by BigFatGoalie 
OO Message Board Regular

WrestleMania X-9 may have some of the biggest matches in the history of our sport. When you think of a card that could feature Rock v. Goldberg, Angle v. Lesnar, Triple H v. Booker T, Chris Jericho v. Scott Steiner, and Chris Benoit v. Steve Austin, you have to stand back and be impressed. The star power in those matches is something awe inspiring. But is that a good thing?

The matches listed feature 10 guys who are all considered to be in the WWE's "main event" level of superstars. But that's just 10 guys. That list doesn't include Hulk Hogan, Kane, RVD, Edge, Rey Mysterio or Eddie Guerrero. If you pair those 6 guys off against each other, and possibly have a woman's match to involve Trish, Jazz, Victoria, Molly or Ivory, that would give the WWE 9 matches. And once you get to this point something becomes crystal clear: the WWE has too many "stars" to be successful.

If you look at the history of wrestlers (or to make things easy, wrestling since the 1980s), events have always been built around one or two main feuds, with spaces filled in with solid and reliable pieces. Hogan v. Villain du Jour, Hogan v. Savage, Hogan v. Warrior was the focus of the WWF for a large portion of that time. In the entire course of the 1980s, the WWF's main-event-level stars were Hogan, Savage, DiBiase and The Warrior. Over in NWA (WCW), you had Flair, Rhodes, Sting, Luger and Steamboat. That's not to say there weren't other stars, just that each promotion built a decade around a select group of stars.

In the 1990s, it's easy to say that the WWF had two eras — New Generation and Attitude. Bret Hart, HBK, Undertaker and Kevin Nash ran the pre-Attitude era, and then it was Austin, Foley, Rocky, Triple H and Undertaker. WCW started out sticking with the formula, but as time went on things got worse. At one point the main-event picture for WCW was Sting, Goldberg, Flair, Hogan, Nash, Luger, Savage, Bret Hart, DDP and The Giant. It made for a mess with no room to elevate new stars, and in many ways the people at the top were there on name value only. The creative staff had so many "stars" to accommodate that nobody (with possibly the exception of Sting) had a long-lasting solid angle.

Just looking at the last two 'Manias is enough proof that things work better with a less crowded main event picture. WrestleMania X-7 featured two top-level matches in The Rock v. Steve Austin, and Triple H v. The Undertaker. The build-up to the showdown in both cases was well executed and very enjoyable to watch. Triple H started his feud with the Undertaker by claiming there was nobody in the WWF that Hunter had not defeated. This led to a feud based on the question of whether Hunter could end Undertaker's "Decade Of Destruction." For the big money feud, the WWE went with a very safe option of Rock v. Austin. They went the even safer route by not turning either heel before the big event. The focus was made very clear that Austin was obsessed with winning the title. This was the booking lead-in to the WWF actually turning Austin heel. On top of these two angles, the WWF had a solid tag-title match in TLC2, solid midcard matches in Angle v. Benoit and Regal v. Jericho, and a strong storyline-driven feud between Vince and Shane McMahon. Austin v. Rock was clearly placed above all other matches as far as importance and magnitude, but the TLC match and the upper mid-card matches were all presented with great care and detail.

Conversely, look at what took place at WrestleMania X-8. The triple main event was a huge letdown as Jericho v. Triple H was a comedy of errors, Austin v. Hall was an afterthought, and Rock v. Hogan was a special attraction that actually ended up being the highlight of the night. But look further and you have a Flair v. Undertaker feud that was given a significant amount of TV time, to the extent that it seemed to be more a part of the show then the Austin/Hall showdown. You also had poorly tossed together matches and feuds of: Edge v. Booker T (which was a feud over shampoo), Kane v. Angle (which had been done too much in the time leading up to 'Mania) and a completely forgettable tag-title match. On paper, it's easy to say that there is more star power and a more "special" feeling in having a card that features Jericho/Triple H, Rock/Hogan, Hall/Austin and Taker/Flair. But in reality, the card with one true main-event in Austin/Rock was a much better show from top to bottom.

Now this is not to suggest that having stars that fans recognize and care about is a bad thing. The problem only occurs when you have so many stars that nobody stays on top from performance, but rather from name value. In the WWE right now, you have guys like Jericho, Booker T, RVD, Eddie Guerrero, Chris Benoit and Kurt Angle who have established themselves as stars. The same can be said for Kane, Edge, and Scott Steiner. The thing is, are these guys really on the level with a Rock or Triple H? Right now, no. In fact, you can argue that the WWE has actually devalued guys like Kurt Angle by making a wrestler like Chavo Guerrero seem like his equal.

I know it is important to not become stagnant and repetitive, but at what cost? History has shown that a wrestling promotion works best when there is one key angle to build around — with a healthy supporting cast. A guy like Chris Jericho would have had a great heel run except for the fact that, instantly upon winning the title, Booker T and then the nWo were pushed as more legitimate heels then he was. To be effective, a guy needs to be given the ball and the spotlight. What good is it to put the belt on Jericho, and then push another star (or 4) as being more important then Jericho is?

It also hasn't helped that the WWE tries to elevate everybody at once. If you look at history (I know, doing that so much may cause you to have a headache), guys like Sting, Austin, Rock and Foley were all pushed by themselves. Lately, the WWE has tried to push RVD and Kane at the same time. What happened was that RVD's momentum got squashed, and Kane really failed to light things up. So instead of one guy failing to bust through, you had two guys stumbling out of the gates worse than the Shockmaster.

Over on Smackdown!, it's great to see Edge getting a rub and being brought up to the big time, but how long can they keep elevating him before giving him the ball? It's nice to see him get over as a face, but if the WWE pushes Brock Lesnar and Chris Benoit as foes to the heel champ Kurt Angle, when are they going to give the ball and spotlight to Edge? The same could be said for Booker T. The WWE has been messing around with Kane and RVD, and has since been pushing Scott Steiner, while Booker T is finally showing that he could be a WWE star and not just a former WCW champion. Thankfully Booker has maintained momentum in the tag division, but how long before fans grow tired of waiting for Booker T to get the ball?

All of this leads to one sad fact: the WWE has too many guys who have either been on top too long or have waited too long to get the shot. People will be bitching about Triple H till the end of time, but with the clutter of almost-franchise stars, he has not had a true foil since he suffered his first quad injury. The WWE is heading in the right direction, but the thing they will hopefully keep in mind is that not everyone gets to have the success of a Steve Austin. Not every wrestler, regardless of the talent he possesses, will be on par with the Rocks and Foleys of the world — no matter how hard or how much you push them. There's no shame in being a midcard star. Hell, outside his matches with Flair, Ricky Steamboat was mostly a midcarder. That doesn't mean he isn't thought of as one of the best ever. I'm not saying the WWE needs to release all of their top stars and go back to the way it was when Austin and Undertaker fought every damn PPV. Only that they need to focus on one or two main events and let the other parts get over by themselves.

The WWE main event is like a ray of light. The more you focus it and the smaller you make it, the better the quality.

E-MAIL THE EDITOR
SEE MORE OF THE SAME IN THE OO FORUMS

All contents are Copyright 1995-2011 by OOWrestling.com.  All rights reserved.
This website is not affiliated with WWE or any other professional wrestling organization.  Privacy Statement.