Backstage morale said to be "Really Bad" - Page 6 - Wrestling Forum: WWE, AEW, New Japan, Indy Wrestling, Women of Wrestling Forums
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #51 of 57 (permalink) Old 05-16-2019, 06:21 AM
Deepvoice80's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 743
Points: 786
Re: Backstage morale said to be "Really Bad"

The problem with the product is it is over exposed and has too many wrestlers on the books with zero charisma who maybe very talented but can't cut it on the mic and it's an entertainment business and if you don't entertain it becomes stale which it has.
Deepvoice80 is offline  
Sponsored Links
post #52 of 57 (permalink) Old 05-16-2019, 06:22 AM
Afrolatino's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 4,328
Points: 13,903
Re: Backstage morale said to be "Really Bad"

Originally Posted by dele View Post
Remember that the low card guys are the main eventers 5 years from now. Imagine jettisoning The Rock after people shit on Rocky Maivia or Steve Austin after The Ringmaster.

WWE has to think a few moves ahead, especially if AEW catches on.
That would have been great... 1998 to 2001 focused on Mankind, Owen, Bulldog, Hardcore Holly or even Jarrett against HHH and later Jericho and Benoit would've been great.
ellthom likes this.

Top 10 for 2019: Becky Lynch, Nikki Cross, Ronda Rousey, Billie Kay, Peyton Royce, Toni Storm, Carmella, Taynara Conti, Jessamyn Duke, Bayley.
Seth Rollins
Jeff Hardy
Shinsuke Nakamura
Adam Cole
Aiden English
Roderick Strong
AJ Styles
Afrolatino is offline  
post #53 of 57 (permalink) Old 05-16-2019, 07:03 AM
Wrastlemondu's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Nottingham / Norwich
Posts: 4,128
Points: 7,133
Re: Backstage morale said to be "Really Bad"

The backstage has always had turmoil, at least there was something you could do about it in the past. Wrestler's court existed for a reason.

Nowadays there's nothing, not until AEW that is which throws a spanner in the works in the way WWE treats it's staff & its audience.

Wrestlers make the promotion it's just WWE has such a monopoly that they can say otherwise. AEW succeeding in everyone's best interest but Vince's, 90% of the active roster have a point to prove with a chip on their shoulders that they were sold a dream that isn't anymore, because of 1 man.

Return of the RABID WOLVERINE!

Bah GAWD ALMIGHTY! It's him!!!

Although Brock Lesnar's "Go to hell tour" might be coming to a close; we still have the decade strong, Vince McMahon's "Go fuck yourself" tour to look forward to.
Wrastlemondu is offline  
Sponsored Links
post #54 of 57 (permalink) Old 05-16-2019, 08:21 AM
The Fastest of the Fastest of Jamaican Sprinters
Strike Force's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,906
Points: 9,388
kobe Re: Backstage morale said to be "Really Bad"

Originally Posted by Eva MaRIHyse View Post
Brock, Reigns, Rollins, Ambrose, AJ, Cena, Bryan, the group of guys who are endlessly on top and get all the spotlight. Wyatt, KO, and Kofi, Balor are all one and done.

You seriously want to pretend WWE dont just keep the same handful of people on top endlessly?
Originally Posted by SPCDRI View Post
UT was held by 2 different people in over 700 days.
First off, the dispersal of world titles in recent times is broadly in line with historical trends. Throughout the Attitude Era, nine different people won the WWE Championship, which is only a bit more brisk a pace than the period since the advent of the Universal championship. Moreover, of those nine champions, four of them (Kurt Angle, Big Show, Kane, and Vince McMahon) had relatively short single reigns, three of which were 50 days or less. The title was basically ricocheted between Austin, Undertaker, Rock, Foley, and Triple H.

Eva, you're not wrong that the collection you listed (Brock, Reigns, Rollins, Ambrose, AJ, Cena, Bryan, though Cena less so) have dominated the world titles over the last 3+ years, but isn't that how it should probably be? We complain about WWE making stars, but wouldn't it further hamper the star-making system if 20 different people hot-potato the world titles? WWE anointed their collection of stars and stuck with them during arguably their greatest period; doesn't it make sense to try to replicate that model?

One further note: I'm not arguing that THOSE PEOPLE are the ones that should be at the pinnacle; that's a separate conversation. The question is the number of people that should reside at the top.

Last edited by Strike Force; 05-16-2019 at 08:24 AM.
Strike Force is offline  
post #55 of 57 (permalink) Old 05-16-2019, 08:39 AM
Salt of the Earth
MJF's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 16,121
Points: 46,934
Re: Backstage morale said to be "Really Bad"

Of course the morale is low.

The company is shite
MJF is offline  
post #56 of 57 (permalink) Old 05-16-2019, 10:05 AM
A Little Bit of the Bubbly!
A-C-P's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: I Hail From Green Bay, WI
Posts: 24,517
Points: 44,135
Re: Backstage morale said to be "Really Bad"

I mean, yes, technically we do not know if this is true or not, but when a guy like Dean Ambrose leaves even with what they all offered him I tend to believe reports of low morale

A-C-P is offline  
post #57 of 57 (permalink) Old 05-16-2019, 10:05 AM
In the bleak midwinter ....
Odo's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Nowhere
Posts: 1,572
Points: 30,320
Re: Backstage morale said to be "Really Bad"

The big dogs here to beat the cancer of low ratings tho
Odo is offline  

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On

For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome