Heymans Rant & the Truth of the matter

[[cL]]

Fact is, every time I'm on this site and they talk about bring legends back to do this or that; part timers or once a year people the IWC goes nuts about taking time away from the new younger guys. In the beginning, I could understand though I am one of the ones who wanted to see the Rock, Shawn Michaels and Trips come back for a bit. I got what people were saying then, but as time went on and on, EVERY TIME someone got announced to make a return and people got upset it started to bother me.

"What about Rhodes and Ziggler...Shaemus and Swagger....they keep bringing in all of these old guys and they're stealing time away from people who 'bust their butts' on a weekly basis"
Yeah they bust their butts taking great bumps. So what! They're not doing anything that is MAKING me take notice. They're all great mid-card talent and it's THEIR fault. Ask ANY indy wrestler. Being able to take great bumps and being able to out wrestle anyone on any roster AIN'T ENOUGH.

Then I read the blog Paul Heyman put up. Its not even something that hasn't been said by many others, but It got me thinking even more.
Maybe if the young guys weren't so afraid to jump out there and do something drastic to show that they have "it" they wouldn't have to bring back older guys at all.

Here's why i posted this. What could this new group of young guys do to get over? I mean Shaemus is over. But is he "SCSA" over? What will it take for these new guys to become the next Austin, Rock, Triple H, or Shawn Michaels?
What would YOU do if you were _________________________?
(insert young guy's name here)

 

[Teddy Irving]

"Maybe if the young guys weren't so afraid to jump out there and do something drastic to show that they have "it" they wouldn't have to bring back older guys at all."

You're right it's not like anyone has done this. Oh no wait wait Zack Ryder. He went and did something to get himself over, now granted it wasn't particularly drastic or risky but he got off his ass and did something and where did it get him? A decent little run only to be destroyed to boost Cena more. Ryder can't be blamed for this, his merchandise was selling, he was getting a great crowd reaction(and still does), so what exactly did it get him in the long run? It allowed him not to be fired, that's about it.

CM Punk did something that showed they had someone special and didn't need to bring back old talent yet they did anyway. They had him wrestle and lose to HHH. Now Punk got himself up to the top of the company (titlewise that is) but he has cut great promo's but he still isn't Austin popular, what more does he need to do?

What I'm saying is it can't be entirely blamed on the talent the management is a problem as well, that just wont fully invest in anyone at the moment other than Cena, once they have a bit of confidence in the talent they might be able to do better

 

[dtroppe]

Of course Sheamus is not SCSA over. No one except Rock and maybe Hogan was ever that over. For WWE stars to get over they need to find stars taht have the IT factor. That is easy said but not too many people in the world have that kind talent. I think within time we will have another star of that level. But I doubt it will be Ziggler, Wade, Punk, Orton, Sheamus, Ryder or any other of the current tv stars.

 

[[cL]]

Of course Sheamus is not SCSA over. No one except Rock and maybe Hogan was ever that over. For WWE stars to get over they need to find stars taht have the IT factor. That is easy said but not too many people in the world have that kind talent. I think within time we will have another star of that level. But I doubt it will be Ziggler, Wade, Punk, Orton, Sheamus, Ryder or any other of the current tv stars.

I totally agree.
I wasn't saying that Shaemus is SCSA over though, I was asking what needs to happen for him to get THAT over. Or is he even the one?

As far as Ryder or Punk. Both did drastic things and got over. But is someone coming up in the future trying to be the next Zack Ryder? No...
Punk, yes. But in all fairness, I don't consider Punk to be one of the young new guys. Punk has been in the WWE for quite some time now. CM Punk is not one the "young new talent" I was referring to.

 

[AwesomeRko]

It's a bit of a dilemma as it isn't quite as simple as taking a risk. All the promosing mid-card guys are handed scripts and basically told say this, granting them very little input, far less than guys like SCSA had back in the day. Their hands are kind of tied in a way as they can't really deviate too much from the script, I believe Ziggler has been punished for ad-libbing certain aspects of promos a few times. A former WWE writer who recently left the company went on record as saying Cena, Orton and Punk are the only guys on the roster granted a degree of creative control over their promo work nowadays.

Under these circumstances it's difficult for any su[erstar to self-create that one memorable breakout moment that ignites a launch to the top. WWE need to stop relying so heavily on scripts and give their talent more creative control.

 

[Teddy Irving]

Heyman's point was that the aren't doing anything to get noticed. My point was that Ryder did something and it didn't really help his case in the long run, management jobbed him out to Kane for Cena and then kept him off tv for ages. They management need to commit to other people for them to get over even if they do something to get themselves over.

For example Austin had his infamous Austin 3:16 promo but had they just left it at that and not booked him well he would have just faded out and wouldn't have been the sensation he is.


Who exactly is the younger talent you are referring to then?

 

[Teddy Irving]

It's a bit of a dilemma as it isn't quite as simple as taking a risk. All the promosing mid-card guys are handed scripts and basically told say this, granting them very little input far less than guys like SCSA had back in the day. Their hands are kind of tied in a way as they can't really deiviate too much from the scirpt, I believe Ziggler has been punished for ad-libbing certain aspects of promos a few times. A former WWE writer who recently left the company went on record as saying Cena, Orton and Punk are the only guys on the roster granted a degree of creative control over their promo work nowadays.

Under these circumstances it's difficult for any su[erstar to self-create that one memorable breakout moment that ignites a launch to the top. WWE need to stop relying so heavily on scripts and give their talent more creative control.

I read that as well about ziggler catching some heat for ad-libbing his promo's and they never seem to go in a bad direction from what I have heard from him.

 

[DetectiveZelix]

Great point OP. it has to be confusing in a sense that Austin, Rock, Shawn, Hogan and Cena even said that you have to shine with what you're given and many do a la Rhodes and Ziggler but for some reason their pushes never seem to happen. I really dont get how Sheamus is over. Theres nothing to him but oh well. I agree with cL on bringing back older talent because they werent afraid to basically defy authority and take charge of their characters. Yes you can get in trouble but you have to keep pushing and when Vince and the creative team see how over you become when you deviate from script and make your character more interesting they may let you take the reins as they have with Austin and Rock. But again talent has to have the balls to defy, hell tell some subtle truths, whatever it takes to truly get the crowd invested in you. For as we see creative is lazy as fuck and out of ideas apparently. There will be no major memorable stars of this era other than Cena whos major attribute is unintentional controversy.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

All have made some good points. When I read Heyman's rant, honestly, it sounds like something your typical WWE hating internet fan would write.

One thing that I think Heyman is overlooking is that guys like Hogan, Austin, Rock & Cena are examples of lightning being caught in a bottle. If it was as simple as Heyman is trying to make it sound, then pro wrestling would've been full of guys like that instead of a few of them coming along a few times each generation. There is such a thing as good old fashioned luck, as much as it might stick in the craw of some people that view themselves as creative geniuses. In the case of Hogan, Austin, Rock, Cena and a few others over the past 30 years; many of them were in the right place during the right time period with just the right kind of character & the ability needed to make it work. That kind of mega star power can't be mass produced, otherwise it would've been done already.

One thing I also couldn't help but thinking was exactly who Heyman was to criticize. I know people like to harp on Heyman's "greatness" a lot, and that's all well and good, but I haven't really seen any huge stars that he created. He got some guys noticed in ECW but they had to go to WCW or WWE in order to actually become bankable stars.

 

[Swarles Barkley]

Now Punk got himself up to the top of the company (titlewise that is) but he has cut great promo's but he still isn't Austin popular, what more does he need to do?

Be patient. People like to bring up Austin when talking about Punk based on the whole Austin 3:16-Pipe Bomb promo comparison. What a lot of people seem to forget is the WWF did exactly jack squat with Austin immediately following the King of the Ring. He won that tournament in June 1996, but didn't get his first shot at the WWF title in a singles match on PPV until May 1997 (against Undertaker at an In Your House) and didn't win his first title until March 1998. That's a near two-year burn to get Austin from 3:16 to world champion and face of the company. From King of the Ring until Survivor Series (where the Austin star began ascending, in my opinion), he fough the following people on PPV:

July 1996: Marc Mero
August 1996: Yokozuna and this was on the Free For All preshow, not the actual SummerSlam PPV
September 1996: No one; he wasn't on the show, not even in a dark match
October 1996: Hunter in the opening match

If Punk had cut his Pipe Bomb promo and then went on to beat Santino and lose on the preshow to SummerSlam against Big Show, people would have lost their f'n minds. Punk is so far ahead of Austin in terms of when "his moment" happened, that the comparison is almost moot. Sure, Punk had been in WWE almost five years when he cut his promo versus barely six months for Austin, but Punk just has to keep doing what he does best and he'll reach a high level of popularity. Maybe not at the Austin level -- no one this side of Hulk Hogan and The Rock have ever been as popular as Stone Cold -- but he'll be plenty popular with this generation of fans.

 

[H33LTurn]

I completely agree with you. This reminds me of a post someone made a while ago. The op basically stated that while the IWC will blame anyone and anything over guys like Jack Swagger not getting the spotlight, does anyone actually want to watch Jack Swagger main event? The same thing goes for guys like Ziggler, Kidd, Drew, Sheamus, Ryder. People online have a tendency to blame all of WWE's problems on the newer generations not getting a push but the truth is when all of these guys were given the opportunity to showcase their talent and steal the spotlight they failed. And while WWE should be concerned with the longevity of their product and therefore work to get these guys over, they also have to keep the ratings up by generating enough interest in their product. And when they cant generate interest in the green talent, and I use the world talent loosely, they have to look for other, already established talent to make up for it. People always want to turn talent development into an issue of being good on the mic vs being good in the ring, but the truth is whatever you do, it has to be able to get you over. Guys like The Miz and Del Rio are great on the mic, but thats not getting them over. Dolph Ziggler is great in the ring but that hasnt gotten him over. WWE has to look for a realistic approach to solve the talent development issue. When you admire someone in real life, you either relate to them or praise a certain element about them that makes them seem larger than like. Their persona works together with their actions to make them an admirable person. CM Punk is a perfect example. Punk had the persona of a rebel. He has the ability to sway people into his side of things. Then the action was his infamous promo which boosted him to another level. WWE seems to be split into guys who either have great characters or talents but dont get used, and guys who get used all the time but dont have the persona. Anyway the point is dont blame the WWE for safeguarding its ratings by bringing back Lesnar, Rock, etc. if the guys who are supposed to reach that level are just one dimensional. Sure, I dont put all the blame on the talent because as we've seen with guys like Brodus Clay, not everyone has a say in what direction creative goes with their character, but wasting you time bitching about The Rock returning instead of sitting back and letting the nostalgia kick in isnt going to solve anything.

 

[slice_of_life]

Paul Heyman could convince me that the Big Show is the most exciting wrestler in the business. The man is a genius.

 

[dencar84]

I completely agree with you. This reminds me of a post someone made a while ago. The op basically stated that while the IWC will blame anyone and anything over guys like Jack Swagger not getting the spotlight, does anyone actually want to watch Jack Swagger main event? The same thing goes for guys like Ziggler, Kidd, Drew, Sheamus, Ryder. People online have a tendency to blame all of WWE's problems on the newer generations not getting a push but the truth is when all of these guys were given the opportunity to showcase their talent and steal the spotlight they failed. And while WWE should be concerned with the longevity of their product and therefore work to get these guys over, they also have to keep the ratings up by generating enough interest in their product. And when they cant generate interest in the green talent, and I use the world talent loosely, they have to look for other, already established talent to make up for it. People always want to turn talent development into an issue of being good on the mic vs being good in the ring, but the truth is whatever you do, it has to be able to get you over. Guys like The Miz and Del Rio are great on the mic, but thats not getting them over. Dolph Ziggler is great in the ring but that hasnt gotten him over. WWE has to look for a realistic approach to solve the talent development issue. When you admire someone in real life, you either relate to them or praise a certain element about them that makes them seem larger than like. Their persona works together with their actions to make them an admirable person. CM Punk is a perfect example. Punk had the persona of a rebel. He has the ability to sway people into his side of things. Then the action was his infamous promo which boosted him to another level. WWE seems to be split into guys who either have great characters or talents but dont get used, and guys who get used all the time but dont have the persona. Anyway the point is dont blame the WWE for safeguarding its ratings by bringing back Lesnar, Rock, etc. if the guys who are supposed to reach that level are just one dimensional. Sure, I dont put all the blame on the talent because as we've seen with guys like Brodus Clay, not everyone has a say in what direction creative goes with their character, but wasting you time bitching about The Rock returning instead of sitting back and letting the nostalgia kick in isnt going to solve anything.

other than sheamus (who I'm a big fan of btw) none of those other guys was ever given a real shot to shine, in the 90's when hogan and others left the wwf vince built the company around newer guys and the result was the rise of hbk, bret hart, austin, foley, hhh, undertaker, etc and they were able reach those heights because they didn't have all these past guys coming back and taking the top spots.
zack ryder stepped up and got himself noticed, he was over like crazy and what did they do: they used him to push cena and then they buried him.
the rumored main event for WM29 is the Rock vs Brock Lesnar for the WWE title, instead of building up new younger main eventers and building the show around them they give the biggest spot on the card to two guys who will probably gone by the following ppv.

 

[TempestH]

I wouldn't consider Punk as a guy who "did something drastic". While he is now WWE Champion, he was still pretty much a top tier guy long before the pipe bomb promo. It wasn't like he was jobbing on Superstars all this time.

 

[vampirek]

I wouldn't consider Punk as a guy who "did something drastic". While he is now WWE Champion, he was still pretty much a top tier guy long before the pipe bomb promo. It wasn't like he was jobbing on Superstars all this time.

Whilst granted he did have runs as champion before his pipe bomb promo, Punk was doing nothing in the run up. His straight edge failed and fell apart, he started to fade out of the light and then got injured. Punk took to the mic and then used the pimp bomb promo to get back to the top tier, where he is doing much better than the time before.

 

[[cL]]

Be patient. People like to bring up Austin when talking about Punk based on the whole Austin 3:16-Pipe Bomb promo comparison. What a lot of people seem to forget is the WWF did exactly jack squat with Austin immediately following the King of the Ring. He won that tournament in June 1996, but didn't get his first shot at the WWF title in a singles match on PPV until May 1997 (against Undertaker at an In Your House) and didn't win his first title until March 1998. That's a near two-year burn to get Austin from 3:16 to world champion and face of the company. From King of the Ring until Survivor Series (where the Austin star began ascending, in my opinion), he fough the following people on PPV:

July 1996: Marc Mero
August 1996: Yokozuna and this was on the Free For All preshow, not the actual SummerSlam PPV
September 1996: No one; he wasn't on the show, not even in a dark match
October 1996: Hunter in the opening match

If Punk had cut his Pipe Bomb promo and then went on to beat Santino and lose on the preshow to SummerSlam against Big Show, people would have lost their f'n minds. Punk is so far ahead of Austin in terms of when "his moment" happened, that the comparison is almost moot. Sure, Punk had been in WWE almost five years when he cut his promo versus barely six months for Austin, but Punk just has to keep doing what he does best and he'll reach a high level of popularity. Maybe not at the Austin level -- no one this side of Hulk Hogan and The Rock have ever been as popular as Stone Cold -- but he'll be plenty popular with this generation of fans.

I think this is a well thought out post.
To add to it, now that I think about it, this adds fuel to the already burning topic of making the mid card titles more relevant. Back in the day they used the IC title to build main event stars and then pushed them to the world title. Right now the mid card titles are so watered down they have to push people who aren't ready to the world title picture which makes them look so bad to people like us because we KNOW they aren't there yet and once it's proven (miz, swagger, del rio) the E looks stupid and they have to bring in old main eventers to pull people back in.
While I still agree with what Paul Heyman said, because you still have to get noticed one way or another(using the time you have, working with the writers backstage, getting to VKM and HHH and at least trying to discuss ideas) the best way I can see to build these young guys is to reinvent the IC title as a legitimately prestigious title. By doing that you give yourself the opportunity to watch these young guys grow into main event level stars. I think thats was the major difference between this era of young guys and the attitude era of young guys. Shawn Michaels, triple H, the Rock, SCSA, and others had to fight it out at the IC level for a time before they hit the main stage. Because of the void in the main event these guys are getting thrust into the main event without the experience needed to stay there.
They are being asked to do impossible things and I get that. At the same time, if you have it you have it. I guess after all that the real question becomes do any of these guys even have it to become the next rock or SCSA?

 

[Rayne]

Heyman's point was that the aren't doing anything to get noticed. My point was that Ryder did something and it didn't really help his case in the long run, management jobbed him out to Kane for Cena and then kept him off tv for ages. They management need to commit to other people for them to get over even if they do something to get themselves over.

There are two mistakes you are making.

The first is a complete unawareness of Zack Ryder's position before his YouTube series. He didn't have one. He was a no-name performer that garnished no interest, whose biggest accomplishment in professional wrestling to date was looking a lot like a cheap knockoff version of Edge.

The second is a failure to consciously realize that these matches are staged, with winners and losers determined in advance in an attempt to keep the viewer watching. People claim they realize this, and then assume that if a guy doesn't win his fake match, he's obviously being shoved down the card and buried.

Zack Ryder went from being nothing, to getting a US title run and featured as a part of the top storyline in the WWE at the time. His video series did nothing for him? I think you might mean to say, "his video series didn't turn him into an overnight fixture in the World Championship picture", which would be more accurate. People are far more familiar with Ryder than they were at this time last year.

 

[ultramattman]

"Maybe if the young guys weren't so afraid to jump out there and do something drastic to show that they have "it" they wouldn't have to bring back older guys at all."

You're right it's not like anyone has done this. Oh no wait wait Zack Ryder. He went and did something to get himself over, now granted it wasn't particularly drastic or risky but he got off his ass and did something and where did it get him? A decent little run only to be destroyed to boost Cena more. Ryder can't be blamed for this, his merchandise was selling, he was getting a great crowd reaction(and still does), so what exactly did it get him in the long run? It allowed him not to be fired, that's about it.

CM Punk did something that showed they had someone special and didn't need to bring back old talent yet they did anyway. They had him wrestle and lose to HHH. Now Punk got himself up to the top of the company (titlewise that is) but he has cut great promo's but he still isn't Austin popular, what more does he need to do?

Zack Ryder DID benefit from his efforts. He was roster fringe, a guy who could be cut any day before his Twitter and Youtube efforts. Now he's in the midcard and has a solid character that fans like to see. His efforts didn't hotshot him straight to the top, but they DID get him someplace.

Punk's efforts DID shoot him straight to the top. He's not 'SCSA popular' but who is? No one will EVER reach that level of fame and popularity again.

 

[[cL]]

Punk's efforts DID shoot him straight to the top. He's not 'SCSA popular' but who is? No one will EVER reach that level of fame and popularity again.

They said the same thing about Hogan. Who was and still is in some respects, the biggest name in professional wrestling.
It can happen. It may not happen soon, but trust me when I tell you, someone will get that big.

 

[Teddy Irving]

Be patient. People like to bring up Austin when talking about Punk based on the whole Austin 3:16-Pipe Bomb promo comparison. What a lot of people seem to forget is the WWF did exactly jack squat with Austin immediately following the King of the Ring. He won that tournament in June 1996, but didn't get his first shot at the WWF title in a singles match on PPV until May 1997 (against Undertaker at an In Your House) and didn't win his first title until March 1998. That's a near two-year burn to get Austin from 3:16 to world champion and face of the company. From King of the Ring until Survivor Series (where the Austin star began ascending, in my opinion), he fough the following people on PPV:

July 1996: Marc Mero
August 1996: Yokozuna and this was on the Free For All preshow, not the actual SummerSlam PPV
September 1996: No one; he wasn't on the show, not even in a dark match
October 1996: Hunter in the opening match

If Punk had cut his Pipe Bomb promo and then went on to beat Santino and lose on the preshow to SummerSlam against Big Show, people would have lost their f'n minds. Punk is so far ahead of Austin in terms of when "his moment" happened, that the comparison is almost moot. Sure, Punk had been in WWE almost five years when he cut his promo versus barely six months for Austin, but Punk just has to keep doing what he does best and he'll reach a high level of popularity. Maybe not at the Austin level -- no one this side of Hulk Hogan and The Rock have ever been as popular as Stone Cold -- but he'll be plenty popular with this generation of fans.

I wish you would have taken that sentence in it's actually context to understand what I was saying. My point was that Heyman says that people just need to do something to stand out to become as famous as guys like Austin Hogan and the Rock and they just don't do anything to get themselves to that level. Punk did something and his rise was faster than Austin's but he is still not the Main guy for WWE which can be seen by the fact that Cena is still that guy. Punk was hot as hell after the promo and then they cooled him down. Austin was hot and popular after his promo and they gave him a slower rise and then backed him fully as THE guy. This isn't the way for Punk.

My point was that it is not entirely talents fault they aren't on that level of popularity some of it is to do with the company not backing the talent when they look set to reach that level

 

[Teddy Irving]

There are two mistakes you are making.

The first is a complete unawareness of Zack Ryder's position before his YouTube series. He didn't have one. He was a no-name performer that garnished no interest, whose biggest accomplishment in professional wrestling to date was looking a lot like a cheap knockoff version of Edge.

I know what position he was in before his show and I knew who he was before his show. Before his show he was the guy to end Tommy Dreamer's career (storyline obviously). Then ECW went away and he became nothing to the company. I believe the ending of Dreamer's career would be his biggest accomplishment at that date. Or maybe his tag title reigns depending on if you how you view accomplishments.

The second is a failure to consciously realize that these matches are staged, with winners and losers determined in advance in an attempt to keep the viewer watching. People claim they realize this, and then assume that if a guy doesn't win his fake match, he's obviously being shoved down the card and buried.

Where exactly did Ryder getting his ass handed to him week in and week out by Kane go for Ryder exactly? It ended in a blow off match that wasn't televised on a pre show of a ppv. The people it served were Kane and Cena and then Kane lost to Cena and that was the end of that. Actually that Angle may have done more for Eve than it did for Ryder. So yes I do understand the difference between a loss and being buried.

Zack Ryder went from being nothing, to getting a US title run and featured as a part of the top storyline in the WWE at the time. His video series did nothing for him? I think you might mean to say, "his video series didn't turn him into an overnight fixture in the World Championship picture", which would be more accurate. People are far more familiar with Ryder than they were at this time last year.

I said that they have allowed him to keep his job, but since that Angle with Kane and Cena what exactly has Ryder been doing. Oh yeah 2 random tag matches with Santino. Look the videos got him noticed and he was a hot commodity and it was all his own doing. (Which is what Heyman is claiming the wrestlers aren't doing, and my point was that Ryder did). He won the US title in a great way having been beaten the other times and beating Ziggler in non title matches which made his winning the title even more special. But, like I said after the whole Kane Cena thing his momentum died.
So in the long run Ryder's video's got him to keep his job and he his more noticed but through no fault of his own, he is not at Austin's level of popularity.

My point being that, although I think Heyman is a great asset in pro wrestling and does have a great knowledge of it, he is wrong in saying that nobody is trying to get themselves over or doing anything 'risky' to get seen.

 

[H33LTurn]

other than sheamus (who I'm a big fan of btw) none of those other guys was ever given a real shot to shine, in the 90's when hogan and others left the wwf vince built the company around newer guys and the result was the rise of hbk, bret hart, austin, foley, hhh, undertaker, etc and they were able reach those heights because they didn't have all these past guys coming back and taking the top spots.
zack ryder stepped up and got himself noticed, he was over like crazy and what did they do: they used him to push cena and then they buried him.
the rumored main event for WM29 is the Rock vs Brock Lesnar for the WWE title, instead of building up new younger main eventers and building the show around them they give the biggest spot on the card to two guys who will probably gone by the following ppv.

Swagger was the Heavyweight champion, Ziggler has had enough main event rivalries with guys like Edge and Punk, Drew was the chosen one, and Ryder went from a jobber to in a storyline with Cena.

 

[Teddy Irving]

Swagger was the Heavyweight champion, Ziggler has had enough main event rivalries with guys like Edge and Punk, Drew was the chosen one, and Ryder went from a jobber to in a storyline with Cena.

And 2 of those 4 proved they deserved their spot. Ziggler proved he can be a top guy and they are continuing to keep him there. Ryder on the other hand made it so they basically had to give him his shot (The crowd were cheering his name throughout ppv's) and he did fine but they he got feed to Kane to fuel a Cena storyline

 

[PowerHouse]

Here is the problem with the guys the WWE has today. Its not about not having guys with the look. The WWE breeds guys who have the "LOOK" its that swagger that persona that guys like The Rock and Austin had that made them so popular. The kind of personality that allowed you to love them as a face or a heel. Even as a heel both of those guys got tons of cheers. Nobody in the WWE has that type of personality. Sheamus IMO is not championship material his personailty just doesnt cut it as champion. He makes a great challenger but once he has the belt I just dont feel any intensity from him.

 

[Wald]

I think fans need to realise that just because a guy doesn't get a world title doesn't mean he's not held in high regard, or won't be remembered.

It's the WWE's fault to an extent for undervaluing their world titles with hot potato wins for guys like Swagger, Sheamus (first time around), hell even Bryan was if we're to be honest. Plus this is where not having strong mid card titles really shows up creative weaknesses. People long for the days of the IC Title and Tag Titles meaning something, but they could be built back up again so that Ziggler, Bryan, Christian or whoever holding is actually considered a major accomplishment.