No midcard?

[saintpat]

What do people mean when they say this?

Do they go to the fridge when The Shield walks through the crowd?

Have they missed the Fandango build to debut?

Is Team Hell No just a dream?

Cesaro, is he a salad and not a midcard wrestler?

Ryback has a gimmick and has had a progressive storyline, Randy Orton has had plenty of midcard feuds, the continuing Ziggler when-will-he-cash-in saga, Rhodes Scholars -- does none of this count as a midcard.

I suppose some people define midcard differently than I do, but I see one of the healthiest WWE midcards in quite some time -- and it includes much of what I enjoy most on Raw and Smackdown.

So if you are in the "there is no midcard" camp, can you help me understand how none of this counts?

[CATCH_US IS the Conversation]

I'd like to see feuds between REAL midcarders, not just filler to keep the main event guys occupied when they can't fit in the title picture.

I don't count, Kane, Daniel Bryan, Del Rio, Ziggler, Ryback, Henry, Swagger, Orton, Big Show, Jericho, or even Miz and Wade Barrett as "midcard". WWE doesn't really present those guys as being "midcarders". The only real midcarders we have are Team Funk, Rhodes Scholars, Kofi and Cesaro. Everyone else is either a total jobber, or presented as being above the midcard. Even the guys currently feuding over the Intercontental Title, The Miz and Barrett are booked so much stronger than the rest of the actual midcard, and thats mainly because they're coasting off of residual heat from their main event pushes.

It seems like everyone is just floating around in meaningless matches until its their turn to get another World Title match/run.

When I think of "midcard", I think of guys like 3MB, Ryder, Riley, Kofi, Santino, etc. the guys that WWE doesn't really necessarily hype up as "big stars". The guys who aren't made to look like possible top contenders. The likes of Team Hell No, etc. don't fall under that description.

[Todd Pettengill]

Because the midcard is treated like curtain jerkers when they face a top card guy.

[HMARK Center]

WWE has almost no middle ground between jobber and "former World Champion".

They need to think about cultivating a crew of guys who don't win the big gold, and just do solid work in the midcard: put on technical matches, get up and comers over, etc.

[saintpat]

So one response is that most of the midcarders are booked too strongly to be considered midcarders and the other is that they are booked as being no threat to anyone above them.

I would define that as upper midcard. I consider Jericho and Miz (booked strongly -- didn't he have a major losing streak for months and months?) and Team Hell No and the others I mentioned to be part of the show, not filler. The fact that they are not, at any given point in time, booked as being on the way to being championship contenders or title-holders makes them mid-carders to me.

I guess it's a perception thing, but to me it's like this:

The WWE is, kayfabe and to a large degree in reality, the major leagues -- it's where the best wrestlers compete, where the biggest crowds are, where the big boys and girls play. So sports entertainment mimmicks real sports: there are superstars and really good players and "average" players and role players in football, basketball, baseball, soccer, you name it. Accordingly, there are tiers within the WWE: the main eventers, upper midcarders, lower midcarders and enhancement talent.

Now in the big leagues in real sports, the superstars are going to consistently be the best -- but the others are big-leaguers, too, and on any given day or play one of them can score a touchdown or a goal or hit a home run. It happens all the time that a backup running back rushes for 100 yards or a backup outfielder hits two home runs when he gets to play or a backup goalie makes some brilliant saves in a shutout. And if they get a few more chances and keep doing it, bingo, they elevate to superstar status.

So that's the midcard to me, as it should be. JTG is maybe the lowest on the WWE totem pole but he's also good enough to be on the WWE roster, so one time he puts it all together and upsets Jericho -- "worst" wrestler in the WWE beating one of the best in the world. It proves he belongs -- but he's like an NFL backup and reality sets in and he cannot consistently do it and he ends up enhancement talent on house shows. Mark Henry, on the other hand, comes into WWE from powerlifting and has a lot of ups and downs as he learns the game, shows potential but then drifts back out of the "starting lineup" to the midcard, at times even the lower midcard. But the last couple of years it all starts to come together and he's a viable upper midcard guy who could even became a title-level main eventer if he keeps progressing.

To me, the "they just have random matches until someone decides to put them in a title picture" observation (a) isn't true, as those feuds have some meaning if only to kayfabe give the guy experience and in reality give him some exposure and allow him to learn and maybe over time evolve his character, and (b) is also a danged-if-you-do, danged-if-you-don't proposition -- isn't the biggest criticism of WCW that the midcarders were NEVER allowed to rise above "their place" and couldn't break through the glass ceiling? Should midcarders NOT be able to at some point rise up to challenge if they get better or grow into a role where the crowd gets behind them and they improve on the mic and in the ring?

Orton for the last few years hasn't been booked as a title contender, but he once was and he may be again. Does that makes him ineligible to have a midcard feud? It shouldn't.

For me, Team Hell No has has a gloriously entertaining midcard run. Santino did and probably will again, and was involved in tons of fun and meaningful angles. Cesaro has developed his character in the midcard and should probably rise up over time, and Ryback caught lightning in a bottle with a great gimmick and look and was a rising midcarder.

All of this, to me, is midcard. To state that there is none just makes no sense to me, unless you so narrowly define midcard as to make it impossible for there to be one.

[saintpat]

Apr 8, 2013 21:56:54 GMT -5 HMARK Center said:

WWE has almost no middle ground between jobber and "former World Champion".

They need to think about cultivating a crew of guys who don't win the big gold, and just do solid work in the midcard: put on technical matches, get up and comers over, etc.

You just described Dolph Ziggler, Kane for most of his career, Rey Mysterio for most of hte past decade or more, Jericho's last two runs, Wade Barrett, 3MB, etc, etc.

[TOK Hehe'd Around & Found Out]

Apr 8, 2013 22:12:54 GMT -5 saintpat said:

Apr 8, 2013 21:56:54 GMT -5 HMARK Center said:

WWE has almost no middle ground between jobber and "former World Champion".

They need to think about cultivating a crew of guys who don't win the big gold, and just do solid work in the midcard: put on technical matches, get up and comers over, etc.

You just described Dolph Ziggler, Kane for most of his career, Rey Mysterio for most of hte past decade or more, Jericho's last two runs, Wade Barrett, 3MB, etc, etc.

Ziggler holds a world title, Kane's always in and out of the title picture, as was Mysterio and Jericho. 3MB are glorified jobbers. The only true midcarders at this point are Kofi, Barrett, Miz, Cesaro, and Sin Cara.

[CATCH_US IS the Conversation]

Apr 8, 2013 22:08:32 GMT -5 saintpat said:

So one response is that most of the midcarders are booked too strongly to be considered midcarders and the other is that they are booked as being no threat to anyone above them.

I would define that as upper midcard. I consider Jericho and Miz (booked strongly -- didn't he have a major losing streak for months and months?) and Team Hell No and the others I mentioned to be part of the show, not filler. The fact that they are not, at any given point in time, booked as being on the way to being championship contenders or title-holders makes them mid-carders to me.

I guess it's a perception thing, but to me it's like this:

The WWE is, kayfabe and to a large degree in reality, the major leagues -- it's where the best wrestlers compete, where the biggest crowds are, where the big boys and girls play. So sports entertainment mimmicks real sports: there are superstars and really good players and "average" players and role players in football, basketball, baseball, soccer, you name it. Accordingly, there are tiers within the WWE: the main eventers, upper midcarders, lower midcarders and enhancement talent.

Now in the big leagues in real sports, the superstars are going to consistently be the best -- but the others are big-leaguers, too, and on any given day or play one of them can score a touchdown or a goal or hit a home run. It happens all the time that a backup running back rushes for 100 yards or a backup outfielder hits two home runs when he gets to play or a backup goalie makes some brilliant saves in a shutout. And if they get a few more chances and keep doing it, bingo, they elevate to superstar status.

So that's the midcard to me, as it should be. JTG is maybe the lowest on the WWE totem pole but he's also good enough to be on the WWE roster, so one time he puts it all together and upsets Jericho -- "worst" wrestler in the WWE beating one of the best in the world. It proves he belongs -- but he's like an NFL backup and reality sets in and he cannot consistently do it and he ends up enhancement talent on house shows. Mark Henry, on the other hand, comes into WWE from powerlifting and has a lot of ups and downs as he learns the game, shows potential but then drifts back out of the "starting lineup" to the midcard, at times even the lower midcard. But the last couple of years it all starts to come together and he's a viable upper midcard guy who could even became a title-level main eventer if he keeps progressing.

To me, the "they just have random matches until someone decides to put them in a title picture" observation (a) isn't true, as those feuds have some meaning if only to kayfabe give the guy experience and in reality give him some exposure and allow him to learn and maybe over time evolve his character, and (b) is also a danged-if-you-do, danged-if-you-don't proposition -- isn't the biggest criticism of WCW that the midcarders were NEVER allowed to rise above "their place" and couldn't break through the glass ceiling? Should midcarders NOT be able to at some point rise up to challenge if they get better or grow into a role where the crowd gets behind them and they improve on the mic and in the ring?

Orton for the last few years hasn't been booked as a title contender, but he once was and he may be again. Does that makes him ineligible to have a midcard feud? It shouldn't.

For me, Team Hell No has has a gloriously entertaining midcard run. Santino did and probably will again, and was involved in tons of fun and meaningful angles. Cesaro has developed his character in the midcard and should probably rise up over time, and Ryback caught lightning in a bottle with a great gimmick and look and was a rising midcarder.

All of this, to me, is midcard. To state that there is none just makes no sense to me, unless you so narrowly define midcard as to make it impossible for there to be one.

The thing is, while Orton hasn't been booked as a world title contender, he's still treated as if he's above the midcard. How many times has he beaten the Intercontinental and United States Champions and hasn't shown an interest in their belts?

Team Hell No are the current tag team champions, but they have no viable contenders because the rest of the midcard is booked like jobbers, and thus the only way to give Kane & Bryan something to do is to shoehorn them into high profile multiman feuds where the tag belts don't even matter, because no one in the tag division is close to being on their level.

Midcarders SHOULD be allowed to rise up. Some of their pushes will work out, and some of them won't. And for the guys whose pushes don't work out, WWE doesn't really seam them BACK into the midcard. They just put them in this weird limbo where they're "too good" for it.

[saintpat]

To me holding a title at some point does not disqualify someone from the midcard.

Please everyone define "true" midcarder as opposed to "fake" midcarder.

Everyone seems to have their own definition. To me it's someone who isn't regularly in the title picture. I don't think Rey or Jericho or Orton have been involved in the title picture or in PPV non-title main events much at all in the last few years. They are upper midcarders but they are midcarders nonetheless.

[CATCH_US IS the Conversation]

Apr 8, 2013 22:30:01 GMT -5 saintpat said:

To me holding a title at some point does not disqualify someone from the midcard.

Please everyone define "true" midcarder as opposed to "fake" midcarder.

Everyone seems to have their own definition. To me it's someone who isn't regularly in the title picture. I don't think Rey or Jericho or Orton have been involved in the title picture or in PPV non-title main events much at all in the last few years. They are upper midcarders but they are midcarders nonetheless.

It doesn't automatically disqualify someone from the midcard, but that depends on how they're booked post title reign. Jack Swagger held the World Title, and after he lost it was having a Best of 100 Series against Evan Bourne, and traded back and forth wins with the likes of Zack Ryder and Alex Riley, so he's still pretty much a midcard guy.

Randy Orton lost the World Title, and was taken out of the title picture, but beats the IC and U.S. Champions in non title matches on a regular basis, so he's obviously not just a midcarder.

It shouldn't, but WWE doesn't really present guys like Rey, Jericho, or Orton as midcarders. They aren't regularly in the title picture, but WWE always presents them as being possible contenders. A guy like Wade Barrett or Miz, is booked a hell of a lot stronger than the true midcarders, even at their most irrelevant. The only way the midcard champions get to have something to do is if a former World Champion steps down (i.e. Miz vs. Cesaro, Miz vs. Barrett), because all the real midcarders have had their credibility shot to hell..

Zack Ryder vs. Alex Riley is a midcard feud

Kofi Kingston vs. Antonio Cesaro is a midcard feud

Sheamus vs. Randy Orton is not.

[mrjl]

Apr 8, 2013 21:37:43 GMT -5 CATCH_US IS the Conversation said:

I'd like to see feuds between REAL midcarders, not just filler to keep the main event guys occupied when they can't fit in the title picture.

I don't count, Kane, Daniel Bryan, Del Rio, Ziggler, Ryback, Henry, Swagger, Orton, Big Show, Jericho, or even Miz and Wade Barrett as "midcard". WWE doesn't really present those guys as being "midcarders". The only real midcarders we have are Team Funk, Rhodes Scholars, Kofi and Cesaro. Everyone else is either a total jobber, or presented as being above the midcard. Even the guys currently feuding over the Intercontental Title, The Miz and Barrett are booked so much stronger than the rest of the actual midcard, and thats mainly because they're coasting off of residual heat from their main event pushes.

It seems like everyone is just floating around in meaningless matches until its their turn to get another World Title match/run.

When I think of "midcard", I think of guys like 3MB, Ryder, Riley, Kofi, Santino, etc. the guys that WWE doesn't really necessarily hype up as "big stars". The guys who aren't made to look like possible top contenders. The likes of Team Hell No, etc. don't fall under that description.

those guys are lowercarders. They're the equivalent of the Young Stallions and the Conquistadors, Boris Zhukov and Jimmy Snuka around 1990

[Deleted]

Heres how I see it (I haven't listed everyone that could fit in to some of the positions, just examples, the main eventer list is complete though)

Main Event : Cm Punk, Undertaker, Rock, Cena, Lesnar, HHH (the top stars. any combination of 2 of these is big enough to main event mania)

Upper Midcard : Jericho, Orton, Ziggler, ADR, Daniel Bryan, Kane, Big Show, Ryback (people who can go between working with main eventers and midcarders no problem)

Midcard: Brodus Clay, Santino, Fandango, Tensai, Damien Sandow, Cody Rhodes, Kofi Kingston (people who can fued fine with upper midcarders but would never be given a fued or look strong in a match with a main eventer until they rise up the card)

Lower midcard : pretty much non existant in the current WWE (this is where the problem is imo, this part of the roster is missing, there should be people here who can go from working meaningless matches on superstars to appearing on Raw strong enough to make a midcarder look really good and be belivable in a fued with a midcarder)

Lower Card : Primo, Epico, Yoshi Tatsu (people who pretty much only work on superstars and when they make it to the main show it's to job out, and they should be mainly losing on superstars to the lower midcard)

[saintpat]

Also I wonder if the people who yearn to see the midcard actually watch them on Saturday morning or Main Event and whatnot.

(I think the idea that Superstars is still a show is just a myth perpetrated on the IWC, much like Dean Ambrose actually being real.)

[Deleted]

The midcard's just top heavy. With the Raw SuperShow format, Smackdown's 'main event' has kind of become the upper-midcard. There's a lot going on outside of the WWE title scene, but it doens't feel like the midcard because many of them are former World/WWE champs, or feuding with former champs like the Shield is.

[CATCH_US IS the Conversation]

Apr 9, 2013 17:35:52 GMT -5 @lovehater said:

The midcard's just top heavy. With the Raw SuperShow format, Smackdown's 'main event' has kind of become the upper-midcard. There's a lot going on outside of the WWE title scene, but it doens't feel like the midcard because many of them are former World/WWE champs, or feuding with former champs like the Shield is.

That's part of the problem. There's hardly anyone getting consistently strong booking and showcasing unless they've already been a World Champion (Orton, Sheamus, Ziggler, Del Rio, Henry, Show, Miz, Hell No, Christian, Jericho), getting pushed to that point (Ryback) or have been pushed to that level at some point (i.e. Barrett, and to a lesser extent R-Truth and Cody Rhodes). The majority of these guys, including Barrett and Miz, who are feuding over the Intercontinental Title, are presented as being above the rest of the midcard.

[molson5]

People always talk about the attitude era and other former times having super-developed midcards, but geez, if we include 12-14 guys as being above the midcard currently, those contrasts don't really hold up the same. Did the 16th guy on the tottem pole in the attiude era, or during the 80s, or whenenver else, REALLY have that much to do? I seem to remember a lot of silly half-ass storylines that were very quickly abandoned. In the 80s, Hogan was the top guy, along with whatever heel he was feuding with at the time. The #3 guy was a huge step down, "the midcard", people like Ricky Steamboat or Jake Roberts. In the attitude era, it was mostly Austin/Rock/Undertaker at the top, and then later Foley/HHH. A broader main event scene, but not by that much. It was a big drop below that, and another big drop to the guys who were around #16-20 in the pecking order. Today, people are actually saying there's 12-14 main eventers. Obviously a much different scene than the past. On the surface you'd think that would make people happy, more different guys having big storylines, but instead the complaint is that guys #16-20 aren't featured enough. How many guys does a promotion need to be focussed on at any one time?

[CATCH_US IS the Conversation]

Apr 9, 2013 21:00:07 GMT -5 molson5 said:

People always talk about the attitude era and other former times having super-developed midcards, but geez, if we include 12-14 guys as being above the midcard currently, those contrasts don't really hold up the same. Did the 16th guy on the tottem pole in the attiude era, or during the 80s, or whenenver else, REALLY have that much to do? I seem to remember a lot of silly half-ass storylines that were very quickly abandoned. In the 80s, Hogan was the top guy, along with whatever heel he was feuding with at the time. The #3 guy was a huge step down, "the midcard", people like Ricky Steamboat or Jake Roberts. In the attitude era, it was mostly Austin/Rock/Undertaker at the top, and then later Foley/HHH. A broader main event scene, but not by that much. It was a big drop below that, and another big drop to the guys who were around #16-20 in the pecking order. Today, people are actually saying there's 12-14 main eventers. Obviously a much different scene than the past. On the surface you'd think that would make people happy, more different guys having big storylines, but instead the complaint is that guys #16-20 aren't featured enough. How many guys does a promotion need to be focussed on at any one time?

The things is that back then the midcard guys were booked strongly by putting on solid, competitive matches and feuds with each other. A promotion does not need to be "focused" on that many people, and everyone doesn't necessarily need to have an epic feud at once. But the thing is that during the Attitude Era, and previous eras before that, people didn't NEED to have a major push towards a world title to be over and credible. A guy like D-Lo Brown, Val Venis, or Scotty 2 Hotty was never going to be the next big thing, but they still got to be on TV pretty much every week and made to look strong. Every wrestler SHOULD be over, credible, and relevant, even without a major storyline or feud.

Nowadays, Guys #16-20 are only used as squash fodder for Guys #1-12 A guy like Alex Riley, Zack Ryder, or Justin Gabriel will never get to win a match, unless he's fortunate enough to be booked against someone who somehow manages to be booked (unfortunately) less credibly than he is, usually someone like JTG, McGillicutty, or 1/2 of the Colons or PTPs, and that match probably won't even be televised, and thus the WWE Universe only sees them as scrubs who can't beat anyone aside from the bottom of the barrel guys. EVERYONE is basically used to job to someone higher in the pecking order than they are. Even the face of the company, John Cena, is not exempt from this rule. And when low tier guys win matches nowadays, the loser ends up looking bad, because it comes off as them being unable to beat the guys that everyone else beats. Why do Drew McIntyre or Yoshi Tatsu have to fight The Miz or Mark Henry only to be made to look bad, when they can fight each other and make each other look good?

[saintpat]

Apr 9, 2013 21:21:56 GMT -5 CATCH_US IS the Conversation said:

Apr 9, 2013 21:00:07 GMT -5 molson5 said:

People always talk about the attitude era and other former times having super-developed midcards, but geez, if we include 12-14 guys as being above the midcard currently, those contrasts don't really hold up the same. Did the 16th guy on the tottem pole in the attiude era, or during the 80s, or whenenver else, REALLY have that much to do? I seem to remember a lot of silly half-ass storylines that were very quickly abandoned. In the 80s, Hogan was the top guy, along with whatever heel he was feuding with at the time. The #3 guy was a huge step down, "the midcard", people like Ricky Steamboat or Jake Roberts. In the attitude era, it was mostly Austin/Rock/Undertaker at the top, and then later Foley/HHH. A broader main event scene, but not by that much. It was a big drop below that, and another big drop to the guys who were around #16-20 in the pecking order. Today, people are actually saying there's 12-14 main eventers. Obviously a much different scene than the past. On the surface you'd think that would make people happy, more different guys having big storylines, but instead the complaint is that guys #16-20 aren't featured enough. How many guys does a promotion need to be focussed on at any one time?

The things is that back then the midcard guys were booked strongly by putting on solid, competitive matches and feuds with each other. A promotion does not need to be "focused" on that many people, and everyone doesn't necessarily need to have an epic feud at once. But the thing is that during the Attitude Era, and previous eras before that, people didn't NEED to have a major push towards a world title to be over and credible. A guy like D-Lo Brown, Val Venis, or Scotty 2 Hotty was never going to be the next big thing, but they still got to be on TV pretty much every week and made to look strong. Every wrestler SHOULD be over, credible, and relevant, even without a major storyline or feud.

Nowadays, Guys #16-20 are only used as squash fodder for Guys #1-12 A guy like Alex Riley, Zack Ryder, or Justin Gabriel will never get to win a match, unless he's fortunate enough to be booked against someone who somehow manages to be booked (unfortunately) less credibly than he is, usually someone like JTG, McGillicutty, or 1/2 of the Colons or PTPs, and that match probably won't even be televised, and thus the WWE Universe only sees them as scrubs who can't beat anyone aside from the bottom of the barrel guys. EVERYONE is basically used to job to someone higher in the pecking order than they are. Even the face of the company, John Cena, is not exempt from this rule. And when low tier guys win matches nowadays, the loser ends up looking bad, because it comes off as them being unable to beat the guys that everyone else beats. Why do Drew McIntyre or Yoshi Tatsu have to fight The Miz or Mark Henry only to be made to look bad, when they can fight each other and make each other look good?

Because if people wanted to see that, they'd watch Superstars (when it was on TV) or Main Event or the Saturday show ... because what you're talking about happens every single week on those shows. And no one watches.

[molson5]

Apr 9, 2013 21:21:56 GMT -5 CATCH_US IS the Conversation said:

Apr 9, 2013 21:00:07 GMT -5 molson5 said:

People always talk about the attitude era and other former times having super-developed midcards, but geez, if we include 12-14 guys as being above the midcard currently, those contrasts don't really hold up the same. Did the 16th guy on the tottem pole in the attiude era, or during the 80s, or whenenver else, REALLY have that much to do? I seem to remember a lot of silly half-ass storylines that were very quickly abandoned. In the 80s, Hogan was the top guy, along with whatever heel he was feuding with at the time. The #3 guy was a huge step down, "the midcard", people like Ricky Steamboat or Jake Roberts. In the attitude era, it was mostly Austin/Rock/Undertaker at the top, and then later Foley/HHH. A broader main event scene, but not by that much. It was a big drop below that, and another big drop to the guys who were around #16-20 in the pecking order. Today, people are actually saying there's 12-14 main eventers. Obviously a much different scene than the past. On the surface you'd think that would make people happy, more different guys having big storylines, but instead the complaint is that guys #16-20 aren't featured enough. How many guys does a promotion need to be focussed on at any one time?

The things is that back then the midcard guys were booked strongly by putting on solid, competitive matches and feuds with each other. A promotion does not need to be "focused" on that many people, and everyone doesn't necessarily need to have an epic feud at once. But the thing is that during the Attitude Era, and previous eras before that, people didn't NEED to have a major push towards a world title to be over and credible. A guy like D-Lo Brown, Val Venis, or Scotty 2 Hotty was never going to be the next big thing, but they still got to be on TV pretty much every week and made to look strong. Every wrestler SHOULD be over, credible, and relevant, even without a major storyline or feud.

Nowadays, Guys #16-20 are only used as squash fodder for Guys #1-12 A guy like Alex Riley, Zack Ryder, or Justin Gabriel will never get to win a match, unless he's fortunate enough to be booked against someone who somehow manages to be booked (unfortunately) less credibly than he is, usually someone like JTG, McGillicutty, or 1/2 of the Colons or PTPs, and that match probably won't even be televised, and thus the WWE Universe only sees them as scrubs who can't beat anyone aside from the bottom of the barrel guys. EVERYONE is basically used to job to someone higher in the pecking order than they are. Even the face of the company, John Cena, is not exempt from this rule. And when low tier guys win matches nowadays, the loser ends up looking bad, because it comes off as them being unable to beat the guys that everyone else beats. Why do Drew McIntyre or Yoshi Tatsu have to fight The Miz or Mark Henry only to be made to look bad, when they can fight each other and make each other look good?

The attitude era RAWs didn't have a lot of lower tiered guys facing each other. I don't remember a lot of Chaz v. Tiger Ali Singh matches. People are trying to compare the Alex Riley's of today with the Scotty 2 Hotty's of yesterday. Scotty 2 Hotty was much higher up on the tottem pole than Alex Riley though. As far as level on the roster, Scotty 2 Hotty and D'Lo Brown were closer to what Kane and Daniel Bryan are today than Alex Riley or JTG. Today though, those guys ranked around 8-14 or so all have had occasional brushes with the main event or have been recent former ppv headliners. That was never the case in the attitude era. If things were booked like today, D'Lo Brown and Scotty 2 Hotty would have both had runs with the world title. Which is an entirely different issue, but, my point is that the midcard (as defined by ranking on the roster) is actually booked much more strongly today, and that's maybe been a detriment to the product because it's watered down the main event, and because it makes it SEEM as though more guys are insignficant because once you're in the main event/world title picture, it's a huge step down when you're not. And there's only room for so many main event guys at one time.

They other thing is clean finishes. Until the current era, most matches didn't have clean finishes. Today the majority do. And there's no jobber squashes. Which means almost every single match has to have a clear loser. That's a lot of losing. I'm all for bringing back jobber squashes and run-ins, but I thought I was in the minority there.

[CATCH_US IS the Conversation]

Apr 10, 2013 7:40:09 GMT -5 molson5 said:

Apr 9, 2013 21:21:56 GMT -5 CATCH_US IS the Conversation said:

The things is that back then the midcard guys were booked strongly by putting on solid, competitive matches and feuds with each other. A promotion does not need to be "focused" on that many people, and everyone doesn't necessarily need to have an epic feud at once. But the thing is that during the Attitude Era, and previous eras before that, people didn't NEED to have a major push towards a world title to be over and credible. A guy like D-Lo Brown, Val Venis, or Scotty 2 Hotty was never going to be the next big thing, but they still got to be on TV pretty much every week and made to look strong. Every wrestler SHOULD be over, credible, and relevant, even without a major storyline or feud.

Nowadays, Guys #16-20 are only used as squash fodder for Guys #1-12 A guy like Alex Riley, Zack Ryder, or Justin Gabriel will never get to win a match, unless he's fortunate enough to be booked against someone who somehow manages to be booked (unfortunately) less credibly than he is, usually someone like JTG, McGillicutty, or 1/2 of the Colons or PTPs, and that match probably won't even be televised, and thus the WWE Universe only sees them as scrubs who can't beat anyone aside from the bottom of the barrel guys. EVERYONE is basically used to job to someone higher in the pecking order than they are. Even the face of the company, John Cena, is not exempt from this rule. And when low tier guys win matches nowadays, the loser ends up looking bad, because it comes off as them being unable to beat the guys that everyone else beats. Why do Drew McIntyre or Yoshi Tatsu have to fight The Miz or Mark Henry only to be made to look bad, when they can fight each other and make each other look good?

The attitude era RAWs didn't have a lot of lower tiered guys facing each other. I don't remember a lot of Chaz v. Tiger Ali Singh matches. People are trying to compare the Alex Riley's of today with the Scotty 2 Hotty's of yesterday. Scotty 2 Hotty was much higher up on the tottem pole than Alex Riley though. As far as level on the roster, Scotty 2 Hotty and D'Lo Brown were closer to what Kane and Daniel Bryan are today than Alex Riley or JTG. Today though, those guys ranked around 8-14 or so all have had occasional brushes with the main event or have been recent former ppv headliners. That was never the case in the attitude era. If things were booked like today, D'Lo Brown and Scotty 2 Hotty would have both had runs with the world title. Which is an entirely different issue, but, my point is that the midcard (as defined by ranking on the roster) is actually booked much more strongly today, and that's maybe been a detriment to the product because it's watered down the main event, and because it makes it SEEM as though more guys are insignficant because once you're in the main event/world title picture, it's a huge step down when you're not. And there's only room for so many main event guys at one time.

They other thing is clean finishes. Until the current era, most matches didn't have clean finishes. Today the majority do. And there's no jobber squashes. Which means almost every single match has to have a clear loser. That's a lot of losing. I'm all for bringing back jobber squashes and run-ins, but I thought I was in the minority there.

Back then, no one HAD to be in the World Title picture or booked at World Title level to be significant. A guy like Scotty 2 Hotty or D'Lo Brown was nowhere close to being a world champion, yet they still got to be over. In this era, no one gets to look strong without a World Title push, or without squashing the rest of their fellow midcard peers and making them look like scrubs.

The low level guys of past eras were not treated like complete non-entities