Short successful Careers vs. Long successful Careers

[Skullz Crack'Em]

We all know that there are certain wrestlers who could still be wrestling today, but went on to do other things(*cough*The Rock*cough*) and there are other wrestlers who have worn out their welcome, but it is nice to know that they still love the business(*cough*Ric Flair*cough). The question is: Which do you prefer? A short career where a wrestler has accomplished a lot in so little time and became very popular with the fans, but left the business to pursue other goals even though they had a lot more gas in the tank and a return to wrestling would please a lot of fans? Or a long career where a wrestler has already accomplished everything possible and made a deep connection with the fans, but yet they are still wrestling in their late 40's to 60's and are gone way beyond their prime which might take away credibility from their legendary status?

Short successful career examples: The Rock and Brock Lesnar

Long successful career examples: Ric Flair and Hulk Hogan

My Opinion

It is tough to say, but I went with long careers over short careers, The reasons why I chose long careers is because although the wrestler is past their prime and their matches are not half as good as they were years ago, they still have that spark in them to keep going and entertain the fans because they care about the business. Ric Flair may have terrible matches these days(but good for a man who is almost 60 anyway), but that doesn't mean his knowledge about wrestling has changed, it is a blessing for WWE to have someone like Flair to teach the younger guys about the business before he laces up his boots for the last time and it should be a privilege to even face Flair in a match, win or lose, same goes for Hogan.

 

[huwtimbrell38]

its hard to say either way because theres no middle ground. when a wrestlers career is cut short u always want more but you can start to resent them when they stay too long. this is comparable to tv series. for example, friends for alot of people went on too long and tainted the memories of what was for alot of people a great show. whereas other programs for whatever reason have been cancelled. but what happens when people lobby hard enough for the cancelled show to come back and they win? they are usually dissapointed because the show cant deliver to the high expectations.
same has happened recently with jericho..left in his prime..could have stayed away...many wanted him back and after a big build up he has come back...but dissapointed on his return.
so while im a big fan of the short and succesful career i think if u decide to end it u have to leave it there or face tainting ur legacy by turning it into an overstayed welcome career.

 

[Davi323]

I much prefer longer careers. Longer careers turn wrestlers into legends like HBK and the Undertaker. It also allows older fans like me, who grew up watching wrestling in the 80s, to see guys I used to love wrestle for longer. If HBK had completely retired from wrestling back in the 90s, when he injured his back, would he be a Hall of Famer? I don't know. I would remember him as being a good wrestler, but, would he have the legendary status that he has now? I don't think I can say yes to that. Would the Undertaker be the phenom, had he only lasted 5 years? Would he have been as beloved by the fans as he is now?

Skullz has it exactly right in mentioning the mentoring factor at play. Because Flair has been in the business so long, he is an invaluable resource for young up and coming wrestlers to learn from. So are Sgt. Slaughter, Arn Anderson, Ricky Steamboat, and the other old wrestlers turned backstage agents. If everyone had short flashy careers, none of them would have acquired the necessary knowledge that can only be gained through experience, thus, less knowledgeable people helping to develop the next generation of wrestlers. The product would suffer. The WWE relies on name recognition to sell its product. Wrestlers with longer careers gain more name recognition, which sells more tickets.

 

[klunderbunker]

I went with long careers. I do like short careers like lesnar's or goldberg as they are fast and exciting. You have to watch what's going on every week as the guy could do something special every week. However, there's no connection with any of these guys. People like HBK and HHH have grown up in front of the camera. It's fun to see someone go from starting their career in the midcard and take years to be moved up to the top of the company, which just seems more fun to me.

 

[ronalddeo]

Long careers allows wrestlers to develop and make connection with the fans. I've been watching wrestling since i was 5, watching guys like hbk, UT, Hardy year after year allows the audience to grow with the stars of their time and give them the respect they deserve for giving us all they got over the years that makes them legends in this business. I Also think this also generates smarks. Eg HHH vs Cena

Short careers are fast, explosive and entertaining. Some wrestlers stay in for a short few years and in their time they generate so much interest in their gimmick and become so successful that they enter the WHAT IF's senario and go on to pursue other avenues that rips we fans so something great to which we dwell on our own WHAT IF he ( Rock, austin, brock was still healthy, here....)

 

[fearthereaper]

I chose a short successful career. Why is it that these guys are wrestling? the number one reason? not to entertain the fans, not to become the greatest of all time, not to be champion...these guys and girls are wrestling to provide for themselves and their families. all those other things are great, but they are doing it to put food on their families' tables. If I was able to have a short successful career, retire with enough to live comfortably and be able to play with my kids, I would rather do that than travel 300 days a year and not be able to even hold my kids because I am in so much pain that comes with a long career. While they wouldn't garner me the label one "one of the greats", my family would have a roof over their heads, food on the table and clothes on their back.

 

[Agrex]

I prefer a long successful career over a short one. Long careers let the fans connect to the wrestler, they become interested in the wrestler. Long careers make wrestlers legends. Look at HBK he has had a long successful career, and he can be classified as a legend. Now look at Brock Lesnar, he had a much shorter career, and will never be considered a legend. What I really like about long careers is that even after the wrestler is burned out the fans still cheer him, because they made a connection with him.

As for the short careers. I don't hate them. They actually pretty good. The wrestler is in his prime throughout his entire career. So, there's no burning out. A perfect example is Brock Lesnar, he was big throught his entire WWE stay. But if he had stayed longer I'm sure he would have burned out.

But all in all, I still prefer a long successful career over a short one.