Let's settle this one and for all...

[Tommy Fits]

When the company loses money, is it the fault of the top guy? Personally I think it's the dumbest fukking argument possible and it's the same to me as how a QB isn't in the top echelon because he never won a super bowl. Dan Marino is arguably the greatest QB of all time but rarely gets mentioned despite not having nearly the same weapons around him as his peers did. It's the same in wrestling. I think it's only used to discredit a guy you don't like because I've seen certain people use it as an excuse to bash a guy they don't like while defend other guys that have lost just as much money. Lets settle this one and for all TSC, whats the general consensus.

 

[puppetmaster]

I don't think blame should fully fall on the top guy, it's a cop out. There's WAY too many variables in wrestling to do that

It's always been a convienience to blame whoever the "face" at the time.


HBK and Bret were leading the WWE outta the big man era/steroid era and fans weren't yet conditioned to see talented "little guys"be the marquee in the WWE but the lion share of blame falls on them for how bad things got between 92-96. Even though Vince was for some reason still booking campy 80's characters well into the 90's.

And that's just one instance

 

[TheGreatShowtime]

Back in the 70's, 80's and early 90's? I think that argument holds weight. But it really should be thrown out the window once the Monday Night Wars started. The power to draw-in a crowd for a single superstar doesn't really hold much weight when you see them wrestle every week on television. Part of the draw is that the champion doesn't wrestle all the time, and when they do - it's a big deal. But when I see the champion wrestle every week on RAW, it loses that aura.

It also doesn't help that the WWE doesn't promote their champions like they use to. They'd rather bring in all these old fogies because they cannot build a champion anymore. They put the blame on the superstar, when it's really bookings fault.

 

[Lost His Smile]

The "Top Guy" is Vince. IMO its all on him and his cronies.

 

[The Prince of All Saiyans]

No

But i'll say that in TSC cause that's what they selectively rely on when it's convenient

 

[WOAHMYGOODNESS]

...people with agendas and bias towards guys they hate arent giing tk like having tk rake a firm stance

Imo its nkt on the top guy solely...but since people around here love to blame the top guys they dont like for rstings etc. But then spin excuses when u use that same logic on a guy they like having the belt, they spin ramble and divert attention

 

[Swiggy]

Do you blame the food for choking you out, or the person shoving it down your throat?

Do you blame the food that wasn't served while it was hot, or the chef who waited to cool off?



Some would rather have a happy chef than a good meal around these parts, but... you know

 

[mrken12]

If you're the only source of legit starpower at the time, you take some part of the responsibility (i.e. Shawn Michaels being the top guy when Bret wasn't there and the only other guys fighting for the title were people like British Bulldog, Vader, Psycho Sid, Diesel, etc).

However in the post WCW/ECW eras, it doesn't apply as easily.

 

[TL15]

It's not solely the top guys fault if revenue is down

but revenue can be up solely based on a top guy...

 

[Silkk]

If you're the only source of legit starpower at the time, you take some part of the responsibility (i.e. Shawn Michaels being the top guy when Bret wasn't there and the only other guys fighting for the title were people like British Bulldog, Vader, Psycho Sid, Diesel, etc).

However in the post WCW/ECW eras, it doesn't apply as easily.

Vince has said numerous times they would have been in even worse shape if HBK wasn't there at that time.

 

[Silkk]

And the answer is no, TNA could put the belt on anyone and not be able to do shyt.

 

[R=G]

I think it's just a thing to try to vindicate guys like Shawn Michaels and other clowns that didn't get the job done when they were in their prime. WWE is real slick..try to use slick terms to make guys like Taker and Michaels special but then when it was WM XXX time, they called Rock, Hogan, and Austin the definition of what wrestling is and will always be about. The guys that filled up the arenas and kept this entire conglomerate afloat.

 

[Golayitdown]

You need a third option: "Only when it's convenient for the point I'm trying to argue"

 

[R=G]

Vince has said numerous times they would have been in even worse shape if HBK wasn't there at that time.

Vince will say that but not give any credit to any WCW idea at the time. Ever. Believes he willed people to chant ECW. Vince McMahon is a very off brand man who anyone can tell doesn't have people say "No" to him all too much.

 

[R=G]

Back in the 70's, 80's and early 90's? I think that argument holds weight. But it really should be thrown out the window once the Monday Night Wars started. The power to draw-in a crowd for a single superstar doesn't really hold much weight when you see them wrestle every week on television. Part of the draw is that the champion doesn't wrestle all the time, and when they do - it's a big deal. But when I see the champion wrestle every week on RAW, it loses that aura.

It also doesn't help that the WWE doesn't promote their champions like they use to. They'd rather bring in all these old fogies because they cannot build a champion anymore. They put the blame on the superstar, when it's really bookings fault.

Doesn't hold weight? The fans that tune in and give certain stars more ratings than the others are ratings indicators...drawing indicators. HHH was apart of the Attitude Era..why didn't he hold up? Undertaker was apart of the Attitude Era..what happened when they gave him the belt after those years? Wasn't the same without the two safety Nets known as Steve Austin and the Rock.