Is WWE too old?

[kieranjennings]

The top end guys are older sure, but they've done a pretty good job of keeping them fresh over the last few years by rotating people in and out and then people having time off. It's not been a continuous rehash of the same guys that was prevalent about 5-10 years ago or in the WCW days. They've done well to elevate people for little runs at the top as well to keep it fresh during the year too - be that Drew, LA Knight etc. 

They only feel tired when you see the same faces doing the same thing each week 

[Lion_of_the_Midlands]

I'd also be surprised if Hook, Kyle Fletcher and the Gunn boys don't end up in WWE, they aren't old old. Perhaps Garcia and MJF as well. That will bring the age down a bit. 

[Carbomb]

I have to say that I do think it's odd that we talk so often now about wrestlers in their late 40s "only having a certain amount of time left", when older wrestlers carried on for much longer without an issue as regards their perception in the industry, and especially when you consider that it seems that a lot of modern main-eventers are reaching their prime/peak in their early 40s. It would suggest that the modern wrestler's career is only a narrow window. Danielson has indeed sustained a lot of damage, so it's understandable he'd want to wind down a bit. Punk's taken a lot of hits to his knees, so it makes sense that he'll be limiting his in-ring time. But I'm not sure I understand why it's a given that Owens and Zayn don't have much time left - from what I understand, they're not that old, and they're not that beaten up (which is surprising when you consider the ridiculous stuff they did on the indies).

Orton's another one - he looks to be in pretty good shape, and, barring any issues from steroid use, I don't see why he couldn't go on for a while.

[SuperBacon]

I think we're overlooking a massive part of this in that we are all getting older as well.

In 1992 aged 7 I thought Ric Flair looked like my Nan, and was probably her age too. Punk is 6 years older than me, but we could be the same age if you lined us both up (me looking his age, he ain't passing for 40)

Wrestling is fairly unique in that 40-50 year olds are at the top of the sport, but you'd very hard pressed to find many 40+ year olds still at the top of their respective sports (and yes I get its harder in a "real" competitive sport)

[Chris B]

Worth noting that during 'Age in a Cage', Hogan was 44 and Piper was 43. At the time, Flair was 48.

But then, Keanu Reeves and Tom Cruise are both in their 60s and are still action movie stars, so it's not just a wrestling thing.

 

[Onyx2]

Is there something in the sport being in the doldrums in the early 2000s? The stat goes that a whole bunch of fans switched off once WCW had gone and didn't come back. WWE house show attendance was paltry. Did we lose the generation that would've got into the biz because they grew up watching it? Is that why all the modern Tough Enoughs only want track stars and powerlifters? 

[Lion_of_the_Midlands]

3 hours ago, Onyx2 said:

Is there something in the sport being in the doldrums in the early 2000s? The stat goes that a whole bunch of fans switched off once WCW had gone and didn't come back. WWE house show attendance was paltry. Did we lose the generation that would've got into the biz because they grew up watching it? Is that why all the modern Tough Enoughs only want track stars and powerlifters? 

I don't think so boss, WWE have always looked to the American college system to try and find new talent. They have broadened out a little from just wrestlers and football stars, though that is still their main hunting ground. Wasn't Tiffy a gymnast? 

[Olly1984]

1 hour ago, Lion_of_the_Midlands said:

I don't think so boss, WWE have always looked to the American college system to try and find new talent. They have broadened out a little from just wrestlers and football stars, though that is still their main hunting ground. Wasn't Tiffy a gymnast? 

Think Keilani Jordan and Sol Ruca were also, pretty sure Keilani Olympic level as well Lion. 

[theringmaster]

I think a big part of this was because Vince was such a control freak and overly relied on his established stars. Take Takers streak, there were a ton of guys who would have benefitted but he chose Brock, who was already capable of selling out Arenas.

The Royal Rumble (and later MITB) were kind of supposed to be about establishing new stars but look over the last decade and so many of the winners were Main Eventers in their own right already.

Of course, the big argument against this is yes 'Wrestler x' has been around forever but their merch stills sells by the bucket load so we got to keep them on top.

 

For what it's worth, it is worth noting Wrestlers are so much cleaner living these days, in the 80's/90's you were burned out by your 40's, more because of drugs/drink/sleeping in motels 300 nights a year than the actual wrestling, where that culture is now gone at WWE level.

But to answer the topic, 100% yes, I enjoy NXT the most partly because it just has fresh faces.

[air_raid]

19 hours ago, tiger_rick said:

Rey Mysterio 23 years.

I think we give Rey a pass. He may have debuted in the company 23 years ago but his first run in the company was effectively finished after 11 when he was played out, injury prone and knackered. When he came back reinvigorated he again looked one of the best in the world and because he's not been on anywhere near the schedule he used to (but then, nobody is) he's quitely amassed a very good second body of work over the last 6 years without really threatening to be a main eventer again.

Does the company need to improve its succession planning? Absolutely. They had Reigns hold the title for a million years and make everyone look crap on the way, so when Cody finally got to the top of the mountain he ended up having to defend the title against men we knew weren't going to beat him, and when they lucked their way into Punk coming back and Cena fancying one last run, they've managed to neglect their secondary title to the point it's won by people that wouldnt get near THE title like Priest, and its about to be defended at WrestleMania against an Uso.

Age isn't the factor it used to be for the guys you have on top, but absolutely you need to work harder for younger guys to step up when you need them. Bret and Shawn were both wiped off the slate inside 4 months but they had Steve Austin and The Rock getting ready to step up, eventually HHH too, and The Undertaker helping bridge the gap. Unfortunately they invested so much time and effort to make Reigns look the only main eventer, the fresh blood hasn't really been prepared for the next step.

Still, there's plenty of opportunity. Get the ICT off Bron at Mania, point him and Jacob separately at the two titles. Problem solved.

[Infinity Land]

31 minutes ago, air_raid said:

When he came back reinvigorated he again looked one of the best in the world and because he's not been on anywhere near the schedule he used to (but then, nobody is) he's quitely amassed a very good second body of work over the last 6 years without really threatening to be a main eventer again.

Schedule and the regular top-up stem cell treatments.

[Roy]

One thing that definitely helps in regards to the relatively older male top-tier is that they don't have younger stars to compare it with. There are no male stars on the level of the older guys or ready to take their perch, so viewers are less mindful that say, CM Punk looks and walks like an old rooster plucked of its wings.

[d-d-d-dAz]

I think the answer is probably no, for both good and bad reasons.

The good reason is that I think wrestlers now have more longevity, both because they have better lifestyles, are on the road less and have a far better support network of rehab and s&c keeping them in ring shape. That's definitely a good thing.

The other reason I think is that the life cycle of a wrestling fan is probably a lot longer than it used to be. It's a common phenomenon in other areas of entertainment, where the generation that are now 30-45 never really grew out of the things that people used to grow out of more readily. So there's an audience of people, who now have more purchasing power than the younger generations, who want superhero films (providing its the superheroes they liked 10 or 20 years ago), who like watching reboots and sequels of films from their childhood or, in this instance, want to watch wrestlers they grew up watching 

So are wrestlers too old? Not if the point of the company is to serve their audience. Whether their audience is too old, or dominated by older purchasers of WWE product, is another question. And without seeing the figures, I'd guess the answer is yes.

But providing our generation (broadly speaking I think a lot of the board fits into that) disproportionately make up the people buying tickets and t-shirts and TV subscriptions - and for as long as s&c and low carb diets can keep these guys in the ring - I don't think there'll be much desire to change.

If the generation behind ours don't show the same behaviour, and don't replace us when we all drop off the perch, that's when WWE will have a real problem.

Edited March 6, 2025 by d-d-d-dAz

[NeverYield]

On 3/5/2025 at 4:38 PM, RedTwoster said:

I have to say, I do think they’re underutilising Breakker at the moment. Clearly he has his best years ahead of him, but I think he’s the kind of wrestler they should be looking to slot into a big match at Wrestlemania. At this stage, for example, I think there’s more to be gained by running Breakker/Logan Paul than there is Paul vs AJ Styles. And I think it’s a more interesting match. 

I do feel like they’re a bit timid about pushing some of the NXT call-ups hard. People - including myself - have suggested Carmello Hayes has been a failed call up; but on reflection, he’s not been given many opportunities to succeed, and he’s certainly been having good matches. He’s also been decent on the mic, and I don’t know what more you could ask from him. 

I can’t think of a male wrestler who has been called up and treated as anything more than a midcarder as of late outside of Solo Sikoa; and even he seems likely to settle in that position. 

I agree they are underutilising Breakker at the minute, yeah he's got plenty of decent years ahead but I would 100% start working towards building something with him now. Breakker/Paul is an 100% a better match up, and can be billed round all sorts of angles, can be Breakker getting all worked up about this Logan Paul with no pedigree coming into the business and thinking he's something.

 

I make you right on Hayes, and personally I think with the right bookes Hayes could have lots of appeal, he's got a good look, performs well in the ring, I like Oba Femi aswell.

No you're right they need to get behind call ups more, they are the future.

[air_raid]

There's a fair amount of overlap here with this topic I posted last year ; some reference points that some of you may find interesting if it passed you by at the time ;

Fairly topical too given the George Foreman film has landed on Netflix, given the comparisons the WWF made at the time between Bob Backlund regaining the WWF title at 45, the same age as Foreman when he (spoilers, I guess?) regained the title. Which is fucking insane when you think about it, given how many wrestlers win titles in their 40s and how unlikely a boxer is to be competitive at that age - much less win a title 20 years after he lost it.