The 10 year rule

[ASKane]

This is an idea I have had in my head for about a year and I want to see what everyone thinks of it.

Its a simple rule and that is once a wrestler has had 10 years on the main roster they are done in WWE as a wrestler. It would help to keep the product fresh and would make WWE focus more on younger talent which would help improve the show.

If this rule was introduced it would see Mysterio, Christian, Cena, Henry, Kane, Big Show, Orton, HHH, Undertaker and Goldust all be off the main roster. I think this would improve WWE and help enhance the product.

Your thoughts on the idea

 

[Reflection]

I don't like this idea. One of the reasons is because when we see a wrestler that has been wrestling for xyz (10<) years, it makes us respect that person a bit more than that towards any ordinary wrestler. Also, it will be difficult to find real legends in the business if everyone's career is cut short at 10 years. In addition to that, for many people, their best time of career comes after over 10 years in the business, like Bully Ray or Bobby Roode for example.
Instead, it would be good if wrestling companies ask injured and just-not-the-same-anymore wrestlers like Rey Mysterio, Kevin Nash not to wrestle anymore, and gives them a pension for their contribution, so that they are not forced to come back in the ring again, even when their bodies beg otherwise.
But since at the end of the day, pro wrestling is all about money, I don't see that happening either. Promoters will squeeze wrestlers and extract all the money that they are worth from them; they don't care if the performers become crippled in the future or whatever.

 

[Gibby]

"Hunter, have you got a minute?"
"Sure Vince, what's the problem?"
"I noticed TNA have leaped ahead of us by six points in the ratings, why is that?"
"Well I implemented this rule that automatically bars anyone from working for us for over ten years, so John Cena and The Undertaker and Randy Orton are barred from appearing on TV so they went and got jobs elsewhere!"

This thread was brought to you by Genius Industries, a sub-group of Gibby Holdings.

 

[FlairFan2003]

This is an idea I have had in my head for about a year and I want to see what everyone thinks of it.

Its a simple rule and that is once a wrestler has had 10 years on the main roster they are done in WWE as a wrestler. It would help to keep the product fresh and would make WWE focus more on younger talent which would help improve the show.

If this rule was introduced it would see Mysterio, Christian, Cena, Henry, Kane, Big Show, Orton, HHH, Undertaker and Goldust all be off the main roster. I think this would improve WWE and help enhance the product.

Your thoughts on the idea

I think this might be the dumbest thing Ive ever heard. Just think if we had this "rule" in wrestling in the 1990s... Steve Austin never would have had his classic WrestleMainia match witth Brett Hart, who would have been gone by 1996. The Undertaker's classic bouts the last decade vs Flair, HHH, HBK, & Edge...Never would have happened. Shawn Michaels return to the ring, never happened, Michaels had already reached 10 years in WWE by 1998 (and 14 years in wrestling) so there would have been no need to bring him back in 2002. Apply this rule to WCW and there is no NWO, Hogan was well past 10 years in wrestling by 1996, and who would the NWO have wrestled against with both Flair & Sting basically gone (Sting would have reached 10 years in 1996, so would Lex Luger).

It can take years for a wrestler to reach their heights in popularity. Steve Austin was on the "Main Event Roster" in 1990-91 but didn't reach his apex until 1998. Shawn Michaels was a main player in 1989 but didn't reach his heights arguably till 95-96. Poor Brett Hart, he would didn't reach his apex till probably 93-94, at the end of his "Ten Year Rule".

How does it help the product when you get rid of all the people the fans want to see ? That kills the product, it doesn't help. It also makes me less likely to watch the new product and be much harder on the "new" guys.

 

[hatehabsforever]

Yeah, I cannot say I agree with this idea at all. Ten years into their careers, some guys are just beginning to hit their stride, and still have plenty of productive and mutually profitable years left in them. Some of these guys enter the business in their early to mid twenties. Why escort them out the door as they approach their mid thirties? It simply doesn't make sense.

I'm all about trying to keep the product fresh and interesting, but that falls upon the shoulders of the guys at Creative. Terminating these guys, just as they are honing their skills in terms of in ring action as well as mic skills and charisma/persona, simply because they have reached the magical number of ten years, it simply is not logical. These guys would simply go elsewhere and continue to excel in someone else's organization.

 

[TheICChampion]

I don't personally like this idea either, but why not make it 10 years as a main-eventer instead? If a particular superstar has been main-event level for so long (10 years) maybe not get rid of them, but make sure they use their status to elevate younger, mid-card superstars.

 

[James Greiga]

It's a good idea but bad idea at the same time. Here's why. Cena has been WWE's top draw for 9 years now (excluding the Rock's returns). Let's say WWE is put in that same position where say Roman Reigns is WWE's top draw.That means WWE would be on a time restraint and have to find replacements for him while he's at his peak which doesn't make sense. Why put the added pressure when it's unnecessary?

Plus, if John Cena, Randy Orton, and all those guys you named were fired today most of the fans would stop watching. Why? Because many of their favorites have left, and they haven't grown a strong enough attachment to the new guys to continue watching. It's the same thing that happened in 2001 and 2002. Most of WWE's fans stopped watching because Austin, Rock, Mankind, DX, Chyna, and many of their favorite attitude era stars were leaving or already gone. Then all of a sudden we were forced to like Brock Lesnar who although was very good, it was too abrupt. It would cause WWE's ratings to plummet

 

[Thecorporatechamp]

I'm big on nostalgia and most of my favorite wrestlers of all time would be out so i cant agree with this. However, theres nothing wrong with throwing a new idea out there! Very original!

 

[Pedigree1]

This idea is completely out of bounds and well dumb. The longer a guy is on the WWE roster,the more as fans we respect him. According to the OPs logic,Taker would have been done in 2001! That means no Triple H WM or HBK WM against him. Cena is at 10 years right now so be done? You kidding?

As far as keeping the ideas fresh,that is up to creative and the writers nothing more than that. NO offense but not a great post

 

[WarroBODFan]

Another 'gem' from the OP. I'm unsure if you're trolling or not as I've seen some of your other genius posts, but I'll bite anyway.

What sort of motive does any wrestler have to even try to get into the WWE, when they know their window of opportunity is that limited?

Certain wrestlers have needed almost a decade to get themselves into the main event circle, e.g. Mark Henry, Edge. It also puts a huge amount of pressure on the NXT talent coming through, and probably leading to a lot of fast-tracking talent into the main roster purely to keep the roster numbers at a stable amount, but making it debatable whether they're WWE ready or not. Horrible idea.

 

[JoeyJoeJoe]

I think this idea is at best, irrelevant, and at worst, damaging.

It's irrelevant because on the average, most WWE wrestlers only are around for 7 or 8 years anyways.

It's damaging because as the WWE trends towards younger guys, you end up cutting off productive people when they are still in their prime. Randy Orton, whatever your problems with him, is only 33 years old. John Cena is 36. Why would you arbitrarily cut these guys off when they can still go in the ring? Just because you don't like seeing them on TV all the time? And didn't you post another thread about people needing to just "accept things" and stop wasting your time?

 

[TheValeyard01]

I think this is possibly the worst idea since Katy Vick. There would be no incentive to go to WWE knowing that your career would be limited.

 

[FlairFan2003]

Another problem is getting new wrestlers. In the 70s & 80s there were numerous promotions were young guys breaking into the business could work in the ring, with more experienced wrestlers, in front of live crowds (where younger talents learn how to work crowds). Now with so little in the way of operating promotions outside of WWE (paying pittance wages no less) there is no "minor league" for training talent. Therefore you dont get developed or trained talent at the top level like you used to. Another reason the "10 year" rule makes little sense.

 

[bioshock]

No matter what people want to think, it would be good for the wrestlers, not about keeping the product fresh, it keeps the wrestlers healthy by putting them in less matches. I like the idea. Say what you like, 15 years from now Cena going to be hobbling around like Hogan is now.

 

[NancyBenoit]

Finally a genius in the IWC. I would take it a step further and say as soon as someone gets over they should be immediately fired.

 

[JJ15776]

No matter what people want to think, it would be good for the wrestlers, not about keeping the product fresh, it keeps the wrestlers healthy by putting them in less matches. I like the idea. Say what you like, 15 years from now Cena going to be hobbling around like Hogan is now.

And it will be Cena's choice, just like it was Hogan's. By the way, this rule would've done nothing for Hogan, since he left the WWF after less than 10 years anyway. And he was in WCW less than 10 years, too. I can assure you the matches he had in the WWF post-Invasion had nothing to do with him hobbling around now, and I have no idea how it would be good for him or anybody else to miss out on the match with The Rock. The only thing that would've done is brought about the Hulkamania Tour a lot sooner.

This isn't going to be keep anybody healthy or put them in less matches, it's just going to put them in more companies when they're old.

Yeah, this is just a horrible suggestion in every way possible. If you want to keep guys healthy, then give them an offseason or mandatory time off or limit the number of matches they can have in a month or a year. If you want to keep the product fresh, that comes down to the quality of the booking and the performances and has nothing to do with how long guys have been around. Give me quality product with guys who have been around the block (or guys right smack in the middle of their prime, when they've been around 10 years, in a lot of cases) over crappy product with fresh guys who can't work a match or cut a promo to save their life any day.

Finally a genius in the IWC. I would take it a step further and say as soon as someone gets over they should be immediately fired.

Exactly. There should be a one title rule. Once you win a title, any kind of title, you can never wrestle again. That'll keep the product fresh!

 

[Harthan]

This is an idea I have had in my head for about a year and I want to see what everyone thinks of it.

Its a simple rule and that is once a wrestler has had 10 years on the main roster they are done in WWE as a wrestler. It would help to keep the product fresh and would make WWE focus more on younger talent which would help improve the show.

If this rule was introduced it would see Mysterio, Christian, Cena, Henry, Kane, Big Show, Orton, HHH, Undertaker and Goldust all be off the main roster. I think this would improve WWE and help enhance the product.

Your thoughts on the idea

If this rule was introduced it would see Mysterio, Christian, Cena, Henry, Kane, Big Show, Orton, HHH, Undertaker and Goldust all be off the main roster. I think this would improve WWE and help enhance the product.

If this rule was introduced it would see Mysterio, Christian, Cena, Henry, Kane, Big Show, Orton, HHH, Undertaker and Goldust all be off the main roster.

If this rule was introduced it would see Mysterio, Christian, Cena

Cena

No.



----

If only this were the spam section. Anyway.

There are a handful of indisputable facts about wrestling, and one of them is that John Cena is a very, very good wrestler. Go back and compile a top ten list for any given year of WWE matches. Over the last ten years, you're going to see Cena's name on that list at least once. That's because John Cena, from bell to bell, in the ring, is very, very good at what he does. I have had my objections to Cena's booking, the way his character has been portrayed, and some of his choices in acting, but you would be hard pressed to convince me that Cena is not a very good wrestler. The idea that the WWE's product quality would in some way improve by losing John Cena is madness. Cena can anchor a PPV with a great match any time you want. Throw Cena into a feud with literally anybody and he'll drag a match out of them that's good enough. Give him a halfway decent partner and he'll probably have a great match. Give him someone on his level and he'll pump out ***** like it's nobody's business. Not to mention that he goes hard on the full time WWE schedule.

Cena is a pivotal piece of the WWE's roster. I don't even know if the WWE could survive without Cena, let alone improve as you seem to suggest.

 

[JoeyJoeJoe]

No matter what people want to think, it would be good for the wrestlers, not about keeping the product fresh, it keeps the wrestlers healthy by putting them in less matches. I like the idea. Say what you like, 15 years from now Cena going to be hobbling around like Hogan is now.

I think there are better ways of doing this without arbitrarily capping off someone's career. Furthermore, you are doing nothing to their chances of being healthy as it's not likely these guys would simply pack their bags and go home. They will go elsewhere to keep wrestling, whether it's TNA or Japan.

If overall health is the concern, I would say that a rotating off season for wrestlers could work. For example, a wrestler may only work 9 months out of the year with a 3 month downtime. During that downtime, that wrestler can rest and rehab a bit, and they can schedule it so that it's happening during the fall or during the late spring/early summer. You'd never have the full roster off at any one time, only a quarter to a third of it. If they needed the guy back for an angle, they can always bring them in to do promos, but not to wrestle a full match.

 

[Luten]

10 years? No way

10 World Title Reigns? - I'd be open to that idea.

A guy could still wrestle after his 10th World Title reign with the company, but no more title shots. This would add so much extra urgency to retain the title during their last title reigns.

I'm not big on 'real' sports - and correct me if I'm wrong but I believe in Football (Soccer to my American friends) if a team has won a particular trophey more than two times consecutively then they are excluded from the competition?

In more simple terms: like a preident can only have 2 terms.

This would also push the urgency of pushing new talent in to the world title picture but not by sacrificing your big name, established, money making talent by showing them the door, as the OP suggested.

 

[ASKane]

10 years? No way

10 World Title Reigns? - I'd be open to that idea.

I think that's a good idea because it would mean there would be less 1 week or less title reigns. I think it would keep the main event scene fresh because its at about 7-10 title reigns that staleness really starts to become a problem.

 

[beckyh]

I think the idea would cause problems.

Would wrestlers NOT go to the WWE? Of course they would even with a shortened career. They would look at the paycheck and not care. TNA, ROH, DGA, etc do not pay as well.

Even if it was a forcible rotation not from the company but from the spotlight as champ there would be problems. Would any top wrestler think this was a good idea? Hell no. They are Independent Contractors and will guard their status very strongly against all up and comers. This is about their livelihood.

What career prospects do they have after wrestling?