Part-time Wrestlers, a good or a bad thing for business? VOTE

[LastEmperor2k2]

So we seem to be in the part-time era, and you have to think of it, is this a good or a bad thing for the WWE. I think there is argument for both sides, here's how I see it.

The Pros
-Big star ability, draws in big money for PPVs and immediate cash-in.
-Brings a new audience to the table and allows them to be introduced to the current crop of talent.
-Allows for dream matches

The Cons
-Short term solution to a long term problem
-Makes house shows less interesting because the big name guys on TV aren't there
-Having gaps in storylines, IE Rock not being on Raw
-Indicates to the viewer how the real roster isn't stars like the part-timers are.

 

[Bob Loblaw]

pros are all that matter from a short sighted business sense but it's bad for creativity and the viewing product if that makes sense. a lot of angles have gotten fukked off without a good ending because of guys being penciled in for spots later on and the writing in general. but the writers have proven to be inept so what difference does it really make. I'm begrudgingly for it I guess. sorry for the Meltzeresque reply but it's a tough question.

in ten years when rock is 50 and taker is 80 and brock is 45 what good are part timers gonna be? no one's being built up for part time sucess down the road with the reliance on temp players now. but I guess that's a problem for Shane, he'll figure something out. wwe will probably be a lot mroe global by then

 

[Hoss]

It's good.

But it has to be combined with full-timers stepping up and making sure they get the rub while it's available, AND being inspired to work hard enough to get to the level where they themselves might be so valuable that they'll be asked back as part-timers one day.

Any wrestler who wouldn't want to get to The Rock's level is probably in the wrong business.

 

[krackdagawd]

They are good if the goal is to help others become stars and not to put over the guys who don't need it imo. Cena beating Brock did nothing for either of them imo but Brock beating Punk or Bryan in that same style of match he had with Cena could have made them stars.

 

[bear27]

Short term yes,long term no.Like other posters have said they have to give the full timers who are up and coming the rub,in the hope that it can elevate them to the next level.I don't think that will happen though.

 

[Jmare007]

Sad thing is they would be good for business long term too if WWE had any balls to put them with future stars.

They would also have to be creative though, and we all now that that's not their forte.

 

[Bob Loblaw]

I'd hate to see him get the rub but I'd rather see Miz/Brock at Mania than HHH/Brock again

 

[LastEmperor2k2]

I think the key is you have to let these young guys go out there and put on great matches when you have the big names.

That's why Sheamus/DB from WM28 was such an awful call. You had all the attention of Rock/Cena and two of your best younger talents were reduced to a 18 second match.

Guys likes Edge/Christian and Jeff Hardy got over because while Rock/Austin were headlining they were stealing the show in the undercard with incredible matches.

They need to not be scared of the undercard outperforming the main event, the money is already in the building and in the buys, there's no need to protect your top stars egos by dumbing down the rest of the roster.

 

[Jmare007]

They need to not be scared of the undercard outperforming the main event, the money is already in the building and in the buys, there's no need to protect your top stars egos by dumbing down the rest of the roster.

Exactly. It pisses me off how protective they are of the main event these days. For the past 4-5 years it's like they make everything they can to prevent an undercard match to steal the show. It's fukking pathetic.

 

[MightyHealthy]

I'm not trying to draw the wrath and ire of Rock & Brock fans, but it's terrible.

You have PPVs of main events locked up, it stunts the growth of your full timers (because you know they won't be in the title picture), I honestly can't stand it.

Takes a lot of the unpredictability away from the matches, and that's a damn shame.

 

[malbaker86]

I'd rather have The Rock back part time than Shelton Benji and MVP back full time

 

[LastEmperor2k2]

Exactly. It pisses me off how protective they are of the main event these days. For the past 4-5 years it's like they make everything they can to prevent an undercard match to steal the show. It's fukking pathetic.

Yep and it's pointless, it's just ego boosting.

Once the big names sell the event, there's no reason that it has to be the best match.

This is why WCW was great, they sold the names of the big match but let the undercard do their thing.

You can tell it's plain as day at big events that the undercard is held back in terms of matches

 

[puppetmaster]

It's not hard to use a part timer and not make them THE focal point of your booking. Rock is a special case honestly. It sucks not having the champ at house shows BUT. .. There's folks who'd never touch wrestling that know who he is and would tune in out of sheer curiosity. I have friends who literally ask "when is the Rock gonna be on next" Same with Brock really. He's a proven draw. The problem is they're being used as the "fix alls" and not the bridge.


The Indy movement of the early to mid 2000's is the "cruiserweight" division circa 1997-1999. There's that level of talent IMO, it's time to push them up the ladder with the star power they currently have available.





-P-

 

[malbaker86]

This is why WCW was great, they sold the names of the big match but let the undercard do their thing.

Yep and then they got lazy during the NWO era. They became notorious in talking about the main event throughout the entire show, even during the undercard matches.

 

[TheGreatShowtime]

Let the big names come in, main event and keep it moving.

Under no circumstance should a part-time wrestler be a champion. I'm voting bad just because the WWE championship isn't even being showcased weekly on the flagship program.