - since neither guy will be going ahead of guys like Rollins, Reigns, and Lesnar on the depth chart anytime soon, going over guys like Cena and Taker would have been wasted. It was in the WWE's best interests to have Cena and Taker look strong here. By making Cena look strong, it adds to the characters of guys like Reigns and Rollins if they go over Cena at some point. By having Taker go over Wyatt, it helps Lesnar's victory over Taker look even more historic/significant. Seth Rollins jobbed to Orton, but then went on to win the title. For most long term wrestling fans, you know that this is a page out of Owen-Bret-Yokozuna from back in the day. With Rollins winning the title and yet jobbing to Orton, it inadvertently re-establishes Orton as a worthy contender as well. Hence, more parity. Andre-the-Giant memorial = same thing. None of those contestants in the Battle Royale, are 'over' enough to the point of being worthy enough to receive a significant push within the coming year. There is far more value in having a guy like Big Show go over, so that it makes someone like Reigns, Bryan, etc, look even MORE credible if/when he goes over a guy like Show at some point during the year. As much as the IWC always seem to want the 'up-and-comer' to go over the established vet, I think the WWE are doing things the right way. If and when a guy is TRULY ready, and is worthy enough of being "the guy" (i.e. Steve Austin going over HBK at WM-14), that's when you bite the proverbial boner and let the guy go over. Daniel Bryan going CLEANLY over John Cena at Summerslam 2013 is another great example. Foley putting over HHH in 2000 all those times......another great example. HHH putting over Batista all those times in 2005, and then Cena in 2006 = yet another example.