|
|
Post by noleafclover1980 on Jun 23, 2011 19:13:27 GMT -5
So, I had heard about him saying young guys can't draw, etc, and finally listened to this. Dude is basically right. He has a hell of a mind for the business and I really hope WWE makes use of that in the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by FUNK_US/BRODUS on Jun 23, 2011 19:16:25 GMT -5
Im not in full agreement that guys need 6 years to become draws, but he was dead right about Sheamus. That bit when he ran from Nexus CRUSHED his momentum.
|
|
|
|
Post by noleafclover1980 on Jun 23, 2011 19:23:15 GMT -5
Im not in full agreement that guys need 6 years to become draws, but he was dead right about Sheamus. That bit when he ran from Nexus CRUSHED his momentum. Him running from Nexus while screaming for Cena was hilarious, but yeah... way to make your champ look like a bitch. |
|
|
|
Post by FUNK_US/BRODUS on Jun 23, 2011 19:41:27 GMT -5
Especially considering the crappy ways in which he won the belt both times, and that he ran from Nexus at Fatal 4 Way as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Magnum Opus on Jun 23, 2011 19:45:49 GMT -5
Calling their fiscal prime 35-40 seems questionable, I want to see some numbers before I buy that, but otherwise fairly reasonable comments.
|
|
Cronant
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,556
|
Post by Cronant on Jun 23, 2011 19:48:19 GMT -5
That would mean Cena's money making prime starts next year. He does have a legit money match lined up next year though.
|
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Jun 23, 2011 22:16:13 GMT -5
He's mostly right; I also think saying that 35-40 are prime drawing years doesn't necessarily mean "don't push any young guys too far until then", as there are always exceptions to the rule, but for the majority of wrestlers in WWE, it's not unreasonable. Jericho, Guerrero, Benoit, Mysterio, plenty of others, these guys were all successful main eventers to some degree or another, but few of them were spring chickens during their title runs.
His most pertinent point: you can't bring a guy in and put a title on him on Day 1, unless you have a well planned, long-term booking progression laid out for him. There's nowhere to go but down after that, and if you don't have a long-term progression in place, all you'll wind up doing is hurting the guy's future ability to draw, AND hurting the perceived prestige of your title, as some newbie who's made to look like a chump is holding it.
So yeah, on rare occasions a guy who just has "it" will come along and you'll really need to push him quickly to the top (The Rock or Brock Lesnar in WWF, Goldberg in WCW, Samoa Joe as he should've been used in TNA, etc.) once he takes off, but for the vast majority of wrestlers, you need to nurture their character development and let the audience develop a history and an attachment to them.
Slapping a belt on a new guy and saying "See? We're pushing youth! LIKE THIS GUY!" after no time at all almost never works.
|
|
|
|
Post by Citizen Zero on Jun 23, 2011 22:38:13 GMT -5
From what I gather he's less objecting to young people being elevated and more objecting to the WWE's slapdash yo-yo booking and tendency to ignore what the fans want in favor of shoving who Vince wants down their throat.
|
|
|
|
Post by FUNK_US/BRODUS on Jun 24, 2011 4:45:11 GMT -5
Citizen Zero has it right. The WWEs policy of "push a guy really hard,and then forget about him in the hope he somehow stays over" does not work.
|
|
lovingway
El Dandy
Crimson and Clover
Posts: 8,135 
|
Post by lovingway on Jun 24, 2011 7:00:15 GMT -5
Im not in full agreement that guys need 6 years to become draws, but he was dead right about Sheamus. That bit when he ran from Nexus CRUSHED his momentum. Him running from Nexus while screaming for Cena was hilarious, but yeah... way to make your champ look like a bitch. But wasn't that his gimmick was that he was a chickenshit heel? He won the belts by fluke and retained them somehow. Him running away from the Nexus made sense because he was basically a bully picking on Evan Bourne. The issues I had with Sheamus' reign were how fast he got the belt and his look with gimmick. Sheamus doesn't look like a chickenshit heel. He looks like a tough guy. Miz could pull off the chickenshit heel look better because of how he looks. |
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Jun 24, 2011 8:19:28 GMT -5
Stop/start booking.
It's been a problem in WWE since about 2001.
|
|
spagett
Hank Scorpio
Great Job!
Posts: 5,649
|
Post by spagett on Jun 24, 2011 8:54:57 GMT -5
Him running from Nexus while screaming for Cena was hilarious, but yeah... way to make your champ look like a bitch. But wasn't that his gimmick was that he was a chickens*** heel? He won the belts by fluke and retained them somehow. Him running away from the Nexus made sense because he was basically a bully picking on Evan Bourne. The issues I had with Sheamus' reign were how fast he got the belt and his look with gimmick. Sheamus doesn't look like a chickens*** heel. He looks like a tough guy. Miz could pull off the chickens*** heel look better because of how he looks. They were basically contradicting themselves with Sheamus. On commentary they'd put him over as some sort of fearless warrior who was tough as nails and yet they'd actually book him as a coward, winning matches on a fluke or DQ and running away from danger. It was a mess. |
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Jun 24, 2011 9:24:29 GMT -5
Hell, even Sheamus' theme song sounds like it should belong to a violent, at least borderline monster heel.
WWE and TNA, at their cores, have the same booking problem, I think: neither has long term vision for any characters. They just handle it different, WWE by always reverting to status quo, TNA by being pure chaos.
|
|
|
|
Post by cabbageboy on Jun 24, 2011 9:40:46 GMT -5
I dunno, I'd say Hogan was more at his peak in his early 30s, from roughly 1984-87. By the time he was 35 he dropped the belt and Savage was champ, though one could argue that Macho hit his peak in his mid 30s. Flair was pretty much a top guy without fail until his mid 40s. Bret Hart won the title for the first time when he was 35. Conversely, HBK was champ by age 31 and largely washed up by 33...only to make a comeback at age 37. Nash himself fits the mid 30s mold as well. Austin first won the title at age 33 or so.
The point to all of this is that guys should not be given world title runs when they are in their 20s. Oddly Sheamus is in fact in his 30s, but he was a relative newcomer when he got the belt. To me, someone like Orton should just now be getting a world title push, not working on his 8th run.
The Rock's success in his mid 20s was a long term bad thing for WWE because now they think they can push a ton of guys at that age and expect them to get over and draw huge money. In reality Rock was a once in a lifetime guy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2011 10:41:24 GMT -5
Calling their fiscal prime 35-40 seems questionable, I want to see some numbers before I buy that, but otherwise fairly reasonable comments. Ric Flair - 1984-1989 Hulk Hogan - 1988-1993 Sting - 1994-1999 HHH - 2004-2009 Austin - 1999-2004 There are exceptions, but I'd say Nash has a pretty sound theory. I dunno, I'd say Hogan was more at his peak in his early 30s, from roughly 1984-87. By the time he was 35 he dropped the belt and Savage was champ, though one could argue that Macho hit his peak in his mid 30s. Flair was pretty much a top guy without fail until his mid 40s. Bret Hart won the title for the first time when he was 35. Conversely, HBK was champ by age 31 and largely washed up by 33...only to make a comeback at age 37. Nash himself fits the mid 30s mold as well. Austin first won the title at age 33 or so. The thing is though, kayfabe titles are not always exactly the same thing as fiscal prime. |
|
|
|
Post by Magnum Opus on Jun 24, 2011 11:14:33 GMT -5
Calling their fiscal prime 35-40 seems questionable, I want to see some numbers before I buy that, but otherwise fairly reasonable comments. Ric Flair - 1984-1989 Hulk Hogan - 1988-1993 Sting - 1994-1999 HHH - 2004-2009 Austin - 1999-2004 There are exceptions, but I'd say Nash has a pretty sound theory. Fair enough. I did actually mean questionable not "OMGEEZY BULLs***one". Really I was just thinking more early 30's than late. But... yeah I guess I'll buy it. |
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Jun 24, 2011 12:55:45 GMT -5
And, again, Nash is talking about averages; not every single guy has to be that old before they win a title, but for the majority of guys, its pretty accurate.
|
|
|
|
Post by noleafclover1980 on Jun 24, 2011 13:05:47 GMT -5
I think Nash threw a rough number out there, but the point was guys need time in the business to really get a feel for it, and how to work on their character, be a draw, etc. People like to always say how old wrestlers hold younger ones down, etc.. but if the older ones are the ones still drawing, they deserve that spot.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2011 14:29:43 GMT -5
I think Nash threw a rough number out there, but the point was guys need time in the business to really get a feel for it, and how to work on their character, be a draw, etc. Exactly. It takes time to find your niche. Ted DiBiase was 33 when he became the Million Dollar Man, and he had already been wrestling for 12 years at that point. |
|
|
|
Post by avenger on Jun 24, 2011 15:47:32 GMT -5
I think Nash threw a rough number out there, but the point was guys need time in the business to really get a feel for it, and how to work on their character, be a draw, etc. Exactly. It takes time to find your niche. Ted DiBiase was 33 when he became the Million Dollar Man, and he had already been wrestling for 12 years at that point. Having been a big deal for about eight of those years. |
|
