Tommy Platinum

Now I know that there are a lot of factors which can dictate this meaning there isn't really an easy answer to the question, but I thought it would be an interesting topic regardless. Obviously there are examples of wrestlers being heavily criticised for remaining at the top for too long, an obvious example being Triple H. He was been in main events for a whole decade pretty much, and its obvious that is too long, but as said there are many factors.

Drawing power, turns, the quality of upcoming wrestlers etc are all factors which can determine how long is too long to spend in main events.

In this modern era with PPVs every month or even more regularly (for WWE), I would say that wrestlers should not spend as long at the top as say, Hogan did. At what point do you think a wrestler's main event run should be over, and instead they should start putting over the next stars?

Or using an actual wrestler, how much longer should say, John Cena or Randy Orton remain a top guy?

__________________

dxanman

I might upset a lot of people with this one, but I think John Cena is WAY overrated. Now, granted, has has drawing power (mostly with the females and children in the fanbase), but I know - with me - I won't be a fan of his because he's too one-dimensional. I always thought that he was made to look absolutely unstoppable and, in my opinion, never really sold very well.*

*Biggest example would be WM 23 vs. Shawn Michaels when Cena totally no-sold Michaels having worked on his leg for a majority of the match.

Orton, on the other hand, I think he's capable of being a top guy for a while. He's put on some good/decent matches during his time as Champion. But, yes, most of those matches have been against Triple H & Cena. If Orton were given the chance to put over some younger guys, I could see it working out very well. I don't watch a lot of WWE stuff anymore, but I think a possibly feud of generational athletes (Orton vs. DiBiase) would be good, since they've had that alliance for a while.

But, overall, I think that a "top" guy should be at that level as long as they still sale strongly and are able to stay "new" in the ring. I'd say 6-8 months... max a year.

Slim

As long as he is selling tickets.

__________________

Tommy Platinum

Cena was somewhat overpushed for a while but he is a great wrestler in my opinion and makes a hell of a lot of money.

How do you really know if they are though? I mean WWE obviously think Triple H, but he's holding down talent who could potentially do a lot better, such as when he didn't put over Jeff.

__________________

horrorfan_1986

There are plenty of factors, but the main is when you compare the x amount of dollars wrestler A would bring in compared to the x amount of dollars wrestler B would bring in. As long as wrestler A is bringing in more money than expected for wrestler B, he should be at top. At the same time, you need to factor in age. One of the mistakes Vince McMahon made with the Attitude Era was relying too long on the likes of Steve Austin and the Rock. Once the two left in 2002, the WWE had to scramble to make new stars. As it turned out, the one new star they made, left after two years.

__________________

dxanman

Even though I liked Triple H during the DX-era and during "The Game" years, I have to say that he would be used a lot better at getting guys over. However, because of the position he's put himself in (Vince's son-in-law), he feels he should be the top guy until he retires. At least... that's the impression I've gotten. Guys like him and Shawn (who most likely will never have another "top title" run, due to his restrictions on house shows) should be used to have great matches/get over guys like Evan Bourne, Cody Rhodes, Ted DiBiase, and a lot of the newer guys they're building up.

KenTheKiller

I don't really know.. I feel as if a wrestler's position can fluctuate and change over the years without leaving them in one spot. Case and point: Shawn Michaels and the Undertaker. Whilst you can call both main eventers and top guys, they have both participated in mid card matches and have been in long mid card feuds. If somebody like Randy Orton or John Cena could be like that, then I say they could have years to come. A wrestler has more than one torch to pass, and spending years passing them is always good.

Likewise, you don't want someone like HHH who has been pretty much the main event of whatever show he's on since 02 and the main guy in WWE (or at least was pushed to be) since 00. A wrestler can remain A top guy for years, but should never be THE top guy for far too long. You can argue that Cena has already started this up-down cycle, being out of the title scene in mid card feuds with the Miz and the Big Show.

This has loads of benefits as it allows him to give the rub to lower guys (Miz), it lets new guys main event (okay... HHH and RKO aren't new but in theory...), and it makes it feel more fresh for when he does challenge for the belt and/or wins the belt. After years of HHH/Orton, despite having feuded with both, Cena being added to their match makes it feel at least somewhat more fresh than what we've been getting.

/kind of went off topic.

The point is, a wrestler can be on top for years to come, they just need to do it in a Taker/HBK (well... HBK 02-on) fashion, not like HHH for example.

__________________

dxanman

... does anyone see this match ending the same way as the TTM @ WM 24?

Bigpapa42

But where is the cut off point? Do you look for a decline or wait until a worker is not selling anything at all? What if a worker is selling half or a third as many tickets as they did in their prime - does the still keep them on top? Even when there are other workers who, if given that spot, could be selling more? I don't think the answer ca be as easy as that.

This.

I think a worker can stay on the top for an extended period if its not utterly constant. If it is - like with Cena and Triple H - they get stale. They are constantly at the top and in the title scene. There needs to be changes. Whether its changes in their push, character changes, or breaks. Simply put, a lot of fans will get tired of them. Move them up and down the card a bit - like UT, Michaels, even Mysterio - and it keeps them from getting stale.

__________________

Y 2 Jake

From a fan perspective, no more than 10 years. I think there's something wrong when a guy has been headlining shows for a decade. Not to say those stars shouldn't make the occasional return to the ring, but they certainly shouldn't be full time. It wouldn't be so much of an issue if they didn't push wrestlers so quickly. I'd much prefer an Edge type wrestler who's been in WWE for 11 years, but who's only been a main eventer for three, over somebody like Orton who was on the main roster for two years before getting his first world title.

__________________