Average age for a male WWE main roster performer is older now than in the late 80s, and even more so than in the late 90s.Your information is deliberately misleading though. You aren't accounting for the age/experience of the performers in 1985 guys like Muraco, Andre, Orton and many other guys on the 1985 roster were at least their mid-thirties with long careers. Of course, there was going to be a noticeable change over between them and the top guys in 1995. There is a big difference between them and guys like Randy Orton, Miz, Ziggler, Sheamus, and Daniel Bryan who in 2010 were 30 or younger with the exception of Sheamus who was 32. There is bound to be less turnover when you are utilizing younger performers with less mileage on them. You also have to remember that guys like Hogan and Savage were huge parts of wrestling in 1995 just in a different company and WWF's attempt to skew younger in the wake of Hogan's departure led to overutilization of people like Piper, Backlund, and Lawler who by that point were north of forty themselves. Truth be told WWF/E or any company leaning on older wrestlers is hardly new. It happens every generation. Whether you like it or not it's how things work. The scientific advances in performance and training and the onus put on not doing stupid things have also contributed to performers being able to perform at a high level longer which obviously adds longevity to their stay at the top of the mountain.
I feel the same on main events, as long as somewhere I get what I want the card order is irrelevant. Though that's just conditioning from being a Kane fan lol.This is good point. A lot of the returning, older wrestlers are being held for big Network specials. Many in the middle east. It's a blessing in disguise. If you don't want older talents and don't want to support blood money, it's a win-win for you.
If an older wrestler wants to work a full schedule like the younger, and is over, I see no reason for them to leave. When you're older, not over, and there (Cena), then I understand the argument. I also don't hold stock in who is the main event. If Undertaker and Goldberg close a show where I get Cesaro v Rollins for 25 minutes halfway through, I'm supremely happy because I can dip out early.
It's not their literal age that's the problem, it's the amount of time they've been around. Watching guys from 25 fucking years ago constantly gets grating as FUCK.38-42 is not old.
Tom Brady is 42 and still top guy in nfl. Vince Carter is 43 and still playing in NBA. Mayweather would be top guy in boxing at 42 still and Brock Lesnar would be maineventing ppvs if he joined UFC tomorrow.
Randy Orton is 39. Are you telling me Hulk Hogan should have retired in 1992, Randy Savage in 91, Ric Flair in 1988, Bret Hart in 1996, Kevin Nash in 1998, Sting in 1998, Scott Hall in 1997?
They're only ever around because the WWE is desperate for people to remember they still exist. They want the crowd that refers to them to this day as the WWF to come back, but they never do.It's not their literal age that's the problem, it's the amount of time they've been around. Watching guys from 25 fucking years ago constantly gets grating as FUCK.
To be fair, Edge never really drew as a performer. He drew in other ways.Edge returning was the breaking point for me. WWE is right back to where they were a few years ago, relying way too much on old farts and part timers and not enough on younger guys. I have no interest in seeing some 46 year old dude come back and take a spot away from a younger, more deserving, full time talent. Even worse, he's going to be facing another guy who's washed up and needs to retire (Orton) All these guys need to know when to call it quits and let the younger talent get their time. John Morrison, Sheamus, Big Show, Lesnar, Edge, Orton, Styles, and many more all need to fuck off.