The Era of the Collective?

[Dave]

Let me just preface this by saying that a lot can happen over the next 5 years or so. Everything is ip for debate and anything can change in the world of the WWE. However, the more I look at it, the more I think that the WWE are not sticking to their tried and tested mantra of having one guy being the "face of the company". Of course, in the past, superstars like Hulk Hogan, Stone Cold Steve Austin and John Cena have been the faces to carry the brand.

But when you look at the current roster, I don't think that there is anyone on there who has the potential to carry the business for another 10-15 years the way that John Cena has more recently. And I don't really want this thread to turn into batching about Roman Reigns quite frankly. There is a much more pertinent point to this.

As I looked at the current roster, I see quite a few guys who can be good if not great with a little bit of work. I'm looking at guys like Daniel Bryan, Delph Ziggler, BNB, Dean Ambrose, Seth Rollins and Rusev. Like I said, with some work and a bit of luck, these guys could be at the forefront of everything that is good about the company in a decade. But none of them are going to be the face of the WWE if you ask me. Instead, I see the future of the WWE being more of a communal pot that will require everyone stepping up their game to deliver an entertaining product. No more will they hang on the services of one main guy, the future is there for anyone who wants it.

But what do you think? Is there one guy who can step out of the mould and be the guy? Or do you agree with me that it is going to be more of a collective effort that means that one guy won't be on top of the company for a decade like John Cena has been?

 

[L@RISANO]

Let me just preface this by saying that a lot can happen over the next 5 years or so. Everything is ip for debate and anything can change in the world of the WWE. However, the more I look at it, the more I think that the WWE are not sticking to their tried and tested mantra of having one guy being the "face of the company". Of course, in the past, superstars like Hulk Hogan, Stone Cold Steve Austin and John Cena have been the faces to carry the brand.

But when you look at the current roster, I don't think that there is anyone on there who has the potential to carry the business for another 10-15 years the way that John Cena has more recently. And I don't really want this thread to turn into batching about Roman Reigns quite frankly. There is a much more pertinent point to this.

As I looked at the current roster, I see quite a few guys who can be good if not great with a little bit of work. I'm looking at guys like Daniel Bryan, Delph Ziggler, BNB, Dean Ambrose, Seth Rollins and Rusev. Like I said, with some work and a bit of luck, these guys could be at the forefront of everything that is good about the company in a decade. But none of them are going to be the face of the WWE if you ask me. Instead, I see the future of the WWE being more of a communal pot that will require everyone stepping up their game to deliver an entertaining product. No more will they hang on the services of one main guy, the future is there for anyone who wants it.

But what do you think? Is there one guy who can step out of the mould and be the guy? Or do you agree with me that it is going to be more of a collective effort that means that one guy won't be on top of the company for a decade like John Cena has been?

This is sometime I believe strongly in. Not because of what you mentioned with regards to 'no one' having the potential to carry the company for even 5 years straight, rather, I think today's audience, especially the vocal section, like a sense of freshness in terms of the focus point of the show.


Take for instance, how Bryan of all people, has actually got some boos. A small amount indeed, but the fact that in a short period of time after getting to the Main Event, they are audible boos for him says alot about the fact that the fans want freshness in the Main Event scene as much as possible alongwith obviously, Good Programming.


The Era of the Collective is a good name for it. I have stated in quite a few posts, that with the roster quality available and with some guys down in NXT, WWE can attempt in the next 2/3 years to build up around 10-12 guys who can be alternated in the Main Event rather than having a Cena-like constant in and around at all times.

There is:
Orton, Reigns, Bryan, Rollins, Ambrose, Wyatt, Sheamus, Ziggler, Barrett, Ryback and Rusev on the current Main Roster. Then there is also Cena as well, plus the obvious Part-Timer returns every now and then.
Then in NXT, there is; Zayn, Balor, Itami, Owens and Neville amongst a few others as well.


All of those names mentioned won't get to the Main Event level, but by building them up well, WWE can indeed look to make Quality Programming and use different Superstars as the focus at different times and that could help with making sure fans don't get burnt out on guys in the Main Event scene very quickly.



That said; The one main guy has been great in terms of merchandise sales, etc... so I do understand why WWE insist on such a model, tho, I do feel programming suffers a fair bit due to such an approach at times because of the need to protect one guy so much.

 

[SoulTrain4]

Ehhh they should look at having more than one major top guy.
But the fact remains there can only be one main event on the card.
You would have to rotate talent regularly in order for that to work.
I just so happen to have an idea:
Have the WWE WHC defended on a roughly quarterly schedule (Royal Rumble, Wrestlemania, Summerslam, Survivor Series)
Have the WWE IC championship defended every other month as the main championship.
Have the WWE US championship defended every other month as the main championship.
So your championship schedule would look something like this:
Jan-WHC
feb-IC
Mar/Apr (WM)- WHC
Apr- US
May-IC
jun- US
jul- IC
AUG- WHC
sept- US
Oct- IC
Nov- WHC
Dec-US

You could use the extra time to build contenders, a solid tag division, a tournament, the MITB, and whatever else you want. You keep the titles in rotation but you don't have title defenses too often. It guarantees lengthy reigns for champions and time for their storylines to breathe. It's just a rough draft but something I was thinking about.

 

[Mustang Sally]

Is there one guy who can step out of the mould and be the guy? Or do you agree with me that it is going to be more of a collective effort that means that one guy won't be on top of the company for a decade like John Cena has been?

One interesting aspect of the question is when folks try to "nominate" people as the next face of the company.


"Oh, I'm sure it will be Dolph Ziggler."

"Bad News Barrett will someday be DA MAN!"

"All u ppl knowing nothing about ressling! Everbody nos it's Rov van Damm!!!!!!!!"


In my opinion, when the main man comes around, no nominations are necessary. Guys like Hulk Hogan, Steve Austin and John Cena didn't have to be anointed; it was all too clear they were the "once in a lifetime" guys (who actually come along several times in a lifetime).

When Rock and Austin were ruling the roost, we wondered who in the world was going to be the next big guy, given that we could see no one on the current roster that stood out, although, as above, we were trying to pick someone, anyway. But toiling anonymously in the ranks of wrestling hopefuls was John Cena. Yes, now that he's been on top longer than any of the other "main men" named, it seems he's outlived his utility as "the guy who runs the place." He's still bigger than anyone else, yet people rejoice in "hating" him or being "bored" by him. Such are the trappings of fame; every product has a shelf life. There are still plenty of things for him to do, even if he's not in the main event of Wrestlemania every year.

But if there's another Hogan, Austin, Rock or Cena out there somewhere, we have no way yet of knowing. Given that, I would think the OP's idea of a "collective" presence working to create a multitude of lesser stars might be a good way for things to proceed in WWE.

After all, in Hogan's day, it was said he pushed so many people out of the way and stole the spotlight from so many worthy performers that much of the roster resented him for stealing their thunder. I would wager that many of those performers would have loved a more "collective" air, and I've read that after Hogan left WWE, that atmosphere actually existed for a few years. Everyone got a better chance to shine, and the locker room was probably a happier place. Of course, TV ratings and merchandise sales are another matter.

When a "main man" comes into being, perhaps it's the fans that elevate him to that position by their response....and WWE, ever-watchful, builds on it once it becomes apparent. But if no one stands heads above everyone else, the collective approach might work just fine.

Or, maybe Vince McMahon meets with his scouting people and says: "Find me the next John Cena.....or heads will roll." and everyone has nervous breakdowns trying to find something that comes along only a few times in a lifetime.

There's no business like show business.

 

[Wald]

You never can tell with guys really. I mean if you'd told me the Ringmaster or this Rocky Maivia twerp at Survivor Series 96 would rival Hulk Hogan at the height of his popularity I'd have laughed you out of the building. So a wrestler can come from left field to really dominate an era.

And there are wrestlers that remind me of Triple H, John Cena, Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels on the current roster. These are guys who look the part, can wrestle and could easily become top talents if given the right push and right storylines from creative. I'm thinking current main roster talents like Ambrose, Rollins, Rusev and Reigns, I'm also thinking NXT guys like Balor, Owens and Zayn. Finn Balor looks like he could easily be the next big thing if he is given the right support from the company.

Creative is still the problem when it comes to making new guys anyway, the talent today is as good as it has been in twenty years. Creative is as bad as it has been in twenty years though and there in lies the rub.

 

[Stone Cold Tea]

I hope this is how it goes. We could have say 2 or 3 top guys and then your upper tier guys. This is one of the reasons I enjoyed the AE so much. You had Rock Austin HHH as your main guys, but there was enough 2nd tier talent there to put the title on ie: Mankind, Kurt Angle.

If this is the route they go then there would be such freshness and such unpredictability.

The only potential downside I see is hot potato with the title damaging it's prestige. To avoid that you would have to keep the title on one guy. Does that on guy then become face of the company? Maybe this is why there is always a face of the company.

 

[chuckmdubya]

Well, at any show, on any day a wrestler can have an Austin 3:16 moment. It sure seems like there is no one on the roster who can become a mega star, but the same thing was said in 96 after the Hall and Nash left. No one could fore-see the rise of Steve Austin like it happened. And low and behold it happened again the next year when the Rock started his hostile takeover of the nation. And at the same time another person who should've been on their level was gaining momentum in WCW, Bill Goldberg.
There will be someone to break from the pack eventually, and it could be anyone from Daniel Bryan to Fandango.

 

[bioshock]

To one of the guys above, you know Sheamus is about 37 years old, he isn't the future of the company, he isn't going to carry the WWE for 10 years, while he might be around another 5-10 years, there is no way he is a long term top guy.

And honestly I don't think anyone on the current roster is that guy. They are all pretty old to say the least, Reigns/Rollins/Ambros around all in the ball park of 29 years old. Ziggler and Bryan both near mid 30s. Of course that doesn't mean they cant the top guy for the next 5+ years cause thats possible.

But some in here are talking the next 10-15 years. And well I don't think that guy is on the roster. I just don't think this roster is it just like Batista wasn't it because of his age, he had his time, but Cena was long term cause he was young. Brock and Orton had all the makings to be the face of the company for the last 10 years except one left the company and the other has had injury and drug problems.

So I think only time will tell until someone comes around at just the right age of around 23-25 years old, and gets pushed to the moon like Lesnar did. Also people forget it takes some guys about 5 years before they really become the face of the company. So give it another 2 or 3 years and we'll know who on the current roster might be that guy if one on the current roster is the guy.

But also I agree that I think WWE is moving into a new era where they don't have 1 top guy. Like they did with Cena. Sure Reigns might be the guy of the future, but fans are so much different now. They can really make or break someone, for all we know Sandow might be a huge star a year from now. Who really though Bryan would be one of the top guys after that run he had on the original NXT?

 

[Bockwinkel's Class]

To one of the guys above, you know Sheamus is about 37 years old, he isn't the future of the company, he isn't going to carry the WWE for 10 years, while he might be around another 5-10 years, there is no way he is a long term top guy.

And honestly I don't think anyone on the current roster is that guy. They are all pretty old to say the least, Reigns/Rollins/Ambros around all in the ball park of 29 years old. Ziggler and Bryan both near mid 30s. Of course that doesn't mean they cant the top guy for the next 5+ years cause thats possible.

But some in here are talking the next 10-15 years. And well I don't think that guy is on the roster. I just don't think this roster is it just like Batista wasn't it because of his age, he had his time, but Cena was long term cause he was young. Brock and Orton had all the makings to be the face of the company for the last 10 years except one left the company and the other has had injury and drug problems.

So I think only time will tell until someone comes around at just the right age of around 23-25 years old, and gets pushed to the moon like Lesnar did. Also people forget it takes some guys about 5 years before they really become the face of the company. So give it another 2 or 3 years and we'll know who on the current roster might be that guy if one on the current roster is the guy.

But also I agree that I think WWE is moving into a new era where they don't have 1 top guy. Like they did with Cena. Sure Reigns might be the guy of the future, but fans are so much different now. They can really make or break someone, for all we know Sandow might be a huge star a year from now. Who really though Bryan would be one of the top guys after that run he had on the original NXT?

You realize Hogan was 31 when Vince brought him in to be the face of the WWF in 1984 right? Flair was 32 when he first won the NWA title.

 

[rmp0012002]

I think you need a few guys that can constantly run near the main event and draw but you also need that one guy big enough that he easily makes you think wrestling when you hear his name. The thing is that the WWE is their own problem as they're creating the characters and the person you get is what they were taught to be not developed from years working. The greatest wrestlers were guys just being themselves or the personality turned up.

 

[FightOwensFight]

The issue, as always, is the sometime schizophrenic nature of the current WWE fan, especially the most vocal ones. As LeoSach points out, even the darling of the IWC, Daniel Bryan is starting to get a more tepid response. Sure, people do the Yes! chant, but it is nowhere like where it was leading up to WM last year. This is the same guy people were screaming from the mountaintops for. Ziggler is another example. Cheered quite well as the underdog. Always loses steam when he gets the belt. Think back to Austin and The Rock. They ALWAYS had thunderous reactions when the glass shattered or you heard "Can you smell...". Same with Hogan.

That isn't the case anymore. People don't know what they want, and when they get what they have been screaming for, they want something else. Certainly an attention-span thing that seems to be generational.

To the OP's point, I think having a stable of guys that are all ME-level, even if not at the "Face of the Company" level of the Cena's, Rock's, Austin's, and Hogan's of the world, will allow WWE to more nimbly react to the constantly altering wishes of the current fans.

 

[Navi]

But what do you think? Is there one guy who can step out of the mould and be the guy? Or do you agree with me that it is going to be more of a collective effort that means that one guy won't be on top of the company for a decade like John Cena has been?

I think one guy has already stepped up and tried to grab the brass ring but the WWE has said no thanks. That guy is Daniel Bryan. I'll wager that every wrestler in the locker room today would give their right arm to get the pops that he gets. Fans from the hardcore, casual, both genders and all age groups love him. Yes he had his moment of glory last year, but it was quickly snatched away by injury and I don't think he's going to get it back. I thought he might, but now I'm not so sure.

This will have a domino effect going forward. Fans will think twice about who they support because they know the WWE doesn't give a shit about them. The WWE will promote who they themselves want, bugger the fans. So no don't have a definite "face of the WWE" just give us a bunch of main event wrestlers, and we'll deal with it. If we like who we see, we might buy T-shirts, and if the card is good for a live show we might go, or we might not. The fans made their choice's in Bryan, Ziggler, Ambrose, Mizdow and Wyatt and the WWE gave us someone else instead. So yea it is what it is.