So the WWE Should Push Young Talent? Not if They Haven't Earned it Yet
There has been a lot of talk recently about the WWE's refusal to push younger talent as they continue to allow the established veterans dominate the main-event scene.
Much criticism has been brought upon the creative direction as Randy Orton, Triple H, and John Cena (among others) have continued to feud with one another while the likes of MVP, John Morrison, and Dolph Ziggler have been stuck within the mid-card circle.
So I bring forth the next logical question.
Is that really such a bad thing?
While I can understand the public's thirst for new material, there has to be a number of qualifiers that would justify such a transition and the thirst for new material alone cannot substantiate a valid reason for such a transition.
For argument's sake, let's analyze some of the "up and comers" and decide whether or not they are worthy of a main-event spot.
The first thing you have to understand is, there is a big difference between competing for the WWE or World Heavyweight titles, and winning them.
I cannot say as though I am completely against the likes of MVP or John Morrison competing for the belts (to create some fresh rivalries) only to lose to more established competitors such as Randy Orton or John Cena.
But for them to compete with the actual intent of allowing them to win these championships?
Well, that's a completely different story.
Despite the WWE's apparent inability to allow Superstars to establish credible (and reasonably lengthy) title reigns, the major championships (and I'm excluding the ECW title from this discussion as it is with all due respect, a minor-league belt) do carry a great degree of prestige despite popular opinion to the contrary.
You cannot allow someone like MVP to carry the same championship that Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels, Steve Austin, and The Rock did.
While there is certainly a difference between having one title reign and having a number of them, holding either one of the two major championships puts the title-holder within the same company of such legends.
Despite the fact that the WWE has made numerous mistakes in the past with these titles in the past (JBL and The Great Khali immediately come to mind), that is not a justification for them to continue to do so.
It's not that I have anything against MVP or John Morrison (whom I've used simply as examples), as a matter of fact, MVP was once one of my favorite wrestlers right outside of The Legacy.
Then he became a babyface and it was all downhill from there.
I was entertained by his arrogant attitude but when he adjusted himself suck up to the fans, he lost his appeal and became just another goof-pot (an immature title I grant you, but never the less accurate).
The same can be said of John Morrison.
His arrogance had a level of entertainment to it but when you mutate such a persona and try to pass it off as being "cool", it quickly becomes stale because it reeks of such fabrication.
Main-event guys like Orton, Cena, and Triple H have long ago incorporated their gimmick-features into their personas as they became "actors" who play a given role instead of people "acting" like something they're not.
These mid-card performers have to earn their way to the top.
Sure there is politics within wrestling (such as Rey Mysterio keeping the Intercontinental title that was supposed to go to Dolph Ziggler because his contract-negotiations requested such) but for the most part, the WWE doesn't hold down great talent in the favor of inferior performers.
If any of the newcomers on the roster currently possessed the potential of a Brock Lesnar circa 2002 or a Randy Orton circa 2004, they would at least be given a shot to see whether or not they could reach half of their potential.
At the same time, the WWE has allowed mid-card talent to rise to the top.
CM Punk had his first title reign with one of the major-championships just last year while Jeff Hardy’s first title-reign began in 2009.
The fan’s continuous craving for something new isn’t always a good thing because if you gave it to them every time they wanted it, the WWE would suffer from an even greater lack of credibility than they already have to deal with.
Many people look at instances such as when MVP came to Raw and confronted Randy Orton and use the crowd's reaction as a justification to head further in such a direction.
Let me tell you something, the crowd would cheer for almost anything, regardless of whether the set of events would be good for the company's future.
If Santino Marella were to face Randy Orton for the WWE title and were to roll Orton up for some sort of surprise three-count, I don't think the crowd would begin to boo.
I'm not saying that some of the mid-card wrestlers should never be given the opportunity or that they are not talented enough to one day be able to main-event for the company.
I'm saying that they have to do more to warrant that type of push.
As many people might grow tired of seeing the likes of Orton or Cena dominate the company, they are (if nothing else) reliable performers with a proven track record.
I understand that my opinion is likely to come off as being a bit unpopular and that's fine. Just understand that my intent isn't to "bash," "insult," or "put down" any of the performers who do work hard to entertain us.
I'm just trying to view the situation from the WWE's perspective to see if pushing for this new direction would actually be beneficial.
While I understand that my views on the subject might be unpopular, it appears that the WWE might agree with me even though they would never explain their motives in the fashion which I have speculated.
A time of economic instability is not the time to roll the dice and put the company's future into the hands of guys who have yet to prove they can handle it.
So should the WWE push younger talent?
The answer is yes, just not into the main-event spot before they have done enough to justify the motion of doing so.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?