Professional Wrestling: What made 'Captain Charisma' Christian Cage 'That Damn Good'?
Certain user won't let this go, basically claiming Christian was as Bret Hart Marks would put it 'The Best There Is, The Best There Was and The Best There Ever Will Be' and that 'World Wrestling Entertainment BURIED Christian because look at his credentials from Total Nonstop Action'; What a reliable source Impact! Wrestling the company that sticks it's belt on every Ex-WWE that walks though the door [Excluding Booker T. [Is Impact! Wrestling Racist?]], TNA is also the promotion that keeps bringing in pro wrestlers and trying to act like they are in their prime. - Hulk Hogan - Kevin Nash - Scott Hall - X-Pac - Mick Foley - Ric Flair - Awesome Kong Let's not forget currently Kurt Angle;
In wrestling, why is "hogging the spotlight" a bad thing?
This is a term we see lot. And I mean a LOT. In the WWE, it gets thrown around all the time whenever Punk, Triple H, Cena or Orton are in main events, or whenever The Rock comes back (interestingly, and for a reason I can't pinpoint, not when Lesnar returns), and in TNA it gets said seemingly whenever Hogan opens his mouth. My question is, why does "hogging the spotlight" bother people? Think about it logically. The best spots, the main events, should theoretically go the people who do the best business, right? The ones who the most fans are interested in seeing, and for the most part that's the guys I've mentioned above. I see comments all the time in regards to younger wrestlers like Cody Rhodes, Zach Ryder and a host of others, about how they should be in the top spots, and would be if Punk, Cena ect. would "stop hogging the spotlight". But when you think about it, the only reason those guys are in the main events are because people want to see them. The WWE, TNA and every other promotion on the planet pushes the people the audience wants to see the most. It's as simple as that. So it kind of perplexes me that some fans get SO angry and agitated about it. I suppose I understand if you don't like a certain performer who is in the main event, but it kind of baffles me when I read or hear comments along the lines of "the WWE needs to push new stars, The Rock and Cena are hogging". We heard that all the time (and I mean ALL the time), and still do, about Triple H whenever he would work a main event, even though he's one of the biggest, most popular and most well-known stars in wrestling history. The Rock and Cena (and Punk, Orton, Sheamus and a select few) are the ones who drive the business. They do the biggest numbers, garner the most interest and get the most attention. So from that perspective, WHY should the WWE/TNA push other star? Is there a logical reason, or is it just a pseudo-commi belief that everything should be "fair" and "equal"? I mean, why should it be "fair"?
What makes a wrestler's legacy?
We've seen many wrestlers accomplish many things from defeating big names to becoming World Champions. However, not all wrestlers are remembered. While guys like Ric Flair, Hulk Hogan, Stone Cold, and others will be remembered throughout wrestling history, others will likely be forgotten. Legends like Nick Bockwinkel, Lou Thesz, and other legends likely won't be remembered in the next decades despite some of their accomplishments in the past. So, what is it that makes a wrestler stand out in history? What is it that will make wrestlers memorable in the future? Is it something you have to accomplish or does it just happen as your career advances? Are wrestlers being forgotten inevitable? Explanations would be greatly appreciated.
Can bray wyatt handle wrestlemania main event?
do you think bray wyatt can produce a wrestlemania main event worth match ? there are others on the roster who can give us the best entertainment we deserve on the grandest stage of them all and bray isnt one of them (at least from what ive seen).
What exactly is Randy Orton's character, a psycho, dangerous bad guy, or a coward who relies on help?
Alstone, contracts are legally binding, but somebody can get fired for their actions which negates contracts. I know the legality of contracts, but if somebody gets fired for their actions all of that is null. Also, his character CAN be explained without breaking kayfabe, that didn't make sense what you said to me. There's been plenty of characters with depth that have been explained without breaking kayfabe in wrestling's history. Also, the commentators are told what to say and what to explain, so you mean to tell me the WWE is putting forth a character that McMahon himself doesn't understand? They need to better let the fans understand the character. I'm not watching that IED video, it was hard to watch the first time when it aired because it was a horrible angle, I'm not watching it again. There's also a contradiction in your heel statement, heel's don't need depth because that would lead to a following, but Orton is the character with most depth as you say...isn't he a heel?