WWE, getting someone over and younger talent

[proweeks]

with the 2.6 rating im glad and sad, I dont ever want to see WWE get into a bind they cant get out of, but I hope it teaches them a lesson to start taking better and different approaches.

Ok. building new stars, touchy subject

its what WWE "USED" to be good at doing, especially around the 1963-2000 era(yep a 40 year time span without a hitch), but since then, theyve made Cena and Orton and thats about it

now I know i will get some heat and arguments for these statements but i was thinking long and hard about the many problems in WWE and this is a big one

WWE seems to be trying to push young early 20's talent, but it seems that these days no one is "truly" "getting over".

heres my big point-you look at the success of WWE from whenever it came into popularity (1963) until about 2000 they built stars who were great ring generals, great on the mic, and looked the part of an intimidating guy and were 30 or older

it seems the problem nowadays is that they are pushing nothing but early 20's guys who:cant wrestle (they can only do glorified spot fests), are horrible on the mic, and dont look intimidating or like a wrestler whatsoever


now with the exception of the Rock and Randy Orton (and thats because there good in the ring and on the mic and Orton rubbed off from older talent) no one this young has ever gotten beloved by the fans

heres a list of everyone from the glory days of wrestling that were over as hell and, you guessed it, over 30 years old


Bruno Sammartino
Harley Race
Ric Flair
Hulk Hogan
Stone Cold
Bret Hart
Kurt Angle
Sting
RVD
Triple H
Batista
Cena
Jake Roberts
Macho Man
DDP
Mick Foley
Shawn Michaels
Chris Jericho
Bob Backlund
Ultimate Warrior

The bottom line is everyone whose ever made it big, was over 30, didn't look like a little kid who didnt look like he belonged in a wrestling ring, didn't do 30 flips off the top rope in every match, told stories and were great on the mic

this is an art form WWE is losing and they're replacing it with younger "more capable talent"

 

[The Mark of Zur-En-Arrh]

I can't believe you put Batista in that list. He's terrible on the mic. He's gotten better but he's still nowhere near what a lot of other people on that list are/were capable of.

And how can you say that Batista and Cena were over during the 'glory days' when the rest of your post focuses on a time that ends in 2000, when both Batista and Cena debuted in 2002?

Also, i'm confused, because, most of your post is about how WWE knew what they were doing in creating stars up to 2000. So why are RVD and Sting in this list? Sting's never been in WWE and RVD joined in '01. Is your list about recognized names generally or did you mean to include just WWE guys?

Also, you didn't include the Undertaker in that list of people who were stupidly over. Taker has also never been good on the mic, yet is undoubtedly a legend in the business and even gets special treatment because of his gimmick. Granted Taker was still in his 20's when he came to WWF but he was no rookie by any means, because he wrestled in WCW for several years beforehand.

None of the people on your list got over by doing 30 flips per match, so i assume you mean 'high risk spots', yet Mick Foley is in your list. What is the one thing he's remembered most for again? It's not losing an ear in Germany. It's not burning Terry Funk with a flaming towel. It's not even taking 11 odd chair shots to the face in the space of 3 minutes against the Rock in '99 either. It's falling over 10 feet twice in the space of 5 minutes, and making the world think he'd just been killed on live television, that probably set the bar for high risk spots in all of sports entertainment, as well as his countless other spots, injuries and hardcore matches.

There's been plenty of 'over' talent that couldn't wrestle for shit, or couldn't talk for shit either. As i've said a million times over, these guys need to be given more mic time and put more thought into their characters, but they don't do that, or Creative don't feel they've done it enough so they don't get the chance to flesh out their gimmicks, and get the crowd to love or hate them, they're simply just there. People enjoy Jimmy Wang Yang, but does he ever get the mic? No, so do i ever expect him to be in a fued or have a mid card title? No. It's the same with John Morrison. No character development ever. He just does his piss take routine on the website and then no one cares about him despite all his talent when he's in the ring. Yes they can wrestle, but does anyone really care at the end of the day. A few people do, but not for long.

 

[jpfizzle]

I hear this argument alot and I just think to myself....give them a chance! For me I find the new talent, or at least the majority of it just as exciting to watch as I did the Rock, Batista and Cena when they where young guns, prone to the odd mistake but hungry and passionate. At the end of the day the young blood on RAW: Kofi, Ted Dibiase, Cody Rhodes are both hungry and passionate... I'm not including Cm punk on this list because he is older than Orton so doesn't fit the "younger guys" label anyway. The thing that the young guys have is passion, most of the third generation superstars we see coming through have wrestling pumping through them, it IS their life. But you cant expect them to be Main Eventing and over within less than a year... in recent memory I've only seen that happen twice. Kurt Angle, who had a history in the olympics and is an exceptional talent and Brock Lesnar, who went too far too fast and decided he couldn't handle it. Had they pushed Brock Lesnar slower he would've been around longer... he strikes me as the type who just wants to tick of as many goals in life as he can.

I just think that the way WWE are building these stars at the moment, in 5 years time when Undertaker, Shawn Michaels and Batista by the looks of things wont be around, there giving themselves a much better chance of survival, I read in another thread someone say "for every Braden Walker, Dolph Diggler and Snitsky you get an Evan Bourne..." I think you can take Bournes name and replace it with a number of the younger guys names. It is these names who will be the next big things in wrestling but it wont happen overnight.

 

[proweeks]

I can't believe you put Batista in that list. He's terrible on the mic. He's gotten better but he's still nowhere near what a lot of other people on that list are/were capable of.

And how can you say that Batista and Cena were over during the 'glory days' when the rest of your post focuses on a time that ends in 2000, when both Batista and Cena debuted in 2002?


Also, i'm confused, because, most of your post is about how WWE knew what they were doing in creating stars up to 2000. So why are RVD and Sting in this list? Sting's never been in WWE and RVD joined in '01. Is your list about recognized names generally or did you mean to include just WWE guys?


Also, you didn't include the Undertaker in that list of people who were stupidly over. Taker has also never been good on the mic, yet is undoubtedly a legend in the business and even gets special treatment because of his gimmick. Granted Taker was still in his 20's when he came to WWF but he was no rookie by any means, because he wrestled in WCW for several years beforehand.



None of the people on your list got over by doing 30 flips per match, so i assume you mean 'high risk spots', yet Mick Foley is in your list. What is the one thing he's remembered most for again? It's not losing an ear in Germany. It's not burning Terry Funk with a flaming towel. It's not even taking 11 odd chair shots to the face in the space of 3 minutes against the Rock in '99 either. It's falling over 10 feet twice in the space of 5 minutes, and making the world think he'd just been killed on live television, that probably set the bar for high risk spots in all of sports entertainment, as well as his countless other spots, injuries and hardcore matches.


There's been plenty of 'over' talent that couldn't wrestle for shit, or couldn't talk for shit either. As i've said a million times over, these guys need to be given more mic time and put more thought into their characters, but they don't do that, or Creative don't feel they've done it enough so they don't get the chance to flesh out their gimmicks, and get the crowd to love or hate them, they're simply just there. People enjoy Jimmy Wang Yang, but does he ever get the mic? No, so do i ever expect him to be in a fued or have a mid card title? No. It's the same with John Morrison. No character development ever. He just does his piss take routine on the website and then no one cares about him despite all his talent when he's in the ring. Yes they can wrestle, but does anyone really care at the end of the day. A few people do, but not for long.

I was in a hurry making this post last night and I didnt make it specific, the only reason I named them is because they are "over 30" like I was saying and they and Orton and the only 2 that WWE has gotten "over" in at least 5 years, hell Batista is 1 year away from 40

I know this is in a WWE column, but I pretty much mean wrestling in general

yes, as I sayed before, i was in a hurry and I feel like an idiot for not including 'Taker, I also forgot Dusty Rhodes of all people, and Pat Patterson and Slaughter

Foley, once again was over 30 and he was good on the mic and telling storys and he wasnt agile by any means and didnt have that stereotypical cookie cutter appearance that everyone has today

 

[Davi323]

Sorry, but the 2.6 is an aberration, due to the FANTASTIC Monday Night Football game between Dallas and Philadelphia. The NFL pretty much caters to the exact same viewers RAW does, and when you have a matchup like Dallas/Philly, that is back and forth all night, its hard to keep it on RAW. I love football, I love wrestling, and usually wrestling wins on monday nights, but, damn...a game like that had me watching MNF more than RAW too. The entire premise that because they got a 2.6 rating they have to learn from it is nonsense. The WWE didn't do anything wrong monday, they just got overshadowed by a great NFL matchup that lived up to its billing. So, I dispute the premise that the rating means they have to change their approach.

But, as to making new stars, its something they have to do. You have to try to get the young wrestlers "over" now, so that its not a wasted effort later. If they hype Ted DiBiase jr now, when he is in his early twenties, when he has been with the company for a while longer, and they decide its time to give him a belt, we are already accustomed to him, the fact that he has been there "long enough" dispels the "he didn't earn his dues" argument, and lets face it, the longer a guy is with the company, the better. I have no problems with the WWE getting me used to the idea of seeing an early twenties Ted DiBiase jr with a tag team title, (I won't comment on Cody Rhodes) because it means two years from now, when he is still young, I believe him as an IC champion, or even a possible main eventer. Building new Superstars while they are young is crucial for the business to survive. There aren't 50 other promotions to do it for you anymore, when you get a young talent that you think has what it takes, you have to give him the chance. Without those promotions, you simply can't wait to do it. The WWE is developing fan bases. In order to do that, you have to keep injecting fresh blood. The older talent WILL retire someday, and you need to have people who can step in. There must some form of continuity.

HBK:There was a time when HBK was an up and coming youngster, He was in his twenties when "The Heartbreak Kid" was born.

The Hardys: both were still in their 20s and winning the tag team titles a million times, and became huge fan favorites.

The Rock:almost all of the Rock's wrestling career was while he was in his twenties.

John Cena: was way over while he was in his twenties, as he is only 31 years old right now.

Ric Flair: won his first championship (NWA Mid Atlantic) at age 26, and by the time he hit age 30, he had won multiple NWA US Heavyweight championships.

Harley Race: won his first wrestling title at age 18.

Rob Van Dam: His entire career in ECW was while he was still in his twenties. Try telling fans of the real ECW that RVD wasn't over as hell.

In fact, a lot of the "older" wrestlers that got over were over when they were in their twenties too, but you don't remember it, because you are only counting their time in the WWE or WCW, ignoring promotions they may have been apart of earlier. Bret Hart may not have gotten over in the WWF until after he was 30, but he had already been in Stampede Wrestling for a long time prior to coming to the WWF. In some cases, they weren't "over" for the simple fact that they didn't become employees of the WWF/E until after they were 30. You can't use that against them.