The Rockers - WWF's Most Successful Failure?

[My$terio_Fan]

I agree the Rockers weren't really big back in the day as far as tag teams go but the WWE have sorta re write history and have made The Rockers really bigger than they ever were. Their gimmick wasn't that original and they were not the top or top 3 as far as tag teams go at the time. Now 15 or so years later The Rockers are talked about and promoted as being one of the top tag teams ever and "new" fans dont know otherwise. WWE has done this before as far as Ric Flair and making him seem "bigger" than he actually was. And this is coming from a HUGE, HBK fan!

 

[klunderbunker]

The Rockers to me were similar to a lot of wrestlers during the 80s: They got by on their reputation. Every time that I can remember one of their matches, the commentators referred to them as tag team specialists. Ok that's fine to say that as they were supposed to be a young up and coming team, but if you think about it, doesn't that mean that they weren't good on their own? The Rockers became popular or a big name if you want to call them that because of their energy and the quickness. The problem was though that that's all they had: energy. They'd come out to their fast music, running/jogging to the ring, long hair flowing, and the fans would react to them because it wasn't something that had been seen before. It's, to an extent, the same thing that the Warrior did. Warrior didn't get over because of his in ring ability. He got over because of his energy, the music he came out to, the running, the shaking of the ropes and the flashy moves. The problem was there was no substance there, but the people were too excited by the hype and flashiness of his character. The Rockers as a team were average at best, then once people stopped seeing that, they fell apart fast and Shawn Michaels began his rise to superstardom.

 

[HBK-aholic]

You said they had good matches, I said they had bad matches. Big deal. Who's right?

Well, who is right are the fans who do or do not pay to watch a wrestler perform. If the wrestler or tag team is entertaining, then they will get people to pay to watch them. There is no arbitrary quality listing for which to judge matches, just how the crowd responds to them.

But with The Rockers never being the champions, you can't say they didn't draw. They were never put as the 'main attraction' and who's to say if they were they wouldn't have been successful?

Says who? You? The biggest HBK fan on the forums?

I'm taking this as a compliment.

No offense, but it's hard to take your opinion on that seriously, especially since the Rock N' Roll had MUCH greater success than the Rockers.

They were in different promotions. Different matches. The Rockers have been dubbed as a failure even in the title of this thread. So I aren't trying to argue that they weren't. But to say they didn't have good matches, or didn't influence the tag team division is ignorance.

This style was new to the WWE, they didn't trust this style. Yet today, teams who have been champions are compared to The Rockers. I think that shows the WWE was wrong in not trusting the Rockers.

Your position does not hold water. On no level can you be proven accurate.

No one can be proven accurate here. This question doesn't have a 100% answer. You've got to stop searching for one.

 

[klunderbunker]

Another thing that has to be factored in when comparing the RNR and the Rockers is the length of the matches that were going on as well as who they were facing. If I'm remembering right, RNR was famous mainly for their feud with The Midnight Express, who they fought hundreds if not thousands of times. These matches went on much longer than a typical WWE match at the time would because that was the style that was used by the WWE. The NWA had longer more drawn out matches than the WWE making it a much different style. That being said, yes, the RNR was probably more successful than the Rockers because they were on camera and in the ring a lot more often against a team that they had amazing chemistry with. Could they do the same thing with any team they faced? I highly doubt it. The Rockers were never the champions because during the majority of their time as a team the tag scene was dominated by Demolition, the LOD and the Harts, three of the most successful teams of all time. To say that the RNR was more successful is fair, but factoring in the amount of time they had in the ring and that their primary feud was against one team (yes I know they feuded with several teams), it would be difficult for them not to be.

 

[Slyfox696]

But with The Rockers never being the champions, you can't say they didn't draw. They were never put as the 'main attraction' and who's to say if they were they wouldn't have been successful?

Because they never drew well enough to be put as the main attraction?

It's not like the only people the WWF can measure the drawing ability of is their main-eventers. They can do it for everyone.

I'm taking this as a compliment.

It wasn't an insult.

But, you'll have to excuse me if I don't take your opinion on something involving Shawn Michaels' quality as fact, given your complete and totally biased viewpoint.

But to say they didn't have good matches, or didn't influence the tag team division is ignorance.

How did they influence the tag team division, when their influence was nothing more than an extension of the Rock N' Roll Express?

This style was new to the WWE, they didn't trust this style.

Or maybe, the Rockers just weren't good at it?

And people keep comparing the Hardys to the Rockers. They're nothing alike. In ANY way. The Hardys style doesn't even begin to compare to the Rockers. In fact, I'd say the only team who has had a style similar to the Rockers was London/Kendrick.

Yet today, teams who have been champions are compared to The Rockers.

Yes, because they know Shawn Michaels, and the Rockers had a memorable breakup.

I mean, how can you compare tag team champions who have different wrestling styles to a team that was basically a midcard tag team that never won tag titles (in the WWF)?

I think that shows the WWE was wrong in not trusting the Rockers.

Why? Because fans on a message board ignorantly compare a current tag team with a tag team whom they only recognize because of one of the wrestler's career success as a singles wrestler?

No one can be proven accurate here.

That may be true, but at least we can make valid factual points. You're not doing so.

I mean, we've already proven that the Rockers weren't original, weren't unique, were a rip-off gimmick, didn't draw, weren't trusted with the titles, and their match quality totally depended upon the working style of their opponents.

So, now we just have to figure out why people falsely associate new tag teams with the Rockers. At which point, I direct you to my first actual post on the topic.

Finally, let's examine this idea that the Rockers are the measuring stick for future tag teams. I don't think this is because the Rockers were so "great", I think it's because they were just the last of the tag teams, had a memorable breakup, and HBK has gone on to additional success. The differences between the Rockers and the Hart Foundation, LoD or the Outsiders lies in the memory of the breakup. It was the last time we saw a true tag team break up so cleanly into face and heels, and do so on non PPV TV.

I don't think that the Rockers were near as influential as people make them out to be, they just had a clean break and HBK is known by today's wrestling fans, where as no other is. 10 years from now, they'll be comparing tag teams to the Hardys, if for no other reason than because both Hardys will still be working, where as HBK will be gone.

And I'm sure Uncle Shocky will be so happy for that.

http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showpost.php?p=534891&postcount=6

Another thing that has to be factored in when comparing the RNR and the Rockers is the length of the matches that were going on as well as who they were facing. If I'm remembering right, RNR was famous mainly for their feud with The Midnight Express, who they fought hundreds if not thousands of times. These matches went on much longer than a typical WWE match at the time would because that was the style that was used by the WWE. The NWA had longer more drawn out matches than the WWE making it a much different style. That being said, yes, the RNR was probably more successful than the Rockers because they were on camera and in the ring a lot more often against a team that they had amazing chemistry with. Could they do the same thing with any team they faced? I highly doubt it. The Rockers were never the champions because during the majority of their time as a team the tag scene was dominated by Demolition, the LOD and the Harts, three of the most successful teams of all time. To say that the RNR was more successful is fair, but factoring in the amount of time they had in the ring and that their primary feud was against one team (yes I know they feuded with several teams), it would be difficult for them not to be.

The Rock N' Roll Express was a better fundamental tag team. Ricky Morton was better than Shawn Michaels (at the time both guys were in their respective tag teams) and Robert Gibson was loads better than Jeanetty. They were more versatile in the ring, and while a major part of their appeal was the fast paced, high flying style, they also were much more skilled on the mat, and were able to work with any of the tag teams they faced in the NWA.

However, the point is not about who was better. The point is that you cannot say the Rockers were original or that they revolutionized tag team wrestling, when the Rock N' Roll Express did EVERYTHING the Rockers did, and more, and did it with more success.

 

[klunderbunker]

However, the point is not about who was better. The point is that you cannot say the Rockers were original or that they revolutionized tag team wrestling, when the Rock N' Roll Express did EVERYTHING the Rockers did, and more, and did it with more success.

While the RNR did come first and did do everything that the Rockers did and more, the only problem here is that while the RNR did revolutionize tag team wrestling, the Rockers were the first team to do it in WWF which is the whole point of this debate. The RNR did do everything first, but the Rockers brought it to WWF. Both teams also accomplished their purpose as a tag team, with the RNR being booked as a main event level feud and one of the featured matches while the Rockers were booked as opening/mid carders, much like the rest of the tag division. The Rockers didn't revolutionize tag team wrestling worldwide, but they did revolutionize it in the WWF.

 

[MisterRob]

While the RNR did come first and did do everything that the Rockers did and more, the only problem here is that while the RNR did revolutionize tag team wrestling, the Rockers were the first team to do it in WWF which is the whole point of this debate. The RNR did do everything first, but the Rockers brought it to WWF. Both teams also accomplished their purpose as a tag team, with the RNR being booked as a main event level feud and one of the featured matches while the Rockers were booked as opening/mid carders, much like the rest of the tag division. The Rockers didn't revolutionize tag team wrestling worldwide, but they did revolutionize it in the WWF.

That's a flawed argument. The WWF couldn't get the Rock N' Roll Express to jump ship and come to the WWF so they brought in a tag team exactly like them, a rip off of them, to bring that style and the appeal of the Rock N' Roll Express to the WWF. How is that a plus for Michaesl and Jannetty? That means they were unoriginal and brought in as nothing else but a rip off from the start, and they accomplished nothing but to push the eventual singles career of Shawn Michaels. That does not make a good tag team legacy in any possible way.

I'd also like to know what tag teams in the WWE have been compared to the Rockers? Seriously. Since when have they mentioned the Rockers when talking about other, present day tag teams?

 

[klunderbunker]

The thing is though, it's hard to prove one way or the other that the Rockers ripped off the RNR. The RNR did come first and then the Rockers with a very similar style, but that's not to say that it was a copy. I'm not saying that it's a plus for the Rockers, I'm saying it's what they're known for. Just about any team with their size and speed could have done what the Rockers did. Their legacy is that they came into the company and did it, therefore they get the credit for it. Maybe they stole it from the RNR, maybe they took some of it from them, maybe they were just two small wrestlers that needed a fast style to make them look believable. Either way, they were the first to do it in the WWF which is their legacy as a tag team.

As for who's been compared to them, the only ones that I can think of are the Hardys, but that was just when they began to break through.