Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2013 18:22:26 GMT -5
Yes. They are stacked stacked stacked. Almost everyone on the roster can flat out go. Curt Hawkins is on the bottom of the roster, and he's damn good, but there's not really many people I would say he should take their spot. It blows my mind that some still think TNA has a better roster.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger Millionaire on Jun 1, 2013 19:57:26 GMT -5
1991 Roster Macho Man Flair Steamboat Hogan Undertaker Jauques Rougeau Hennig Valentine Hart Michaels DiBiase Roberts Martel Valentine WAS good, but hadn't been good in many years by this point. Dibiase was declining. Undertaker was green. And Roberts, while being solid was never a great wrestler per se, he just knew how to execute something. I'd give the advantage to what we have now; Cena Orton Cesaro Rhodes Christian Bryan Punk Del Rio Ziggler Jericho And that's not even taking into account the guys who are still great, and given almost zero to do. WWE right now in terms of talent is almost TOO good. I disagree with too much of what you said to go over every point. I'll argue that Orton and Del Rio are as boring as paint. Also thing your vastly overrated Rhodes. Also, 1991 Kerry Von Erich Hawk Animal Owen Hart Davey Boy Smith Rotundo
|
|
|
Post by celticjobber on Jun 1, 2013 20:02:03 GMT -5
No f***ing way. It's certainly not as good overall as in the mid-late 80's and around 2000-2001. And the Divas division is just a piss-poor, sad state of affairs compared with the Trish Stratus era.
I'm shocked that it's winning the poll. Maybe alot of the ones voting are new WWE fans, who haven't seen much of the product prior to the last five years?
Sure, it's the best roster in a long time. But, really what good is a talented roster if many of them are forever stuck in developmental (Ohno) or being wasted as jobbers like Antonio Cesaro?
|
|
BigWill
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 16,619
|
Post by BigWill on Jun 1, 2013 20:14:03 GMT -5
Sure, it's the best roster in a long time. But, really what good is a talented roster if many of them are forever stuck in developmental (Ohno) or being wasted as jobbers like Antonio Cesaro? I guess you'd rather everyone get called up immediately with the WWE having nothing for them to do? How'd that work out for Kaval? And Cesaro's hardly a jobber. He just had a lengthy title reign, and is now in WWE's typical yo-yo booking that happens to every midcarder not in the title picture.
|
|
|
Post by celticjobber on Jun 1, 2013 20:17:28 GMT -5
Sure, it's the best roster in a long time. But, really what good is a talented roster if many of them are forever stuck in developmental (Ohno) or being wasted as jobbers like Antonio Cesaro? I guess you'd rather everyone get called up immediately with the WWE having nothing for them to do? How'd that work out for Kaval? IMO, even though he's incredibly talented, Kaval was never cut out for WWE. His attitude, look, and style were never going to let him co-exist with the powers that be (like Vince McMahon and Kevin Dunn) in that company. Ohno's a totally different situation. He has a good look, is pretty charismatic, and could've easily been in the Shield, brought in as a tag team with Cesaro, or he could've been Heyman's new client instead of Curtis Axel.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Jun 1, 2013 20:40:11 GMT -5
No f***ing way. It's certainly not as good overall as in the mid-late 80's and around 2000-2001. And the Divas division is just a piss-poor, sad state of affairs compared with the Trish Stratus era. I'm shocked that it's winning the poll. Maybe alot of the ones voting are new WWE fans, who haven't seen much of the product prior to the last five years? Sure, it's the best roster in a long time. But, really what good is a talented roster if many of them are forever stuck in developmental (Ohno) or being wasted as jobbers like Antonio Cesaro? the question is most talented. It has nothing to do with best used. Plenty of periods in WWE/F history had no women wrestlers, so I think unless you're deciding that this roster is close to exactly as good as a previous roster with only divas making the difference that doesn't really make a difference. This poll can't be judged by the negative which is the way so many on the internet is judged. The only thing that matters is how good each guy is and how many of them there are that are good vs previous eras
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Jun 1, 2013 20:42:23 GMT -5
I guess you'd rather everyone get called up immediately with the WWE having nothing for them to do? How'd that work out for Kaval? IMO, even though he's incredibly talented, Kaval was never cut out for WWE. His attitude, look, and style were never going to let him co-exist with the powers that be (like Vince McMahon and Kevin Dunn) in that company. I agree with that. I don't know much about Kaval, but he seems to take himself very seriously. Meanwhile Vince takes nothing seriously and loves juvenile humor. That's a tough combination to make work unless you absolutely have to, and neither of them had to.
|
|
|
Post by generationxero on Jun 1, 2013 20:52:12 GMT -5
The era when they had Eddy, Benoit, Jericho, Malenko, Lesnar, Angle, Austin, HHH, HBK, Taker, London, Kendrick, Yang, Rey, Ultimo, Tajiri, Regal, etc. was the best ever IMO. THIS!
|
|
|
Post by Magic knows Black Lives Matter on Jun 1, 2013 20:55:00 GMT -5
Not THE best but definitely one of the strongest groups in recent memory.
|
|
|
Post by thegame415 on Jun 1, 2013 21:05:57 GMT -5
It's up there. I'd say 1992, 2001 and this year are among the best.
|
|
mizerable
Fry's dog Seymour
You're the lowest on the totem pole here, Alva. The lowest.
Posts: 23,475
|
Post by mizerable on Jun 2, 2013 1:31:44 GMT -5
I disagree with too much of what you said to go over every point. I'll argue that Orton and Del Rio are as boring as paint. Also thing your vastly overrated Rhodes. Also, 1991 Kerry Von Erich Hawk Animal Owen Hart Davey Boy Smith Rotundo Rhodes is quite a good performer when given the task. Orton and Del Rio may as characters be boring as paint, but they aren't slouches in the ring, they're certainly more entertaining that Valentine was in 1991. But I'll also add; Rollins Ambrose Reigns Lesnar Kingston Sheamus Mysterio (granted, he isn't the man he once was, but the last we saw him, he still was effective) Bourne Kane (when he changes his matches up once and a while) Ryback Santino Hunico McIntyre Tatsu In terms of guys who can go out there and put on an exciting bout when given the opportunity, I cannot think of any other time when this has been more clear with the amount of guys they have.
|
|
|
Post by EoE: Well There's Your Problem on Jun 2, 2013 2:12:12 GMT -5
You put this roster in a time of stronger full roster writing and character development, and it would be right up there with the all-time great WWE/F rosters of the late '80s-early '90s and the early 2000s.
|
|
|
Post by Nic Nemeth on Jun 2, 2013 2:27:29 GMT -5
The only clunkers I can think of with the current main roster (sans Diva's Division since I don't pay attention to it ever) are:
- The Great Khali - Bo Dallas - Brodus Clay (and he's not even terrible) - David Otunga (who is getting better) - Ezekiel Jackson (who hasn't been on the shows in over a year) - Mason Ryan (see above)
And of those people, the only one who gets any screen time is Brodus Clay.
|
|
Reflecto
Hank Scorpio
The Sorceress' Knight
Posts: 6,847
|
Post by Reflecto on Jun 2, 2013 2:38:50 GMT -5
QFE. The current roster is good. Even very good.
Having said that, between the WWE's talent, the WCW purchase, the ECW signings, AND one of the most prospect-stacked developmental years ever, it's there.
The current roster's good- and an opinion here works, but having said that, if your answer for "best WWE roster of all time" is anything besides the post-WCW purchase 2001 WWE roster, you are wrong- with all due respect, of course.
|
|
|
Post by jp49er80 on Jun 2, 2013 4:39:18 GMT -5
Early 2000s. 2001-2003 would have my vote.
|
|
|
Post by simplydurhamcalling on Jun 2, 2013 5:15:45 GMT -5
QFE. The current roster is good. Even very good. Having said that, between the WWE's talent, the WCW purchase, the ECW signings, AND one of the most prospect-stacked developmental years ever, it's there. The current roster's good- and an opinion here works, but having said that, if your answer for "best WWE roster of all time" is anything besides the post-WCW purchase 2001 WWE roster, you are wrong- with all due respect, of course. I think all of these guys were still active in 2002 so you can add Tajiri, Jamie Noble, Brock Lesnar and Rey Mysterio.
|
|
|
Post by Chuckie Finster on Jun 2, 2013 6:03:29 GMT -5
It's the most athletically gifted roster ever, but not the most talented in a pro wrestling sense mainly due to the lack of seasoning and experience.
|
|
|
Post by airraidcrash on Jun 2, 2013 12:16:11 GMT -5
I think its a case of this roster getting more chances to have good matches than previous rosters. Theres a lot of wrestling on raw and smackdown these days. Main event always has long matches and nxt is another outlet. The number of quality matches is still very impressive but the early 90s roster has them beat for sheer talent.
|
|
The Ichi
Patti Mayonnaise
AGGRESSIVE Executive Janitor of the Third Floor Manager's Bathroom
Posts: 37,644
|
Post by The Ichi on Jun 2, 2013 12:46:41 GMT -5
I want to say yes, but everytime I look at the picture in the OP, Kelly Kelly is the first person my eyes see.
|
|
|
Post by steamboat1 on Jun 2, 2013 15:43:45 GMT -5
I would say in terms of in-ring matches, it is equal to late 1991/early 92 when there were about 10-12 guys that could put on really good 15 minute matches.
|
|