Fair enough, was a tad rude. Was mainly directed at the "you should be worshiping The Rock" people though. I mean I'm glad other people enjoyed it, I even did as well, as a youngin' but I said that so that I could save someone the trouble of saying "Raw drew ___ in 1999 and therefore it's amazing" and such. I just don't think someone has to be liked by the masses to be good, and vice versa.
Now you're right about quite a few things. Raw should only be two hours. I'm a big fan of TV matches being good, but I can agree that things get overdone. I think WWE actually should utilize less singles matches on Raw and use longer six man/four man tag matches.It really does feel like too much programming sometimes. I still think the people deserve a lengthy match or two though. I mean, at least that's what keeps me from just youtubing segments the next day.
It's true. The character times have left us but there's still some. I still consider a guy like Sandow to be a character. Even though he doesn't have a different type of name like Undertaker or Diesel, etc, he still certainly plays a character. Same with Fandango. And then there's guys with hints of character, like Del Rio. Unfortunately, most gimmicky characters are used as jobbers currently.
I think the biggest problem is still the booking of the midcard. There's not any kind of feuds like there was in say '04 or so. It's just series of matches, winner goes on to another series of matches with a new guy, etc. That's what needs to change. Because if you give these guys something to fight over and let them talk about it, I can see guys like Barrett or Axel getting a little more over if they actually had a reason for their matches.
But looking at the WWE title, I still think it's prestigious enough. It's obviously not 80's or 90's prestigious, but it still means quite a bit.
In respect to the fact that its still the most important title in the industry, yeah, its prestigious. The problem is that in years past, it felt way, way more important. Like, guys would jump through hoops of fire just to get a shot at it. Look at Austin-had to win a Buried Alive match against Taker to qualify for the 1999 Rumble, then come in at #1, lose, then fight Vince in a cage...all to get one title shot. Nowadays, if you lose the Rumble, don't worry. You can challenge at EC, along with 4-5 other guys. And if you lose there, you can still challenge for the OTHER world title at WM. Oh and there's 2 MiTB ladder matches in July where the winner gets a guaranteed title shot whenever they want. This is in addition to any other opportunities you may get during the year. Flooding the market with title shots makes winning the title seem...well, I won't say worthless, but nowhere near as prestigious.
Nothing feels really big anymore. Its not like I ever sit there on a Monday and think "I gotta tune into Raw, I can't miss this." Oh wait, I did feel that way for the Wyatt's debut. That's because its a such a different and unique character, which I love. That gets me hooked into things. Everything else feels totally par for the course. Its nice that Bryan is getting a title shot, but nothing at all about the feud makes me think "this is must see." Not even Rock/Cena was must see. Nothing except the Wyatts, and usually what Punk is doing (the Heyman/Lesnar stuff is fantastic), is must see.
I don't know if its because I'm a jaded fan or the industry just feels so cold and unspectacular at this point, but so little stands out as being something that I would have to tune in weekly to see because I was so excited by it.