since as wrestling is planned isn't it unfair that they have a certain amont of wrestlers who win a title and there are others who never yet win a title?
2006-11-10 17:43:32 · 5 answers · asked by jamaican babe 7 in Sports ➔ Wrestling
Of course its unfair. The titles are not based on talent anymore, they're based on who the fans like more and who can sell more merchandise. For instance, no offence to the fans but, John Cena is a perfect example. He's CD comes out, he wins the title, his movie comes out, he wins the title, see the trend? He can hype up the crowd therefore he doesnt need any atheltic abilities, he just waves his hand across his face and the crowd goes wild and thats good enought for the WWE. Other athetic superstars like Shelton Benjamin, who is a great example of unused talent, are sidelined with stupid storylines. It really sucks.
2006-11-10 18:27:49 · answer #1 · answered by iRob 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Charlie Haas=Talent
but he gets no credit from the WWE.
2006-11-11 10:44:57 · answer #2 · answered by Dominique(G-9) 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The popular ones get the good stuff. The ones that really promote themselves and the sport will get the glory.
2006-11-11 01:49:27 · answer #3 · answered by Pantherempress 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the fan favorites like john cena and batista get all the lime light
2006-11-11 01:53:51 · answer #4 · answered by Super 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes mam, it's unfair----it's called the wwe creative team.
2006-11-11 01:47:44 · answer #5 · answered by freaky1 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋