Quote:
Originally Posted by New World Order
How about we discuss talent in general:
The Rock, Stone Cold, Prime Undertaker, Masked Kane etc..
vs
Daniel Bryan, Randy Orton, John Cena, 45 year old Undertaker
Honestly, who wins? There is a reason why television ratings in the late 90's were 7-8 vs. what we have now:
"The final rating came in at a 3.7, meaning WWE has had its most successful Raw since the 1,000th special episode on July 23rd 2012."
I'm not knocking you, I just wish the product was better.
|
The Rock & Stone Cold are two of the most exciting promos in history, and they came alive during a sea change in what was possible in the industry. Right talent during the right time.
My argument was in-the-ring, though. I agree that the current roster doesn't have the personalities that the Attitude Era had, but the in-ring talent is extraordinary. Your comparisons were disingenuous (chiefly implying that old-ass 'Taker is a cornerstone of the product), but Daniel Bryan, since you mentioned him, is far more talented
in the ring than any of the Attitude Era wrestlers you named.
Go back and watch some Attitude Era episodes of Raw. The mid- and lower-cards are not exactly stocked with talent. Goofy gimmicks, yes. But not nearly the talent that even jobbers today have. Bryan, Cena (you heard me), Wyatt, Rollins, Reigns, Ambrose, Harper, CESARO, Sheamus, Del Rio, Henry, Big E, Paige, Summer Rae, Emma, AJ, and on and on and on and I could go on forever about the top-level workers this company has right now. It is SO stacked.
I don't know what you want out of a wrestling program that WWE isn't able to provide you on any given night.