The Great Debate: Tough Superstars Are An Endangered Species In The WWE

Ryback: Separating The Boys From The Men

Welcome to the latest installment in our GREAT DEBATE series.  Last night on WWE Main Event, Ryback squared off with Dolph Ziggler and proceeded to beat him senseless.  Afterwards, Michael Cole and The Miz conducted an interview with Paul Heyman via. satellite and Heyman made an interesting point.  Heyman suggested that Ziggler's name should not be mentioned in the same breathe as CM Punk's because Ziggler ran like a coward and did not take his beating like a man.  While some may argue that Punk has run from Ryback before, it's not Heyman's words that struck me, it's the realization that there are very few superstars on the current roster that have any credibility in the toughness category.



In another recent interview to promote the WWE 13 video game, Stone Cold Steve Austin suggested that CM Punk and John Cena are the ONLY two current superstars that could survive in the Attitude Era atmosphere.  Again, he was in character, but one has to wonder if he really feels this way.  I for one, am a fan from that era and I don't ever remember even the "cocky" heels running away from a fight.  Ever.  Take someone like Billy Gunn (a wrestler whom Ziggler is often compared to).  Gunn, for all of his flamboyancy and sexual innuendo, was never known to cower at the sight of even the most intimidating of men in the locker room.  Could you even picture it?

I'm not attempting to bury Ziggler, I'm just stating the obvious.  As a fan, it's frustrating to realize that what Steve Austin said may very well be true.  In my opinion, indie promotions like Ring Of Honor have become the new proving ground for toughness in North America.  The wrestlers there, good or bad, compete in highly physical matches and earn credibility just from being in the company alone.  You want proof?  Let's do a roll call of the "toughest" superstars on the current WWE roster:


NOTE: Since Triple H, Brock Lesnar, The Rock and The Undertaker are all part time superstars, I neglected to include them.


John Cena
Randy Orton
Sheamus
CM Punk
Daniel Bryan
Wade Barrett
Kassius Ohno
Antonio Cesaro
Christian
Ryback
Big Show
Mark Henry
Dean Ambrose
Alberto Del Rio
Rey Mysterio
Kane


Ok, now let's take away the superstars that have been around before 2008 (when the PG Era began):


Sheamus
Daniel Bryan
Wade Barrett
Kassius Ohno
Antonio Cesaro
Ryback
Dean Ambrose
Alberto Del Rio


Of those 8 talents, four of them made their names on the indies in brutal and highly physical matches before arriving in WWE. So that leaves only four talents that came through the WWE system that have a REPUTATION for toughness.  That's not a pretty sight.  The only reason I don't really mind it is because there are alternatives if you want to see more physicality.  And the WWE is aiming their product for a younger audience so one could understand the lack of blood in their program, but does that really mean you have to be a coward?  Cowardly heels are great and all, but how are we supposed to take Dolph Ziggler serious as world champion when he spent the last three years getting damn near launched through our TV screen and then running away?  I'm not saying Ziggler, The Miz, Kofi Kingston, Tyson Kidd and guys like that aren't great at what they do because they are.  This is more an argument for allowing them to prove their toughness to the audience and build them some credibility. 

And no this isn't the usual "OMGAWHD HOW COME THEY 'PUSH' GUYS LIKE SHAYMAHZ AND NOT GUYS LIKE TYSAHN KIDD!!!????" argument you always see on the Internet, but more of a question if this whole "PG" landscape is not only dull to the adult audience, but it also damn near kills most of the superstars' chances at gaining some real credibility.  Don't think you need to take a hell of a beating and come back for more to prove yourself to an audience?

Take this guy for example:

Colt "Boom Boom" Cabana

Colt like many a WWE superstar, is known as more of an entertainer.  But he's beloved at even the toughest of indie proving grounds because he has proven time and time again that he can fight with the best of them (take his terrific series of matches with Adam Pearce from this past year) when the time comes.  Could you see Santino Marella surviving "Seven Levels Of Hate"?

For those who are wondering, A face full of fire was only Level Six

In my closing statement I just want to reiterate that I am indeed a huge fan of the current WWE Era and Ziggler.  I'm just raising a very interesting point and as usual, I don't think any of you are going to hold back on your opinions.  So what's your take?  Do you think superstars can truly earn the respect of the adult viewers without taking some beatings like a man?  Do you think great ability far outweighs toughness?  If so, how far?  I want to hear your thoughts so let the debate begin!