1 Megastar Or Several Superstars

[Y 2 Jake]

How would you prefer it? One absolute megastar somebody like Hogan or Austin. Or several superstars like HHH, Brock Lesnar etc.

Hulk Hogan & Steve Austin are the two biggest wrestlers in the history of the sport. I don't think there is any point debating this. But would you prefer 1 really huge superstar or several lesser superstars? This is just an example. As are Hogan & Austin. But HHH is a superstar. But he will never be considered in the same league as Hogan, Austin or even The Rock. He is a big name. But I personally don't think he has been responsible for any sort of boom in wrestling. I also don't think he's a heavy draw. He's no megastar. They only come along once in a blue moon. So what do you think?

These are just examples. I'm more intrested in how you would prefer it in general. Not with current or past wrestlers, if you please.

 

[Ryukuma]

As great as a Mega star usually is, and it is great to see them again. You get far more potential with several lesser superstars. Plus you get more feuds. Granted they may not be as hyped or the ones fans want to see, but I think for example on of those lessers may become the next big thing. The feuds you will get are amazing more then likely in terms of wrestling better. But the mega star may not give you the better match but they sure as hell will get better reception and more hype. I prefer lesser, but its personal preference.

 

[AnthonyMango/NoFate007]

I think its a lot better to have a group of stars rather than just one or two. Especially now with the brand split, there should be about 6 big names (3 face, 3 heel) on Raw, 6 big names on Smackdown (same deal), and maybe 3 for ECW as that's more of the training ground to push new talent as opposed to drawing from big names and you won't get anywhere if you have a Cena or a HHH dominating the whole time.

When it becomes just one guy, it gets boring. I stopped watching wrestling in 99 because all I saw week in and week out was either Austin or the Rock, nobody else. The Undertaker wasn't even given his proper dues and he's a permanent main event star just like HBK. A majority of the people desperately wanted Cena to lose his title because they were just jamming him and only him down our throats for a year. If he'd have had more of a competition (so to speak) and maybe lost the belt for 2 months and regained it later on, then I don't think there would've been as much of a hatred. I think his injury was a great thing for Raw because it forced them to rely on more than just one man. Beforehand, even DX was taking a step back from him, but after his injury, we've had Orton, HBK, HHH, Jericho, and now they're pushing Hardy further than he's gone before.

One or two megastars IS good for the business, because they obviously draw a lot of money - you can't deny how much Austin's made for the company in merchandise alone - but they need to balance them out with other guys. To me, if you only focus on Hogan/Austin/Rock/Cena, its the same as what they did with the nWo, in that after a while, the show becomes more of "watch this solitary guy do the same act week after week for the 8th month straight". This time last year, we knew Cena would retain against pretty much anything. Now, we have a great debate going on as to who can win the Royal Rumble, despite a lot of storylines still being fleshed out. More options = better product, in my opinion, and when you limit yourself to one guy, ala Cena, you start losing your options.

 

[klunderbunker]

I would prefer several superstars. When you have one big star, you almost always know he will be in the main event. Having many stars allows for some of them to be able to have upper mid card feuds. It also allows for mid carders to be brought up to the main event, such as Jeff Hardy beating HHH and getting into the main event picture. HHH was able to have his program with Hardy as there were more than enough main eventers to fill in the show, as opposed to having to have the same person time after time.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

by far and away the "many superstars" option. As a wrestling fan, id much rather see a great card from top to bottom, than a couple of major superstars. plus, the greater volume of good stars can create better pushes and more unpredictability. If there are just two megastars, you KNOW who is going over, who is gonna be champ, etc etc....

 

[Slim Pickns]

I prefer several superstars over one mega star, I think most wrestling fans will agree with me. However, I think one megastar would draw better.

I'm not to sure what the ratings were when the brands first split, but I know when RAW had Austin and Rock before the split, the ratings were near double what they are now. If you have one megastar like one of those two, non wrestling fans will tune in to give you ratings. Compare it to a blockbuster movie, would you rather see Thomas Jane, Chris Tucker, and Heath Ledger or Jack Nicholson with a few lesser known names. Certain big names are proven draws.

Personally, I would rather see a quality wrestling show with more ring time, but the one megastar could draw ratings for a two hour show with 30 minutes of ring time.

 

[lasallerecs]

Y 2 Jake -Hulk Hogan & Steve Austin are the two biggest wrestlers in the history of the sport.
First of all that's a load of crap. Ever consider Shawn Michels,The Rock
I would rather have a well rounded roster than 2 great guys,and 18 that suck.

 

[Slim Pickns]

Y 2 Jake -Hulk Hogan & Steve Austin are the two biggest wrestlers in the history of the sport.
First of all that's a load of crap. Ever consider Shawn Michels,The Rock
I would rather have a well rounded roster than 2 great guys,and 18 that suck.

Stone Cold and Hulk Hogan were Megastars that were known outside of wrestling, which is what defines them as megastars over stars. I'll give you the Rock but outside of wrestling fans HBK is relatively unknown. Guys like Bret Hart, HHH, HBK, and Foley are huge amongst wreslting fans, but aren't known elsewhere. Ask non wrestling fans who Hogan, Austin, and Rock are and they'll answer.

 

[ExtremeIronChef]

I'd wager to say that Bret Hart is a megastar in Canada but not really anywhere else.

First of all, I don't think in this day and age you can have a megastar. More people nowadays want to see several superstars in highly competetive matches than just one guy dominating everything. Cena is the prime example. Back in the 80's it was alright with Hogan, because everyone tuned in to see pretty much just him. Sure they wanted to see others as well but I'd venture to say that 95% of the fans just wanted to see him, pretty much the same with Austin/Rock in the late 90's. There will never be another Hogan or Austin, it's just not possible IMO. Cena draws, but not ratings. Hogan/Austin drew in all aspects.

I'd personally rather see several lesser superstars than one megastar. It makes for more exciting matches and just a better overall product. There's more you can do instead of just Megastar vs mid/low card guy every week.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

Y 2 Jake -Hulk Hogan & Steve Austin are the two biggest wrestlers in the history of the sport.
First of all that's a load of crap. Ever consider Shawn Michels,The Rock
I would rather have a well rounded roster than 2 great guys,and 18 that suck.

That's funny. You aren't seriously saying that HBK is on par wrestling wise with Austin & Hogan are you? You funny man. And really. While The Rock is the bigger star outside wrestling while he was wrestling he wasn't in Austins league. He was closer than HHH, Foley or The Undertaker. But compared to Austin he was a distant second.