What is old/too old in Pro Wrestling?

The Great One

Ive heard many people say Ric Flair is too old for one more main event run (I dont agree and think he deserves his final push before a WM fairwell). Some people say Undertaker is too old to be champion as at his age he is a liability and too susceptable to injuries but he is the same age as Shawn Michaels(48), is HBK too old. Hulk Hogan is in his 50s but still gets weeled out every so often as he almost guarn-damn-tees ratings.

so at what age do you guys think you become old by Pro Wrestling standards?

ShaneU

The Great One wrote: »

Ive heard many people say Ric Flair is too old for one more main event run (I dont agree and think he deserves his final push before a WM fairwell). Some people say Undertaker is too old to be champion as at his age he is a liability and too susceptable to injuries but he is the same age as Shawn Michaels(48), is HBK too old. Hulk Hogan is in his 50s but still gets weeled out every so often as he almost guarn-damn-tees ratings.

so at what age do you guys think you become old by Pro Wrestling standards?

Both Undertaker and Michaels are 42,not 48, hbk still has a few years left.

Flair is 56 and should have retired a long time ago, he'll retire at WM 24.

Hogan is terrible in the ring, as you said they only bring him in for ratings.

Vince135792003

The Great One wrote: »

so at what age do you guys think you become old by Pro Wrestling standards?

There is no 1 age for me. Once the fans are still into you, it doesn't matter what age you are.

Fozzy

There's no way Shawn and Undertaker are 48! I know Finlay is, or maybe 49, but 48 sounds a few years too old for either of them

I don't think that there's a universal age that you can just state. Like I said, Finlay is almost 50 and I have no problem with him wrestling at that age at all because he can still do it. There's a wrestler in NOAH who is in his 60's but I've no problem with him because he still manages to make matches entertaining. Some of the stuff he does is based on him being old and crazy but it's still entertaining. Terry Funk is capable of putting on great performances when he's not only old but almost crippled as well

I think a guy is too old when he's wrestling on the indies for little money and he's got nothing else in his life. Jake Roberts seems to be one example. I've read countless stories about him putting on poor performances or not even showing up in recent years. He's taken up WWE's offer of free rehab now though so hopefully he can just leave wrestling behind because that seems to be a part of his problem

The Great One

sorry that was a mistake they are both 42, dont know why i typed 48 i checked the age right before i posted it and still posted 48. probably phrased the topic completely wrong cos obviously being too old differs from superstar to superstar depending on how they can still bring it.

who do you look at as too old though? I wouldent think many people would HBK but i know many (not me) do with Taker who is actually the same age.

Its not how old , its how bad. S long as they can entertain the croud , they dont bother me .

gimmick

The anticipated debut has been a massive failure.

Save Us.

pingu_girl

There is no set age but some of the guys terry funk for example should just quit while there still reasonably able-bodied they can still draw rating by just being on the show or something.

WWE seem to be using a lot of older guys lately that where crap even back in the day eg. hacksaw jim duggan and tatanka it seems so pointless and nobody seems to be reacting.

gimmick wrote: »

The anticipated debut has been a massive failure.

Save Us.

wrong thread gimmick?

TGO is a hero just watch and learn

gimmick

^ Just noticed that myself. Though I need to learn from no-one.

rossie1977

yes both michaels and taker are 42, flair is less than two months away from his 59th birthday, finlay is 49.

what is too old for wrestling??

too old is when you are dead; you are never too old or too beat up to be a pro-wrestler, case in point is Shirley Crabtree aka big daddy who headlined well into his 60s despite being barely able to move towards the end, the fans loved him, he drew money and thats all that really matters in this business.

if the wrestler can still draw then they are never too old

krudler

its a testament to the fact that age doesnt matter when putting on a great show that HBK and Taker had an incredible last 15 minutes of the 2007 Rumble, they put the younger guys on the roster to shame that night

Mr.Nice Guy

rossie1977 wrote: »

if the wrestler can still draw then they are never too old

Agreed. If a wrestler can evoke emotion from the audience then that's all that matters. In saying that though I think the older a wrestler gets the less he should be utilised. I don't think a guy like Flair should be used week in and week out but rather used sparingly. It's easier on his body that way and it makes his matches more meaningful.

DRakE

Flair is too old. Regardless of what he 'deserves' he should have quit a long time ago. His matches consist of chops and taking a backdrop on his side

Hogan is too old.
Taker and HBK can still rip it up and I'd say they'll age better than Flair and Hogan.. or maybe have the sense to retire before they're making fools of themselves in the ring.

Bubs101

DRakE wrote: »

Flair is too old. Regardless of what he 'deserves' he should have quit a long time ago. His matches consist of chops and taking a backdrop on his side

Hogan is too old.

Flair is definitly too old. He can't do what he did to get to the top so for me should have retired a long time ago. Hogan on the other hand can still do what he used to and still looks the part. I really hope he hangs around for a bit

nacho libre

I'd love to see another feud between Taker and HBK before they both retire. If anyone from WWE creative happens to be viewing this thread please keep this request in mind:)

rossie1977

I think this sums it up perfectly why flair is not too old

Wrestling Observer Newsletter wrote:

The Ric Flair-Randy Orton Raw main event from two weeks ago drew 1,205,000 for the quarter to a 4.25 peak rating. This makes it one of the most successful matches of the year (2007) when it comes to ratings growth. The Ric Flair segments all did good numbers throughout the show

Fozzy

rossie1977 wrote: »

I think this sums it up perfectly why flair is not too old

I didn't actually know that. I was going to argue why Flair does still have it but I don't really have the time. That does the job for me!

Mr.Nice Guy

I don't think Flair is too old. His performance last year in the TLC match left me stunned and with even more admiration for him. He doesn't need to pack it in, they just need to stop putting him out week after week as if he was Hacksaw Jim Duggan. He ought to be treated better.

The Ric Flair-Randy Orton Raw main event from two weeks ago drew 1,205,000 for the quarter to a 4.25 peak rating. This makes it one of the most successful matches of the year (2007) when it comes to ratings growth. The Ric Flair segments all did good numbers throughout the show.

Didn't know about this either. If this is the case it makes you wonder why they made no mention of the storyline the next week on Raw.

Vince135792003

I'd be sceptical about the numbers rossie posted. Did you get them off the net or directly from the newsletter?

They could be right I guess but I remember the 2 hourly break downs and the second hour was only marginally higher than the first with the overall rating coming in at a 3.5.

So I'd have my doubts on the number but I don't have a subscription anymore so I'm only guessing too.


With that said, Flair typically draws very well on tv when put in a main event position.

rossie1977

that piece was posted by a very reliable poster on another forum who does have a subscription to WON. The piece is taken directly from WON

Nothing strange about a 15 minute segment doing a 4.2, after all the entire second hour of raw this week did an average 4.6 or thereabouts so i guess it was peaking at close to 5 in parts

Vince135792003

rossie1977 wrote: »

that piece was posted by a very reliable poster on another forum who does have a subscription to WON. The piece is taken directly from WON

Nothing strange about a 15 minute segment doing a 4.2, after all the entire second hour of raw this week did an average 4.6 or thereabouts so i guess it was peaking at close to 5 in parts

This week Raw did great ratings because it was a very special show, loaded with returns. The show did a 4.5 for the second hour. That is a big rating and one which they have not not in ages. Using this weeks ratings to compare it to other weeks isn't rational.

Now onto the Flair/Orton match, this particular show (in which Flair was the focal point) got an overall rating of 3.5 which was the same as the week before. Big difference to this weeks show. The second hours average was 3.67 (in which the match took place). All of those numbers are taken from the figure four newsletter.


So is a 4.2 final quarter possible for a show that got an average rating of 3.67 in its second hour? I guess it just about is but like I said I'd be sceptical and even more so that your info is coming from a secondary source.

Again though I don't want to move too far from the topic. And certainly Flair has a record of drawing on tv very well.

rossie1977

Vince135792003 wrote: »

This week Raw did great ratings because it was a very special show, loaded with returns. The show did a 4.5 for the second hour. That is a big rating and one which they have not not in ages. Using this weeks ratings to compare it to other weeks isn't rational.

yes but barely anyone predicted raw to do the numbers it did this week, most were predicting raw to do between 3.5-3.8 at best, the fans are still there, they just don't watch anymore.

that piece clearly states that orton/flair "drew 1,205,000", thats extra on top of the rest of the hour, a 4.2 doesn't equal 1.2 million it equals 4.8 million households so orton/flair drew an extra 1 rating on that match alone

callaway92

Maybe all of this will bring TNA back down to earth?

Vince135792003

rossie1977 wrote: »

yes but barely anyone predicted raw to do the numbers it did this week, most were predicting raw to do between 3.5-3.8 at best, the fans are still there, they just don't watch anymore.

that piece clearly states that orton/flair "drew 1,205,000", thats extra on top of the rest of the hour, a 4.2 doesn't equal 1.2 million it equals 4.8 million households so orton/flair drew an extra 1 rating on that match alone

You completely missed my point.

I'm just saying using last week as a barometer or a yard stick to compare ratings from previous weeks is wrong because it was an abnormal week

Secondly, the quarter hour of 4.2 that you quote was in an hour that had an overall rating of 3.67. And I'm sceptical, particularly since your'e not quoting directly from the observer and if you do the maths it would mean that the other 3 quarters would have to have an average rating of 3.5.

Like I said though, I'm open to be proven wrong but I think objectively I've reasons to be doubtful about your info.

Generally too, I don't think it's right to post info as from the observer newsletter unless you actually have read it yourself. Getting it off another forum and then saying it's from the newsletter, to me doesn't hold up 100%.

I've heard Meltzer say dozens of times how everyday he see's people posting stuff on the net with him as a source and 50% of it is total bull ****.

Riskymove

I am always wary of using ratings to measure the quality of wrestling

just because someone is popular does not mean they are still able to wrestle

I don't mind old timers popping up every now and then in storylines but some of them simply can't move anymore let alone wrestle..

ratings are the reason that people like Khali and Cena are on-screen so much!!

Vince135792003

Riskymove wrote: »

I am always wary of using ratings to measure the quality of wrestling

just because someone is popular does not mean they are still able to wrestle

If more people tune in every time to watch Flair wrestle than say just your typical guy, it means something. I'd pay attention to that if I owned a wrestling company.

Icon!!

I was just about to say that we shouldnt be going over whether Flair Taker and HBK can do it anymore when they prove they can in the matches they've been in recently. We should however be talking about ****bombs that stink up the ring like Khali with his VICE GRIP OF DEATH!!!!

I would also love to see another Taker HBK feud before its too late!