TheEvilDoink1987
Main Eventer
Joined on: Feb 22, 2010 21:37:52 GMT -5
Posts: 2,821
|
Post by TheEvilDoink1987 on Jan 28, 2017 0:23:48 GMT -5
Do you ever think that WWE was greatly affected by the class of Superstars that never panned out in terms of long-term success between 2004-2009.
In that five-year period, it seemed like WWE had big hopes for guys like Carlito, Mr. Kennedy, Bobby Lashley, MVP, Morrison maybe even Shelton or a Chris Masters. There were so many bright young stars on the rise during that time, but none of them panned out. Not including the big three of Cena, Batista and Orton since they debuted in 2002, I feel like that period has to be considered a bust in terms of molding main event players (aside from Punk and even Miz). Most of them were never given the chance to reach their full potential, but I also feel that their underachieving careers aren't all WWE's fault either.
Do you think the failure to make big stars out of these guys affected that era and possibly the current state of WWE? We still have elder statesmen like Big Show, Kane, Undertaker, HHH and even Mark Henry, but there is pretty much nobody left from an era less than ten years ago. The talent was there, but it just never materialized into something bigger.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 30, 2024 11:40:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2017 11:46:03 GMT -5
I'm not as in touch with the modern product, but that seems to be an ongoing issue even now. The two notable exceptions were CM Punk and Daniel Bryan, but even they were just pro wrestling stars. They're nothing on the level of Rock or even Cena. From this armchair booker's perspective, what has hurt them is changing the recipe for how they produce television with television writers and scripted promos instead of letting the talent rise or fall on their own merits. They fixed what wasn't broken.
|
|
Thunder Chunky
Main Eventer
Joined on: Aug 1, 2010 21:57:30 GMT -5
Posts: 4,545
|
Post by Thunder Chunky on Jan 28, 2017 12:55:53 GMT -5
I think it had alot to do with the fact that guys from the New Generation and Attitude Eras were STILL main eventing then, leaving no room for the newer guys to take the stage.
|
|
|
|
Post by LA Times on Jan 28, 2017 13:20:07 GMT -5
John Laurinitis was the Executive VP of Talent Relations at the time and he was obsessed with 300 lb steroid guys and cleanshaven, bodybuilding pretty boys.
|
|
|
|
Post by Patrick Bateman (original) on Jan 28, 2017 15:16:52 GMT -5
I think it had alot to do with the fact that guys from the New Generation and Attitude Eras were STILL main eventing then, leaving no room for the newer guys to take the stage. I 100% agree. This was also the time Vince would get hot on someone one day and the next forget about them. So with so many already established stars, and so many start/stop booking it killed those young guys and stopped their development. |
|
|
|
Post by BrIaNMeRcY on Jan 28, 2017 15:43:09 GMT -5
There are so many variables as to why some of the talents never panned out. Chris Masters and Bobby Lashley are two that got called up way too soon. Lashley could have been that next house hold name the WWE could have created. It is a shame MVP wasn't better utilized. His look really allowed him to stand out and he was easily one of the best talkers for the time he was there. Carlito and Shelton Benjamin, and John Morrison were designed to be mid-card acts.
John Laurinaitis being the head of Talent Relations was a massive detriment. Those reasons are well known. Was John Laurinaitis qualified for that post? No.
I remember Jim Cornette stating on hi podcast the reason the WWE signed CM Punk was to see what the hype was. If Paul Heyman wasn't involved in OVW at the time, I am sure Punk wouldn't have had the career he did.
The WWE really did themselves no good by not taking advantage of the new talent they had at the time. Nowadays, the WWE has to resort to using band-aids to help fill the WrestleMania card every year.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 30, 2024 11:40:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2017 16:30:21 GMT -5
I think it had alot to do with the fact that guys from the New Generation and Attitude Eras were STILL main eventing then, leaving no room for the newer guys to take the stage. I 100% agree. This was also the time Vince would get hot on someone one day and the next forget about them. So with so many already established stars, and so many start/stop booking it killed those young guys and stopped their development. Has it changed that much though? Look at the Royal Rumble... the two guys that are getting the most hype are like 50 years old. The US Champ is closing in on 50. Remember back in the 90's when they hyped Bob Backlund and Jake Roberts for competing at... OH MY GOD... 41 years old... as if they could die in the ring at any moment. Now, a good chunk of the roster's upper crust is on the brink of 40 if not 50. |
|
|
|
Post by Patrick Bateman (original) on Jan 28, 2017 18:57:31 GMT -5
I 100% agree. This was also the time Vince would get hot on someone one day and the next forget about them. So with so many already established stars, and so many start/stop booking it killed those young guys and stopped their development. Has it changed that much though? Look at the Royal Rumble... the two guys that are getting the most hype are like 50 years old. The US Champ is closing in on 50. Remember back in the 90's when they hyped Bob Backlund and Jake Roberts for competing at... OH MY GOD... 41 years old... as if they could die in the ring at any moment. Now, a good chunk of the roster's upper crust is on the brink of 40 if not 50. I would say it has stayed the same. Instead of Cena, Orton, and Lesnar, you now have Reigns, Rollins, Styles, Balor, but even the latter of the 2 are not young. |
|
|
|
Post by East Coast on Jan 28, 2017 18:59:05 GMT -5
nope Bobby Lashley panned out. He's a beast. If he walked into WWE tomorrow...he's in the main event scene
|
|
TheEvilDoink1987
Main Eventer
Joined on: Feb 22, 2010 21:37:52 GMT -5
Posts: 2,821
|
Post by TheEvilDoink1987 on Jan 28, 2017 23:34:33 GMT -5
nope Bobby Lashley panned out. He's a beast. If he walked into WWE tomorrow...he's in the main event scene It could be true, but considering how much they invested in him so early I think it's safe to call his initial WWE run a letdown. |
|
dimshady
Main Eventer
Can never get his Avater to work!
Joined on: Dec 3, 2006 9:33:28 GMT -5
Posts: 1,749
|
Post by dimshady on Jan 29, 2017 4:20:16 GMT -5
I agree. A lot of names who could be main event now.
It seems we only really have Cena and Randy from that time frame.
To think I championed Carlito as the next Rock. Lol
|
|
havoc7179
Main Eventer
What is this?
Joined on: Oct 16, 2012 9:11:18 GMT -5
Posts: 4,189
|
Post by havoc7179 on Jan 29, 2017 11:13:17 GMT -5
Do you ever think that WWE was greatly affected by the class of Superstars that never panned out in terms of long-term success between 2004-2009. In that five-year period, it seemed like WWE had big hopes for guys like Carlito, Mr. Kennedy, Bobby Lashley, MVP, Morrison maybe even Shelton or a Chris Masters. There were so many bright young stars on the rise during that time, but none of them panned out. Not including the big three of Cena, Batista and Orton since they debuted in 2002, I feel like that period has to be considered a bust in terms of molding main event players (aside from Punk and even Miz). Most of them were never given the chance to reach their full potential, but I also feel that their underachieving careers aren't all WWE's fault either. Do you think the failure to make big stars out of these guys affected that era and possibly the current state of WWE? We still have elder statesmen like Big Show, Kane, Undertaker, HHH and even Mark Henry, but there is pretty much nobody left from an era less than ten years ago. The talent was there, but it just never materialized into something bigger. I think a lot of it had to do with their characters. You literally had fans saying "Oh look, it's a Razor Ramon ripoff" and "Oh look, it's Lex Luger part II". That era focused too much on characters with no real longevity. How many times can you do a full nelson challenge? Why would male cheerleaders want to wrestle? Why should I care about a guy who hits hard but speaks softly? It was like watching WOW (Women of Wrestling) at the time. So, Shelton's wrestling abilit got him over, but he can't talk? WHere's his Momma? In essence it was like that time period in WWF where wrestlers all had day jobs. Then you had Attitude Era Characters like DX mock them. Today's characters kind of shifted away from that and got into more realism (Kind of like the attitude era). Yes, Randy Orton is the Viper but he's not carrying around a Viper or slithering around. Yes, Bray is the eater of worlds, but he's not literally eating worlds. They're just nicknames now. Back in the TL Hopper and Duke Dumpster Days, those were gimmicks where a person figuratively served as the WWF's plumber and janitor. It seems to me like WWE tried to go PG during the 2004-2009 period by copying the Henry O Godwinn (HOG) era, realized that no one was going to get behind the Goon, and then had people start adopting Stone Cold, Rock, and Triple H personalities that were mostly just attitudes instead of characters. the character part did them in. |
|
|
|
Post by K5 on Jan 29, 2017 11:55:07 GMT -5
when you use a cookie-cutter formula you get cookie-cutter wrestlers. they were just coming off an age of extreme injury rates - in 2004 how many people on the roster had surgically repaired necks? so they slowed the work rate down and high spots. as a result we got an entire crop of very mediocre talent that really only know the 'wwe style' that they were trying to develop as their norm.
hence why matches didn't stand out, the characters had a difficult time distinguishing themselves let alone getting over, and interest waned.
and that's totally excluding wwe creative from blame: the characters sucked. everything felt acted, we never saw much of a glimpse of the actual people behind the characters (which is what sells them, being personable).
the wwe, in that time, had about as much creative dynamics as a straight line. it was a bland terrible period of wrestling that mirrors the early 90s, as someone else mentioned above.
we STILL have these talents that in the ring can't really do a damn thing in terms of today's standards: swagger, miz (although he is undoubtedly solid on the mic...make him a manager), and late to the game alberto del rio. del rio is an interesting case as he is very adaptive - in mexico he wrestles a different, far more violent style than in the wwe. in the wwe he washes himself down perfectly to what wwe corporate looks for in a main event heel. formulaic, non-risky, wwe style to the bone.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 30, 2024 11:40:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2017 16:02:53 GMT -5
I barely paid attention during this period, but I remember watching and thinking that most of the roster looked like guys who just graduated the WCW Power Plant, like that stable led by Mike Sanders in WCW 2000.
|
|
|
|
Post by hbkbigdaddycool on Feb 2, 2017 16:10:57 GMT -5
From 2004 - 2010 the only two guys Vince cared about were John Cena and Randy Orton. So the mid card guys had no room to grow. Think back to Royal Rumble 2011, they gave Randy Orton the title shot against The Miz, when John Morrison - who won a ladder match at TLC to get a title shot over Sheamus - got the title shot with Miz on Raw instead.
And look now, in the year 2017, John Cena is WWE Champion and Randy Orton won the Royal Rumble. So nothing ever changes really with the WWE.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Brain on Feb 2, 2017 16:13:29 GMT -5
From 2004 - 2010 the only two guys Vince cared about were John Cena and Randy Orton. So the mid card guys had no room to grow. Think back to Royal Rumble 2011, they gave Randy Orton the title shot against The Miz, when John Morrison - who won a ladder match at TLC to get a title shot over Sheamus - got the title shot with Miz on Raw instead. And look now, in the year 2017, John Cena is WWE Champion and Randy Orton won the Royal Rumble. So nothing ever changes really with the WWE. John Morrison was one hell of a talent. I wish he had a run with the World Title. |
|
|
|
Post by T R W on Feb 2, 2017 17:33:03 GMT -5
Honestly it was one of the worst times in wrestling. It's a little better now, but they still suffer from a lot of the same creative problems.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 30, 2024 11:40:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2017 17:53:51 GMT -5
From 2004 - 2010 the only two guys Vince cared about were John Cena and Randy Orton. So the mid card guys had no room to grow. Think back to Royal Rumble 2011, they gave Randy Orton the title shot against The Miz, when John Morrison - who won a ladder match at TLC to get a title shot over Sheamus - got the title shot with Miz on Raw instead. And look now, in the year 2017, John Cena is WWE Champion and Randy Orton won the Royal Rumble. So nothing ever changes really with the WWE. John Morrison was one hell of a talent. I wish he had a run with the World Title. Never liked him much. He was a great athlete, but I just kinda rolled my eyes at the flippy stuff. He couldn't talk either. Miz, on the other hand, always seemed to me to have the goods to be one of the best heels. I've never really understood the appeal of Randy Orton. I can't seem to feel any way but indifferent to him. |
|
|
|
Post by JC Motors on Feb 2, 2017 18:26:12 GMT -5
John Laurinitis was the Executive VP of Talent Relations at the time and he was obsessed with 300 lb steroid guys and cleanshaven, bodybuilding pretty boys. Not to mention fashion catalog models |
|
|
|
Post by greenjack1992 on Feb 2, 2017 18:26:56 GMT -5
Why are we all talking as if Edge didn't emerge in that period and have the best five years of his HOF worthy career?
Those years were also the highlight of Jeff Hardy's career.
Yes, both failed in the long run because of injury and stupidity respectively, but everyone saying we only had Cena and Orton aren't being fair to the other guys who were there during that time.
|
|
