[quote name='Genocidal']Am i the only one that feels the gimmicks of today's wrestlers just aren't as "good" or as strong as they used to be? It seems like these days, everyone who's been around for a while goes off of their reputation, and those who are new are simply "the new guys". The days of the Corporation/Corporate Ministry, DX, Mark Henry, Val Venis (pre-jobber), and Goldust just to name a few were great... they all seemed to stay heavy on their gimmicks, while today it seems like everyone just goes out and has a match; every character could easily be replaced.[/QUOTE]
I agree.. to a point. The WWE used to give people more time to settle into their gimmicks then they do now. Guys like Goldust weren't over right away... but the WWE gave him time and breathing room to develop the character and find an audience. You also have to remember that for every good gimmick wrestler, there have been about 10 painfully crappy gimmicks that barely made a blip on the wrestling radar (both the Rock and Steve Austin were stuck in horrible gimmicks for the first year or so of their WWE career).
That being said one thing I definately object to is the "Goldberg" introduction that every new wrestler seems to get. It used to be when you came into the WWE you slowly worked your ways up the ranks and lost more matches than you won, now every new face on the scene has to go undefeated for months before finally dropping some high profile match up. Honestly it gets tiring, it frustrates fans of established wrestlers who have to job out to these unestablished wrestlers in order to make them look credible.