By the time those two teamed up, they had both already main evented PPV's and won multiple titles, and continued doing so after they split up.The Rock over Mick Foley
Really? Because They've all been World Champions or are going to become World Champions. It also happens because the other tag team partner is better than the other. It's Not Rocket Science People...NOTE: I am sure this topic has been made a thousand times, I'm just asking the question to see what people think, please don't run red with blood k?
Why Do WWE always chose one person from a successful tag team and give them a semi-decent to decent-ish Main Event Run?
Jeff Hardy over Matt Hardy
Edge over Christian
The Miz over John Morrison
The Undertaker over Kane
The Rock over Mick Foley
Bradshaw over Farooq
Bret Hart over Jim Neidhart
Steve Austin over Brian Pillman (despite his death)
There has been some exceptions, such as DX (Micheals and HHH) but IMO they're starting do to it again with guys like Cody Rhodes and Dolph Ziggler getting more thunder than their ex-partners
Thoughts? :\
Overreaching much?The Undertaker over Kane
The Rock over Mick Foley
Steve Austin over Brian Pillman (despite his death)
Agreed!They just chose the person that's more over. Simple.
Yup, this isn't rocket science.They just chose the person that's more over. Simple.
^True, but I will say this......Its because lots of WWE tag teams involve one guy who is better than the other one. HBK is a better wrestler than Janetty. Undertaker is a better wrestler than Kane, and Bradshaw was a thousand times better than Farooq. We are not talking rocket science here.
....Choosing the wrestler who's "more over" isn't always the right decision. Jeff was more over, but Matt always could wrestle rings around him. Edge is "more over" than Christian, but Christian is better than Edge in just about every way possible.They just chose the person that's more over. Simple.
EXACTLY my point!^True, but I will say this......
....Choosing the wrestler who's "more over" isn't always the right decision. Jeff was more over, but Matt always could wrestle rings around him. Edge is "more over" than Christian, but Christian is better than Edge in just about every way possible.
They were given there chances with mid card runs. As for Neidhart, he sucked and just didn't have any tools for him to become big.Ok, Whoa, calm down :\
I'm just spit balling, no need to rip my nuts off and beat me over the head with them, I get the whole concept behind it all...
Taker/Kane weren't really a note worthy tag team, but everytime these two teamed up or teased teaming up everyone would skitz at the thought of it...
As for Foley/Rock... I hardly count Foley's 2xmonth long reigns and one day long reign a passive mush...
and I understand that some had leagues better talent and charisma, e.g. Miz & Rock
I'm just throwing the question out there why hasn't WWE given guys like Neidhart, Christian and Matt Hardy even a little test of their abilities?
The 'Passive Mush' comment?Btw is hello lysdexic or just making a joke?
Right decision on what basis? From a business perspective, it only makes sense to push the guy who is more popular.^True, but I will say this......
....Choosing the wrestler who's "more over" isn't always the right decision. Jeff was more over, but Matt always could wrestle rings around him. Edge is "more over" than Christian, but Christian is better than Edge in just about every way possible.