Should Established guys in WWE still be getting push's?

Discussion in 'General WWE' started by wrestlingphenom, Jul 4, 2013.

  1. Established should still be getting push's as long as its not at the expense of pushing fresh guys on the roster. It depends on which established talent we are talking about, but established talents should be getting decent pushe's as well as the fresh talents/rising talent. I know some of you might oppose the idea of giving a guy like Chris Jericho, another run at the world title belt. I can't stand to see established guys, made to look weak especially when they don't win the world title for a long time. I do understand why Triple H and Undertaker can never be world champions/WWE champion, but How about Chris Jericho and Big Show n a few others. They need another decent run at the Huge prize, also they could drop it to a fresh rising talent, such as Dolph Ziggler, Wade Barrett, Dean Ambrose etc., in the process they would make one of the fresh rising talent get over in a huge way. I did not understand taking the world heavyweight title off of Big Show so quick, as well as when they took the IC belt off of big show last year 2012, they could have. Anyway, I do hope they do get a push but I do understand if they decide to give them a huge or decent push once in a few years or something, because doing so would help keep them looking strong and help make the push of rising talent even stronger. Hopefully we see Rob van Dam, Brock lesnar, Big Show get some sort of huge push before they disappear from the WWE scene permanently.
     
  2. I think Big Show lost the title so quick because of a contractual issue. And by the time it was cleared up, there was no use in killing any possible momentum Del Rio could build up as the new baby face World Heavyweight Champion (since Del Rio had just turned face and WWE clearly wanted him to be a star.)

    I don't mind established guys getting pushes. I don't even mind them going over most young talent as long as they still put someone over in the end. I'm not of the belief that every time a young talent and an established talent wrestle, the newer talent should ALWAYS go over. I also don't think many here would agree to that either, hence the annoyance at Jericho always jobbing. If Brock Lesnar wins the belt and rips through a bunch of competitors (pretend he'd make enough dates to have the title for awhile) and a couple of these people are new talent, I have no issue with him going over them so long as the man who eventually beats him is a new talent himself and gets a big rub from the victory. Hell, the new talent he defeats could even get a rub just from nearly taking the belt off Lesnar.

    You don't always have to lose to put someone over. Putting someone over just means making them look more credible than they did before. (You can put someone over just by showing them praise in a promo.) If you book a feud between a newer guy and Undertaker for Wrestlemania and the angle is that this guy wants to break the streak and it's all just business and for the benefit of his career and nothing personal, and then you have him lose BUT he comes dangerously close to ending the streak, then he gets a big rub from the ordeal. Picture the 1995/1996 version of Shawn Michaels, who wasn't a main eventer yet, going up against the 2009 version of Undertaker in the very same match at Wrestlemania 25. HBK would have looked like a god even more so in that case. This is an example of a veteran going over a younger guy (and me not having an issue with it) and also an example of putting someone over without losing.