Jump to content

Will there ever be another icon like the Rock, Stone Cold etc.


ClutchedByTheCamel

Recommended Posts

  • Paid Members

When Austin broke through there was another company on the other side which was averaging 4.2's, while WWF was behind doing 3.2's which is what they were doing now. There doesn't seem to be much of an audience now. There's a core WWE audience, and nobody else. Even in the bad old days of 1995, Raw and Nitro's combined audience was still pretty big. The problem about wrestling for me is there is so much wrestling on TV now, but its all from the same promotion. When John Cena got big, he came the WWE's newest big phenomenon, who sold the shirts and what have you. When Austin got big, their was a big sense of change amongst the wrestling business. He was so different to the modern era. But as well as having Austin, you had DX. Anyone who was 13 or 14 back then wanted to be Road Dogg or Triple H. Everyone wants to be wise cracking, cool, hardcases. You had Mankind who was so likable and had so much sympathy and on top of that could have awesome matches and could out promo 90% of the business. There was the Rock as well, who was such a cheeky and clever cunt, you cant help but like him. And to top it off you had Vince McMahon who wasnt a clich

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 49
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Paid Members

Wrestling needs fresh ideas most. Both companies have bookers that knew what was cool in the past, not so much now. That's part of the reason the late-90s worked, you had Bischoff, Russo and Heyman breathing new life into something that was 5 years out of date before the Monday night wars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrestling already has another mega star and his name is John Cena. I'll probably get flamed to high holy hell for saying it but he is at the level they were at when they were on top, people just hate on him because not everything he does is completely crisp. Cena fills stadiums, has crossover appeal, works hard, IS a very talented worker and makes Vince McMahon a wealthy person.

 

Give it ten years after he walks into the sunset and people will go balistic when he returns like they did on monday for The Rock.

 

And...... queue ajmcstyles and Richie Freebird with telling me why Cena sucks and Im stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrestling already has another mega star and his name is John Cena. I'll probably get flamed to high holy hell for saying it but he is at the level they were at when they were on top, people just hate on him because not everything he does is completely crisp. Cena fills stadiums, has crossover appeal, works hard, IS a very talented worker and makes Vince McMahon a wealthy person.

 

The WWE as a whole is incredibly strong and is still making money, but that is due to their complete lack of competition and their continued international expansion. An expansion that they have absolutely needed to continue with, as their business in the USA is nowhere near where it used to be in terms of PPV and live shows. Domestically, they are not nearly as successful as they were with Austin and Rock on top.

 

Austin and Rock were genuine cross-over stars. Austin had a regular role in TV shows like Nash Bridges and Celebrity Deathmatch, Rock was hosting Saturday Night Live and releasing songs with Wyclef, then went on to make proper Hollywood films.

 

Cena released an album that flopped and was a joke, and makes straight to DVD films for Vince's Film Company.

 

If people just didn't like Cena because (to quote you) "not everything he does is completely crisp" they they'd also hate The Rock for his appalling sharpshooter and Austin for his ropey punches!

 

Cena is an incredibly hard-working, dedicated bloke, who also seems like a genuinely nice guy who deserves his success. But he still isn't nearly as Iconic or successful as Austin or The Rock. If he were, the WWE's PPV, live event and TV numbers would all have climbed while he has been on top, and that isn't the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its unfair to compare Cenas pops and Rocks pops at this stage cos The Rock had been off tv for 7 years then made a surprise return (ofcourse he is/was a huge star) if Cena were to leave now then comeback in 7 years I dare say he'd get a massive pop but without a crystal ball we can say just now.

 

Austins pops from 2003 onwards were huge but not as big as the rock cos they were more frequent.

 

On Topic: I agree that The Miz has all the tools to be a good Rock-style babyface, Im not saying they should copy same kinda idea (Miz said earlier this week that he modelled 'The Miz' character on the rock).

 

Patience is key and is something wwe need for its younger guys cos Edge, HHH, Austin, HBK took a few years to mature and main event.

 

For example I could see Curt Hawkins being the next Edge type character but most likely he'll get future endevoured before he gets the chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrestling already has another mega star and his name is John Cena. I'll probably get flamed to high holy hell for saying it but he is at the level they were at when they were on top, people just hate on him because not everything he does is completely crisp. Cena fills stadiums, has crossover appeal, works hard, IS a very talented worker and makes Vince McMahon a wealthy person.

 

Give it ten years after he walks into the sunset and people will go balistic when he returns like they did on monday for The Rock.

 

And...... queue ajmcstyles and Richie Freebird with telling me why Cena sucks and Im stupid.

 

 

Cena certainly doesn't suck, and totally deserves his position in the WWE at the moment. He is a fantastic worker and draws big. However, whilst he's the 'face of the WWE' - and has been for the last 5/6 years - he isn't on The Rock or Austin's drawing level ability. The Rock and Austin bore a massive contribution in beating WCW in the ratings war, and making Vince a mega money. I think thats where the difference is. Cena is a icon of this era, but im guessing the poster of this was hinting towards the question' when will a new star like the The Rock or Austin's ability will come?'

 

And in answering that question, It will happen again, the buisness always evolves. If not, I believe The Miz has all ability to become the next star. He's charismatic, got a good look and persona, excellent on the mic, quite good in the ring ( but needs a career defining match IMO), all this baring that he started training in 2004, was on Smackdown in 2007 and for me, really shone at the end of 2009 in his singles career. He's come leaps and bounds since 2007. I also think its a testiment to Vince's faith in The Miz in making him (possibily) main event Wrestlemania 27 (I can't see Lawler beating the Miz at EC).

 

Despite this, I don't think its necesarily about the right star, but more so about the right push of talent. Like Ian Hitman Hart stated, in the late 90's you also had Triple H with DX, the Nation of Domination and then later The Rock as a singles wrestler, Kane, Jericho came in 1999, Angle, Benoit, new tag team talent like Edge and Christain, the Hardy boys as so on. Everything started to fit into place. Don't get me wrong, 'the next star' will be the catalyst for the next generation.

 

I think that WWE's trying to pursue this recently with their Youth Movement in 2010. New talent like John Morrison, Del Rio, Sheamus, The Miz, Wade Barrett, Dolph Ziggler and more have had more television time recently and have been pushed. IMO there trying to become more edgy as of late, with the Nexus and Corre factions playing huge roles in Smackdown and Raw. Bringing back The Rock, Bret Hart, Austin hosting tough enough and with HBK being inducted in the HOF is quite evident of WWE trying to appeal to the 18-35 male market like it did in attitude era.

 

Hopefully it'll work, but as for now their merely testing the waters to see if the market is interested, if not we'll see Cena on top for the next couple of years untill someone else comes along.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still maintain the thought that WWE are far less likely to find the next 'big thing' when they don't consider picking up talent that is older than 30.

 

I know it's not like the old days where there are talented guys working all over in front of big crowds, but there are still guys out there that travel the world and work many styles that WWE seem to have no interest in.

 

The way things work now, most new WWE talent gets put in the main roster in their mid 20s, get some kind of (often bad) push/gimmick, then when it fails they float around the midcard with no direction for a few years, then get laid off. They are deemed to not have "It" within a few years and that's that! Talent takes years to naturally reach it's peak and a lot of guys just aren't given the chance to prove themselves. A lot of that is due to the lack of a decent midcard Title division and Tag Title division. The IC belt was the proving ground for guys like Hart, Michaels, Austin and Rock, but it only worked because the writers of the day actually put a lot of focus on those belts. Jeff Hardy, Edge, Christian, Bradshaw all got over and built a rep for themselves in the sturdy Tag division. The lower carders have no chance these days!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

When the question was asked... i thought of Cena in fairness, but then had to think about it a bit.

 

He isnt quite Hogan, Austin or the Rock yet (maybe 'yet' is the key word). He is sculpted on what Hogan was in 1990 and it seems that they have tried to dash him with the rocks mic work and Austins brawling credentials.

 

To me personally, he is a simon cowell invention, whilst Hogan, Rock and Austin were vinny creations, they were just fucking awesome ego/hyper versions of themselves. I dont honestly think vince could have given those gimmicks to just anyone, they wernt right place at the right time, they were pushed because of who they were and what they could become.

 

Cena, and no disrespect to the lad... it kind of comes over like vince was looking for the 'next thing' and Cena stepped in to those shoes rather than the other way around.. does that make sense? Not saying its right, just my opinion and observation.

 

Cena is on the level of Warrior, Hart and HBK.. he will be loved by a lot of wrestling fans for many moons to come, but there is a clear step between him -hogan, austin and rock.

 

Its probs all just preference, but considering the vast majority of us seem to have watched the early 90's and attitude, i assume you might see what im getting at.

 

I think what Dirty Eddie has said is bang on too, when competition was a threat, everyone was looking for a star, and Austin and Rock 'naturally' shon through, but now the competition is not there, it almost seems a bit forced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, i agree with you Kaz.

 

Cena just seems like the result of a target audience screening, where they got a bunch of Mothers and Sponsors to tick boxes as to what they wanted out of a Wrestling Company Figurehead. He must be honest, patriotic, sympathetic to the troops, have a 'never-give-up' attitude, forgiving, reasonable, funny etc...

 

It all just feels too sanitized and squeeky-clean.

 

I enjoyed the bloke as an upper-card act when he had a bit of an edge, but they did a "Diesel in 1995" on him and turned him into a smiley parody of his former self.

 

Anyway, moving off of Cena (as we know how these things end up)...

 

I think the whole issue is WWE's need to have total control over everything. Wrestlers are not just regular actors, they are not trained in that skill, as such most of them sound stupid or boring when delivering poor scripts. Wrestling should be treated like a night of stand-up comedy; you give all your acts 15 minute segments (with your bigger names at the end of the show), give them the general points they need to get over, then allow them to entertain in their own way. Those that get the bigger pops move up the card. Guys like Jericho, Eddie and E&C got themselves over just by getting the chance to have some fun in backstage segments. Sure, they worked with funny writers, but it wasn't word-for-word scripting. I'm pretty sure Jericho's stuff in WCW was entirely his creation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem comparing Cena to Austin and Rock is the timing. During the time Rock and Austin were on the top of their game WWE as a company had major crossover appeal and was considered 'cool'. The ratings for Cena arent as high as the other two because there are simply less wrestling fans. One thing to consider is how much money Cena makes off of merch, Rock and Austin were targeted at an older demographic with disposable income yet Cena still manages to draw an incredible amount of money. The proof is in the pudding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that WWE would ever let a performer get to the level of a Rock or Austin again.

 

It may sound mental but I think there's some substance to this: The wrestling business, or more specifically WWE, no longer relies on individual 'draws' to attract fans to its shows, buy their DVDs and video games or order the pay-per-views. In days gone by, Jerry Lawler would talk a sell-out crowd into arenas around Memphis; the same way as Ric Flair, Terry Funk and Harley Race would do around the States; and the same way that having Hulk Hogan's face on the WWF's house show posters and flyers would result in monster business for the company.

 

Fast forward to a house show today and WWE will do the same level of business (give or take a slight bit) regardless of whether John Cena is WWE Champion or even appearing on the show or not. When the WWE come and tour Europe, fans don't go to see John Cena or Triple H or Rey Mysterio - they go to see a WWE show. An AJ Styles vs. Alex Shelley-headlined WWE house show would outperform a John Cena vs. Randy Orton-headlined TNA house show. In years passed, whether or not The Undertaker or Steve Austin or Hulk Hogan or Ric Flair performed on a show would often be the deciding factor in whether it succeeded or flopped, because each of them were 'draws'; it's just not the way things work today. Take the match listing from the back of any non-Wrestlemania or Royal Rumble WWE DVD of the past half decade-10 years and you'll find it very difficult to recognise which show it was. Do this from a pre-2000 event and I'm sure you'll find that a lot more shows stick out because of its main event, or perhaps a feud you remember.

 

Is this a coincidence? No, certainly not. It's the way that WWE has promoted its product for the past decade or so, and with good reason. Imagine - even if WWE had done the unthinkable and found a new Rock or Austin, who is attracting mega PPV buy-rates and interest from non-wrestling fans, and everything is going brilliantly and he's talking his way into the main event of Wrestlemania, where there's every chance that it'll be a monster buy-rate because this new Stone Cold Hulk Rock mega star is such an attraction and is doing such a good job, and then -BAM- injury strikes.

 

Now what? Or what happens if he decides to pack up and leave a la Lesnar after so much time and effort has been invested into said star? If Cena goes on to headline Wrestlemania this year, whom I'm not denying is and is promoted as WWE's top star right now, suffers an injury before Wrestlemania comes around, do you honestly think that the buy-rates would suffer a tremendous amount? I certainly think not.

 

By this accord, do you think that Wrestlemania 17 would attracted the monster buy rate that it did had it not been headlined by Austin versus Rock?

 

Or what about Wrestlemania III without Hogan versus Andre?

 

Hogan versus Warrior sold Wrestlemania VI; WWE sold Wrestlemania 26.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...