|
Sanguinia posted:He could easily be the IMMEDIATE future of the company. Steve Austin, HBK and Bret Hart were not on top for a quantitatively large number of years. In fact most "carry the company," top guys in modern wrestling history have not carried their companies for a decade, it's usually a matter of only a few years. Hogan and Cena are anomalies. We're, what, 33 years into the current wrestling paradigm "as is", so I don't think it's fair to cite Hogan/Cena as anomalies when roughly two thirds of the current business model has been dominated by those two. If we want to go back further to the territory days, that sort of model was very much the case. How else do you explain Bruno being champion for as long as he was? If we want to compare contemporary wrestling feds, well, WCW never really ever had a top guy who "carried" the company. Sting typically drew lacklustre numbers whenever he was positioned as such, and their other attempts didn't really go so well. There was Hogan, which (IIRC) initially spiked interest, but that was riding the goodwill from being a WWF product/household name than anything. Goldberg was probably the only other comparable and he had an incredibly brief window of success while WCW was entering its death spiral. Flair probably is the only other comparable and he was pretty much the man for a long rear end period of time, despite WCW's efforts at sabotaging his rear end. ECW was in a continuous state of flux and I don't think anyone really "carried" the company -- ECW was more of a brand or entity rather than having any one singular guy positioned to make the company money...and they were really mice nuts in the grand scale of things. That said, I do think that WWE is pissing money away with their handling of Daniel Bryan, and I don't get why they can never let things happen organically but hey, I'm not a Cerebral Asskicker or Vincent McMahon, goddammit, so what do I know? Hahaha.
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2015 08:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 19, 2024 03:02 |
|