The fall of Total Packages and the Aftermath.

[AegonTargaryen]

I endeavour to propose a theory right now. It is by no means meant to be taken as a literal comparison but an analogy, if you will.

First things first. In an enlightening post by I_am_the_champ94 whom I would consider to be a friend and a discerning individual just as I , revealed this fact of CM Punk being the "total package" that has asked the WWE to go Fuck themselves and left. Guys like Austin, Rock, and CM Punk were total packages because they could put on an entertaining match any night, had a charismatic charm that wasn't contrived nor centred in around some lame gimmick but insofar as we wrestling fans can discern, represented just an extension of their real selves and they could talk and have all listeners engaged. Total Package.

The theory.

If you consider an analogy between Bret Hart and Owen Hart and place and compare all their accomplishments(while overlooking the omens and tragedy permeating the Hart family) and then consider two guys like CM Punk and Daniel Bryan in contrast as their modern-day equivalents, that yields some interesting perspective. After a total package in Bret Hart left for WCW, Vince Mcmahon already had total packages like Austin. And then The Rock to rely on while Owen Hart was the blue blazor.

If you could grant CM Punk that privilege and honour of being equated with, if not considered to surpass Bret Hart, as a total package and a modern-day Best in the world if you will (again I'm by no means asserting a literal comparison of their styles,look, or character) , that leaves a very acceptable comparison and likeness between Owen Hart and Daniel Bryan. Except for the fact that Owen Hart was doomed to be the blue blazer or the IC champ/tag champ and would've never attained the popularity of Daniel Bryan nor devised any gimmick/chant to surpass the popularity and thus be the mainstay, of Austin and Rock. But if you really think about it, both Daniel Bryan and Owen Hart can be called excellent technical wrestlers. They're both small (except Owen being 2 inches taller) and not really all that handsome, pretty, charismatic, or believable as "champions" like how CM Punk and Bret Hart were. Owen Hart was called the "Nugget" and when he displayed great fury for that in the ring, he did have but little actual impact because at the end of the day, that's what he was perceived as, in an era where uttering "Whoop your ass", "stick it straight up your candyass" ,etc. was the thing in vogue.

Daniel Bryan is Owen Hart. He's the new Nugget. He's the Goat. He's a great wrestler but ultimately, Daniel Bryan fails to have an abidingly entertaining gimmick nor the presence to be considered someone who could whoop HHH's ass. Or The Rocks. I'm not so sure if you guys considered Owen to be credible enough to whoop The Rock's ass but there's no doubt Bret Hart could. To speak the gospel, praise him all you want , loathe me or others who deny, but Daniel Bryan is little more than an overrated technically good wrestler whose role should be no different than that of Owen Hart. Hart's job was to be a good wrestler and occasionally wrestle guys like Austin but the real main-eventers are invariably total packages like Austin and Rock. Unfortunately in 2014, for several reasons (Batista debacle, Punk departure, no Austin/Rock of today ready to take over), the WWE have decided to not have John Cena in the main event, nor rely on Batista or Orton, nor give more deserving individuals like Antonio Cesaro a chance because apparently, Owen Hart junior is too "over" and he runs around every week chanting monosyllables and sells T-shirts.

This is where the analogy ends with the unfortunate part being that Daniel Bryan is not a Total Package that CM Punk was and Bret Hart was and Kurt Angle was. With Punk leaving (like Bret did), Vince Mcmahon and the WWE have either settled for far less since there isn't an Austin, and if being popular and selling T-shirts means everything, then they may keep their shows centred around Bryan but at the end of the day, Bryan is not the total package . He's not even half a total package. Daniel Bryan can do a few things well- wrestle, and mysteriously make a bunch of goofballs chant YES. In the world of Wrestling, Daniel Bryan has gotten a lot more than he should and a lot more than a man of his calibre/charisma/size just like Owen Hart, deserves to get. It's undeniable that Bret Hart was a great champion and the face of the WWF and so was CM Punk despite being neither as muscular as Hart nor technically as gifted as Hart but Punk was a different kind of a total package. Skinny, Yes. Overrated, No. He had mic skills few in pro-wrestling ever had, and his passion and honesty almost emitting fury over the Tyranny of WWE that emanated from the TV and gave us a change in direction and a short-lived Era of Punk howsoever transitory.The total package is out. But Owen Hart junior is running around and the WWE cannot suppress it and for a while, the tide of Daniel Bryan euphoria is not going to be subdued. Most of you are participants. Others await some other total package, may be Cesaro or Ambrose or Reigns. Still others yearn for a CM Punk return or a hopelessly unyielding John Cena heel turn.

 

[AegonTargaryen]

Addendum. Consider whom the WWE has chosen when Total Packages(I know saying Total Package so many times sucks) decide to leave and a new star has to replace the former. Necessity creates a star, if not, makes a lesser star pretend to be one.

1997. Bret Hart leaves. Enter Austin.
1998. Era of Stone Cold.
1999. Rise of the Rock.
2000-2002. Total packages like Rock, Austin, Kurt Angle exemplified.
2002. Austin leaves. Rock leaves.
2002. Brock Lesnar is the Next big thing and the total package.
2004. Brock decides to forsake the WWE for NFL.
Eddie Guerrero and JBL are champions but not total packages.
2005. Triple H decides to finally leave the WHC scene.
Batista is champion. (I'm not so sure about him being a Total package).
2005 John Cena rises, and has been dominating since then.
2007. Age of Orton
2009. Orton-Cena epic battles. Both total packages. Loved Orton in 2009.
2011- Early 2013 Era of CM Punk.
2013- Randy Orton is the face of the WWE and undoubtedly much more of total package than John Cena(though the merchandise sells have their own story to tell. I just think Orton is a far more of a natural and superior athlete.)
Enter Daniel Bryan. Punk Leaves. Bryan= Total Package? Or temporary replacement for lack of a better star?

 

[Bythedockofthebay]

Addendum. Consider whom the WWE has chosen when Total Packages(I know saying Total Package so many times sucks) decide to leave and a new star has to replace the former. Necessity creates a star, if not, makes a lesser star pretend to be one.

1997. Bret Hart leaves. Enter Austin.
1998. Era of Stone Cold.
1999. Rise of the Rock.
2000-2002. Total packages like Rock, Austin, Kurt Angle exemplified.
2002. Austin leaves. Rock leaves.
2002. Brock Lesnar is the Next big thing and the total package.
2004. Brock decides to forsake the WWE for NFL.
Eddie Guerrero and JBL are champions but not total packages.
2005. Triple H decides to finally leave the WHC scene.
Batista is champion. (I'm not so sure about him being a Total package).
2005 John Cena rises, and has been dominating since then.
2007. Age of Orton
2009. Orton-Cena epic battles. Both total packages. Loved Orton in 2009.
2011- Early 2013 Era of CM Punk.
2013- Randy Orton is the face of the WWE and undoubtedly much more of total package than John Cena(though the merchandise sells have their own story to tell. I just think Orton is a far more of a natural and superior athlete.)
Enter Daniel Bryan. Punk Leaves. Bryan= Total Package? Or temporary replacement for lack of a better star?

Very nice run down. Although i'd say Batista isn't a total package and I don't think hart was but I was young during hart's runs and I was not a fan at all and I might be bias to a certain extent and will admit it.

 

[AegonTargaryen]

Very nice run down. Although i'd say Batista isn't a total package and I don't think hart was but I was young during hart's runs and I was not a fan at all and I might be bias to a certain extent and will admit it.

Yeah I'm not sure about Batista being a total package. But Randy Orton certainly is. Looks . Handsomeness. Presence. Muscularity. Decent mic skills. Quite a good wrestler though at times boring ever since he's been pretending to be a Snake.

You meant BRET HART? He certainly was! Technically very sound. Good mic work. Had a presence. And he was just an extension of his real self, and not some lame gimmick so that's a total package right there.

 

[AegonTargaryen]

You have a very misconstrued idea of a "total package."

I consider a "total package" to be someone who's well-built or chiseled to an extent, tall, charismatic or otherwise has an inexplicable yet likeable presence, is a decent wrestler or a very good wrestler, and is sufficiently entertaining on the mic and credible enough as a World champion. My list of total packages would be Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels, The Rock , Steve Austin, Kurt Angle, Brock Lesnar (2002-2004), Sting, The Undertaker, Ric Flair, Randy Orton, John Cena(though I don't really like him as a wrestler AT ALL , but he does have a presence/physique), and most recently CM Punk. Sure, Punk is NOT built like a Greek God, not chiseled but I believe what he did not have in the body, he made for it by his mind, his mic work, his presence. And then, he saved us all from the deathly boring and stale John Cena in 2011 and delivered us a new Era of Punk which was fun to watch. I'd also add the post 2008 Chris Jericho to that list. He did not have the best physique in the world, but when it came to pro-wrestling, Jericho did it better than most.

If you can strive to type a line expresisng your "opinion" about a misconstrued idea of what total package is, have the courtesy to elaborate what you think it is .

 

[Softcore Holly]

Total package is completely subjective for sure, but in DB's case him not being perceived as WWE's "total package" is ironically one of the things that makes him so popular. Like I'm sure a ton of us had the idea drilled into our heads as kids that regardless of how we look, or if there's people stronger, faster, or smarter than we are, we can succeed with enough hard work and dedication. Of course the real world doesn't work that way a lot of the time, but we are talking about entertainment here.

And that's DB in a nutshell, he's not the best looking, he's not the biggest, he's not the strongest, but he works his ass off and puts on great performances so naturally people would want him to succeed since people want to believe they can get somewhere too by working their ass off and doing great at their jobs. Add in the big evil boss(es) that says no, your hard work/dedication means nothing since you're not our total package like the bigger, much better looking, and better built Randy Orton, and well the results speak for themselves.

I do find it kinda ironic though that renaissanceman2014's criteria for a total package is actually mostly fulfilled by none other than his avatar, Damien Sandow. He's tall, natural on the mic, has a good build, can put on good matches, and I was actually quite interested to see what kind of WHC he would've made, too bad he never got the chance. And well, look at the poor guy now, a lot of us don't expect him to ever sniff a world title anymore.

 

[CeramicDuck]

Great post, great points, I could not agree more.

I would however ask this...

Can a wrestler lose their "Total Package" status due to growing stale?

I feel like Orton was a total package but length of time on top with no real story or character development has made him seem less complete these days.

Also, with Brock Lesnar I think his credibility in the ring was actually hurt by his UFC run because it makes his matches just glaringly obvious works where belief has to be suspended to much in order to accept him as a professional wrestling performer.

Thoughts?

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

There was only one Total Package, that was Lex Luger.

I think what you mean to say is "who is good on the mic, in the ring, and the classic example of a pro wrestler" in which case, Cena and Orton are the only guys now. Rock was another and Hogan. That's really it. Bret looked very bland and frankly, was a huge beneficiary of a shallow talent pool. Punk doesn't have special looks. He's about as athletic as I am (seriously, he's not very athletic). HBK could be the total package.

I think people on here are overrating Punk. You won't find a bigger Punk fan on here. Punk is closer to Roddy Piper than anything else. If he wasn't famous and you saw him at a bar, you wouldn't think anything of him. You see a guy like Cena or Orton walking around, they look like entertainers.

 

[jc_ultimate]

Also, with Brock Lesnar I think his credibility in the ring was actually hurt by his UFC run because it makes his matches just glaringly obvious works where belief has to be suspended to much in order to accept him as a professional wrestling performer.

Thoughts?

I don't see how his credibility was hurt by becoming a former UFC champion. Was he the best fighter ever? No of course not, but he wasn't a complete joke in my opinion either. If not for his digestive issues, he probably could have won a few more matches as well.

What professional wrestlers do you think could beat Brock Lesnar in a shoot fight out of curiosity.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

Great post, great points, I could not agree more.

I would however ask this...

Can a wrestler lose their "Total Package" status due to growing stale?

I feel like Orton was a total package but length of time on top with no real story or character development has made him seem less complete these days.

Also, with Brock Lesnar I think his credibility in the ring was actually hurt by his UFC run because it makes his matches just glaringly obvious works where belief has to be suspended to much in order to accept him as a professional wrestling performer.

Thoughts?

Pretty sure credibility of pro wrestling as anything other than a work comes apart as soon as an irish whip happens. No one cares that Brock was in the UFC and now he's in the WWE. If anything, it makes him seem dangerous and it's fun. It doesn't make his WWE matches look fake. No one expects it to look like a shoot. Shoots are often boring. That's why people watch wrestling.

 

[shooter_mcgavin]

Why can't I help but feel this thread is disguised just to put down Daniel Bryan? Because it probably did.

As for the total package question if there was a question in even in place, all I can say the idea of the total package is highly subjective. In the end though does it matter if someone is the total package when getting a main event push? If so then Jericho should have been the Top guy for half a decade but he wasn't.

Guys like Austin, Rock, and CM Punk were total packages because they could put on an entertaining match any night, had a charismatic charm that wasn't contrived nor centred in around some lame gimmick but insofar as we wrestling fans can discern, represented just an extension of their real selves and they could talk and have all listeners engaged. Total Package.

See here's the problem if you categorize "Total Package" with your description. You saw someone like Cena and Orton are total package but got over because of either "rapping" or "given the legend killer moniker of RKO'ing old legends for months" both guys were centered around gimmicks. Plus if both guys could put an entertaining match at any given night how come stunk up the joint in the very recent Rumble?

Also how is not Bryan an extension of his real self? He has a beard and has a "yes" chant, Ok Flair says "woo" and wears robes and says he is a high class person (even that's not true in reality) and Austin has his "what", "Austin 3:16" and beer bashing celebrations. As far as I can see there are elements on Bryan's character that extends to his real self, being an indie guy, wrestler's wrestler, etc.

There's just too many variables in saying what's the total package, and I disagree with your criteria. It's probably better to capitalize in the most over guys in the promotion and see where it goes from here.

And if WWE settled with Bryan because there isn't anyone else the level of Austin. Fair enough but Bryan within the company of Cena, Batista, Orton, and the WWE groomed Sheamus. So Bryan is in the main event picture with these guys. But remember if you can say Bryan is not the total package, remember this WCW fired Austin because they thought he wasn't going to make them money. Just something to consider.

 

[Bythedockofthebay]

As far as a TRUE total package goes, I think it would've been HBK. But for some reason, he never drew like I thought he should've. Good looking, great on the mic, and one of if not the best in ring talent the WWE ever had. I still don't see how he never got over like others.

Some of that was resentment from guys who just flat out hated the persona of the heart break kid. I But as far as true total packages I think HBK was the best, maybe ever. But he didn't sell so some people will argue he wasn't close.

 

[AegonTargaryen]

Why can't I help but feel this thread is disguised just to put down Daniel Bryan? Because it probably did.

As for the total package question if there was a question in even in place, all I can say the idea of the total package is highly subjective. In the end though does it matter if someone is the total package when getting a main event push? If so then Jericho should have been the Top guy for half a decade but he wasn't.



See here's the problem if you categorize "Total Package" with your description. You saw someone like Cena and Orton are total package but got over because of either "rapping" or "given the legend killer moniker of RKO'ing old legends for months" both guys were centered around gimmicks. Plus if both guys could put an entertaining match at any given night how come stunk up the joint in the very recent Rumble?

Also how is not Bryan an extension of his real self? He has a beard and has a "yes" chant, Ok Flair says "woo" and wears robes and says he is a high class person (even that's not true in reality) and Austin has his "what", "Austin 3:16" and beer bashing celebrations. As far as I can see there are elements on Bryan's character that extends to his real self, being an indie guy, wrestler's wrestler, etc.

There's just too many variables in saying what's the total package, and I disagree with your criteria. It's probably better to capitalize in the most over guys in the promotion and see where it goes from here.

And if WWE settled with Bryan because there isn't anyone else the level of Austin. Fair enough but Bryan within the company of Cena, Batista, Orton, and the WWE groomed Sheamus. So Bryan is in the main event picture with these guys. But remember if you can say Bryan is not the total package, remember this WCW fired Austin because they thought he wasn't going to make them money. Just something to consider.

It's more than just wearing robes and saying WOO and more than just drinking beer and stunning your boss on national TV. Ric Flair cut the greatest promos and wrestled the best matches, be it with Ricky Steamboat or Sting and he did it consistently. I said one of the very important criterias is to be CREDIBLE as world champion and in my analogy of Bret/Owen and Punk/Bryan I asserted Bryan's credibility only being as good as being a good tag/IC champ, putting on great matches. I'd like to cite an example.

Between 2002-2004, Brock Lesnar was dubbed as the next big thing, was heel, then face, then again heel and could be called the biggest star of Smackdown and a mainstay who gave us if not numerous then a handful of classic matches with the likes of Undertaker(HIAC) and Kurt Angle(WM, Summerslam, Ironman). Brock wrestled like an athlete, suplexed you like a machine, and clotheslined you like a beast and all with uncharacteristic swiftness for a huge man like him. Needless to say he was entertaining in the ring, and tolerable on the mic. Not Ric Flair on the mic, but then, who else in the history of pro-wrestling has exemplified the physique, amateur wrestling background, beastliness, great finisher, great trapezii, and intensity and credibility of Brock Lesnar? Surely guys like Batista, Lashley and Big E haven't. There's a big difference between Brock Lesnar doing a belly to belly overhead suplex and the latter. A discerning perceiver would understand.

Brock decides to quit in 2004. And thus you have Eddie Guerrero as your champion. Eddie was a very good, even a great wrestler. Good on the mic, great entertainer. But, do you really think he was a Total Package? Was JBL? or Rey Mysterio? Could you tolerate 2 yrs of Eddie Guerrero or The Miz or Rey Mysterio being in the main-event, like how Brock was?

That's the distinction between guys like Orton, Cena, HHH, Shawn Michaels, Bret Hart, Ric Flair and so on,,..and Eddie Guerrero, Jeff Hardy, and then Daniel Bryan. Jeff Hardy wasn't even built as Guerrero despite being 3 inches taller, nor possessed charisma/mic skills really(He was likeable to watch I admit but the whole charismatic enigma thing wouldn't work with bigger opponents like Brock Lesnar nor better wrestlers like Kurt Angle). What Jeff Hardy was was the WWE's cash crop. He sold merchandist and made the kids happy. And Jeff Hardy becomes a main-eventer(on Smackdown level at least). Just like Mysterio did, and Guerrero. My only proposition is that, Daniel Bryan might be a very good wrestler, but he doesn't really have a gimmick/presence/credibility to be a consistent "total package" champion like how CM Punk proved himself to be over time, and all guys did , whether it be Shawn Michaels or Ric Flair. Lets just say, WWE is trying to test the waters with him, as they did with Jeff Hardy. Time will only tell what becomes of him once he's really given the WWE WHC and the opportunity to be a babyface mainstay.

And If I'm true in my assertion that Bryan's much similar to Owen, do you really believe Owen too could've been a main-eventer with his mic skills and all and with Rock and Austin destined to dominate the attitude era with Undertaker, HHH, and Mick Foley always around to be transition champions?

 

[AegonTargaryen]

As far as a TRUE total package goes, I think it would've been HBK. But for some reason, he never drew like I thought he should've. Good looking, great on the mic, and one of if not the best in ring talent the WWE ever had. I still don't see how he never got over like others.

Some of that was resentment from guys who just flat out hated the persona of the heart break kid. I But as far as true total packages I think HBK was the best, maybe ever. But he didn't sell so some people will argue he wasn't close.

Totally. But I believe what he did not possess was longevity due to that injury. He was hardly a main-eventer what, like 2 yrs from 1996- 1998? and even in those years he took some months off, and Taker was Champion, so was Bret. I wonder how much bigger a star/main-eventer Shawn Michaels would've been had he never been injured in 1998 and stayed around.

 

[AegonTargaryen]

I do find it kinda ironic though that renaissanceman2014's criteria for a total package is actually mostly fulfilled by none other than his avatar, Damien Sandow. He's tall, natural on the mic, has a good build, can put on good matches, and I was actually quite interested to see what kind of WHC he would've made, too bad he never got the chance. And well, look at the poor guy now, a lot of us don't expect him to ever sniff a world title anymore.

I agree with you that Sandow could be considered a total package even though I really haven't seen him perform in big matches, those which Shawn Michaels and Mick Foley excelled at- the big match situation. Since I've been mostly citing total packages of the past and few from the present all of whom have been world champions and main-eventers, your mentioning of Sandow makes me assert Wade Barrett as a total package. He has the look, he wrestles decently, and is alright on the mic but never "Alas" could become anything after his loss/culmination with Cena. (Just as Sandow). Do you see Barrett becoming a world champion and main-eventer any time soon? I don't see Sandow becoming. My eyes are set on Roman Reigns and I would love to imagine Cesaro as champion.

 

[AegonTargaryen]

Great post, great points, I could not agree more.

I would however ask this...

Can a wrestler lose their "Total Package" status due to growing stale?

I feel like Orton was a total package but length of time on top with no real story or character development has made him seem less complete these days.

Also, with Brock Lesnar I think his credibility in the ring was actually hurt by his UFC run because it makes his matches just glaringly obvious works where belief has to be suspended to much in order to accept him as a professional wrestling performer.

Thoughts?

I'm not so sure about a wrestler losing "total package" status due to growing stale. One of the things which separates a Non-maineventer total package such as Damien Sandow or Wade Barrett from a main-eventer is that the latter have been consistently tested in the ring to be able to put on a good show , act out the roles/storylines given and keep evolving aka Longevity. Shawn Michaels, Kurt Angle, Sting, Undertaker, Flair, and The Rock have never ever been stale for that reason. But for somebody who was a total package and who becomes a main-eventer, then main-events year after year, and wins championships, like John Cena or Randy Orton, sooner or later they get boring to see and I've been deathly bored of John Cena for that reason and would agree that Randy Orton has been appearing lacklustre/unmotivated/complacent to me since 2011 now. But that doesn't mean you can erase everything Orton has done to attain the belief/credibility of being a Total Package.

I've been wondering how come people never felt bored of watching Hulk Hogan each and every time cutting the same Hulkamania promos and each and every match practically ending with the same Body Slams, Big Boots and Leg Drops. No grappling, no drama, no submission, no story like Ric Flair's matches.

As for Brock Lesnar and credibility/suspension of belief, at the end of the day, you'll have to live with it that all WWE guys- HHH, Cena, Taker have beaten the "Real" fighter from the UFC, regardless of whether they were strong enough, tough enough, or conditioned enough to accomplish that even in a Fake wrestling match or not. (I'm already taking it as a given that Taker beats Lesnar for the streak). That doesn't make Brock Lesnar any less entertaining but it probably makes a UFC fan feel bad to see former UFC champion Lesnar being chokeslammed around by the Undertaker who looks like Uncle Fester and pretty much gives away the impression of fragility and old age and his deadman schtick doesn't make it any better. Total lack of Credibility and Realism right there.

 

[Raptor93]

One rule and one rule only matters in entertainment: Money

The more money you make the better the you are. It dosen't matter how, you can do it the conventional way ie: Lesnar being a monster everyone wants to see destroy or be toppled, the rock: charismatic and of late nostalgia

or the unconventional way: DB every aspect goes against the wwe grain , used the YES chant, seriously who makes it big in wwe by chanting such a simple plain word? but it worked and thats all that matters. You can call it supid, dumb, boring but people pay to see it and it will continue so deal with it.

Many of us put up with cenas bullshit for years upon years thinking it inconceivable how such a limited, generic, infallible to the point of jesus christ wrestler could be the big entertaining thing but it happened and we dealt with it now your turn, have fun

 

[Jack-Hammer]

It's more than just wearing robes and saying WOO and more than just drinking beer and stunning your boss on national TV. Ric Flair cut the greatest promos and wrestled the best matches, be it with Ricky Steamboat or Sting and he did it consistently. I said one of the very important criterias is to be CREDIBLE as world champion and in my analogy of Bret/Owen and Punk/Bryan I asserted Bryan's credibility only being as good as being a good tag/IC champ, putting on great matches. I'd like to cite an example.

I understand that you don't like Daniel Bryan, that's all well and good, but you're trying to stretch the term "total package" to guys that the term can't genuinely be applied. Ric Flair was great, no question about that in my mind. However, Ric Flair wasn't exactly an extraordinary physical specimen. If you were to take a 30 year old Ric Flair and put him in the ring today, do you know what most modern fans would label him as? Some of the words that spring to mind are unathletic, slow and flabby.

http://www.ugo.com/sports/best-technical-wrestlers-ric-flair
http://www.rfgolds.com/ricflairpictures2.htm

These are some pictures of Flair when he was in his physical prime, during his early to mid 30s. As you can see, Flair doesn't exactly have a fantastic look when you compare him to guys like Batista, Randy Orton or John Cena. Was he in shape? Sure he was and still is considering his age. He just didn't look like a gym rat. Neither does Daniel Bryan, but the guy's obviously in great shape.

As far as Bret Hart goes, again, since when was Bret Hart a "total package?" at 6'0" and all of about 225 pounds? When it came down to charisma when compared with guys like Austin, Cena, The Rock, Ric Flair or HBK; Bret Hart wasn't exactly a master of the universe. His promo work wasn't exactly the stuff dreams are made of. However, he made fans care about him. That is the SINGLE most important factor that makes a wrestler a main eventer, it's something you don't want to acknowledge unless it comes to wrestlers that you yourself happen to be a fan of. If a guy having the right look is so much more important, then why wasn't Ezekiel Jackson essentially running WWE? Why wasn't Mason Ryan the next big thing? Why hasn't Fandango become more than mid-card fodder? Daniel Bryan, Ric Flair and Bret Hart are all wrestlers who're lacking in some way, shape or form but fans have been heavily over in spite of those shortcomings. Taking what you have, working hard, making the most of it, hoping that fans connect and taking off equals success. If you have a great look, more power to you, but it's hardly the end all & be all. Will Daniel Bryan be as over a year or two from now as he is now? Who knows. Maybe he will be and maybe he won't. At the same time, however, Bryan's popularity has only grown in the last 2.5years. He was extremely over as a heel and he's extremely over as a babyface. Frankly, he's more over than I think anybody was expecting.

I don't know that Bryan will be the "face" of WWE, I personally doubt it but I might very well be wrong. As I said, nobody was expecting Bryan to be as over as he's become. So if he is to be among the, if not THE, top dogs in the company for the next decade, that's just how it'll be if he keeps the fans interested.

 

[CM-Punkha]

I disagree with some of your post. Bret was not a total package, this coming from a guy who loved Bret as a kid religiously. Bret is pretty boring on the mic. But he was a great wrestler which got him over.

Also, it sounds like you alter your argument to fit the bill. You go on the total package criteria but even admit yourself that Punk is an exception. Just seems convenient but even accepting that premise, then to me it seems like guys like Punk opened the door for guys like Bryan, Neville or smaller to be a champion.

At the end of the day, you can talk about look. Or who is better on the mic or who is the best athlete. We seen wrestlers that have it all but can't succeed. The most important aspect is being a good story teller. That is what Bryan has in common with all those other greats. Bryan is the underdog, like Rey. Nothing wrong with that. Rey would beat big guys, Bryan goes through the odds by fighting multiple matches (and the 2nd one does not lack in steam as the first).

I am sure before Austin people would say "oh he is not Hogan, he swears and acts as a heel." Austin was telling a new story. You need to evolve your product or people will get tired of seeing the same crap over and over again.

 

[Softcore Holly]

I agree with you that Sandow could be considered a total package even though I really haven't seen him perform in big matches, those which Shawn Michaels and Mick Foley excelled at- the big match situation. Since I've been mostly citing total packages of the past and few from the present all of whom have been world champions and main-eventers, your mentioning of Sandow makes me assert Wade Barrett as a total package. He has the look, he wrestles decently, and is alright on the mic but never "Alas" could become anything after his loss/culmination with Cena. (Just as Sandow). Do you see Barrett becoming a world champion and main-eventer any time soon? I don't see Sandow becoming. My eyes are set on Roman Reigns and I would love to imagine Cesaro as champion.

Sandow hasn't had that many big match situations in general, he had a few great matches with the likes of Sheamus and Cena that makes me think he can hang with the big dogs if given the chance. But he definitely doesn't have the ability to have a great match with anyone like HBK, DB, Angle, etc etc.

Sadly enough I think Barrett's time has past, I like Barrett but he had some bad luck with injuries just when he was in line to get pushed that really hurt his chances, I don't think his long absence due to his visa issues last year did him any favors either. I'm actually kinda worried that they might be keeping him stuck in the podium and out of the ring for physical reasons, so there's that too.

Sandow's ship has probably sailed too, for w/e reasons he went from close to the front of the line to straight to the back of it, and now there's simply better choices out there like Reigns and Cesaro along with the current top tier we have now. I would hope that they eventually do something better with him other then losing to everyone and silly internet commercials.

 

[nWo2]

The Total Package is a guy like Cesaro, Ryback, Roman Reigns, Bray Wyatt, Big E and EVEN Jack Swagger!

If WWE would give any one of these guys a meaningful feud or storyline and slow burn them from feuds into the title picture they'd be credible, but the only one they've done that properly with on MY list is Bray Wyatt which is why he's OVER and looks great every time he's out