Why Do All Smarks want the younger Wrestlers 2 always win over the old ones?

[mr.davidson]

K

This is just a question i have, but i think its a good one. In most of these threads i have looked through everyone is always bitching about guys like Hulk Hogan, Triple H, Ric Flair, shawn, and maybe even Austin all the real big names in wrestling. they say these wrestlers " Will Not Put The Younger Talent over and JOB 4 them"

My question is y should they???

These are all time greats that if you look at any of them and their track record they have put over many younger talents in the past.

Hulk Hogan put of Kurt Angle with a clen Submission

Triple H is always Putting over Orton and his crew

Shawn does the same.

And Ric Flair even helped many younger talents in his time.

So these guys dont do it all the time but they do put guys over when necessary.

So y is it everytime i read these posts everyone bitches about the old timers and them not giving into the younger talent.

Its my personal opinion that yes they should give a push 2 some younger talent, but only if they truly deserve it. if u waste a guy like Hulk or Hunter giving into all the young talent then eventually it will mean nuthing.

I really think events like this should really B looked at more carefully.

Whats your opinion? very curious

 

[It's...Baylariat!]

The reason the older guard should put the younger guys over is to pass the torch so to speak. HBK, Austin, Hulk, and some of the other wrestlers you mentioned don't know how to let go of their twilight years where they were it, making good money and being the top draw. Now, only Hogan and the old HBK were guilty of this, but the fact is , they've even grown accustomed to putting newer guys over. Hogan put over Lesnar, HBK put Cena over, and so did HHH. Austin was willing to put anyone over that needed it as long as the story was on a big stage where it could make sense.

And I wouldn't call it 'bitching' as much as we're just discussing why younger more upstart wrestlers have to scratch and claw to get to the spots that Hogan and HBK were at. If we think someone should be put over, then we're going to talk about it. What you call 'bitching' is simply a case of us debating.

 

[Tyler44]

I agree with you. I can't stand the bitching about Triple H not putting over young talent and how he hogs the title. You need the big named guy who is always champion and doesn't lose often because when that guy eventually does decide he is going to step down a bit, the guy he loses to will become much bigger. Seriously, if Triple H loses every match against Cody Rhodes, Ted DiBiase, The Miz, Jack Swagger, then what the hell does that do. It certainly will destroy Triple H and it won't make the fourth guy look that good. Do you want Triple H exactly like Kane? Kane used to be that huge monster, but now look at him. WWE still trys selling he is an evil giant monster who is actually good, but he loses most of his matches and the guys that win don't really look that good.

For example: Randomly Triple H faces Jack Swagger on RAW and loses. So now Triple H looks like shit but Jack Swagger looks great. So far so good for all the complainers, but then The Miz beats Triple H. Now that doesn't really look that good for either Triple H or the The Miz since Jack Swagger just did it. Now Triple H doesn't seem good and now Jack Swagger and The Miz are considered better than Triple H. What the hell does this do? Do you want Triple H to just lose to random mid-carders that still haven't created a name for themselves and then those guys just become champion?

What WWE is doing with Triple H is golden. We all look at Triple H as the dominant guy in WWE along with John Cena. These guys should not put over talent all the time because then their credibility looks terrible. You want big named guys at the top of the mountain, and the low-profiled, less popular people fighting there way to the top.

Plus Triple H still does put over young talent. Legacy has beaten DX on a ppv, but WWE pulled it off to make it still keep Triple H as the dominant guy since he was not pinned. That is a smart move because HBK is at the stage where he is putting over talent occasionally because he is not a dominant champion in WWE anymore. Since Triple H is still good in the ring and still very popular, why would you take that away and leave a main event full of Orton, Cena, and a few young guys. You want a handful of these big named guys and WWE has that. They have Cena, Triple H, Edge, and Undertaker. These guys should not put over young talent all the time until they seem to lose a step in the ring and lose popularity.

 

[D-Man]

It's as simple as this... don't you want to watch pro-wrestling 5, 10, 20, and 50 years from now? If so, then older talent had better swallow their pride and job out to the new generation.

WCW was a perfect example of what NOT to do in terms of older talent always going over new talent. One of the largest reasons why the company fell into a downward spiral is because they were not prepping for the future of professional wrestling. Therefore, their stars, gimmicks, stables, and angles became extremely stale.

Most of these guys can't seem to let go of their "spot". They know that old age and the approach to the downhill portion of their careers is inevitable. They also know that it took them years and years to get that top spot only to have it taken away from them within a decade. It's a tough pill to swallow for them, bu they need to realize that if they ever want to become a legend, they need to step down. Otherwise, there won't be a hall of fame for them to be elected into.

 

[Blade]

As beautifully as you worded the title of this thread, I decided to give you an answer.

It's true that wrestling fans love older wrestlers. We love legends. We love the Undertaker and DX and Jericho and so on. These guys have given us so many great moments and matches and we respect the hell out of them. We want to see them, but we don't want to see them in the main event if they're past their prime.

We, as fans, have seen these older wrestlers in their prime and we cheered them on when they were champions in their prime. But if they stay in the main event scene once they've passed their prime, it's seen as overstaying their welcome. We've seen them for years, and they've shown us all they can do. So it's natural that the fans want something new and exciting after a while.

So the new, young, exciting wrestlers come along to takeover the main event scene as the older guys are preparing to retire. But the problem is, these young wrestlers need to be over to get into the main event. History has shown that the quickest way to get a young wrestler over is to making him win clean in a match with an established star.

We want to see how good the young guys can be and we want to see the older guys pass the torch before we lose respect for them. Pretty simple.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

It's not that people always want younger wrestlers to always win, but there comes a time when the older guys need to swallow their pride and be willing to step aside so that younger guys can come into the limelight and carry on the business.

One of the biggest worries regarding TNA's partnership with Hulk Hogan is that he is going to come into the company and basically just start running roughshod over all the young guys within TNA for no other reason than to personally satisfy his ego because he believes he's still the greatest thing in professional wrestling. Nobody knows that's what's gonna happen, of course, but people look at Hogan's history and holding down younger guys is exactly what he did. It's all he did while he was in WCW. According to some earlier intervies, Hogan has stated that his position in TNA will be pretty much just like the one he had in WCW, only that it'll be "official" within TNA. When fans complain that they're tired of seeing older guys come in and dominate younger guys even though the older guys tend to be well past their prime and hardly able to put on a competitive wrestling match, you ultimately have Hulk Hogan to thank for that.

The fact is that you've got to prepare for the future and you can only do that by eventually building up new talent and putting them over rather than stroking the egos of older guys that are simply unwilling to let go of the spotlight. A wrestling company can have all the fantastic young talent in the world, but it doesn't mean shit if the older guys with the stroke are unwilling to step aside and convince the powers that be to keep them on their spots.

 

[Dagger Dias]

I'm going to agree with most of what has already been said. Eventually all wrestlers must pass the torch. People get old. It's as simple as that. No one can be on the top forever, and that includes the legends. If the same person was on top all the time, no matter what, then by the time he is too old to wrestler anymore then no one would be seen as "good enough" to replace him because he never put anyone over as a legitimate threat, then fans lose interest in the product and the federation loses money. Simply put, I'd say it is because they want the business to still be around in the future, and it obviously can't unless every now and then someone new makes it to the top.

 

[MeanGene]

I don't think age or status should matter too much. If an up and comer has the skills to win then that's they way it should be..try and instill a little reality. I think they should size up the match and determine the most logical winner based on size and skill set, but it's measured on Mic skills more often than not. If Sheamus beats Cena, then stomps all over the Undertaker and ruin his streak at WM26, that would be awesome!! Nobdoy would see that coming would they? We all know Taker's skills aren't what they used to be, but we also know he will retire undefeated at wrestlemania. When they have the Miz beat Mark Henry it is very lame. And we all know its done because of the dollar. Randy Orton is by far the best out there....

 

[CaptainZaltan]

All great answers so far. Let me also add two reasons of my own:

1. It's incredibly boring seeing the same wrestlers main eventing every ppv and every tv broadcast. year after year. New talent needs to be added into the mix at the top of the company in order to keep the product fresh. And in order to do this in any sort of believable or effective capacity, the old guard need to lose some matches to the new guys.

2. There is generally (but not always) an 'expiration date' as to when wrestlers can effectively be promoted to the main event. When certain performers hog the spotlight long after they have stopped being entertaining and thus prevent others from stepping up, this can result in other (possibly more talented) performers never getting a main event opportunity and eventually fizzling out or being typecast in a midcard role. There are countless examples out there, but to name a few: Ted Dibiase, Curt Henning, Barry Windham. Other times, their main event runs may start far later than they should have: I think you could probably count RVD, Benoit, Eddie, and even Steve Austin among that number.

Honestly, if Hulk Hogan hadn't left the WWF, I have to wonder whether or not Bret Hart or Shawn Michaels would have ever been given the chance to step up. I think at the very least, we can all agree that the young guys deserve to be given the chance. This either requires the established stars hitting the bricks or doing a few jobs.

 

[jimjoanne]

It's not that people always want younger wrestlers to always win, but there comes a time when the older guys need to swallow their pride and be willing to step aside so that younger guys can come into the limelight and carry on the business.

One of the biggest worries regarding TNA's partnership with Hulk Hogan is that he is going to come into the company and basically just start running roughshod over all the young guys within TNA for no other reason than to personally satisfy his ego because he believes he's still the greatest thing in professional wrestling. Nobody knows that's what's gonna happen, of course, but people look at Hogan's history and holding down younger guys is exactly what he did. It's all he did while he was in WCW. According to some earlier intervies, Hogan has stated that his position in TNA will be pretty much just like the one he had in WCW, only that it'll be "official" within TNA. When fans complain that they're tired of seeing older guys come in and dominate younger guys even though the older guys tend to be well past their prime and hardly able to put on a competitive wrestling match, you ultimately have Hulk Hogan to thank for that.

The fact is that you've got to prepare for the future and you can only do that by eventually building up new talent and putting them over rather than stroking the egos of older guys that are simply unwilling to let go of the spotlight. A wrestling company can have all the fantastic young talent in the world, but it doesn't mean shit if the older guys with the stroke are unwilling to step aside and convince the powers that be to keep them on their spots.

Hogan gets a lot of shit for not jobing but I think he has jobbed a lot since the hayday of Hulkamania. 1. Lost to Ultimate Warrior 2. Undertaker 91 3. Yokozuna. 4. Jaques Rouge WTF!!! 5. Arn Anderson 6. Ric Flair 7. Piper 8. Luger 9. Sting. 10 Goldberg 11. TripleH 12. Kurt Angel 13 Brock Lesner 14. The Rock. 15. Undertaker 2002

 

[UseYourBrain]

It's as simple as this... don't you want to watch pro-wrestling 5, 10, 20, and 50 years from now? If so, then older talent had better swallow their pride and job out to the new generation.

WCW was a perfect example of what NOT to do in terms of older talent always going over new talent.

HBK, Taker, and HHH are NOTHING compared to what the WCW main eventers once did. Those three have lost to numerous up-and-comers, from Cena to Jeff Hardy to Randy Orton to Ken Kennedy to Brock Lesnar to Shelton Benjamin. WCW main eventers were like a mafia, losing only to each other in a pact to keep each other on top. WWE main eventers do a LOT to build new stars. Way more than they are given credit for, anyway.

 

[Nadeem Ahmad]

Besides putting other talented workers over, the company usually needs those one, two or three people that barely lose because they help to establish some credibility for them, for the titles that they may have held and for the wrestlers that might eventually beat them. Although Triple H, Hulk Hogan and maybe Steve Austin won at lots of times, they really aided Batista, Yokozuna and Kurt Angle respectively in being secondary faces of the organization which was an improvement from being lost in the midcard.

Who would not perceive them as being lazy muscular or fat athletes that could not keep up with younger and brighter competitors if they did not practically hang with them? Although Angle was not a big sluggish dude he was mostly thought of as a joke when he cheated to take the title from Rocky before transitionally losing it to him again and really helped the audience to feel pride after correctly taking care of Austin for the second reign which started with him beating the most recognizable character of the era. If Stone Cold was not as hard to keep away for two of the past years then it might not have been seen as a big deal and he would have beaten another brawler. I know he lost it to him after a few days but he had proven to be able of winning with a veteran.

This point was mentioned already but I was emphasizing it because if each newer character was to go against the established wrestlers and win regularly, then we might see more of the transitional champions like Bob Backlund, Kane, Mankind, Big Show, Rey Mysterio or Jeff Hardy who could not sustain the loads of carrying the responsibilities.

 

[Max Moon]

Ok. Let's start here; "smark". Made up word giving marks (all of us) the idea that we're smarter in terms of wrestling than the casual viewer. Using the word makes you seem dumber. It's true.
Secondly, I for one am not sick of watching the same five wrestlers headline and main event every show and PPV just like they have for the past six years. I mean come on, who doesn't want to watch Cena v. HHH one more time. They may change the way HHH gets out of the STF. So, I don't care if creative never challenges themselves hard enough to develop a few good young characters like the did ten years ago with said "old guys." No established star ever jobbed to HHH when he was younger, and you see where he is today. It was just like, "poof you're credible".

 

[D-Man]

HBK, Taker, and HHH are NOTHING compared to what the WCW main eventers once did. Those three have lost to numerous up-and-comers, from Cena to Jeff Hardy to Randy Orton to Ken Kennedy to Brock Lesnar to Shelton Benjamin. WCW main eventers were like a mafia, losing only to each other in a pact to keep each other on top. WWE main eventers do a LOT to build new stars. Way more than they are given credit for, anyway.

So, I'm assuming that you agree with me then? It almost seems as if you're contradicting me, yet this post agrees with everything I said.

Just for the record, I never stated that wrestlers like HHH, HBK, and Undertaker DON'T job out to younger opponents. I'm just replying to the original poster's question by stating that they SHOULD job out to them, especially when their primes have come and gone. Without this "circle of life" in the wrestling business, there is no future. Case in point: WCW

Ok. Let's start here; "smark". Made up word giving marks (all of us) the idea that we're smarter in terms of wrestling than the casual viewer. Using the word makes you seem dumber. It's true.
Secondly, I for one am not sick of watching the same five wrestlers headline and main event every show and PPV just like they have for the past six years. I mean come on, who doesn't want to watch Cena v. HHH one more time. They may change the way HHH gets out of the STF. So, I don't care if creative never challenges themselves hard enough to develop a few good young characters like the did ten years ago with said "old guys." No established star ever jobbed to HHH when he was younger, and you see where he is today. It was just like, "poof you're credible".

This doesn't really answer the original poster's question. I respect your opinion and agree that on some occasions I don't mind seeing HHH vs. John Cena again, but this is only if HHH jobs out to Cena. Why, you ask? Because Cena is still in the nucleus of his prime at the moment. Triple H's time has come and gone. And for someone that "eats, sleeps, and lives this business" he should understand that stepping aside for John Cena is the right thing to do.

 

[mr.davidson]

I knew this would start

Though jobbing somtimes is important. i really think the WWE makes established stars job 2 mauch... rather then wait for a really good up and coming star... they make there number 1 guys job 2 much looking for the new star and see where he goes, and if he doesnt work out then he is forgotten about and it makes the established star look like shit.

if a star like Hulk Hogan jobs to A.J Styles i totally understand.

But for a guy like Cena to Job to Sheamus. Really you dont even know if Shamus is going 2 make in for a long period. so i really think it is going to be a watse.

 

[D-Man]

I knew this would start

Though jobbing somtimes is important. i really think the WWE makes established stars job 2 mauch... rather then wait for a really good up and coming star... they make there number 1 guys job 2 much looking for the new star and see where he goes, and if he doesnt work out then he is forgotten about and it makes the established star look like shit.

if a star like Hulk Hogan jobs to A.J Styles i totally understand.

But for a guy like Cena to Job to Sheamus. Really you dont even know if Shamus is going 2 make in for a long period. so i really think it is going to be a watse.

Naturally, it depends on whether the push and job is right for the character in which is was meant for. There's no need to explain that one. Even John Cena went through a process before he was pushed to the moon. But he also chose his own stars and use his Thuganomics character to win over the crowd. His push was inevitable.

But there's no way that someone should be brought into the WWE and start mowing down the legends of the sport. That is, not unless there's good reason for it. For instance, Brock Lesnar was an accomplished athlete in high school and college and he was also a humungous specimen. Having him walk into the WWE and start destroying the talent therein just made sense. The guy was a diamond-in-the-rough type of talent and deserved the push he was given. Sheamus... not so much. However, if the WWE sees something in him that we don't, we may see a new world champion. But these situations are simply stated as matters of circumstance.

 

[gully side adidja]

why because it is the young wrestlers who are gonna lead the future for the wrestling buisness not the fossils,imagine this in 10 years the tna champion is 70 year old ric flair,and the wwe champion is 55 year old undertaker,hah,so you telling me that young physically fit, in there peak,energetic, hungry young wrestlers,are in a company where a man who is collecting his pension and going to bingo,is the champion,if a established veteran can put a young guy over, it will make fans believe he is the real deal,instead of someone saying 'well he never beat so and so before he retired so how can i believe this guy is the best', going of topic a lil bit,but you get what i mean,would people look at brock lesnar the same way if he did not beat the rock before he left,or when orton beat benoit cleanly for the world title, before benoit came out of the main event,or goldberg beating hogan cleanly,didn't think so. the young are the future,and the veteran's are there to help them get over,holla!

 

[King Blitzkonic]

Here's the thing: even though the vets sometimes put over younger guys they think will get it done in the future(Taker vs. Jeff feud in 2002... Taker won BUT Jeff earned his respect. Example 2: DDP talks about how he wished Taker would have given half as much vs. DDP himself as he did against Edge).... there are also cases where they REFUSE to make a young guy look good (Jim Duggan vs. Berlyn[bka Alex Wright] comes to mind...Also our own Hardcore Holly who's notorious for being uber-stiff with rookies (RR 2005 with Puder anyone? My chest burns just thinking about it)...See also Holly vs Lesnar [sandbagged powerbomb])

In the end it comes down to the amount of pull a veteran has. So someone like HHH will only put someone over if HE wants to but the one put over may not always get that big push. (Anyone remember Shelton beating HHH clean in 2003, I think?)

Let's look at cases where the vets won a match but made the opponent look like main-event caliber instead of cannon fodder:
Taker vs. Jeff Hardy, 2002
HHH vs. Shelton Benjamin (2003 or 2004?)
Taker vs. Orton (multiple times)
Flair vs.opponent (more occasions than I can list here)
Sting vs. Dean Malenko (1996, MAJOR heat from me on WCW/WWE for never main-eventing the Iceman)
Benoit vs. Orton (2004 or 2005 I think)
Benoit vs. MVP (forgot when)
multiple matches against vets (John Morrison)
...I could go on and on

These days the guys filling that role that if you're in line for a semi-push if you're booked over them: Kane, Finlay, Goldust (to an extent), Mark Henry (Mostly)...and so on.

 

[Evil11978]

I still remember the time when the match between bret and stone cold happened that put stone cold's face on the map cuz bret made stone cold pass out and when the fans cheered him on that made bret go heel and bret being the vet put stone cold just starting his 316 campaign in effect