Is it right to be obsessed only with creating new stars?

[segaz]

On one hand, I can see some sense, because it builds up stars for the future.

On the other hand....if current or past legends can still entertain and perform, why not let them? No one ever complains about this as much in acting or athletics, but somehow when the two are combined, then that becomes the main thing, who will be the next Rock/Austin, and every star should be pushed as if they all have the potential to reach or fufil those specific roles.

Undertaker for example, perhaps he is getting too old and broken down to perform reliably as a wrestler any more. Then why not keep him around as a manager or interviewee, or commentator because clearly he can still be entertaining and a good third of the entertainment for me (maybe higher) takes place outside the immediate match.

Rock, HHH, Cena....these guys can still go. By their longevity, if they stay performing as wrestlers, new situations and stories for their characters should be written, new struggles based on their kayfabe past and experience. They can still entertain.

And yet it seems whenever they return, the complaint one of two things: they should job to new wrestlers or they should go away and never return.

I don't understand the obsession with it. Surely we can agree there are new predicaments and stories that could be told with the character of HHH.

I don't think that building up new athletic stars and getting them accepted or over with fans means the only use of legends is to lose lose lose or go away quietly forever, save for nostalgia pops, less they take away even one single second that could go towards some hungry young up and comer.

The issue for me is that they are not often used well and the stories being told are not always compelling. But something like Brock/Goldberg I was fine with.



Edit - In a TV show, you can get away with using all unknown stars because it's a totally new show, like NXT. And of course passing the torch and letting others get a spotlight is expected at some point. But is that the only role of a legend?

Example. Savage in 1994. People generally agree he could have continued to wrestle and contribute. However when I ask people how, they say "He could have wrestled face vs face, no story with Bret Hart....and lost." Fine. What next? "Wrestle Shawn Michaels and....lose." Ok, what about after that? "Wrestle Diesel, wrestle owen, wrestle razor, wrestle 123 kid, wrestle Yokozuna, wrestle undertaker....lose all matches and retain the role of the legend putting over young stars."

How is that interesting? I have no doubt the matches would have been great, but surely he had more to offer than being a jobber? Or what about something new as a character or new story? Nope, just the legend giving the rub and nod to Henry O Godwin, The Goon, Salvador Sincere etc etc. No more title runs. No high profile stories, stealing air time and promo time from Savio Vega or Aldo Montoya.

As we saw in WCW he could still go for another 3-4 years.


There are some times where legends have to pass the torch or course, such as Hogan v Rock WMX8 where, despite me really wanting NWO Hollywood Hogan to win, I think they finally did have to give Rock one win at Wrestlemania. Even though I and the crowd wanted something different, it was better to give it to Rock, no matter the story.

[Dub H]

The issue is not to ONLY use legends to put over.

But that except by Jericho(which is still a semi-regular) they never do.

The last legend was used to beat Lesnar win streak,cleanly.

THat should have been saved to make a star.(Even if we all know it is Reigns,but that is another issue,which he is the only one that gets put over by returning legends)

The first Sting return match(and defeat)? Triple H.

The Undertaker streak?Lesnar,again an older part timer, he can't hold the business. You need young people to be able to lead your business or your future is pretty dammed.

[The Thread Barbi]

Securing the future of the business with developing talent is no bad thing. Problem is that they seldom end up with a finished package who's time is now, to borrow the catchphrase from Messieur Cena.

Braun is about the only example I can think of. A star who is current and over, with a foreseeable good future, but was developmental not too long ago.

However, good workhorses like Jericho and Styles don't need to be put aside to create stars.

You're right in your example - Arnold Schwarzenegger doesn't have to step aside to make room for the Rock. The old, current and new should co-exist in harmony.

[Dub H]

Jan 23, 2018 9:54:40 GMT -5 The Thread Barbi said:

Securing the future of the business with developing talent is no bad thing. Problem is that they seldom end up with a finished package who's time is now, to borrow the catchphrase from Messieur Cena.

Braun is about the only example I can think of. A star who is current and over, with a foreseeable good future, but was developmental not too long ago.

However, good workhorses like Jericho and Styles don't need to be put aside to create stars.

You're right in your example - Arnold Schwarzenegger doesn't have to step aside to make room for the Rock. The old, current and new should co-exist in harmony.

And that they seems to pass over to pull the trigger on any of these stars.

Ryback ,Punk and Braun are the two examples that come to mind(the first two which got pushed down to make room for Cena vs Rock,which is part of the issue which only legends get to be put over by legends)

[Final Countdown Jones]

The problem is in the legends coming in and immediately just seeming better in every way than anyone else. Nobody can beat Brock except Goldberg and Roman, nobody can beat Goldberg except Brock, when The Dudleys show up to put a guy through the table sure it pops the audience but it's not really doing anything for the talent involved there who was a geek before the Dudleys came out and remain a geek afterward. To that end I think Triple H has gone in pretty hard on making sure he's putting over guys in recent years, and he's even reportedly turned down working with Batista at Mania (which was Batista's main demand as far as material that'd interest him) so he can keep putting over the guys coming up from his system.

People would be more amenable to veteran talent if they didn't show up on very loose schedules at best and came off immediately like they were more important and better than everyone slumming it full time. WWE itself criticized WCW for this same thing and not just to shit on WCW; there is merit to the idea that when you have a new generation come in, you want to build them up on the backs of the old generation. The Rock is more than a generation removed from anyone he'd come in to cut a promo on, but he's always portrayed as being someone who is way above the level of anyone he's on screen with. Yes, he is a bigger star than them, but there's a f***ing reason why that is: if in 1998 WWE made a deal out of Sgt. Slaughter being way above anyone else's level, the Attitude Era would not have been a boom period at goddamn all.

[segaz]

Jan 23, 2018 10:00:00 GMT -5 Final Countdown Jones said:

The problem is in the legends coming in and immediately just seeming better in every way than anyone else. Nobody can beat Brock except Goldberg and Roman, nobody can beat Goldberg except Brock, when The Dudleys show up to put a guy through the table sure it pops the audience but it's not really doing anything for the talent involved there who was a geek before the Dudleys came out and remain a geek afterward. To that end I think Triple H has gone in pretty hard on making sure he's putting over guys in recent years, and he's even reportedly turned down working with Batista at Mania (which was Batista's main demand as far as material that'd interest him) so he can keep putting over the guys coming up from his system.

People would be more amenable to veteran talent if they didn't show up on very loose schedules at best and came off immediately like they were more important and better than everyone slumming it full time. WWE itself criticized WCW for this same thing and not just to shit on WCW; there is merit to the idea that when you have a new generation come in, you want to build them up on the backs of the old generation. The Rock is more than a generation removed from anyone he'd come in to cut a promo on, but he's always portrayed as being someone who is way above the level of anyone he's on screen with. Yes, he is a bigger star than them, but there's a f***ing reason why that is: if in 1998 WWE made a deal out of Sgt. Slaughter being way above anyone else's level, the Attitude Era would not have been a boom period at goddamn all.

I can understand that, Sgt. Slaughter is nowhere near the Rocks level. The Rock is still over now. But a growing number of people think he should come back solely to put over Kofi, Braun, Roman, Styles, Ambrose, Rollins or never come back at all. I would wager he has a good few years left in him, and if he put some over, sure, yeah, then why not also give him feuds where he wins or even let his final match be a victory where he goes out a winner as Champion? Does it make others look bad because he didn't do the job on the way out? No, it enables him to retain the superstar status. Again, stories in Movies and shows allow this, and Athletics allow this, but does it not work in Wrestling? If we take traditional POTT moments such as Cena beating Rock, or Shawn beating Bret and reverse them, outside of genuine story dictation moments such as Bret/Austin, Bryan/HHH, moments where it was ok to be shocking and ok to lose in order to show respect to other wrestlers such as Hogan/Warrior, Hogan/Rock, do we really lose anything from the character or story? Clearly the underdog is not always favoured, just look at Undertaker, some people never wanted him to lose the streak.



WCW is an interesting case, take 1998 for example. I really don't know how you can take all that top level talent and straight bury them to Jericho, Benoit, Eddie, Saturn, etc. Perhaps the best thing was to pair up legends with legends, like Bret/Sting or Hogan/Warrior and let Goldberg and DDP take centre stage. But we haven't mentioned Nash or Scott Steiner or Ric Flair or many many others who by their very presence in the company demand from fans more screen time than Prince Iyakaya or Kidman or Booker T.

I don't deny screen time, losses, build up as threats need to be done for the newer younger stars, but people always go to the extreme, like every older star in WCW should have been relegated to current WWE legends status where they show up once a year for a pop and lose decisively at Starrcade to the new wrestlers in the company, before riding back off into the sunset and stop stealing tv time from younger stars.
They would've been insane to job them all UNLESS it was handled in a way the story demanded, such as going through all the NWO Elite in 1999. Just jobbing them for jobbings sake doesn't put anyone over, and they can still be entertaining and enjoyable while losing....and winning. Yes even in the title scene.

[Tea & Crumpets]

Jan 23, 2018 10:27:10 GMT -5 segaz said:

Jan 23, 2018 10:00:00 GMT -5 Final Countdown Jones said:

The problem is in the legends coming in and immediately just seeming better in every way than anyone else. Nobody can beat Brock except Goldberg and Roman, nobody can beat Goldberg except Brock, when The Dudleys show up to put a guy through the table sure it pops the audience but it's not really doing anything for the talent involved there who was a geek before the Dudleys came out and remain a geek afterward. To that end I think Triple H has gone in pretty hard on making sure he's putting over guys in recent years, and he's even reportedly turned down working with Batista at Mania (which was Batista's main demand as far as material that'd interest him) so he can keep putting over the guys coming up from his system.

People would be more amenable to veteran talent if they didn't show up on very loose schedules at best and came off immediately like they were more important and better than everyone slumming it full time. WWE itself criticized WCW for this same thing and not just to shit on WCW; there is merit to the idea that when you have a new generation come in, you want to build them up on the backs of the old generation. The Rock is more than a generation removed from anyone he'd come in to cut a promo on, but he's always portrayed as being someone who is way above the level of anyone he's on screen with. Yes, he is a bigger star than them, but there's a f***ing reason why that is: if in 1998 WWE made a deal out of Sgt. Slaughter being way above anyone else's level, the Attitude Era would not have been a boom period at goddamn all.

I can understand that, Sgt. Slaughter is nowhere near the Rocks level. The Rock is still over now. But a growing number of people think he should come back solely to put over Kofi, Braun, Roman, Styles, Ambrose, Rollins or never come back at all. I would wager he has a good few years left in him, and if he put some over, sure, yeah, then why not also give him feuds where he wins or even let his final match be a victory where he goes out a winner as Champion? Does it make others look bad because he didn't do the job on the way out? No, it enables him to retain the superstar status. Again, stories in Movies and shows allow this, and Athletics allow this, but does it not work in Wrestling? If we take traditional POTT moments such as Cena beating Rock, or Shawn beating Bret and reverse them, outside of genuine story dictation moments such as Bret/Austin, Bryan/HHH, moments where it was ok to be shocking and ok to lose in order to show respect to other wrestlers such as Hogan/Warrior, Hogan/Rock, do we really lose anything from the character or story? Clearly the underdog is not always favoured, just look at Undertaker, some people never wanted him to lose the streak.



WCW is an interesting case, take 1998 for example. I really don't know how you can take all that top level talent and straight bury them to Jericho, Benoit, Eddie, Saturn, etc. Perhaps the best thing was to pair up legends with legends, like Bret/Sting or Hogan/Warrior and let Goldberg and DDP take centre stage. But we haven't mentioned Nash or Scott Steiner or Ric Flair or many many others who by their very presence in the company demand from fans more screen time than Prince Iyakaya or Kidman or Booker T.

I don't deny screen time, losses, build up as threats need to be done for the newer younger stars, but people always go to the extreme, like every older star in WCW should have been relegated to current WWE legends status where they show up once a year for a pop and lose decisively at Starrcade to the new wrestlers in the company, before riding back off into the sunset and stop stealing tv time from younger stars.
They would've been insane to job them all UNLESS it was handled in a way the story demanded, such as going through all the NWO Elite in 1999. Just jobbing them for jobbings sake doesn't put anyone over, and they can still be entertaining and enjoyable while losing....and winning. Yes even in the title scene.

It's the f***ing Rock, he's going to retain his superstar status regardless because he's a goddamn moviestar. You don't have him job in 5 seconds to Bo Dallas no, but you can definitely have him take a few losses and he loses NOTHING. He's in his mid 40s for f***'s sake. It doesn't tarnish his legacy at all for a past his prime, aging Rock to still have the heroic fighting efforts but lose to the new, younger, in-their-prime generation. Rock beating them makes them look like trash because these athletes at their peak lost to an actor who hasn't wrestled regularly in 15 years and is closing in on 50.

You can give a nostalgia pop win here and there sure. In tags, or against lowercarders who get a rub just from having that segment. But there is no longevity in having the heroes of yesteryear show up and beat the new guard. Goldberg beating Brock....eh, it's a shock moment and they're both veterans, I'll allow it. But to then waste that on Goldberg beating Owens only to lose to Brock in a rematch and kill any hope of a rub from it was dumb booking made to satisfy nobody but Lesnar & Goldberg themselves. Legends showing up repeatedly diminishes their value ANYWAY on each comeback, regardless of if they win or lose, because your childhood heroes repeatedly reinforce that they're old and a little bit past it now. Use them to build new guys while they still have value, save the "yayyyyy, 'member when Rock would do the people's elbow" stuff for undercard filler to pop the crowd, but if the legends are doing anything of actual substance then yes, 9/10 times they should eat the pin.

As for WCW 98, Goldberg & DDP should have been front and centre, Savage could just about go so I'd be okay with him slotting in now and then, Nash, Sting & Hall you can rotate in, and Bret has just come in to WCW, so he's capable of a run. But they had Raven ready & waiting to be elevated as the new top heel and wasn't, they had Booker T & Scott Steiner starting to break out but it took them over 2 more years to actually be given the ball, you can't hotshot Benoit etc. to the top but they could definitely start to build them up by starting programmes, and yes, getting wins, over the old timers at the top. It's how wrestling has always worked, the new guys start down the card and rise to the top dethroning the old. WWE currently has that completely backwards- their chosen ones START at the top, and the older you are, the more likely you are to be reinforced as the biggest deal going.

[mcstoklasa]

Jan 23, 2018 9:50:10 GMT -5 Dub H said:

The issue is not to ONLY use legends to put over.

But that except by Jericho(which is still a semi-regular) they never do.

The last legend was used to beat Lesnar win streak,cleanly.

THat should have been saved to make a star.(Even if we all know it is Reigns,but that is another issue,which he is the only one that gets put over by returning legends)

The first Sting return match(and defeat)? Triple H.

The Undertaker streak?Lesnar,again an older part timer, he can't hold the business. You need young people to be able to lead your business or your future is pretty dammed.

Good points but I do think Lesnar was the correct choice for the streak breaking. Plus he was only about 35/36 at the time. It helped turn him into the final boss after that crappy triple h feud

[Dub H]

Jan 23, 2018 14:17:48 GMT -5 mcstoklasa said:

Jan 23, 2018 9:50:10 GMT -5 Dub H said:

The issue is not to ONLY use legends to put over.

But that except by Jericho(which is still a semi-regular) they never do.

The last legend was used to beat Lesnar win streak,cleanly.

THat should have been saved to make a star.(Even if we all know it is Reigns,but that is another issue,which he is the only one that gets put over by returning legends)

The first Sting return match(and defeat)? Triple H.

The Undertaker streak?Lesnar,again an older part timer, he can't hold the business. You need young people to be able to lead your business or your future is pretty dammed.

Good points but I do think Lesnar was the correct choice for the streak breaking. Plus he was only about 35/36 at the time. It helped turn him into the final boss after that crappy triple h feud

Oh i definitely enjoyed it and by itself it is not a bad choice.

Just given the whole context it leaves a little sour taste

[Final Countdown Jones]

Jan 23, 2018 10:27:10 GMT -5 segaz said:

Jan 23, 2018 10:00:00 GMT -5 Final Countdown Jones said:

The problem is in the legends coming in and immediately just seeming better in every way than anyone else. Nobody can beat Brock except Goldberg and Roman, nobody can beat Goldberg except Brock, when The Dudleys show up to put a guy through the table sure it pops the audience but it's not really doing anything for the talent involved there who was a geek before the Dudleys came out and remain a geek afterward. To that end I think Triple H has gone in pretty hard on making sure he's putting over guys in recent years, and he's even reportedly turned down working with Batista at Mania (which was Batista's main demand as far as material that'd interest him) so he can keep putting over the guys coming up from his system.

People would be more amenable to veteran talent if they didn't show up on very loose schedules at best and came off immediately like they were more important and better than everyone slumming it full time. WWE itself criticized WCW for this same thing and not just to shit on WCW; there is merit to the idea that when you have a new generation come in, you want to build them up on the backs of the old generation. The Rock is more than a generation removed from anyone he'd come in to cut a promo on, but he's always portrayed as being someone who is way above the level of anyone he's on screen with. Yes, he is a bigger star than them, but there's a f***ing reason why that is: if in 1998 WWE made a deal out of Sgt. Slaughter being way above anyone else's level, the Attitude Era would not have been a boom period at goddamn all.

I can understand that, Sgt. Slaughter is nowhere near the Rocks level. The Rock is still over now. But a growing number of people think he should come back solely to put over Kofi, Braun, Roman, Styles, Ambrose, Rollins or never come back at all. I would wager he has a good few years left in him, and if he put some over, sure, yeah, then why not also give him feuds where he wins or even let his final match be a victory where he goes out a winner as Champion? Does it make others look bad because he didn't do the job on the way out? No, it enables him to retain the superstar status. Again, stories in Movies and shows allow this, and Athletics allow this, but does it not work in Wrestling? If we take traditional POTT moments such as Cena beating Rock, or Shawn beating Bret and reverse them, outside of genuine story dictation moments such as Bret/Austin, Bryan/HHH, moments where it was ok to be shocking and ok to lose in order to show respect to other wrestlers such as Hogan/Warrior, Hogan/Rock, do we really lose anything from the character or story? Clearly the underdog is not always favoured, just look at Undertaker, some people never wanted him to lose the streak.



WCW is an interesting case, take 1998 for example. I really don't know how you can take all that top level talent and straight bury them to Jericho, Benoit, Eddie, Saturn, etc. Perhaps the best thing was to pair up legends with legends, like Bret/Sting or Hogan/Warrior and let Goldberg and DDP take centre stage. But we haven't mentioned Nash or Scott Steiner or Ric Flair or many many others who by their very presence in the company demand from fans more screen time than Prince Iyakaya or Kidman or Booker T.

I don't deny screen time, losses, build up as threats need to be done for the newer younger stars, but people always go to the extreme, like every older star in WCW should have been relegated to current WWE legends status where they show up once a year for a pop and lose decisively at Starrcade to the new wrestlers in the company, before riding back off into the sunset and stop stealing tv time from younger stars.
They would've been insane to job them all UNLESS it was handled in a way the story demanded, such as going through all the NWO Elite in 1999. Just jobbing them for jobbings sake doesn't put anyone over, and they can still be entertaining and enjoyable while losing....and winning. Yes even in the title scene.

The Rock example you gave of having him go out winning a title and I guess just vacating it afterward is trash garbage even outside the context of a guy from 20 years ago; you need only look at the hate Gail Kim got for winning the belt in her retirement match in TNA last year and vacating it straight away after she dominated the division one last time.. The Rock honestly can't go anymore and his Cena matches proved it, but also he can't go because he's got a full time show business schedule. Even if he can work another match without insurance concerns over one thing or another, what would Rock gain beating a current roster guy and not really getting much legitimacy out of it when he's already The Rock, versus what someone like Rusev could get pinning one of the business's greats clean in the ring? Damn right old dudes should be taking falls left and right. It takes years to stop being bulletproof due to nostalgia and if you're really a talent deserving of sticking around like Chris Jericho, you can adapt and shake the stigma of losing easily. 100% absolutely, they could have taken the top level talent of a decade earlier and used them to put over legitimate all-time greats like Jericho and Benoit. Any implication that's something you can't do is f***ing insane to me honestly.

Anyone who's been on WWE television before the year 2004 should be taking falls and making the current talent look good, full stop.

[Reflecto]

Jan 23, 2018 18:22:11 GMT -5 Final Countdown Jones said:

The Rock example you gave of having him go out winning a title and I guess just vacating it afterward is trash garbage even outside the context of a guy from 20 years ago; you need only look at the hate Gail Kim got for winning the belt in her retirement match in TNA last year and vacating it straight away after she dominated the division one last time.. The Rock honestly can't go anymore and his Cena matches proved it, but also he can't go because he's got a full time show business schedule. Even if he can work another match without insurance concerns over one thing or another, what would Rock gain beating a current roster guy and not really getting much legitimacy out of it when he's already The Rock, versus what someone like Rusev could get pinning one of the business's greats clean in the ring? Damn right old dudes should be taking falls left and right. It takes years to stop being bulletproof due to nostalgia and if you're really a talent deserving of sticking around like Chris Jericho, you can adapt and shake the stigma of losing easily. 100% absolutely, they could have taken the top level talent of a decade earlier and used them to put over legitimate all-time greats like Jericho and Benoit. Any implication that's something you can't do is f***ing insane to me honestly.

Anyone who's been on WWE television before the year 2004 should be taking falls and making the current talent look good, full stop.[/quote]

But even that has a different example as well: Putting people over and making current talent look good means more than just "lose to them".

Using The Rock as an example here:

The Rock CANNOT go in the ring anymore, and he probably can't do so.

But The Rock CAN still go on the mic- and that has arguably more value than this. The Rock losing a match, clean, to a current roster member wouldn't matter all that much (hell, even in The Rock's prime one of the big knocks on Rock was he was willing to drop falls to everyone on the roster, to the point they were worried it would kill his heat).

However, The Rock showing up, doing Rock things, getting eyes on the product, and having a current superstar in the segment as the person he plays off of to put that person in a MUST-WATCH segment, which would introduce Rock fans to that new talent? It works. Heck the example of Rusev was one there- where The Rock did a lot in non-wrestling segments to make Rusev look more important.

It also ties to the same problem right now- 50/50 booking has made it so that wins and losses no longer mean as much as they did in the past. The booking has flattened out with that, to the point where matches which should have been starmaking victories. In 2004, Shelton Benjamin got MADE by beating Triple H cleanly- but in 2018, if a midcarder were to beat AJ Styles or Roman Reigns clean, it would be forgotten about by next week and do nothing to make them a star.

With that in mind, legends are more useful to be in segments with current workers and saying "Hey, this person has my seal of approval. You liked me, right? You should really give this guy or girl a try."

[abjordans]

I have been reading about wrestling on the internet since 1997, and the obsession with pushing new, young guys was around then too. It is a stigma that the fans have always had, the right guys were never on top.

[schma]

I've got no problems with older guys getting a go, if they can still go. 'For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction'. I think of that when it comes to the older guys right now. If the older guys were around more and actually losing occasionally instead of running roughshod over guys half their age I don't think it would be so contentious. I don't see anyone complaining about AJ hogging the spotlight from the younger guys, or even Jericho. But then they're actually competing, they're not being brought in as a spectacle and treated as above everyone. A lot of the legend booking for a long time has made them untouchable except by chosen ones or other legends. Even that would probably be okay if they weren't the centre of everything. If the legends were given more reasonable booking there likely wouldn't be as much backlash. If current guys were given a chance to seem like they might be on that level there would be less backlash.