Funny, you said the 80s and 90s in that first paragraph, yet what you said is only really about the 80s. And I mainly talked about the 90s since it was more recent and more people will know more about that.
True, but I went on to talk about the 90's briefly, but fact is that both periods had few contenders for the world title, the 00's definitely does not.
You named 7 main event stars in the 90s, and then named 10 in the current day. That is only 3 more. And only 7 out of them are considered to be fully established main eventers (the three which aren't are the ones who you said partially on). Oh and look at that, the same amount of guys in the 90s. Since you will probably re-inforce the Bret Hart (not late) and the Triple H (late) thing, that would still mean they had 6 main eventers over the period as Triple H came to prominence after Bret was gone (and no I do not mean immediately).
Yet you have to remember that during the late 90's there were only 5 of them, and it was hot potatoed between The Rock, Mick Foley and Stone Cold, Triple H only started in 99, and Undertaker didn't have many reigns during that period, and Shawn Michaels wasn't even present during the late 90's (98->) which would actually bump it down to being 4 if we count Undertaker as a consistent contender, while he barely was as far as I recall, so it's basically 3 people for a years time.
And yes, there are up and coming guys who wil step into the main event scene in the next few years. But there are also guys who will step down in the next few years or so; Undertaker, Triple H, Batista & Chris Jericho are all 40 or over.
Chris Jericho is 39 I would like to start off, he turns 40 in November.
Besides, Chris Jericho and Triple H still have some years remaining in their bodies, Chris is on a roll right now, and Triple H doesn't look to be tuning down anytime soon, so that's only 2 people that are potential to be cutting down.
There were a lot of guys who got over with the fans in the 90s, Owen Hart, Edge & Christian and The Hardyz are some examples. They could have been pushed at the time, but they already had a main event scene at the time and kept those guys occupied with tag team titles and the intercontinental title, which guys like Triple H, Jericho and the Rock feuded over as well.
Edge and Christian was over yes, but they didn't turn singles competitors until late 2001, where they then would become established to proper singles competition, Owen Hart wouldn't have graced the main event as a solid one, he would've gotten a championship for sticking around and being a consistent force for a long time, like Benoit and Guerrero, the Hardy's is the same as E&C, and Matt will most likely NEVER even grace the main event.
You didn't mention Undertaker or Shawn Michael's reigns for one. And you say there were short reigns back then but then you say there are short reigns now. So in other words its similar today in that respect. The short reigns were by CHOICE, they don't have to have short reigns, they had long reigns in the 80s as you said, a balance could be made easily. That is because they wouldn't make it more difficult for themselves than it actually would be, which is what it seems you would do.
Undertaker and Shawn Michaels didn't have long reigns in 98-99 which is the period I mentioned, hell neither of them actually held the championship in that period, both had their last WWE championship reign of the 90's in 97.
The reigns were short because they were eager to establish talent properly and form shock television I'm pretty certain, the 80's had Hulk Hogan holding the title for years purely due to his incredibly over character, and because he sold, people would probably be annoyed to hell if they had to watch John Cena hug the title for more than 10 months, and John Cena is the new Hulk Hogan in popularity and merchandises.
Yes they could be made long title reigns, but WWE doesn't seem to want that because they need to take care of a lot of main event contenders, wouldn't you be down right pissed if it was you who's in the main event picture, but you didn't get a title reign because the championship reigns had to be long, and there was only 1 championship?
Actually the 90s had 6 solid contenders because Bret Hart and Triple H's time almost adds up to a constant amount of time. I find it funny how you like to leave them out as they were partially there, yet you seem tocount the stars of today who you said are only partially main eventers (Sheamus, Jack Swagger, Big Show). Now lets see how many there would be if you did it evenly; 7, WOW.....one more. And you count up and comers who could become main eventers, but they had plenty of them back in the 90s, they just took more time with them and had them feud over other titles like the Intercontinental and Tag titles, which were much more significant back then.
Again, Triple H didn't gain the title until 99, Bret Hart left WWE in late 97, that leaves a gap where there's only 4 proper contenders, Undertaker, Mick Foley, The Rock, and Stone Cold, 3 of them which held the title in that period, not Undertaker, not Triple H, not Bret Hart.. I did take consideration of Bret Hart and Triple H, but as I've said so many times, there's a gap where their significance of replacing each other in the main event scene wasn't there, I said 5 to be "kind" due to the fact that Triple H gained force in the early 00's and late 99's
Obviously they would not keep every single wrestler from both shows. WWE would obviously make roster cuts, they don't even use some of the rosters on the shows, and a lot of the ones they do use they use rarely. Hornswoggle, Kozlov, Regal, Mark Henry, Khali, Primo, Croft, Masters, Carlito, Barreta, Archer and Reks are some who will not get further than they are now and most of them people wouldn't mind see going. One roster is more profitable for business and the talent anyway.
And why make roster cuts when the roster is doing just fine? they would need to cut some of the already established and already televised talent if they weren't to clusterfuck the title scene.
How can you say that one roster is more profitable? have you seen the crowds that pay to go to Smackdown and separately go to RAW? cutting off what is most likely a few thousand people sitting in an arena is gonna show on your money, sure you save money from the amount of people you have to cut, but in the end, the more people to show case of two shows is gonna come off profitable, if it didn't, WWE would've cut them before.
The world champion and the contendor would not take up most of the air time, each segment/match usually lasts around 15 minutes. 30 minutes out of 4 hours a week would not be harmful to the other stars. They did it before (at a time when viewing figures were much higher i'll add), they can do it again. You seem to act as if they have never operated with one roster before, when they did, for much longer than they have operated with the brand extension.
They take up enough time already, adding more main eventers around one title and the amount of feuds that would be needed on 1 specific show (in case we count that Smackdown is out the window as it seems you're implying.. yes..
seems so don't say I'm reading stuff you're not saying) that would require the whole show to be about the main eventers because they are the money drawers quite obviously.
Again, the show would function fine on one roster, if it wasn't due to the fact that the rosters are much bigger already, and as I said, cutting off one show is gonna show on the income, it's a dumb move when it's functioning well.
In the 90s, the main eventers did not generally wrestle only in the last match or two of a show, you had main eventers wrestling mid carders all through the show, which provided great matches not squash matches like in WCW. And the shows also featured midcarders who WERE compteting for titles or who were in feuds. They could adopt that in todays WWE and have the midcarders who aren't currently competing for a title and who are not in a feud wrestle in matches anyway. They do that now as well sometimes.
I know that they didn't only wrestle the main event, neither do they today, I've seen John Cena in opening matches, opening segments etc.
And having the main eventers wrestle the mid-card talent wouldn't serve as proper elevation unless you have the main eventer's putting them over all the time, and let's admit it, that would slowly start killing the credibility of the main event wrestler, championships are as I said, gateways to the main event.
No you can't and I never said they should use a few guys per year to feud as non title feuds. You wouldn't have the same guys having the title constantly like you do with Cena and Batista. It is just stupid to assume I meant that. When Chris Jericho lost the title, he tried to get it back and failed, then moved on to non title feud with Edge and now the title feud changed to Orton and Swagger. That would be how it would go.
Yes but with only one championship to contend for, you wouldn't be able to continue the longer feuds of champion vs same contender because there'd be a lot of those other main eventers who wouldn't be getting the proper acknowledgment of getting a title shot, unless you keep feuds short, and then we have people complaining because John Cena's program with Batista for example didn't last long enough.
Obviously it wasn't as significant as the US title, but with one roster we would have the Intercontinental title, that would be enough. I will say this AGAIN, it was done before, so it would work fine.
Yes it was done before, but.. omg...
the amount of roster members are much larger now.. need I say more? the United States championship should stick around because it gives another championship for the mid-carders to elevate themselves through into the main event scene, ultimately filling more people into the title picture of the
two world titles, which should therefore also remain.
I know very well what the Wikipedia page says, that is why I explained that my idea of merging the titles WOULD acknowledge the lineage. There is not only one way of doing that.
Please explain the other way then.
WOW 4 more, I didn't say exactly 12, I said it as an estimate. And the Bella Twins aren't going to get a shot, they are just there for guest hosts. And yes Alicia Fox did get a title shot, but has she been significant since? No.
What makes you think the Bella Twins won't be getting a shot? they might as well eventually, half of the divas doesn't have talent to get a title shot and run with it, but Alicia Fox has already had two, that would automatically mean that everybody should be able to get a title shot.
It would not take that long, and anyway, anything worthwhile takes a long time. Women's wrestling could be significant again if they tried. It used to be when we had Trish/Lita/Chyna/Ivory/Molly Holly etc.
And the people you list, actually had the ability to wrestle, and still none of them had proper association enough to form proper tag teams that would be considered legitimate, we'd be complaining about another thrown together tag team, in a division nobody cares about either way.
Well they don't have to use the 24/7 role again. They didn't use it for most of the Hardcore title's time. And not EVERY SINGLE title has to push the talents, some can serve the purpose of entertainment you know. There are plenty of ways they push the talents, they can do without another title serving that purpose, even though it could help push them.
Every single title is there to push talent, to make them seem legitimate and push them into being the superstars of the company who makes them money, without accolades of championships, or the ability to put on world class matches, nobody is gonna believe your ability to be legitimate, Shawn Michaels needed championships at first, but eventually his abilities in the ring made him a legitimate wrestler people could believe "he can win this".. people wouldn't believe John Cena to be a legitimate main eventer if it wasn't because he had a long list of championships to back it up.
And yes there's other ways to push a talent, destroying through the whole roster, but half of the stars doesn't have the build to make that legitimate neither, The Miz is an incredible talent, and will be a firm main event, but only through being elevated holding titles and seeming legitimate that way, he couldn't rip through a roster.
)
