Since this is long I gather that most people will ignore it but here's my take on WWE and how fans perceive it.
It's definately true that some bigger names get pushes in favor of the younger guys but there's also the other side of the equation being that the younger guys get pushes a hell of a lot faster (overall) than years ago. Winning titles is no longer a rarity, it's an expectation. We're already at a point where just about everyone receives a title within probably two years of being on Raw or Smackdown so it's not like they're not given some room for growth. It's just that we're now conditioned for everything to happen as fast as possible and anything less is wrong. So while it's true that a lot of big names get more airtime and more victories than they possibly should, it's also true that the younger guys get a lot of opportunities as well. It's just that if they get big ones then seem to stall, it's bad because they're not reaching the top fast enough for what apparently is expected to be the new standard.
I'd like to see certain younger wrestlers receive victories over top level ones but winning isn't always everything. (as long as losing doesn't last forever) If a wrestler loses a match, or multiple matches in a row the common line is "they look weak." Really though for something to look a certain way it has to be perceived as such and from the looks of it most people perceive such a thing as horrible because they don't recognize that even in a loss, if a wrestler is made to look like they had a legit chance to win, there is still a positive that can be seen, more often than not. That applies to good matches, not squash ones. Some big names in the business had long losing streaks to the dismay of myself and others, but really they still were considered amongst WWE's most legit stars. They still got a shitload of airtime and even when not in the title scene, they still had plenty of other opportunities. I'm a rarity though in that I fully recognize all of WWE's faults, yet dont' put such a focus on them cause I'm willing to just watch something else if I'm not enterained. To each their own though.
Even without the politics and everything the fact remains that when a company creates roughly 104 new shows per year (now 156) plus ppvs it's going to get old, repetetive, etc. There is a lot that could be done better but even if it were, some of the same people would complain that they don't like how their wishes came true or they'd find something else to complain about. So even if WWE pushes "the right people" and things of that nature, there's always going to be plenty to nitpick in this day and age.
Years ago we got the first hiac matches which set high standards. Anything less was considered somewhat of a disspointment by most, even if they were entertained by the match. The only way to make things better and better was to keep topping what previously happened but that kind of thing inevitably becomes difficult. Years ago there were so many new things that people expected them to last forever. That was never going to happen.When WWE was in it's peak it was a phase. WWE has always been popular but a certain period was a phase. Now we get what we get, a product that can definately have a lot of improvements, but will not likely reach it's past level, at least for an extended amount of time.
We as fans wanting better things probably aren't the only ones that feel like we're in a no win situation, cause realistically so is WWE. It's not just up to WWE to get things in gear it's also up to us, the ones on our asses at home watching, to realize that not everything that could happen should. There's plenty that should but the way that people post over the last several years comes across as if everyone believes that their way is the one and only correct way as if there can really be millions of correct ways.
I'm not saying not to have opinions, and am certainly not saying not to express them, rather I'm saying that I think that it's nearly impossible for WWE to ever have the product that people yearn for cause even if they made the changes, there would still be something to bitch about. One can say "well TNA does this and that, or WCW did this or that" and come up with plenty of examples of how certain concepts can work elsehwhere and therefore they could in WWE, and that's true in many or most cases BUT it's also true that there are differences in each companie's situations as well.
For example WWE spends millions more per year on advertising, arenas, salaries, pyro, transporting equipment, travel, catering, etc. yet get called cheap by some fans becuase they didn't pay for the top names during the "invasion". The invasion had a lot of faults and wasn't even an invasion after the first few weeks. I too would have loved to have seen top names but considering everything that I just mentioned that they spend money on, in addition to the purchase of WCW back then and the money spent on the XFL, who the heck are we to dictate that Vince should have spent even more? Heck, even if there were the big names people would have complained about a clusterfuck as instead of just RVD getting cheers with the alliance (if there was one)we'd have maybe seen Goldberg, Sting, Hogan, etc maybe getting them. If there was no alliance, then things may have been even more confusing and we all know that confusion=bitching.
Then there's The Rock, who has been called a sellout by many for having the nerve to take another career path. Realistically if he were still in WWE people might bitch that he was on too much. If he were still a part time wrestler, people would complain as well. If he's not one at all...complaints. There are dozens and dozens of other examples. Is WWE what it used to be? Not at all but neither are we cause we (the iwc as a whole) are a bunch of nitpickers. We have plenty to complain about and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it but it often sounds like people aren't happening to recognize thigns that suck rather they're actively searching for them, almost as if they dedicate time to watch a show simply to find reasons to complain about it. That doesn't necessarily apply to anyone in this thread, rather posters as a whole. If forums were as big 10 years ago as now some things that we look highly upon about the past would have also been degraded to the furthest possible extent.
