Deleted
Joined on: Apr 26, 2024 3:59:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2018 15:57:37 GMT -5
Roman Reigns is definitely the next Cena/Hogan.
Hogan - complete decade (‘84-‘93; short term would allow other faces like Savage and Warrior to go over him or be on top before reclaiming throne) Mid ‘90s - few years of Hart/Michaels Attitude Era - few years of Rock/Austin/Foley Cena - complete decade (see Hogan, but his were indy darlings like Punk and RVD) Reigns - probably a complete decade
Whaddya think?
|
|
|
Post by PrincessOfSunlight on Jun 24, 2018 16:18:22 GMT -5
Put me back in the fridge.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 26, 2024 3:59:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2018 16:26:56 GMT -5
Put me back in the fridge.
|
|
|
Post by BØRNS on Jun 24, 2018 16:44:34 GMT -5
I expected a much deeper analysis, but ok.
|
|
|
Post by ~ Cymru ~ on Jun 24, 2018 16:45:45 GMT -5
You forgot Cena's main 2 biggest rivals in Orton and Edge.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 26, 2024 3:59:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2018 17:58:15 GMT -5
You forgot Cena's main 2 biggest rivals in Orton and Edge. Yeah, but those were just heels. Punk and RVD were the two rare faces Cena lost to.
|
|
|
Post by Darkhawk on Jun 24, 2018 18:13:19 GMT -5
Roman Reigns has a lot more competition in terms of stars taking over. Seth Rollins is one of them.
|
|
hbkowns
Main Eventer
Joined on: Aug 15, 2011 23:33:52 GMT -5
Posts: 4,249
|
Post by hbkowns on Jun 24, 2018 19:00:08 GMT -5
Not a very good analysis because it’s blantantly obvious who they position as the top guy.
|
|
|
Post by Crossfit Jesus on Jun 24, 2018 19:01:17 GMT -5
More like a bullet proof summary.
|
|
|
Post by Crossfit Jesus on Jun 24, 2018 19:08:28 GMT -5
Took you that long to figure out reigns was the next Cena/Hogan
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 26, 2024 3:59:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2018 20:12:51 GMT -5
Took you that long to figure out reigns was the next Cena/Hogan No, you’ve missed the point. No one has ever realized (or not many) that both the highest and lowest points in WWF history were so much shorter than the usual era. Mid-‘90s was only a couple of years with Hart and Michaels, and so was Attitude. The question is, why wasn’t there a long decade guy on top from 1993-2002, after Hogan but before Cena?
|
|
|
Post by Mark Martin on Jun 24, 2018 21:39:50 GMT -5
My analysis of the last 34 years: Dunkaroos were great.
|
|
|
Post by k5 on Jun 24, 2018 22:24:16 GMT -5
Took you that long to figure out reigns was the next Cena/Hogan No, you’ve missed the point. No one has ever realized (or not many) that both the highest and lowest points in WWF history were so much shorter than the usual era. Mid-‘90s was only a couple of years with Hart and Michaels, and so was Attitude. The question is, why wasn’t there a long decade guy on top from 1993-2002, after Hogan but before Cena? steroid scandal, warrior and Luger failing to meet hogan’s level, ringboy scandal, talent leaving for wcw, Vince being distracted by having a bodybuilding league...there’s a lot of reasons that there wasn’t a major face in the early 90s for a long duration. add on austin’s neck injury and the rock taking off for Hollywood and it starts making more sense.
|
|
walkingturtles
Main Eventer
Joined on: Apr 22, 2018 19:54:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,702
|
Post by walkingturtles on Jun 25, 2018 11:50:41 GMT -5
Reigns just isn’t sustainable as the top face. I mean he just keeps getting rejected by the fans. WWE has had just a horrible year creative wise.
|
|
|
Post by alanpartridge on Jun 25, 2018 11:59:17 GMT -5
|
|
havoc7179
Main Eventer
What is this?
Joined on: Oct 16, 2012 9:11:18 GMT -5
Posts: 4,189
|
Post by havoc7179 on Jun 25, 2018 15:59:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s Knowing Rock on Jun 25, 2018 16:12:28 GMT -5
The question is, why wasn’t there a long decade guy on top from 1993-2002, after Hogan but before Cena? As the guy said above, because nobody could fill Hogan's shoes. Vince would've loved it if Lex Luger was on top for a decade drawing money, but it didn't happen. Business was in the toilet and he had to keep making moves to claw it back. Hart and Michaels failed to draw a dime, and with WCW taking the top spot, big moves had to be made. Rock and Austin only had a few years in comparison to Hogan, but those few years helped Vince win the war for good. After that, big moves didn't really have to be made. Cena kept the profits rolling in for years and there was no benefit to replacing him. Now they don't rely on any single wrestler to draw money, their big revenue stream is the guaranteed TV deals. Vince can screw around doing the stop-start push with Roman Reigns for another seven years if he wants to, or he can actually commit to Reigns being the top guy, or he can go with someone else, and it won't matter much either way anymore.
|
|
walkingturtles
Main Eventer
Joined on: Apr 22, 2018 19:54:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,702
|
Post by walkingturtles on Jun 25, 2018 18:48:21 GMT -5
|
|
havoc7179
Main Eventer
What is this?
Joined on: Oct 16, 2012 9:11:18 GMT -5
Posts: 4,189
|
Post by havoc7179 on Jun 26, 2018 8:42:49 GMT -5
The question is, why wasn’t there a long decade guy on top from 1993-2002, after Hogan but before Cena? As the guy said above, because nobody could fill Hogan's shoes. Vince would've loved it if Lex Luger was on top for a decade drawing money, but it didn't happen. Business was in the toilet and he had to keep making moves to claw it back. Hart and Michaels failed to draw a dime, and with WCW taking the top spot, big moves had to be made. Rock and Austin only had a few years in comparison to Hogan, but those few years helped Vince win the war for good. After that, big moves didn't really have to be made. Cena kept the profits rolling in for years and there was no benefit to replacing him. Now they don't rely on any single wrestler to draw money, their big revenue stream is the guaranteed TV deals. Vince can screw around doing the stop-start push with Roman Reigns for another seven years if he wants to, or he can actually commit to Reigns being the top guy, or he can go with someone else, and it won't matter much either way anymore. The easier answer is that instead of adapting to the changing times, Vince tried to recreate the same character. Fans had already grown tired of Hogan by the end of his WWF run (I remember reading on this board that when Hogan pulled Sid from the ring during hte Rumble, he was met with boos). Fans wanted something different, and instead Vince tried to send out clean cut goody two shoes who espoused high morals and american ideals. That's why Vince rushed the Lex Express and shoved it down wrestling fans throats. Fans weren't receptive because as awesome as Lex Luger is to me, he didn't have the charisma. He's the Randy Orton of his time. Got over. Has a good look. But was only good as a heel. Nowadays, the issue is longevity. During the Attitude days, you had Austin who had been plying his craft for already over a decade finally getting the spot he deserved. So how long could he realistically be at the top? You also had Jericho up and coming, but Vince wasn't sold on wrestlers who didn't have the physique of an Adonis. Rock parlayed his career into movies. Undertaker didn't have the look or the character to be the poster child. Further,a lot of the draws today think they can quit for a job that takes less toll on their bodies or think they can make bigger money elsewhere. So you don't have wrestlers who are committed to the WWE lifestyle. Cena was. Cena fit the mold of a Hogan. Vince still has an affinity for that. Best of all, Cena had nowhere to go. Hollywood wasn't calling till the twilight of his wrestling career. So Cena could stay on top and create a decade.
|
|
|
Post by gentlemanjohnny on Jun 26, 2018 14:42:38 GMT -5
Reigns is the next Hogan? Hogan is spinning in his grave and he's not even dead yet.
|
|