My thought on Part Timers in the WWE

[Poop Master Flex]

Now I'm sure I'm not the first person to comment on it so this isn't meant to be original, if there is another thread I apologize, I simply couldn't find it so I made a new one (although I believe there was one a while ago but I digress).

With Wrestlemania 29 2 days away I much like others on this forum is getting geared up for the biggest show of the year. There are some decent matches on the card but the main event is as follows: Rock/Cena II, HHH/Lesnar II and Punk/Taker (first time at a big 4 PPV from what I recall). Now I'm sure others have noticed but all 3 of those matches and 2/3 of those guys are part timers which got me thinking.

The 1st thing I will say is I enjoy all 4 of the part timers, they can all bring something to the table and I certainly have no issues with them on Wrestlemania in big matches. With that said I do think it's a bad idea in the long run when you build your biggest event of the year around these part timers and here is my reason why.

One of my favorite shows is How I Met Your Mother, a big fan of the characters, the humor and the story itself. For those who don't know its about a guy named Ted and this is the story of how he met the mother of his children (hence the title). Now imagine in a 25 episode season you only saw Ted 5 episodes the ENTIRE season with 3 of those episodes him getting 5 minutes each, now they can make decent television with the other characters, they are certainly strong but at the end of the day the show suffers because Ted is in essence the glue of the show, without Ted there is no show. It's the same reason why Happy Days and That 70's Show made it a few seasons after Richie and Eric left, the glue is not there and then everything falls apart.

Now I know wrestling isn't a sitcom (although I wonder if the WWE knows that some days) but the theory is the same. Currently the top 6 in wrestling are Cena, Punk, HHH, Lesnar, Taker and Rock, most of those guys won't be there in a month at least not in a significant way. I'm not saying the part timers need to be on TV every week but they at least need to be an integral part of the show. Usually they wrestle a match, do a 1-2 month program and fall off the grid for 6 months, then repeat. Even though Hogan wasn't on TV every week he was still the focal point of the show, The Rock, Brock and HHH especially are focal points to the show, but they aren't there most of the time therefore the focal point is lost and the direction itself is lost as a result. Cena and Punk are full time focal points but basically they are messing around until another part timer shows up to give them a big program, or they are messing around with each other. At the end of the day though it may be great for Cena and Punk but it doesn't nothing for the other 70 guys on the roster (speaking of which WHY THE HELL IS THERE SUCH A BIG ROSTER?).

The other guys gotta get over on their own merits as well but its apparent outside of Cena and Punk everyone else is a mechanic and nothing else. I'm not saying they can do better than mechanic but how do you know if you don't push them hard enough and give them a legit chance to not be a mechanic. I'm no fan of Ziggler but just because he was in a program with Cena doesn't mean he was ever posed as a real threat to Cena, he was just a randomer thrown to Cena to give him something to do until he faced Rock, it did nothing for Ziggler at the end of the day, his stock didn't rise at ALL, he just faced Cena and that was it. I'm not saying that Ziggler doesn't deserve some of the blame but I think the bigger problem is the back and the focal point of the show.

Ziggler, Swagger, Bryan, Henry, ect. will never be a real threat and will never be real top guys unless they are posed as a threat, unless they are pushed in such a way that the fans believe they can give Cena a run for his money, believe they can give Punk a run for his money, they are just guys fucking around with Cena and Punk, they aren't guys who are near Cena and Punks level, they may have the skills but the fans don't know that unless they are told that.

Ziggler could only even remotely stagger Cena if he had AJ or Tittie Langston helping him out, he wasn't a threat, he was a heel who basically said "I am not on Cena's level so I'm gonna steal his GF with her Tittie African friend and maybe mess with him in hopes I can beat him". Of course heels cheat and do stuff like that but you still believe these heels can get it done on their own as in they are a threat. Punk was made to look like a threat to Cena, he never beat Cena without some shenanigans but he was built to look like he COULD beat Cena on his own and look what happened, Punk is now a main eventer for life as a result and his stock has risen higher than ever, without that feud with Cena that doesn't happen and Punk is still an upper mid card guy in the fans eyes. Punk was IMO the best guy they had the 2 years before his infamous promo but his feud with Cena let the fans know that.

All in all when you build your big events around part timers direction is lost throughout the rest of the year. With Punk they got lucky and struck gold in the process but at the end of the day the only guys that are really built as big names are Punk and Cena, no one else and because the WWE is basically building their shows around part timers and working around part timers it leaves everyone else in the dust.

In WWE it's never lets pair wrestler A with Cena, have them work towards a big match, have wrestler A give Cena a run for his money, Cena wins but now fans are more invested in wrestler A because he was made to look like he could possibly dethrone Cena down the road. It's next to impossible for that to happen when you build everything around guys who are only there sparingly because they get the focus.

I don't hate part timers, I like seeing guys like Lesnar back once in a while but you can't build your show around guys like Lesnar because they are rarely there, just like you can't build HIMYM if Ted is only there 5 episodes.

Damn that got wordy. Anyways what is everyone else's thoughts on this? Do you think its a good idea or bad idea to build the WWE around part timers even if they are bigger names? All comments are welcome as long as they are thought out.

 

[GeneralKarim]

I completely agree.You pretty much said everything I was thinking since the road to wrestlemania started.

I myself am a big fan of Lesnar's the man is a legit beast and I was really happy for him to be back.Im a fan of the Rock aswell, like basically everyone.

Problem is as you said you cannot have all the main feuds with part timers and they dont show up to build up the feud.So the times they dont show up you have a crappy show full of filler matches and squashes - > See all the Raws in recent times.

I think a match is a ok with part timers, but you have a problem when u relly only on part timers for your main events.

Dolph isnt getting any younger , I mean he is 32 so he is young obviously, but how much till he is at a status that he can carry a wrestlemania , sure in my eyes he already can, but for the guys in the back?

We have a very nice pool of talent that can carry wrestlemania in the years to come, members of the shield, u have Antonio Cesaro, ziggler, wade barret, hell miz, daniel bryan, Damien, Cody Rhodes.

But they need to utilize the talent better.Does every talent have to do a worked shoot like CM Punk to get to the top?

WWE needs to start thinking in terms of longevity.They need to make people see Daniel Bryan, Dolph Ziggler, Ryback, Damien Sandow and all those listed above and say "OK ok im buying this PPV or WM".

I see a lot of posts of people saying stuff about how the part timers draw and that is why they are back.Yes that is true.But at what point do you have to start putting your full timers in positions to become draws?

They need to find new stars.Not have your IC/US champ job in random matches just cause.

That is the problem with the new stars today, sure its some their fault, but a lot of fault is the guys in the back who direct everything. They dont put the wrestlers in advantageous positions.They dont put them in positions where they can excel or where they can show their talents. They just give them a lot of meaningless matches and feud and expect something to happen.Sure its not always like this but most of the time it is.

I mean I swear i cannot remember what wade has done since he came back
I cannot remember what Antonio has done , besides his feat of strenght showings.
I cannot remember what Miz has done.
I remember what Daniel Bryan has done.And that is become a comedic joke for no reason.He is not as over as he was when he was with Punk kicking Mark Hery both ways etc.Sure they had some good comedy, but now its just stupid and unoriginal.

See a pattern? They dont do things that bear any meaning.Just filler stuff.How are people suppoed to take them seriously in a feud with Cena or Cm Punk or w/e part timer wants to put them over when u dont build them up.

 

[Fansince1992]

Cena vs Rock doesn't have that Aura around it like it did last year. The Match last year people were pumped. This year everyone knows The Rock will vanish back into his films. (I think i read somewhere that Rock is advertised for Exteme Rules and the Raw after WM not 100% on that)

Seems a little to predictable that Cena leaves Mania with the belt. You could blame this on Rock only being Part-Time which hurts the WM Main-Event. Also Cena has lost his last 2 Mania's against Miz and Rock. Will WWE have thier biggest full time draw lose 3 in a row? i doubt it.

Last year was amazing it was Rocks 1st singles match for 8 years and Cena vs Rock 1 was a type of match you really couldn't pick the winner. Imagine if Rock was full-time it would have that same sort of Aura as WM28 did, but because fans know The Rock isn't sticking around, it's taking some shine off the WWE Championship Match for me.

Last year i payed the money to watch Mania LIVE mainly because of the intrigue of who would win between Cena and Rock. This year i will watch Mania the morning after for free because it seems a bit to predictable. I might curse if The Rock somehow walks out of Mania with the gold, but i'll take that chance.

Like thousands of other fans i love seeing Rock, Brock, HHH, Taker, HBK, Austin, but as i have stated, it does take a bit of shine off Wrestlemania for me. Just my Opinion of course.

To add,, here in in England Wrestlemania is £3 more this year. £18.95 isn't going to convince me to order the PPV.

 

[deadtaker]

The biggest problem with part timers is the build up to the matches. An art lost in WWE which is probably just as important as the match itself. Usually the big matches are all built on for months often before Royal Rumble starts.

How many of the feuds started before Elimination Chamber? 1 Rock-Cena. Several instances I remember the title situation being set up as fat back as the summer before. Wrestlemania 10 Lex Luger and Yokozuna had been an on going thing since Summerslam. Kane Undertaker at Wrestlemania 14 started in October. Goldberg-Brock Lesner, Undertaker-Kane, Chris Benoit-HHH-HBK at wrestlemania 20 were all started at the Royal Rumble and really was the sole focus of there feud

The matches this year are all dream matches on paper but there is no meaning to them, no reason, no hate. Why does Punk want to fight Undertaker? What are Brock and HHH fighting for?

You can't have animosity or even a reason for them to fight other than because wwe can. It sells Wrestlemania and Summerslam. The rest of the pay-per-views and TV ratings be damned.

For Wrestlemania the part timers have to be there every week from royal rumble to Wrestlemania at least. You don't have to do much but you have to build the feud and having the guys face to face week after week builds the anticipation.

 

[shooter_mcgavin]

The problem with part timers headlining Wrestlemania is that Wrestlemania is supposed to be culmination of months of WWE programing leading to Wrestlemania. What I mean is you build up a superstar give him/her feuds to move them up so they can be ready for the "grandest stage of them all".

But with part timers it give writers an excuse to be lazy in saying "oh part timer A and part timer B" draws so we don't need to build up our current mid card / upper mid card roster at the event. So what happens the product becomes stale only filling out the time until guys like Taker, Rock, Triple H and Lesnar work on their programs.

Do you think if these guys weren't available at WM, you would see the same lack of urgency building up their full time roster? Guys like Wade Barrett, Sheamus, Cody Rhodes, Daniel Bryan, Dolph Ziggler, and Kofi Kingston? Of course not. WWE would have been more pressured to be creative in how they prepare them to become draws by WM.

Look at at WM14, look how The Rock, Triple H, The New Age Outlaws, Mick Foley, and Kane were build up leading to Wrestlemania. None of these guys were huge draws before Wrestlemania but they didn't have a Hogan, Savage, or Flair as part time guys to book WM. So there was a push to make their current roster over enough to carry wrestlemania.

There is no longer that urgency. Example look at the IC Champion at the time The Rock, and now Wade Barrett. Between November to Wrestlemania you can see the difference in how they were pushed leading to WM. The Rock was given excellent programs with Shamrock and within his stable while Barrett is given a few filler matches on TV. Since WWE knew that the part time guys are going to sell WM, the urgency is gone.

Of course short term business wise it's more profitable. But what about long term? What if a time comes when The Rock leaves again, or how about if Triple H decides to fully commit to backstage stuff, or when Taker becomes so banged up can't even work one match a year? What happens then? Will the WWE rush and make up for lost time, something that could have been prevented before hand.

Eventually were going to see a transition looking like this

So yeah part timers working the big matches at WM is not a good business model. It benefits the short term gain but stifled the progression of the current mid card talent that long term it's going to cost them.

 

[Cena's #1 In My Heart]

I agree they are creating a bit of a problem and overshadowing the talent that deserves the chance to shine.

But uhh.. maybe they should just use their part timers better. Spread them out. Not position them as the best, and actually let some of your full time roster look better than your part time roster... therefore overcomming the problem of your full time roster looking weak to those old timers who come in for the big paycheck at Wrestlemania and steal spots.

Brock Lesnar vs Cena from Extreme Rules is a prime example.. boost other PPV buyrates as well, get people to see the undercard of those shows as well. Get people to start looking at the Money in the Bank as another Royal Rumble type show.

Book it better and it will be built better.

 

[Hard Hit Prince]

I have no problem with the part-timers, zero problems really... Jesus, can anybody please explain me what's the problem by having The Rock, Brock Lesnar or The Undertaker at WrestleMania? I mean, we are talking about three of the best guys to ever step foot in this industry. Why in the blue hell should I be upset with that? I want to see those guys in the spotlight, because it makes sense. I for once, would freaking hate to see The Undertaker go toe to toe with Daniel Bryan, specially with the latest being booked as a midcard star.

They are not the reason why guys can't get over, they are not. In 2011, by then there was this big match booked for WrestleMania 28, and it was John Cena vs. The Rock. However, the year is 365 days long, probably around 40 plus weeks, and you are telling me that only five of that weeks are the ones that really count? Well, I'll give you a prime example of something that happened with the part-timers coming out:

CM Punk's rise to the top... He's the guy that solely won a Hall of Famer career thanks to part-timers. If it wasn't for Dwayne vs. Cena booked a 1 year after, he wouldn't have snapped to cut the promo in Las Vegas, if it wasn't for Rock's return, he wouldn't have had a 400 plus WWE title reign, because after Raw 1000, it was a given that they were going to clash for the championship, and since they wanted to push Punk even higher they maintained that title reign. Moreover, if it wasn't for Brock Lesnar's return, Paul Heyman wouldn't most certainly be around Punk nowadays. If The Undertaker didn't return, CM Punk would probably be wrestling someone like a Randy Orton, or a Ryback so, maybe it's just me but he gained a lot, and I mean A LOT thanks to part-timers.

There is a lot more, I can pretty much begin to say that people like Daniel Bryan exploded, thanks to The Rock's effect on making WrestleMania 28, the highest grossing event in pro-wrestling history. If it wasn't for him, people wouldn't probably made Daniel Bryan explode as a WWE Superstar.

They are there for a reason, and that's to entertain. Calling them "part-timers" is stupid, I'm pretty sure The Rock appeared in more PPV's between January 2012 till now, than Christian or something like that. They are WWE Superstars, and probably and arguably top talent. They are not there to push people that may or may not flop. They are there to establish people who are already growing with a successful past. Why on god's blue earth do you think that part-timers mean "veterans who should push others" like Kane or Show?

I mean, thats how it works... There is no way Steve Austin would return to feud with a guy like Dolph Ziggler, or a guy like Fandango and stuff like that. No, he would return to further establish guys that are already big, guys like Cena, Punk or Orton. Guys that proved that they can be the cashcows for the WWE. Jesus, Hogan only lost to The Rock, because The Rock was already a main event star, not because they wanted to try something that could or not work. Just because they appear in a limited schedule, and just because they don't do live events, that doesn't mean we can't appreciate what they are doing, I mean Chris Jericho is a part-timer and his job is to push people up. Stop complaining and nitpicking at everything, and for the guy that said:

"Why is CM Punk fighting The Undertaker?" Pay freaking attention to the shows please and you'll know the reason.

 

[JASONIGHTMARE]

I totally agree with DeanerandTerry that is why vince mc moron thinks he can still capitalize the magic for wrestlemania. In my opinion the past 3 worst wrestlemanias have been filler matches with part time wrestlers . Y2Jerkiko has been jobbing non stop and he will job yet again for fandango! Brock Lesner might job for HHH , CM Punk I hope they don't make him job I mean he was a Main eventer and longest reigning champion (Last thing you want to do is job him to a beer belly flabbin, leather claddin and mascara wearin 57 yo)I am hoping Brock Lesner makes his suprise interference to end in DQ
It's boring and (yawner) to see mark callaway a part timer wrestle once a year and drink beer 360 days a year c'mon already! Can you imagine if Steve Borden would job to him I am glad he didn't. Vince realizes that UFC is a huge threat and depends on his part timer Legend wrestlers to capitalize on profit and be the sole competition to UFC cause many wrestling fans have tuned ou t adverted and converted to MMA. The other thing I noticed many fans tend to complian that TNA has too many old wrestlers in their roster which ain't true cause TNA is building the new generation wrestlers while wwe is burying the young talented wrestlers like Prime Time Players , Primo and Epico, Brodus Clay,Cody Rhodes,Ted Dibiase Jr, Damian Sandow, what ever happend to Evan Bourne?(TNA bound), Christian Cage?(TNA bound),Great Khali(never in wmania)?, Antonio Cesaro,Heath Slater,Drew McIntyre,Sin Cara,R-truth,Santino Mozzarella,Zack Ryder,Tyson Kidd,Justin Gabriel,Kofi Kingston(Lost in the shuffle)? (TNA bound), Hunico ,Alex Riley and list goes on
I wouldn t be suprised if all those wrestlers head to TNA they can be used greatly and not be pushed aside since all we have are over 35 yo wrestlers , Brock, ROck,HHH, HBK,Y2J,Kane,Underfaker,Great Khali,Big show, and so on
wwe has failed in pushing thier young talents of tomorrow and mc mahon thinks he can keep going with his wmanias till he reaches superbowl numbers come on

 

[Alastor]

I don't see an issue with building a storyline around a part timer. It just means a feud lasts for 6 months but with only 2-3 months of promo/matches instead of 6 month long feud of repeated matches/promos of the same thing with 'ADDED STIPULATION WOW'. Less we forget the awful months of Cena vs Orton or Cena vs Sheamus or ADR vs Sheamus recycled every month until they reach 4-6 month mark?

I guess we just need to get used to part timers headlining the biggest PPV of the company instead of them headlining lesser ones to boost buy rates. You can't build stars that you want to headline for years just like that unless he has natural charisma like Cena or Punk. Even those two took years to become the 'top dog' after being in the main event picture. Exposing the mid card guys for the sake of being seen as pushing new stars serve only to risk them losing their momentum for months.

 

[Dysturbed]

Calling them "part-timers" is stupid, I'm pretty sure The Rock appeared in more PPV's between January 2012 till now, than Christian or something like that.

I fully agree with most of your post because it is true that part timers have brought great things to the company. Certain wrestlers being on the card may "take spots" away from others, but it also can potentially get people to view the cards that otherwise wouldn't, and then take notice of the others who eventually will be the ones that they hopefully care to see the most. That and it can help out those who face them or have situations like the one you mentioned with Punk.

The part I quoted though I somewhat disagree with because The Rock appearing in more matches than an injured wrestler doesn't change The Rock's status as a part timer if that is what you were hinting at. In any job, If someone is hired to work a full time schedule but needs to take an extended leave because of injury, a bad illness, maternity leave, suspension, etc then it doesn't make them a part timer, rather it makes them a full timer that needs time off and will then return to fulfill their full time obligations, as long as they keep their job. The fact that The Rock (intended for a short term stint) has had more matches than an injured wrestler who they are then waiting to use, doesn't realistically take away their part time(Rock) and full time (Christian and injured wrestlers) intended statuses or deserved labels.

IMO calling certain wrestlers "part timers" is only stupid if they are being labeled as such in a way that makes them seem like they are doing something horrible (which I think is what you are getting at). As we know, in many jobs, a part time employee can stick around for the entire year year after year and still only be considered part timer because of the hours that they are scheduled compared to the hours that "full timers" are scheduled. In the case of WWE, if someone is hired and scheduled with the specific purpose of working a part time schedule (regardless of the benefits that they bring to a company when around) then they are a part timer.

Then there is Jericho who is technically is a part time employee over the periods where he intends to leave after a set amount of time, but he works a full time schedule during that time period. It doesn't mean that he can't understandably be labeled a part timer if someone chooses to do so. (you didn't say it wouldn't be understandable but my point is that there are different reasons to use the term) At the same time, it doesn't group him in an identical category with someone who literally is only intended at this point to have a few matches and a minimal amount of appearances per year.
Then there is the fact that some full time wrestlers employees rarely appear on television yet are still considered full timers because that it what they are hired to be.

Some non wrestlers can be considered full timers even if they aren't at a lot of house shows which is of course because it is all situational and based on the intent, contracts, etc that each individual is given by the company. IMO those things explain why the term should be dismissed as stupid, just because some people use the term in a negative way.

 

[Dysturbed]

If not for my previous post being a long one, and this one as well I wouldn't have double posted so I hope that it isn't an issue. If so then I apologize.

So yeah part timers working the big matches at WM is not a good business model. It benefits the short term gain but stifled the progression of the current mid card talent that long term it's going to cost them.

Maybe I am being too optimistic, but in a few years time (or less), the stifled progression that you speak of may not be as much of a factor. The way that developmental has been working to establish stronger characters pre debut, compared to how things used to be where a wrestler would be one character then debut as another, often without a gimmick at all, should in theory give the main rosters more interesting performers. Those performers can thenstick out quite a bit at a time when "part timers" or full timer vets like Kane and Mark Henry aren't a factor.

Dean Ambrose (plus there are others on the roster that the same can apply to)have frequent airtime and in some cases titles or feuds against big names, yet still haven't truly displayed or more fully evolve their character. That seems sure to happen over the next few years. Guys like Kassius Ohno, Bray Wyatt, Corey Graves, etc should at some point be on the main roster and hopefully be well received.

Compare the newer guys to come up or the ones that will to a few years ago where members of Nexus came up. I liked Nexus, but their version of developmental and treatment after arrival involved different philosophies. When I say treatment I am not suggesting that I didn't like the Nexus angle, but am suggesting that some of the members involved were given less defined gimmicks and personalities off the bat than developmental now offers. When the group broke up, there wasn't much immediate individuality to work with. When the Shield eventually break up (or even before) those involved seem sure to be able to truly show what makes them stand out.

It may not have had a full fledged impact on television yet, but the progression that I mentioned has been evident (to me at least). With that being said, chances are that in a few years it will be even more evident as some big names stop coming around or being around, wrestlers like Ziggler and Bryan are regular main eventers, guys like Cena maybe start to take some breaks, etc.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

Maybe I shouldn't have called them part timers but I'm calling a spade a spade, its not a knock its just a fact, if you work 20 hours instead of 40 or work 3 days a week they are part time.

As I said I have no issues with part timers but you can't rely on them as heavily as WWE does, its just a bad idea for the simple fact they can only carry the load sometimes not all the time. I also feel its not a good idea when these part timers who can do wonders for the business aren't used as such, its not their fault but they aren't being used to their potential. Part timers like Lesnar and The Rock can be a beautiful thing but it hasn't been that way at all.

All the big part time names only work with each other or with guys who won't go higher, Cena and Punk have hit their ceilings so why have these guys face guys they cant elevate? Why not have Lesnar face Del Rio (who is a former MMA champion) , or Daniel Bryan. Lesnar can win but if these guys hang with Lesnar and even have him on the ropes for a few they now look more legitimate as a result, they cement themselves as future ayers and I mean real players. Cena vs. The Rock again is nice, it does a good buyrate but tomorrow you are back to square one, exactly where you were the year before that, and the year before that, no progression made. That's my issue, nothing gets built with these part timers, there is no long term planning and thats a problem.

Tyson was used in a long term manner as he validated Austin as the top guy, The Rock is just losing to a top guy who's already validated (assuming he loses) so does Cena get raised higher? Not at all.

My issue isn't the fact there are part timers but they are built as WWE's top stars and outside of 1-2 nights a year for a buyrate they don't do anything for the WWE. You could get the buyrate and build the future, things should be a lot better. If you have to rely on part timers to get big money then you're doing something wrong, very wrong.

 

[Hard Hit Prince]

Part timers like Lesnar and The Rock can be a beautiful thing but it hasn't been that way at all.

This is subjective and a lie, a big fn lie... Can you please explain how in the blue hell aren't they a "beautiful" things if they both manage to improve PPv buyrates and TV ratings? They are working, and they are working very well since a lot of people tune in to see them. Now your ridiculous idea of having Lesnar feud against someone like Daniel Bryan or Del Rio, I already explained. We are talking about Brock Lesnar and The Rock, I mean we are talking about two big stars, BIG STARS, not the same likes as Chris Jericho (who is a part-timer), we are talking about two guys that are as credible and as big as Hulk Hogan or Steve Austin. They are not meant to be booked as an average guy like Kane or Big Show, who have the responsibility of pushing new guys.

Those big WWE Legends, and Pro-Wrestling Legends are meant to work with guys that are already established. Hogan vs. Andre for instance, Hogan was already established, he was already big and he feuded with Andre in order to create a buzz and being able to grow, and in able to continue to sell at the same numbers he already did. WWE should not bet on a guy that can pretty much screw things up, what's the purpose of putting Daniel Bryan with Lesnar, if it is a chance that Bryan could pretty much fail to gain attention, and with that, ruin Lesnar's momentum for nothing?

Go back to WrestleMania 18 - The Rock vs. Hulk Hogan, think, Rock was already a main event star, former world champion, one of the biggest draws ever and they did the match. Do you think they should have made Hulk Hogan vs. Rob Van Dam? RVD flopped when it was time for the main event scene, he ruined it all so they literally made the right decision. It's just business, and a very good one in my mind. Plus, I would rather watch dream matches and dream feuds, instead of watching guys that I admired being used as Kane or Show to push guys that I don't see getting bigger than them.

 

[Dysturbed]

All the big part time names only work with each other or with guys who won't go higher, Cena and Punk have hit their ceilings so why have these guys face guys they cant elevate?

I think that part of the reason deals with the concept of "big time matches" have a limited time to happen at this point. I realize that seems like a stupid statement since the three biggest matches on the card have already happened but storyline wise a guy who preaches to never give up just accepting that he lost to The Rock last year wouldn't fit. (Then again WWE is known to deviate from what would realistically happen.) If a rematch was inevitable, despite the "Once In a lifetime" thing, then Wrestlemania is probably the best stage to do it. Plus the Rock's loss has been established to have had an effect on Cena, so avenging at Wrestlemania as opposed to at another ppv seems rational to me.

As for Punk facing The Undertaker and not someone to elevate, it is at a point where anything less than a top star for The Undertaker to face at WM isn't an option. Taker vs HBK, Triple H, or Punk wasn't/isn't new or a "dream match" in regards to dream matches being something that people wish they could see that seems like it may never happen, but in his later career, the person he faces has to be have a specific prestige and pose a certain threat. Other than Punk, it is Cena or even Orton again seem to fit that description the most. With Payback being near Chicago, Punk probably will only take off through Extreme Rules so, since he'd have a new feud going into that ppv, it will be interesting to see if that is a point when, even if he wins, he has an opportunity to face someone new.

Why not have Lesnar face Del Rio (who is a former MMA champion) , or Daniel Bryan. Lesnar can win but if these guys hang with Lesnar and even have him on the ropes for a few they now look more legitimate as a result, they cement themselves as future ayers and I mean real players. Cena vs. The Rock again is nice, it does a good buyrate but tomorrow you are back to square one, exactly where you were the year before that, and the year before that, no progression made. That's my issue, nothing gets built with these part timers, there is no long term planning and thats a problem.

Those are two good options and maybe at some point we will see those matches at a different ppv. Big names won't be around at some point and the biggest matches possible for that time will involve different people. As annoying as that may be, it is the reality of how things usually are, and probably with good reason. Other than in video games, we are never going to see every possible good matchup that we want to see.

I understand that even though Triple H lost to Brock, he could have always had his attention diverted by someone else storyline wise but perhaps part of Brock's contract stipulated that he only would face people of a certain prestige and WWE figured that if they really want him to be employed, they may as well concede. Wrestler vs authoirity figure matches have been overdone but with Triple H being way above someone like Vince, Bischoff, etc in the wrestling department, having him feud with a rising star rather than a top star, could do wonders for them, depending on how it is presented. A lot of people are angry still about Punk's loss to him but it didn't harm him overall and the same could maybe be said for someone else. Again, maybe we will see that kind of thing at another ppv.

It isn't the same for the big star vs rising star matches to happen at a ppv other than WM, but is more reasonable to expect.

 

[Richard Blonoff]

This is subjective and a lie, a big fn lie... Can you please explain how in the blue hell aren't they a "beautiful" things if they both manage to improve PPv buyrates and TV ratings? They are working, and they are working very well since a lot of people tune in to see them. Now your ridiculous idea of having Lesnar feud against someone like Daniel Bryan or Del Rio, I already explained. We are talking about Brock Lesnar and The Rock, I mean we are talking about two big stars, BIG STARS, not the same likes as Chris Jericho (who is a part-timer), we are talking about two guys that are as credible and as big as Hulk Hogan or Steve Austin. They are not meant to be booked as an average guy like Kane or Big Show, who have the responsibility of pushing new guys.

Those big WWE Legends, and Pro-Wrestling Legends are meant to work with guys that are already established. Hogan vs. Andre for instance, Hogan was already established, he was already big and he feuded with Andre in order to create a buzz and being able to grow, and in able to continue to sell at the same numbers he already did. WWE should not bet on a guy that can pretty much screw things up, what's the purpose of putting Daniel Bryan with Lesnar, if it is a chance that Bryan could pretty much fail to gain attention, and with that, ruin Lesnar's momentum for nothing?

Go back to WrestleMania 18 - The Rock vs. Hulk Hogan, think, Rock was already a main event star, former world champion, one of the biggest draws ever and they did the match. Do you think they should have made Hulk Hogan vs. Rob Van Dam? RVD flopped when it was time for the main event scene, he ruined it all so they literally made the right decision. It's just business, and a very good one in my mind. Plus, I would rather watch dream matches and dream feuds, instead of watching guys that I admired being used as Kane or Show to push guys that I don't see getting bigger than them.

They are causing the buyrates and TV ratings to inflate, but when they leave those numbers are likely to go down again because when they were around the WWE didn't do a good job of building up a full time guy to be worth watching. So when they leave, a fair number of the people who tuned in to see them will stop watching.

I'm 22, I will be 23 tomorrow(So happy early birthday to me), and I have friends around my age who were big WWE fans when guys like The Rock, 'Taker, and to a lesser extent Brock were in their primes. They hadn't watched wrestling in five or more years, but they tune in to see Rocky and Taker. Once they leave, they won't watch again, they have admitted that. They give no shits about a Ziggler or a Daniel Bryan or a Kofi or a Cesaro because the WWE gave them no reason to care.

That is the reason short term boosts in buyrates and ratings can be misleading, and why the WWE has dropped the ball a bit. Outside of the three main event matches, the only storyline worth a damn is Del Rio/Swagger. Even then, they have to be borderline xenophobic to make that interesting. I have no issue with the storylines involving Rock/Cena, Taker/Punk, and Trips/Brock, but the WWE could help themselves exponentially if they would have used the past couple months to give someone an actual push instead of just having them piddle around like usual.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

This is subjective and a lie, a big fn lie... Can you please explain how in the blue hell aren't they a "beautiful" things if they both manage to improve PPv buyrates and TV ratings? They are working, and they are working very well since a lot of people tune in to see them. Now your ridiculous idea of having Lesnar feud against someone like Daniel Bryan or Del Rio, I already explained. We are talking about Brock Lesnar and The Rock, I mean we are talking about two big stars, BIG STARS, not the same likes as Chris Jericho (who is a part-timer), we are talking about two guys that are as credible and as big as Hulk Hogan or Steve Austin. They are not meant to be booked as an average guy like Kane or Big Show, who have the responsibility of pushing new guys.

Those big WWE Legends, and Pro-Wrestling Legends are meant to work with guys that are already established. Hogan vs. Andre for instance, Hogan was already established, he was already big and he feuded with Andre in order to create a buzz and being able to grow, and in able to continue to sell at the same numbers he already did. WWE should not bet on a guy that can pretty much screw things up, what's the purpose of putting Daniel Bryan with Lesnar, if it is a chance that Bryan could pretty much fail to gain attention, and with that, ruin Lesnar's momentum for nothing?

Go back to WrestleMania 18 - The Rock vs. Hulk Hogan, think, Rock was already a main event star, former world champion, one of the biggest draws ever and they did the match. Do you think they should have made Hulk Hogan vs. Rob Van Dam? RVD flopped when it was time for the main event scene, he ruined it all so they literally made the right decision. It's just business, and a very good one in my mind. Plus, I would rather watch dream matches and dream feuds, instead of watching guys that I admired being used as Kane or Show to push guys that I don't see getting bigger than them.

Apparently you don't unerstand the idea of long term planning, Lesnar and The Rock are short term solutions that puts a halt on long term planning when they can be used long term. You say Hogan worked with Rock, that's true but he helped put Edge over, Angle and Lesnar over as well-written. Hogan worked with Rock at WM, thats ok, that's fine but after WM he was champ for 1 month then as used to put over up and comers so you're only telling part of the story or simy over looking it. I said in my last post working with big stars is fine but also use them to put over future stars like Bryan and Del Rio if these guys are the future. Using big stars is fine but it doesn't have to be done at the expense of others, Hogan proved that in 02. Why not have a month program with Del Rio at a smaller PPV.

The part timers are brought in, Cena and Punk are with them and everyone else gets shovex to the side, good for 1 PPV buyrate bad for the long term.

 

[jacdnwarrior]

It's fair not to be happy with the fact that part timers are there or are the primary focus. That is a short term solution to WWE's real problem. The part timers are there because of the WWE's poor planning.

WWE put themselves in this position when they failed to do better planning for the future. They got rid of or failed to keep performers who could have been a decent option for the main event and/or possible champions. Doing so would have prevented the predictable matchups, with the same 5 or so performers they constantly use in the main event on their tv shows and ppvs. They have been horrible at gauging which talent should be put at the top of the roster, been horrible at developing people who can entertain and deliver the money into the company. Only one star has the ability to make money (maybe more), that's John Cena. There are probably others that may have some ability to generate some income, merchandising, in ring storytelling, solid on the mike, or ppv buyrates, but they don't make people want to watch tv as much or buy ppvs, or generate the income for the company the way Cena and the biggest star of the part timers -and among the biggest in wrestling history- the Rock, does.

The company was experiencing so much difficulty that it lost several millions of dollars, share prices fell and the McMahons lost huge (some estimates are 500 million dollars). So, they made a change and focused on their core business which is wrestling and contacted the Rock, (among others) to return to shore up their business.

The Rock is clearly the biggest star of any of the part timers to return, and among the biggest in the industry's history. He's great on the mike (if he has decent material), he has commercial/ crossover appeal (both wrestling and non wrestling fans know him). You take a look at all 5 part timers, they aren't all money makers like the Rock, or as entertaining, but they could easily surpass any of the main eventers who are in WWE full time, in terms of entertainment value, commercial appeal, and/or story telling in the ring. If you didn't have these part timers, who there stands out in any way ? Who would deliver the big buyrates, tv ratings ?

After these guys leave, the WWE must focus on building a more interesting main event roster for their very survival.

 

[FlairFan2003]

Very simple...If people tune in to watch their favorite old stars aka "part timers" they will also see the new guys WWE is pushing, the ones that typically most fans dont see because they are bored with product and miss their favs, most of which are no longer around, so they dont watch. If I tune in to see HHH & Rock tonight invariably Im going to see Albert Del Rio, The Shield, Ryback, etc, guys otheriwise Im not seeing because Im Im not watching. If I like them I will continue watching.

WWE certainly made the most out of "part timers" like HBK & Flair and to a lesser extent Foley & Hogan in the last decade, holding onto a large audience that otherwise would have turned away with Taker fading, Rock in Hollywood, and Austin retired. That audience, tuning in largely because of "part timers" saw Edge as a legit main event star and not just the pretty boy Tag Team Guy and he became a farily big star. That audience also saw John Cena, Batista, & Randy Orton, all of whom are bigger than Del Rio, The Shield, Ryback, Sheamus, etc are right now. That audience liked those characters and they became fairly popular.

Im not saying this always works. WWE lost out because of Edge & Batista each taking premature retirements and eventually Flair & HBK were either too old or too broke down to keep working. Certainly if Edge Y Batista had stayed WWE would have a pretty good nucleus with Cena, Orton, & CM Punk (the only guy to really be elevated to star level post 2008). Since they dont, WWE has to rely on HHH, Taker, and Rock to help bring back a dwindling audience in the hopes the next round of stars will catch on in the same way. Problem is if they "new guys" arent very good, it doesnt matter because fans wont come back when their "favs" are not prominently featured. When a retired Flair in an interview segment with Mizz is the highest rated segment on RAW (and he was a surprise guest no less) that shows the lack of appreciation the audience has for the new guys, which isnt a good sign.

WWE will for their sake hopefully find that some of these new characters start to click with the audience the way Batista, Orton, Cena, etc did in the last decade during "The Ruthless Aggression Era" which was brought to you by the 80s (where most of the top stars appearing each week became famous or started in the business). In fact, I for their sake I hope it works soon because Taker is almost 50 and hasnt appeared in even a part time fashion prior to WrestleMania for two years now. HHH is getting closer to 50 as well, IE there is only so much time left for these guys to bring in the audience - If the new generation of performers cant "seal the deal" and ignite interest then WWE better scrap some of these guys and start over. A WrestleMania today with No Rock, No Taker, NO HHH, would have such a low buyrate and be universally hailed as a disaster for the company it would not only greatly harm the reputation of the new talent prominently featured in the collossal failure it would hard the one or two name talents people still care about (like Cena & Punk).

I cant say Im too impressed with the new guys, but after tonight I can say "the aprt timers" stole the show and continue to deliver for the fans!

 

[FlairFan2003]

Maybe I shouldn't have called them part timers but I'm calling a spade a spade, its not a knock its just a fact, if you work 20 hours instead of 40 or work 3 days a week they are part time.


All the big part time names only work with each other or with guys who won't go higher, Cena and Punk have hit their ceilings so why have these guys face guys they cant elevate? Why not have Lesnar face Del Rio (who is a former MMA champion) , or Daniel Bryan. Lesnar can win but if these guys hang with Lesnar and even have him on the ropes for a few they now look more legitimate as a result, they cement themselves as future ayers and I mean real players. Cena vs. The Rock again is nice, it does a good buyrate but tomorrow you are back to square one, exactly where you were the year before that, and the year before that, no progression made. That's my issue, nothing gets built with these part timers, there is no long term planning and thats a problem.

Tyson was used in a long term manner as he validated Austin as the top guy, The Rock is just losing to a top guy who's already validated (assuming he loses) so does Cena get raised higher? Not at all.

.

First, I dont know one wrestling fan outside the hardcore IWC that enjoys seeing their favorite stars losing to some newbie, some johnny come lately that hasnt earned the right legitimately to be in the ring with them. And please, dont tell me a new guy is "elevated" by beating a star, you become elevated when you perform at a high level in a popular story that people enjoy, even if as the "newbie" you ultimatley LOSE to the older star, which is what we want to see.

Shelton Benjamin beat HHH & Ric Flair in highly touted RAW matches and was IC Champion. And his career went where ?

Anyone have fond memories of the skyrocketing career Billy Kidman had after beating Hulk Hogan ? How about the legendary Rico after he beating Flair ?

People do remember Randy Savage, a guy who rose through the ranks with some nice wins but ultimately became famous for his great performance in his feuds vs Hogan (1986) & Ricky Steamboat (1987) that ended with him losing the feud and the blow off match. He wsnt elevated to stat status because he pinned Hogan and Steamboat, he lost those feuds, he became a star because the feuds were against popular guys the audience was connected to too so they watched and his performance was good enough they wanted to see more of him.

It took Sting more than two years of almost constant feuding with Flair to finally beat him for the title. In between their were several memorable promos, in ring confrontations, and high profile matches like Clash Of Champions, not too mention numerous house show matches, all pretty much ending with Flair winning. Sting's performance, both in the big Clash Match but in their initial feud over all, built a strong connection with the audience. LOSING for two years to Flair in essence helped make Sting a star.

Lex Luger - same thing, only he never got over Flair in a money match. By the time he beat Hogan for the title in 96 he had been a legit main event star in both companies for nearly 8 years, beating Hogan didnt "make him", he beat Hogan because "he was already made".

Shawn Michaels - The two big moments that clearly elevated him in the minds of fans were his early Survivor Series & WrestleMania matches vs Brett Hart & Scott Hall. HBK became the first person to tap out clean in the ring on PPV to Hart in a World Title Match and lost the first big televised Ladder Match to the more experienced (as a singles wrestler) Hall. Clearly it wasnt "winning" those matches that made him, it was his performance in high profile matches and feuds against established top guys that elevated fans opinion of him. If HBK doesnt connect with fans in a big way in those matches he doesnt become "Mr WrestleMania", he becomes an above average mid carder. The legend of HBK becomes the nice career of Rick Martel or British Bulldog.

So please, dont tell me that the onky way a wrestler benefits is from beating my favorite wrestler who has been busting his a#$ in the ring for the last two decades, because it aint true. You become a star when you work with someone people like and you perform really well. Then we want to see you again.

As for Cena beating Rock, he does benefit. Cena, unlike Rock, will actually wrestle on a house show or at least on more than one PPV every 3 months. The one of Rock rejuvanates him, and as a storyline prop "gets the monkey off his back" from last year. He becomes more hot, and more credible because he overcame the odds and beat the legend at the biggest show of the year after it apeared he could not. People will be eager to see where he goes next. Matching him up against someone like The Shield or Ryback would be a great way to elevate their importance in the eyes of fans, because they are now deemed worthy by sharing the ring with the man who just beat The Rock at WM and once again is World Champ, the iconic John Cena. They dont have to beat Cena, at least not in the blow off match that decides the fuedm but if WWE is smart they will give them an good feud with lots of turns and let the challenger have his share of good moments before ultimately losing, and they will come out of stronger in the eyes of fams for it, plus going forward Cena can have another similar run against another up and comer before more "money matches" against older guys like Lesnar, HHH, Rock, etc take form.
As

 

[Azane]

So, After watching Wrestlemania and how the Part-Timers actually played out, I noticed something that I havent felt in a long time.

I'm not that interested in watching RAW or anything tomorrow, usually a great PPV leaves me wanting to watch the fall out, but I just realized, we're only getting a generic "THE CHAMP IS HERE" (I DVR'd a 2006 promo from Cena, so I can see some more interesting signs though) speech, and 4/6 of the people involved in the Main Event won't be present. The other other match with a real fallout is the Shield.

But I really feel like the "Youth movement" started a few years back was great for the WWE in general, as we saw rising stars, and new blood... fast-forward now, and you remove Taker, Brock, HHH and The Rock, and you realize how shallow WWE's roster is, with all the part timers taking spots from the wrestlers that could be.

I think it's really in WWE's interest to try and invent new stars, rather than bury them with the old. The only real star at WMania that's been made in the last 5 years, is CM Punk, and I think most would agree with me, when I say that Punk made himself.

Knowing that most of the ME talent isn't going to be seen for another 9-11 months took the wind out of my sails, and I doubt I'll be watching WWE programming too seriously until Summerslam build up, if I even decide to watch from then.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

First, I dont know one wrestling fan outside the hardcore IWC that enjoys seeing their favorite stars losing to some newbie, some johnny come lately that hasnt earned the right legitimately to be in the ring with them. And please, dont tell me a new guy is "elevated" by beating a star, you become elevated when you perform at a high level in a popular story that people enjoy, even if as the "newbie" you ultimatley LOSE to the older star, which is what we want to see.

Shelton Benjamin beat HHH & Ric Flair in highly touted RAW matches and was IC Champion. And his career went where ?

Anyone have fond memories of the skyrocketing career Billy Kidman had after beating Hulk Hogan ? How about the legendary Rico after he beating Flair ?

People do remember Randy Savage, a guy who rose through the ranks with some nice wins but ultimately became famous for his great performance in his feuds vs Hogan (1986) & Ricky Steamboat (1987) that ended with him losing the feud and the blow off match. He wsnt elevated to stat status because he pinned Hogan and Steamboat, he lost those feuds, he became a star because the feuds were against popular guys the audience was connected to too so they watched and his performance was good enough they wanted to see more of him.

It took Sting more than two years of almost constant feuding with Flair to finally beat him for the title. In between their were several memorable promos, in ring confrontations, and high profile matches like Clash Of Champions, not too mention numerous house show matches, all pretty much ending with Flair winning. Sting's performance, both in the big Clash Match but in their initial feud over all, built a strong connection with the audience. LOSING for two years to Flair in essence helped make Sting a star.

Lex Luger - same thing, only he never got over Flair in a money match. By the time he beat Hogan for the title in 96 he had been a legit main event star in both companies for nearly 8 years, beating Hogan didnt "make him", he beat Hogan because "he was already made".

Shawn Michaels - The two big moments that clearly elevated him in the minds of fans were his early Survivor Series & WrestleMania matches vs Brett Hart & Scott Hall. HBK became the first person to tap out clean in the ring on PPV to Hart in a World Title Match and lost the first big televised Ladder Match to the more experienced (as a singles wrestler) Hall. Clearly it wasnt "winning" those matches that made him, it was his performance in high profile matches and feuds against established top guys that elevated fans opinion of him. If HBK doesnt connect with fans in a big way in those matches he doesnt become "Mr WrestleMania", he becomes an above average mid carder. The legend of HBK becomes the nice career of Rick Martel or British Bulldog.

So please, dont tell me that the onky way a wrestler benefits is from beating my favorite wrestler who has been busting his a#$ in the ring for the last two decades, because it aint true. You become a star when you work with someone people like and you perform really well. Then we want to see you again.

As for Cena beating Rock, he does benefit. Cena, unlike Rock, will actually wrestle on a house show or at least on more than one PPV every 3 months. The one of Rock rejuvanates him, and as a storyline prop "gets the monkey off his back" from last year. He becomes more hot, and more credible because he overcame the odds and beat the legend at the biggest show of the year after it apeared he could not. People will be eager to see where he goes next. Matching him up against someone like The Shield or Ryback would be a great way to elevate their importance in the eyes of fans, because they are now deemed worthy by sharing the ring with the man who just beat The Rock at WM and once again is World Champ, the iconic John Cena. They dont have to beat Cena, at least not in the blow off match that decides the fuedm but if WWE is smart they will give them an good feud with lots of turns and let the challenger have his share of good moments before ultimately losing, and they will come out of stronger in the eyes of fams for it, plus going forward Cena can have another similar run against another up and comer before more "money matches" against older guys like Lesnar, HHH, Rock, etc take form.
As

Really? So Cena is much more popular and his career is higher because he beat The Rock? Give me a break. He was exactly where he was before The Rock, hell his feud with Punk did more for him than his Rock feud did. Nonetheless we are back at square one now, 2 years of programming and we are where we started back then.

Also you cant become a draw without help from another draw, you can be a good mechanic but not a star. Look through history and name me 1 guy who became a legit draw without the help from another draw? You won't find that person because they don't exist. Since you have draws at your exposal use them to make someone who needs and deserves a break they have plenty of them. You cant make it big without help its a fact, even if the draw is Sylvester Stallone in Rocky III. My point is someone like Bryan needs a big star to help make him as does everyone, if Ziggler spends all his time with mechanics then that's the highest he can go, his feud with Cena wasn't designed to elevate Ziggler it was to give Cena something to do until Rock. No one gets built without people in the back helping them.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

Part timers draw and a puts more eyes on the full timers. It's not a big deal. It really preserves the over mess of the part timers too. Lesnar, Taker, Rock, Jericho, and HHH are more over because they aren't on the show every week.

It's a pretty solid formula they have now. Guys just need to keep working and keep getting over. I can see Ryback vs Lesnar at some point. That'd help get him over in a pretty big way.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

Really? So Cena is much more popular and his career is higher because he beat The Rock? Give me a break. He was exactly where he was before The Rock, hell his feud with Punk did more for him than his Rock feud did. Nonetheless we are back at square one now, 2 years of programming and we are where we started back then.

Also you cant become a draw without help from another draw, you can be a good mechanic but not a star. Look through history and name me 1 guy who became a legit draw without the help from another draw? You won't find that person because they don't exist. Since you have draws at your exposal use them to make someone who needs and deserves a break they have plenty of them. You cant make it big without help its a fact, even if the draw is Sylvester Stallone in Rocky III. My point is someone like Bryan needs a big star to help make him as does everyone, if Ziggler spends all his time with mechanics then that's the highest he can go, his feud with Cena wasn't designed to elevate Ziggler it was to give Cena something to do until Rock. No one gets built without people in the back helping them.

You need 2 to tango. However, Cena going over Rock wasn't about getting Cena more over, that was maximizing profit.

Also, you're not back where you started, you have Cena put on the same level as Rock at this point. You also have new stories with Rock you can do now and a new dynamic between him and Cena earning each other's respect.

You won't always elevate the new guy, but you can waste a legend if you don't put them in a draw match.

 

[tripleddd]

personally I think because of the current state of the wwe - i like the part timers to be invovled but i would like to see them regulary over a 2-3 month period where they have dramatic effect and give credence to the title picture!