Is the length of a superstar's run a problem in today's WWE?

[Wald]

Amidst all the teeth gnashing about WWE becoming stale, about creative dropping the ball on certain guys or about the dead zone that is Summerslam to Royal Rumble, you rarely see this topic discussed. So today I'm asking, is the longevity of modern WWE wrestlers actually a big problem for creative? Before we get in to the modern roster I'm going to list off some numbers that show the consecutive amount of years some big names racked up in their prime runs. Some of these guys returned for brief stints afterwards but this is a look at when they were mid to top of the card acts in the WWF on a regular basis.

Bret Hart - 13 years
Hulk Hogan - 10 years
Shawn Michaels - 10 years
Macho Man - 9 years (including two as color commentator)
Million Dollar Man - 8 years (including two as manager)
Mr Perfect - 6 years (2 as manager/color commentator)
Jake Roberts - 6 years (even that was broken up twice with brief exits)
Ultimate Warrior - 5 years
Rick Rude - 3 years
Kevin Nash - 3 years

Now this might be purely aimed at fans of the WWF at the time, but when I think of the careers of some of those guys I think they lasted a lifetime. Hogan from 84 to 94 seems like an age and by the time he left it felt like he had been around far too long. Same with wrestlers like Macho Man and the Million Dollar Man, they felt like guys from a bygone era by the time they departed. Bret and Shawn not so much, due to them having to work their way up the card from the bottom, but still, by 1997 it felt like the two of them practically were the company. Kudos to the Warrior, Nash and Rude for managing to pack so much in to a relatively short run as well. I say relatively short because I'd now like you to take a look at some of the current figures.

Undertaker - 25 years
Triple H - 20 years
Mark Henry - 19 years
Kane - 18 years
Big Show - 16 years
John Cena - 13 years
Randy Orton - 13 years
Dolph Ziggler - 10 years
Kofi Kingston - 8 years
Tyson Kidd - 6 years
Sheamus - 6 years
Wade Barrett - 5 years

That is guys we see on our screen most weeks of the year, with the exception of the Undertaker who I still included as he has been a focal point of the company each year since his debut. Just compare some of that for a moment. Bret Hart, who scratched and clawed his way up from the bottom, was there for the same amount of time as Randy Orton, who some people still think has a peak to give. Dolph Ziggler has been around for as long as Hulk Hogan was in his first run. Kofi Kingston actually has one year on Macho Man as an active in-ring competitor whilst Sheamus and Tyson Kidd have had the same tenures as Perfect and Roberts, more even when you take away the two older superstars time out of the ring. Wade Barrett has been around for the same length of time the Ultimate Warrior was.

So back to that question. Is it even possible for WWE Creative to keep guys like Kofi and Sheamus feeling fresh in our minds? Not to mention Big Show, Mark Henry and Kane? Or is just that we need new faces coming in on a more regular basis?

 

[Jack-Hammer]

I'm of the opinion some of the various flaws we see in WWE has a lot to do with the attitudes of fans themselves. Take last night as the latest example with the "Thank You Rollins" chant during Rollins' promo as he was talking about breaking John Cena's nose. I do agree that Cena has been overexposed over the years, but it's long past time to drop the nonsense of Cena not deserving his spot or not being able to wrestle. It's that kind of idiocy among fans that, unfortunately, is and has been a growing attitude in pro wrestling in general for quite a few years now.

As for the longevity of certain stars, I think it can be a problem at a certain point for certain wrestlers. For instance, look how many people have been saying they think Big Show needs to retire, some have been saying it for years in fact. Part of it is due to some of them just not really being into the guy all that much, some of it's due to a well known, pronounced and almost prejudiced attitude that's also built up over the years towards wrestlers who're 250 pounds or more, some of it's due to a feeling that Big Show's best years are long since behind him and his age makes it all but certain that he's not going to be winning anymore World Championships or really even be considered a serious contender for it.

Someone that's able to stay really fresh in the minds of fans after being around for 10, 15, 20 years or more is a rarity. The Undertaker is an obvious exception and part of that, in my estimation, has a lot to do with him, for the most part, being consistently booked over the course of his quarter century in WWE. He's never been booked like some joke, he's never been portrayed as a jobber, and some of it comes from nostalgia & respect for Taker himself. Taker's an old school guy who behaves like a professional, loves the business and will go out of his way to do what he can for the business; after all, a strong argument can be made that Taker needs to hang up his boots because he's done enough, he has nothing left to prove and the streak is done. At the same time, as I alluded to, his dedication and love for wrestling is also something fans admire, even if some feel he should retire, and they rally around him whenever he does show up. Also, in Taker's case, I think a lot of how he's maintained freshness the past 5 or 6 years is that he only pops up on rare occasions. Absence makes the heart grow fonder in some cases and Taker is obviously one of those cases.

Ultimately, I think a wrestler's longevity in terms of being relevant and interesting in the eyes of fans has to do with a lot of things, but I think that easily the biggest factor has more to do with plain, old fashioned luck than anything else. No team of writers, no wrestling veterans, no marketing people can just sit down and say "Okay, let's see what we can do to keep this dude relevant for the next 15 years."

 

[Navi]

I think it's a valid question, but the answer to it may never been known. As JH said the fans get bored with seeing the same people at the top all the time, and want change. Can you really blame them. I mean how many times do we want to see Orton/Cena or Orton/Sheamus? Not picking on Orton, just using his name as an example.

Part of the problem is half the time feuds get going, fans get into them and then all of a sudden boom, it's forgotten about. Or they have no ending to them, at least one that puts a period on it. There is also too many wrestlers just floating around with nothing to do. Ambrose is a good example of that.

I guess in a perfect world, you would have a wrestler come in, make his way up the ladder, stay on top or near to it for a couple of years, then come back down a few steps and then start putting newer talent over. That's what Cena has been doing for the better part of the last year. Issue there is, he's been on top for so long, a lot of fans see him as stale and they've gone off him. It doesn't matter to them he's elevated Owens, Cesaro, Zayn and others, plus the US title belt. Those fans are assholes that don't see it. They've let their hatred of him blind them to the fact he's doing some of his best work in a long time.

The creative department lead by Vince, who I do believe is a wrestling genius, but sorely out of touch with today's fans, should and could be doing a much better job with what they have. Just the fact that they aren't shows that there problems. When you have problems in your creative department, that creates a domino effect, which will filter down and affect what we see on TV.

A lot of today's roster could be around for a long time, especially with NXT coming up behind them. Sadly with the way they are booked, most won't last another 10 years with any credibility. Yes we'll see them on RAW for awhile, then like Swagger, Sandow, Axle and others like them, will move to Main Event or Superstars, and we'll not see them again. It's sad considering how much work and effort, time spend on the road and away from family, these guys put in, to end up being forgotten about.

Undertaker, Cena, Orton, Kane and a handful of others, are a dying breed. It's pretty safe to say we'll not see the likes of them again. The business is now too fast paced, and with the network in place, I'm afraid the turnover will just become quicker.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

The longer career seems like the future of WWE. This generation and the future will know how to better take care of their bodies. The WWE has so much more wrestling programming to fill. There is no real competition to take these guys away. WWE seems more willing to give the older guys more of a part time status. The WWE also has the movie arm of the company to give these guys an occasional wrestling break but still keep them in the WWE family.

Will everyone stay on top? No, but some will, or at least they can hold a decent spot when they are around. This is a great thing for the wrestlers, they get more time to make more money and wind down their pace as they get older. It is not great for the fan that thinks a guy's appeal is tied to his longevity rather than creative's ability to create but still a very good thing for the life and health of the wrestlers.

 

[Mustang Sally]

As JH said the fans get bored with seeing the same people at the top all the time, and want change. Can you really blame them. I mean how many times do we want to see Orton/Cena or Orton/Sheamus?

It's an eternal problem in the world of entertainment, isn't it? It's one thing for a movie star to make a couple of films a year; they can stick around for decades without people getting sick of them. Even TV actors have this advantage in that most series last only a few years..... and while the quality of the show might remain high, viewers eventually tire of it. When they do, the show is canceled.

In pro wrestling, there's an additional factor; with people like Orton, Cena & Sheamus appearing on our screens week after week, year after year, it's important to realize the reason for them being put out there is because they're making money for the company......and how anxious do you think WWE is to send the guys making the most money to the sidelines to make way for newer performers?

Yet, that's the task assigned to WWE Creative. They have to figure ways to keep utilizing the old guard while using these grand old fellas to make the newbies look good. Honestly, I think WWE is doing a great job of it, although many on this forum certainly don't. Yet, look at all the new performers we've seen introduced in the past few years.

We've read many posts on this forum from folks who seem to presume they could run Creative better than the people who now do it, but I would think there's a hell of a lot more to it than most of us realize.

 

[Wald]

It's an eternal problem in the world of entertainment, isn't it? It's one thing for a movie star to make a couple of films a year; they can stick around for decades without people getting sick of them. Even TV actors have this advantage in that most series last only a few years..... and while the quality of the show might remain high, viewers eventually tire of it. When they do, the show is canceled.

In pro wrestling, there's an additional factor; with people like Orton, Cena & Sheamus appearing on our screens week after week, year after year, it's important to realize the reason for them being put out there is because they're making money for the company......and how anxious do you think WWE is to send the guys making the most money to the sidelines to make way for newer performers?

Yet, that's the task assigned to WWE Creative. They have to figure ways to keep utilizing the old guard while using these grand old fellas to make the newbies look good. Honestly, I think WWE is doing a great job of it, although many on this forum certainly don't. Yet, look at all the new performers we've seen introduced in the past few years.

We've read many posts on this forum from folks who seem to presume they could run Creative better than the people who now do it, but I would think there's a hell of a lot more to it than most of us realize.

I think that's exactly what I'm trying to get at with this thread. You look at the top TV shows like Game of Thrones, Sopranos, Mad Men etc. and you see that even on those shows a lot of the fanbase grow tired of seeing the same people after a few years. That is obviously amplified quite a lot with the WWE having multiple hours of programming to fill each week. We probably see more of Seth Rollins on screen in one week than we see of Tyrion Lannister in an entire season of Game of Thrones.

But what's the solution? There are a few options that would ease the pressure on creative, though whether they're the answer is open to debate. Do you:

A) Give each wrestler a few months off each year to try keep them fresh?
B) Be more ruthless and just axe guys like Big Show, Kofi, Ziggler and Kane to just freshen things up?
C) Cut back on programming, i.e. cancel Smackdown
or
D) Keep wrestlers off TV at specific points but still utilise them at house shows to draw money from them?

Option D probably interests me the most because I'd rather not advocate for hard workers to get sacked just for the sake of it and I don't see Smackdown being willingly retired or the holiday idea ever being implemented to an extent that it would make a difference. I'll use Bray Wyatt as a case study for option C and also just point to Brock & Taker as examples of it working well.

For Wyatt, you have to ask if it's more beneficial to him as a draw if he enters in to feuds with Ryback as a stop gap or if he'd be better served not being on TV until such a time as a bigger feud can be booked? I'd argue he would be better off not being on TV giving cryptic promos about taking down Ryback and I would say the proof is in people being seemingly burnt out on his character and his lack of real motivation. Obviously this couldn't work for every wrestler, as someone has to be out there taking the losses, but if Creative had a pool of guys they saw as being their next top level superstars (lets say Ambrose, Reigns, Owens and Wyatt for argument's sake) than I could see it working with them.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

I think that's exactly what I'm trying to get at with this thread. You look at the top TV shows like Game of Thrones, Sopranos, Mad Men etc. and you see that even on those shows a lot of the fanbase grow tired of seeing the same people after a few years.

But don't forget that TV series like the ones you mention above don't generally pick up viewers after awhile. WWE can do this because they have a whole crop of kids maturing and looking for a new form of entertainment after cartoons starts to get old. John Cena may seem old and stale to you but to an eight year old he is a great replacement for his absentee father.

That is obviously amplified quite a lot with the WWE having multiple hours of programming to fill each week. We probably see more of Seth Rollins on screen in one week than we see of Tyrion Lannister in an entire season of Game of Thrones.

Except the people watching Raw, SD, Superstars, Tough Enough, NXT etc. are the exception, not the rule.

But what's the solution? There are a few options that would ease the pressure on creative, though whether they're the answer is open to debate. Do you:

A) Give each wrestler a few months off each year to try keep them fresh?

You probably can't in most cases since the wrestler wants to make as much money as possible while they are healthy and the fans in attendance want to see that wrestler.

B) Be more ruthless and just axe guys like Big Show, Kofi, Ziggler and Kane to just freshen things up?

I'm sure Vince has no problem doing this but clearly those guys are worth more to him right now than the next guy up.

C) Cut back on programming, i.e. cancel Smackdown
or

WWE Stockholders have just voted that WZ Forums should ban you.

D) Keep wrestlers off TV at specific points but still utilise them at house shows to draw money from them?

This is a more realistic than your other ideas but how is NBC Universal going to feel about that? And how is the wrestler going to feel losing that PPV appearance money? How is the wrestler going to feel giving another guy a free chance to get his spot?

Option D probably interests me the most because I'd rather not advocate for hard workers to get sacked just for the sake of it and I don't see Smackdown being willingly retired or the holiday idea ever being implemented to an extent that it would make a difference. I'll use Bray Wyatt as a case study for option C and also just point to Brock & Taker as examples of it working well.

For Wyatt, you have to ask if it's more beneficial to him as a draw if he enters in to feuds with Ryback as a stop gap or if he'd be better served not being on TV until such a time as a bigger feud can be booked? I'd argue he would be better off not being on TV giving cryptic promos about taking down Ryback and I would say the proof is in people being seemingly burnt out on his character and his lack of real motivation. Obviously this couldn't work for every wrestler, as someone has to be out there taking the losses, but if Creative had a pool of guys they saw as being their next top level superstars (lets say Ambrose, Reigns, Owens and Wyatt for argument's sake) than I could see it working with them.

The money doesn't work for anyone. The risk is too big. There is probably a happy medium and some workloads work better for certain guys but when you are young and healthy in this business it really seems like getting as much as you can for as long as you can is the way to go.

 

[Wald]

This is a more realistic than your other ideas but how is NBC Universal going to feel about that? And how is the wrestler going to feel losing that PPV appearance money? How is the wrestler going to feel giving another guy a free chance to get his spot?

Sticking with Option D questions. NBC probably don't care enough to fight the corner of a Bray Wyatt or a Dean Ambrose. I'm sure they'd want John Cena on the show but I didn't advocate taking him off.

On the PPV appearance money. We don't know how that is being distributed now but since CM Punk couldn't get a clear answer when it was being brought in I'd imagine their payoffs are a lot less since the Network came in to play. Even if they weren't than it's Vince's company and what the wrestler wants shouldn't come in to play.

Same answer as the above for what a wrestler feels about giving a guy a chance at a spot. Shouldn't matter.

 

[Kodo Sawaki]

So back to that question. Is it even possible for WWE Creative to keep guys like Kofi and Sheamus feeling fresh in our minds? Not to mention Big Show, Mark Henry and Kane? Or is just that we need new faces coming in on a more regular basis?

Well, if you look Kofi for example you got regular babyface Kofi who almost doesnt talk at all and serves as a spot monkey and nowadays "New Day" Kofi which is kinda fresh. So its possible but WWE Creative needs to get, ahem, creative.

Show, Henry and Kane still got their purpose but it does seem like they run out of freshness for them. Show changes heel/face rolls on about 6 months period and people still got bored with him and most of IWC calls him useless. Though in WWEs eyes you need veteran "big guy" who will serve to do decent matches even with midcard so he could make other guys look as million dollars if they manage to bodyslam him. For that role its useless to have some newcomer because eventhough its impressive to bodyslam 400 pounds of weight its more impressive to bodyslam 400 pounds veteran who was WCW and WWE Champion.

Though, in terms of entertainment you are right. After a while they need fresh people in order for people to watch further. Because after a while even Cena/Orton matches became something that you allready have seen like a million times before. Because you really did.

 

[stingray11214]

The question posted is a good one with a lot of plausible answers. However, for all of the answers given, they miss the one caveat why you have wrestlers stay in WWE forever: They probably have no choice.

Look, why did all the above mentioned have relatively short careers in the WWWF/WWF/WWE? Because they all had OPTIONS! If VKM or VJM did not treat them fairly, they had Sam Muchnick to run to. They could go work for Don Owen, Jim Crockett or Eddie Graham. Where did Kurt Hennig cut his teeth? Sure, he had a short run in the WWWF, then he had a nice run under Verne Gagne and teamed with his father. Look at Hulk Hogan? His first WWWF run was a disaster. Then, he made a movie, went to Japan, and then came back to the AWA. Spent a few more years in WWF, then jumped to WCW. What did it do? well, if you only watched THAT programming, the guy was as fresh as a newborn. That is why, despite all the arguments to the contrary, the Territorial System WORKED. It allowed people to be FRESH to the average viewer

Let's look at today: Many of these stars have to go through CONSTANT gimmick changes IN FRONT of the viewer. In other words, it quacked like a duck, walked like a duck, and looked like a duck. However, last week WWE Creative tried to repackage him as an elephant. This week it will be as a fiddler crab. If that does not work, they will send him to NXT to repackage him as a kangaroo. The problem is that the fans still know him as a DUCK! This is another reason why a lot of stars hang on: They think a quick gimmick change will take them to the Promised Land. Adam Rose thought so. So did Zach Ryder. So did Curtis Axel. However, if it were not for extenuating circumstances, those three, with a gaggle of others, would have been long Future Endeavored by now.

In closing, ask yourself this question: If this was 1985, and there was no room for you at the WWF Inn, would you stick around? Today, can (breaking 4th wall) Ray Leppan afford to leave WWE to do the Indy Circuit? Cardona (Ryder)? Hennig? That is why they take the crap they take.

 

[Headman]

One of the benefits of the territory system was that a guy could work one part of the country for a while and then move on to keep his act fresh. Even while WCW was around somebody could bounce back and forth. Being on tv for too long can hurt someone. Especially if that person isn't seen as a main event talent. Honestly I'm not sure what the advantage is to holding on to talent for over the decade if you feel they're not drawing you any money.

 

[FlairFan2003]

Amidst all the teeth gnashing about WWE becoming stale, about creative dropping the ball on certain guys or about the dead zone that is Summerslam to Royal Rumble, you rarely see this topic discussed. So today I'm asking, is the longevity of modern WWE wrestlers actually a big problem for creative? Before we get in to the modern roster I'm going to list off some numbers that show the consecutive amount of years some big names racked up in their prime runs. Some of these guys returned for brief stints afterwards but this is a look at when they were mid to top of the card acts in the WWF on a regular basis.

Bret Hart - 13 years
Hulk Hogan - 10 years
Shawn Michaels - 10 years
Macho Man - 9 years (including two as color commentator)
Million Dollar Man - 8 years (including two as manager)
Mr Perfect - 6 years (2 as manager/color commentator)
Jake Roberts - 6 years (even that was broken up twice with brief exits)
Ultimate Warrior - 5 years
Rick Rude - 3 years
Kevin Nash - 3 years

Now this might be purely aimed at fans of the WWF at the time, but when I think of the careers of some of those guys I think they lasted a lifetime. Hogan from 84 to 94 seems like an age and by the time he left it felt like he had been around far too long. Same with wrestlers like Macho Man and the Million Dollar Man, they felt like guys from a bygone era by the time they departed. Bret and Shawn not so much, due to them having to work their way up the card from the bottom, but still, by 1997 it felt like the two of them practically were the company. Kudos to the Warrior, Nash and Rude for managing to pack so much in to a relatively short run as well. I say relatively short because I'd now like you to take a look at some of the current figures.

Undertaker - 25 years
Triple H - 20 years
Mark Henry - 19 years
Kane - 18 years
Big Show - 16 years
John Cena - 13 years
Randy Orton - 13 years
Dolph Ziggler - 10 years
Kofi Kingston - 8 years
Tyson Kidd - 6 years
Sheamus - 6 years
Wade Barrett - 5 years

That is guys we see on our screen most weeks of the year, with the exception of the Undertaker who I still included as he has been a focal point of the company each year since his debut. Just compare some of that for a moment. Bret Hart, who scratched and clawed his way up from the bottom, was there for the same amount of time as Randy Orton, who some people still think has a peak to give. Dolph Ziggler has been around for as long as Hulk Hogan was in his first run. Kofi Kingston actually has one year on Macho Man as an active in-ring competitor whilst Sheamus and Tyson Kidd have had the same tenures as Perfect and Roberts, more even when you take away the two older superstars time out of the ring. Wade Barrett has been around for the same length of time the Ultimate Warrior was.

So back to that question. Is it even possible for WWE Creative to keep guys like Kofi and Sheamus feeling fresh in our minds? Not to mention Big Show, Mark Henry and Kane? Or is just that we need new faces coming in on a more regular basis?

No, it's a problem with only having one promotion. Your numbers are all wrong on the top of this list.

Hulk Hogan was a legit main eventer from 1980-2000 on a close to full time schedule and until 2006 on a limited "Undertaker like" special attraction basis, that's over 25 years.

Brett Hart was a mainstay in the tag scene, but at the top of the tag scene, and segued into a long singles career from 1986-99, 14 years

Curt Henning was a main eventer, then a mid carder, then a main eventer,, then a mid carder from 1986-2000, almost 15 years

Rick Rude was never a main eventer consistently but was very close to the top of the card, a #2 or #3 guy pretty consistently from 1986-1994 when he retired due to injury, almost 13 years

You didn't event mention Lex Luger (1986-99), almost 14 years

Kevin Nash 1993-2006 - almost all as a main eventer or top 3 on the card

You simply referenced only time spent in WWE alone. Even there you got HBK wrong 1989-2010 if you're counting his time with The Rockers which is 21 years, longer since The Rockers were actually World Tag Team Champs in 1986 I believe.

These guys went back & forth between viable national promotions. In terms of revenue the 80s NWA was a distant second to WWE but in terms of national ratings and house show attendance they were neck & neck and being viewed weekly on SuperStation TBS was huge exposure. In the 90s when both companies were struggling the weekly TBS exposure was still a big deal in WCW, and in the mid 90s when they were basically equal or WCW was slightly ahead in ratings in national prominence BEFORE the Monday Night Wars working in one promotion prominently was about the same as working in other.

Without a viable competitor that can match salaries and TV exposure talent has nowhere to go (unless they go to Japan, where they can make comparable or better money but have to leave their home country). Top stars still remain top stars just as long, maybe a little less, than they did in the 80s and 90s, the difference is they have nowhere else but WWE to go, it makes breaking into WWE that much harder, after all, why should I as WWE invest in an unproven talent when I have proven money makers already here, established with the audience, and under contract ? That would be possible financial suicide. Of course if Im WWE and WCW just signed Flair, Hogan, Savage, Luger, Hall, and Nash over the last 18 months then I guess I better invest in Yokozuna, HBK, etc, and hope maybe something sticks.

The issue isn't if top stars remain too long (again HBK 1986-2009 !!!!) as opposed to previous eras, it's that its harder to break through now because proven money makers don't leave.....and WWE is always about making money first and foremost, the reason they keep using proven money makers.

Even when there was two viable national promotions WWE actively courted established WCW stars to come in and immediately take top spots in the company....Vader.....Foley.....they tried & failed to sign Sting and re sign Flair in the 90s....Jericho.....Benoit......even then it was easier to just take a top guy from elsewhere and make him one of your top guys than to cultivate new stars.

 

[FlairFan2003]

One of the benefits of the territory system was that a guy could work one part of the country for a while and then move on to keep his act fresh. Even while WCW was around somebody could bounce back and forth. Being on tv for too long can hurt someone. Especially if that person isn't seen as a main event talent. Honestly I'm not sure what the advantage is to holding on to talent for over the decade if you feel they're not drawing you any money.

WWE only holds on to guys who do draw money. You don't see Kenny Dykstra or Shelton Benjamin on that list do you, because they showed they could draw what Cena, Taker, Lesnar, Orton, etc do now

 

[FlairFan2003]

The question posted is a good one with a lot of plausible answers. However, for all of the answers given, they miss the one caveat why you have wrestlers stay in WWE forever: They probably have no choice.

Look, why did all the above mentioned have relatively short careers in the WWWF/WWF/WWE? Because they all had OPTIONS! If VKM or VJM did not treat them fairly, they had Sam Muchnick to run to. They could go work for Don Owen, Jim Crockett or Eddie Graham. Where did Kurt Hennig cut his teeth? Sure, he had a short run in the WWWF, then he had a nice run under Verne Gagne and teamed with his father. Look at Hulk Hogan? His first WWWF run was a disaster. Then, he made a movie, went to Japan, and then came back to the AWA. Spent a few more years in WWF, then jumped to WCW. What did it do? well, if you only watched THAT programming, the guy was as fresh as a newborn. That is why, despite all the arguments to the contrary, the Territorial System WORKED. It allowed people to be FRESH to the average viewer

Let's look at today: Many of these stars have to go through CONSTANT gimmick changes IN FRONT of the viewer. In other words, it quacked like a duck, walked like a duck, and looked like a duck. However, last week WWE Creative tried to repackage him as an elephant. This week it will be as a fiddler crab. If that does not work, they will send him to NXT to repackage him as a kangaroo. The problem is that the fans still know him as a DUCK! This is another reason why a lot of stars hang on: They think a quick gimmick change will take them to the Promised Land. Adam Rose thought so. So did Zach Ryder. So did Curtis Axel. However, if it were not for extenuating circumstances, those three, with a gaggle of others, would have been long Future Endeavored by now.

In closing, ask yourself this question: If this was 1985, and there was no room for you at the WWF Inn, would you stick around? Today, can (breaking 4th wall) Ray Leppan afford to leave WWE to do the Indy Circuit? Cardona (Ryder)? Hennig? That is why they take the crap they take.

Most wrestling fans back then just didn't watch ONE program....if you were a WWE fan you watched that loyally but you casually watched the NWA and probably watched the AWA too. Likewise if you were on the NWA bandwagon (and they were a much grittier, more adult themes, violent product than WWE back then) you still casually watched WWE & AWA. So when Curt Henning jumped to WWE you knew who he was, at least a bit. It was fresh seeing them in a new environment with new opponents but they themselves weren't fresh. Vince tried to counter act this by reinventing new gimmicks for some stars like Henning & DiBiase but also realized guys like Road Warriors, Tully Blanchard & Arn Anderson, and Ric Flair were so big they couldn't be "re branded" they had to be presented as they previously were or the audience wouldn't buy in.

It was the same thing in the NWA, guys like Barry Whyndam, Luger (coming from Florida), Rick Rude (once from World Class, once from WWE), etc were established enough with the general audience that only minor tweaking was done when they arrived. They weren't fresh by any means, they only thing new was watching them in a new environment.

 

[Jeff Deliverer of Mail]

Wow, honestly, that was an eye opener for me. It felt way longer than that for Hogan and Million Dollar Man. Kane, Mark Henry and Big Show....does WCW count for Big Show ? Its hard to believe these guys have been here that long. It's hard not to respect these big guys who've been wrestling that long and not bow out due to active arthritis or nagging injuries. Big Kudos to Mark Henry especially. He's had the - Big Gold - World Championship belt...but not the company's top belt. But most of his career has been a micro - push ( Hall of PAIN ) then swept to the side , in the background again. The worst ( IN MY OPINION, THE FOLLOWING WAS HORRIBLE ) return / slash push for Mark Henry is when he made one of his many - refresh- returns but ran right into a wall named Brock Lesnar.

Lesnar absolutely demolished Mark and squashed any micro-fiber of return juice that Mark Henry gained by coming back. I'm sure you could ask Mark at the end of his long career, whenever that would be , that he would say he had a good career. He wouldn't be lying , Mark has lasted a long time. He really didn't change gimmicks much either and his face/heel turns are way lower than Big Show's.

To answer the OP's question.... it's pretty hard to keep guys like Show, Henry , Kane fresh when they've been on the tube doing the same stuff every week for almost 20 years. Very difficult to scrap that kind of staleness away. If I had to make the decisions...I'd repackage Show and Henry as a tag team...with the same wrestling gear and give them a generic name .. The World's Largest Tag Team or something...anything that would bolster the tag team division. Hell, throw Kane in as their Manager...he's good on the mic. There you go...they're instantly fresh being put together dominating the tag team division for awhile.

 

[WorstWrestlingExcrement]

Amidst all the teeth gnashing about WWE becoming stale, about creative dropping the ball on certain guys or about the dead zone that is Summerslam to Royal Rumble, you rarely see this topic discussed. So today I'm asking, is the longevity of modern WWE wrestlers actually a big problem for creative? Before we get in to the modern roster I'm going to list off some numbers that show the consecutive amount of years some big names racked up in their prime runs. Some of these guys returned for brief stints afterwards but this is a look at when they were mid to top of the card acts in the WWF on a regular basis.

Bret Hart - 13 years
Hulk Hogan - 10 years
Shawn Michaels - 10 years
Macho Man - 9 years (including two as color commentator)
Million Dollar Man - 8 years (including two as manager)
Mr Perfect - 6 years (2 as manager/color commentator)
Jake Roberts - 6 years (even that was broken up twice with brief exits)
Ultimate Warrior - 5 years
Rick Rude - 3 years
Kevin Nash - 3 years

Now this might be purely aimed at fans of the WWF at the time, but when I think of the careers of some of those guys I think they lasted a lifetime. Hogan from 84 to 94 seems like an age and by the time he left it felt like he had been around far too long. Same with wrestlers like Macho Man and the Million Dollar Man, they felt like guys from a bygone era by the time they departed. Bret and Shawn not so much, due to them having to work their way up the card from the bottom, but still, by 1997 it felt like the two of them practically were the company. Kudos to the Warrior, Nash and Rude for managing to pack so much in to a relatively short run as well. I say relatively short because I'd now like you to take a look at some of the current figures.

Undertaker - 25 years
Triple H - 20 years
Mark Henry - 19 years
Kane - 18 years
Big Show - 16 years
John Cena - 13 years
Randy Orton - 13 years
Dolph Ziggler - 10 years
Kofi Kingston - 8 years
Tyson Kidd - 6 years
Sheamus - 6 years
Wade Barrett - 5 years

That is guys we see on our screen most weeks of the year, with the exception of the Undertaker who I still included as he has been a focal point of the company each year since his debut. Just compare some of that for a moment. Bret Hart, who scratched and clawed his way up from the bottom, was there for the same amount of time as Randy Orton, who some people still think has a peak to give. Dolph Ziggler has been around for as long as Hulk Hogan was in his first run. Kofi Kingston actually has one year on Macho Man as an active in-ring competitor whilst Sheamus and Tyson Kidd have had the same tenures as Perfect and Roberts, more even when you take away the two older superstars time out of the ring. Wade Barrett has been around for the same length of time the Ultimate Warrior was.

So back to that question. Is it even possible for WWE Creative to keep guys like Kofi and Sheamus feeling fresh in our minds? Not to mention Big Show, Mark Henry and Kane? Or is just that we need new faces coming in on a more regular basis?

You forgot to add STING 29 years more than underfaker and he is in top shape!

RIC FLAIR - 40 years
LEX LUGER -13 years
SID VICIOUS over 20 years

 

[Wald]

No, it's a problem with only having one promotion. Your numbers are all wrong on the top of this list.

Hulk Hogan was a legit main eventer from 1980-2000 on a close to full time schedule and until 2006 on a limited "Undertaker like" special attraction basis, that's over 25 years

I clearly said

Before we get in to the modern roster I'm going to list off some numbers that show the consecutive amount of years some big names racked up in their prime runs. Some of these guys returned for brief stints afterwards but this is a look at when they were mid to top of the card acts in the WWF on a regular basis.

WCW, AWA, NWA runs don't come in to the equation as we're talking about WWF/E. A lot of people didn't switch back and forth between the companies in their viewing either. Hell I'm from Ireland and I didn't even have the choice of watching AWA or NWA ever. WCW started getting shown around 1992/93 on Saturday mornings I think but by that stage the interest was starting to cool for most.

So Hulk wasn't a WWF main event player from 1980 to 2000, HBK wasn't from 1986 to 2009 and all the rest are the same. It doesn't even matter much if you want to compare Hogan's ten year run to a current wrestler's ten year run anyway.

 

[FromGlasgow]

I think the longevity of todays wrestlers is more down to theres not many other places for them to go, Back in the day Hogan for example was headlining in Japan and the AWA before going to the WWF then went to WCW for years which is similar to a lot of your first list, The product felt fresher they whilst Hogan, Savage, Hall and Nash went to WCW from WWF guys like Austin, Triple H, Foley for example all came over from WCW to the WWF all within a couple of years of each other they could switch and change talent quite frequently giving the product more dream main event matches etc instead of the same stale matches we see now where everyone comes up the same way, Like when Ric Flair left WCW for WWF around the early 90s it felt like a big moment and once he returned to WCW around 93 it felt like a big moment again which I think worked out better for everyone involved.

 

[sMark]

I think WWE need to really shake up their roster every 2-3 years, replacing the guys who don't connect with the fans with the new ones, whatever their names and career longetivity are, at the same time if the guy draw in fans, why not keep him, or if he can't go on weekly basis anymore, but still draw, why not give him a part time contract.
Around half the guys need to be changed this way.

When you have the same guys in the same spots years after years, they simply run out of fresh feuds and matches, so the fans get bored.

For example, if we take a look at today's roster, Rose, Riley, Big Show, Bo Dallas, Otunga, Motodores, Rowan, Fandango, Slater, Swagger, Kane, Henry, Sheamus, Ryder, all should be fired and replaced with new fresh talents, half of them do not appear on TV anyway.

 

[MMK]

This is my biggest beef with wrestling today. The never ending tenure of some superstars. Big Show and Kane being the worst culprits of all. In fact if you add Kane's time as Fake Diesel and Issac Yankem he's been there from 1995 to 2015: 20 years of Glen Jacobs.

And it's not just the long tenure of some of these guys. It's that they actually STAY in the main event for the majority of that time. When you compare main event runs of guys from the past to guys from today it becomes even more stark.

MODERN DAY MAIN EVENT TENURES
Triple H: 11 years (still occasionally in the odd main event so it could be 16)
Randy Orton: 12 years and counting.
John Cena: 11 years and counting.

PAST MAIN EVENT TENURES
Hulk Hogan: 10 years
Steve Austin: 5 years
The Rock: 5 years (though he's in the odd main event here and there these days)
Bret Hart: 5 years
Shawn Michaels: 2 years (could be much higher if you count his second run. Although even in that run he only competed for the championship the first 2 year. After that he would be in marquee matches but they were rarely if ever for a title)
Diesel: 1 year
Ultimate Warrior: 2 years (1990 and a combination of 91-92 where he made sporadic appearances)

It's in part due to the fact that there is no WCW to jump ship to anymore, no more territories, so guys just hang around forever with no where else to go. The only other option would be retiring with dignity and in your prime. Hahaha. As if thats gonna happen. But it's also in part because they're just creatively lazy and have run out of ideas and main event level talent.

 

[whoopin' ass]

I have thought about this too and I don't think it is the length of their career as much as the length of their position. Look at Cena and Orton - nearly a decade at the top and almost impossible to build decent feuds around. But look at Edge - because of the way he worked up the roster and because he could work with anyone and you believed it(i.e. he didn't always have to win), people never got tired of him. I think that is creating the issue since there is relatively little room to move up so we get tired of seeing the same guys in the same spot. Look at Hogan - when he was in WWF, he was top dog. It took him going to WCW to let guys like Bret and Shawn move up. But look what happened then in WCW - Hogan was on top and again, no one moved up. Oh sure they made other guys the champ but there was no mistaking who the top guy in the company was. wwe is in the same spot now. When Mania comes around, you have 4 matches automatically because Cena, Orton, HHH and Taker all need matches. Everyone else has to scramble for a spot. In the past, people moved to WCW so the roster got shaken up a little and it didn't seem so bad. I mean, people never complained about another Austin/Rock match because they never had 1000 matches on tv like Cena/Orton. The top guys never hung around this long and now that they do, it impacts the whole roster. Clear out some of those guys and things will change. That's why I feel bad for guys comping in from NXT or even someone like Rollins - you are not really getting a fair shake. You may get lucky and win the title but you are never going to be the top guy.