Is this really the '' Most talented roster ever?''

It's all about how exciting the matches are, and the talent it takes to put together an exciting match.

If you take the 80s-mid 90s for example, you had really vivid, colourful, charismatic characters, but for the most part the matches were simple and dull.

Late 90s - to mid 2000s, you had charismatic characters, who could perform better matches than their predecessors, but not as varied, vivid and colourful characters.

In the present day product, you don't really have many characters anymore. You have character traits, but all of the wrestlers are portrayed to be normal humans, rather than supernatural, superhuman, etc. However the big bonus to that is that the match quality is far higher than it ever has been. The downside is that the wrestlers are injuring themselves more often due to the increased pace and therefore increased risk. That's what makes them the most talented roster that WWE has ever had: match quality.

The thing is that the wrestling industry has really moved on from larger than life characters. In this social media age, it's not really possible for any character to have much mystique, and larger than life characters were rapidly decreasing before the introduction of social media in any case.

Of course the extremely poor talent of WWE's current creative team is at a 21st century low, which is not good at all. They operate with almost no logic at all, and WWE makes the disastrous choice to only hire people who don't watch wrestling, which completely defies all logic, and ensures that they won't be much good.

well you cant expect everyone to put on 5 star classics every night either, because if the show was filled with that stuff it would truly take away from the times when we actually get it. i dont think its unreasonable to expect a higher level of ring performance from these guys nowadays though because the business has evolved. there are still superhuman like guys who do big things, etc....but there are also guys who are just awesome inside the ring and more often than not they aren't allowed to be themselves due to WWE's "restriction".....its a double-edged sword really, you dont want the talent burning themselves out every single night/week, but you also dont want to let them become boring.

however this generation has more guys who are capable of putting on amazing, entertaining matches than any previous. we've moved on from the slow build, sell your ass off, generation to high impact, high spot, pop the crowd stuff. sometimes it works great, sometimes it feels forced and unnatural. but one thing we have now, more than ever is the potential for greatness every single night

I got the fast paced thing, i got the spots galore thing, and the guy/girl next door reliability that some of these people have. I just don't think it will ever bring in the mainstream world, it's wrestler. Sports Entertainment has always been the sell, long before Vinnie coined the term.

Bruno, Hogan, Austin, Cena, they are all bigger than life. Ditto for Savage, Piper, Rock, Sting, without these types of guys it doesn't matter who good your workrate is. Work rate has never led to a boom period and it never will.


The over- glorification of the in ring abilities is part of the problem with the WWE no longer being a Network or Cable TV Juggernaut. Personality sells, looks sell, getting people emotionally invested in the pursuit of revenge or a title sell. Wrestling has always been an art form, that lived on creating human emotion. The problem with this roster is that they just are very good sport entertainers. The art of professional wrestling is pretty much dead. It's not like you can't have both, watch a Rick Rude vs Ricky Steamboat match and tell me the wrestling isn't great and they aren't milking the crowd too.

Alexis Bliss, Enzo Amore, Dean Ambrose, are some of the few natural entertainers i see when i do bother to check out the shows.


Again i see a lot of wrestlers but next to no entertainers. That's not exactly a winning formula. To me the WWE is an IWC circle jerk at this point.

The excuse is that better wrestling comes with less character and ability to work a crowd. Steamboat and the Rock N Roll Express had plenty of exciting fast paced matches, but they had personality and sold.

Hell the IWC has been known to crap on the Hardy's for being spot monkey, at least they know how to work the crowd. Those guys don't get enough credit, they hit their offense, get their pops, and get worked over for the big comeback. Are the highly literate technical wrestlers? Nope, but they know the art form.

Nope I don't think so. While it is probably the most athletic roster ever not many can tell a story in their matches. It is mostly just going spot to next spot with no substance in between. And for many even though they are doing these spot to the next spot matches they are even screwing that up, because it looks like they are just going through the motions like it is a practice run/walk through instead of an actual match.

It kind of boils down to what your parameters are for determining "most talented." It's really a subjective thing.

As far as athleticism goes, I'd guess this is the most talented roster. In the ring they can do just about anything.

However, I feel like the psychology isn't really there. Back in the day, the matches weren't flashy and people didn't have a ton of moves, but guys seemed to have a better feeling of where to put the moves and when to do them or not do them.

You can kind of compare it to a pitcher in baseball in a way. You can have a pitcher with a 100 mph fastball and he can strike everyone out. Then you have a guy with maybe a 91 mph fastball that will catch corners, mix in some offspeed stuff, and get a lot of ground ball outs. Who is more talented? You could easily argue that both are equally talented an valuable, just in different ways.

Pretty much Royal Rumble '92 - arguably the best Royal Rumble ever.

2003/2004 is hands down the best roster they've had concerning star power.

I think the talent was the best in 2014-15.