Re: Wrestlers sacrificed to Hulk Hogan?
It was totally a different industry. Whenever Hogan lost, it was a big big deal. Now if a John Cena or a CM Punk loses (on free TV of all places), it's not a big deal because they each lose at least once every month. Back in the 80's and early 90's, Vince really had to think you were going to be a big deal if he lets someone go over Hogan. Take a look at all the guys that Hogan lost too, they went on a higher level. Why, because we rarely saw it. Now you have people saying that if Punk beats John Cena for the upteenth time and he beats a Triple H, he's going to be the greatest of all time, etc, but that's not the case because in today's industry, wins and losses don't mean anything, why because we've already seen people beat John Cena and Triple H, etc. The only person that a win will do wonders for is Undertaker at Wrestlemania, and I don't think anybody in the locker room wants to go over Taker at Wrestlemania, they just want to work with him.
Originally Posted by new_guy
People complain about newer talent not getting over, but what they mean is that their favourite isn't getting over, everyone else can go to hell. I'm for as many people getting over as possible, it would improve the show and the more over people there are, the more avenues there are to push new talent, yes, your favourites are more likely to get pushed if there are more over people to feud with.