How does WWE survive with the same wrestlers that it's had for the last 20 years? Triple H, the Rock, Jericho, Big Show etc. It's embarrassing watching guys in their mid 40s jumping around the ring
>>1286446
No competition and marks are dumb enough to keep giving WWE money
Wellllllllll
>>1286446
Because they're still better than indy shitters
>i prefer generic indy manlets
kys ya manlet net
>>1286458
>>1286460
>the rock has literally been cutting the same promo since 1999
>Jericho is literally your dad going through a metro-sexual midlife crisis.
>Big Show can't do the chokeslam anymore so he just punches people
>John Cena has never developed as a character
>Roman Reigns is John Cena minus what makes him interesting
>HHH shaved his head to hide that he's balding, and still feels the need to bury midcarders like it's his literal job
>Stone Cold only ever shows up to give a guy a stunner which looks less and less painful every year.
but yes, please tell me how all the guys in their late 40's are so based
Because WWE back then had to make stars to be the better product while WWE now doesn't have any competition and Vince forgot that he needs a few more main event players other than just one guy who's the champ
>>1286471
That makes it even sadder that the old fucks doing half-assed stale finishers and promos get bigger pops than the indie cucks doing shooting star presses, suicide dives, and corkscrew moonsaults every 2 minutes
>>1286499
because man children are nostalgic for muh attitude era
>>1286505
If the new guys were good enough the manchildren wouldn't yearn for the 90s to come back. Don't blame the based as fuck legends of the attitude era for getting so over that nobody will ever stop popping for them nigger.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the current crop of talent, but there's no denying the miss the most important part of wrestling: entertainment
>>1286524
lel they did go away. Remember 2005-2009? Who got over during that period besides Cena & Edge? They brought back the le attitude era guys because the company was slowly going into the shitter. Mixing the legends with younger talent helps get them over, except when the legends clearly outclass them. Which can only be blamed on the young guys. Why get rid of the legends? Just because they're too good? Doesn't sound smart from a business standpoint
>>1286446
You blind Jeff? One of their biggest stars right now is new and fresh talent
>>1286534
the problem is an over reliance on the older 'legends' and making them go over the new guys smashing any momentum they developed.
New Day can't beat the The League of Nations but three retirees who haven't wrestled a combined 23 years can? that's complete bullshit. Brock Lesnar is only able to lose to Another part timer. HHH can eat 3 to 5 of Dolph and Deans ambroses finished and one with A pedirgree, Still fucking bullshit.
how do you expect the 'indie shitters' to get over when they're booked into losing feuds against the established talents?
>>1286564
Those 3 legends didn't 'beat' the LON, they literally just beat them up a little and gave them their finishers. It makes complete sense since the LON just worked a 20 minute match and those 3 guys were fresh. It's not saying they're stronger than LON, it's saying pretty much any fresh wrestler could beat the shit out of a team that just had a grueling match, especially a group of iconic wrestlers who aren't old as fuck and looked like they could still go in the ring for a 10 minute match if needed.
>>1286471
>He forgot about late career Flair, Big Bossman, Sting, Harley Race, Steamboat, Hogan, and, oh yeah, Michaels (who spent most of his second run in Raws and Wrestlemanias helping other guys get over.).
Tell me why the old talent sticking around and helping the young guys learn the ropes and helping the old fans learn about new talent is bad.
>>1286601
an over reliance on them and then making the younger guys have to go under.
