ProWrestling Fans WWE TNA Forum

Go Back   ProWrestling Fans WWE TNA Forum > Wrestling > General Wrestling

General Wrestling Any non-WWE/TNA wrestling discussion goes in here. This includes wrestling history.

On an ascending scale of 1-10, how would you rate the current quality of WWE?
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 14 Jun 2014, 04:08 PM   #1 (permalink)
Jobber
 
King's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: the north
Posts: 201
Rep Power: 16
King is on a distinguished road
Default On an ascending scale of 1-10, how would you rate the current quality of WWE?

If WWE is suppose to be entertaining, then rate it by how entertained you are. Think of all the current storylines, characters, personas, rivalries, and matches, then rate how entertained you really are.































Personally, I think the quality has diminished horribly in the last few years. I can't say I'm happy with much of anything with what they're doing anymore at all. I think they've written themselves into a corner and have absolutely no idea which direction to go anymore.
King is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14 Jun 2014, 04:20 PM   #2 (permalink)
Jobber
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 286
Rep Power: 6
Patrisha M is on a distinguished road
Default

Let's see:































Storylines: 3 - WWE seems to have good storylines in the beginning, but they're often ruined by poor decisions, such as by breaking up money drawing stables with little reason or in boring ways. Compare Attitude Era stories such The Rock and Austin feuds to what they have now and see what I mean.































Booking: 3 - The same wrestlers usually win it all like John Cena. If not that, these people lose due to cheating or matches end thanks to interference. Also, wrestlers without skill or toughness seem to win easily just to please the young crowd, with good examples being Daniel Bryan easily beating wrestlers like Kane with no strategy. Also, midgets (I don't mean any offense with that term) beating big wrestlers isn't good booking either. The only time good booking exists is during the PPVs, so that merits a 3.































Gimmicks: 2 - Wrestling used to have good gimmicks that were good in many unique ways. Hulk Hogan, a positive role model that was a great entertainer and put wrestling on the map. Stone Cold, a tough redneck that drank beer and hated his boss. The Rock, a good-looking comedian that clowned everybody. Undertaker, a deadman that scared everybody. Kane, a demon that did the same thing. Godfather, a pimp with hos. I could go on and on. Nowadays, it seems that WWE is obsessed with feminine men, midgets (no offense), and rednecks with long beards as if they're competing with Duck Dyansty. If not that, then gimmicks are rare.































Championships: 2 - The basic titles are fine, but to truly be entertaining, a big promotion like WWE needs more titles like in the past. This could keep unbelievable world champs like Rey Mysterio and Daniel Bryan from winning the big one and get over in a division they belong in.































Talent: 5 - One half is good. WWE has many talented wrestlers on their roster. The other half is bad. Much of that talent is wasted on the jobber's list. Plenty of wrestlers that have been over have been made jobbers like Kofi Kingston or placed in the wrong division like Ryback. Plenty of wrestlers with the look and potential like Titus O'Neil aren't even being coached and many talented superstars in the past like Shelton Benjamin had been let go. If WWE coached their wrestlers with potential and then booked them properly based on what the fans wanted, I would have given talent a full ten.































Final: 3+3+2+2+5=15. To find the mean, let's divide that by 5. That should equal 3. Thus, overall, I would rate WWE's product a 3/10, mighty lackluster in nearly all the areas. The PG Era is disappointing and bad not for being PG, but for having weak storylines, terrible booking except during the best PPVs, bad to barely existent gimmicks, few and disorganized titles, and a ton of talented wrestlers, a positive, but not coached and used properly, the negative.
Patrisha M is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14 Jun 2014, 04:22 PM   #3 (permalink)
Heavyweight
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,029
Rep Power: 6
Jay26 is on a distinguished road
Default

I agree with you King,but i say 3 out of 10.WWE has gotten somewhat better still kinda sucks.from dancing idiots,Hornswoggle etc.
Jay26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
on a scale of one to ten what would you rate raw? wwe is cool General Wrestling 6 14 May 2013 07:02 PM
on a scale 1 to 10 how much would you rate these guys in the ring and how much would you rate on Alexis B(Holybell) General Wrestling 6 08 Oct 2010 04:02 PM
Rate the Wrestler 3: On a scale of 1-10 how do you rate Sheamus? Why? Gold Medalist General Wrestling 7 05 Aug 2010 01:12 PM
Are you overall happy with the quality of WWE's current product? ASK HIM General Wrestling 5 25 Feb 2010 02:42 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:42 PM.

Attribution:
Powered by Yahoo Answers



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2 © 2011, Crawlability, Inc.