Anonymous asked in SportsWrestling · 9 years ago

Has Stables in the Wrestling World Become Less Or More Dominant?

- Stables Like The nWo, Nation of Domination, The Corporation, Ministry of Darkness, And Other Stables Dominated The Company. But Today In WWE, Stable Like Legacy Went From Dominating to Weak.

- What Are Your Thoughts About Stables in This Era Of Wrestling (Not Just WWE, But TNA, ROH, And Other Companies).

4 Answers

  • 9 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    In the WWE stables are mid-card at best. The two stables the WWE has are filled with mid-card guys and rookies (Punk is the exception; he seems to be in one because of his "cult leader" gimmick and there doesn't seem to be anything else for him to do). The WWE..."revived" the stable gimmick in order to have something for the NXT season one guys to do. It was a good idea executed badly. Barrett is a good leader but at the time he had no credentials and very little credibility to be leading such an "important" group. Removing Barrett as the leader in favor of Punk was a good idea; it's the way the Nexus thing SHOULD have started; an established main eventer with lots of credibility leading the group of rookies. The Corre is just Smackdown's version of Nexus and exists only because RAW has a stable. Period.

    Elsewhere, stables are as they've always been. TNA has refocused their direction with stables as the core the company revolves around. AAA is all about stables; you have to watch quite a few shows just to learn all the players and which stable they're affiliated with, and alliances change pretty regularly; part of the fun of AAA is just keeping up with who's who in each stable. ROH has always had a strong and high-profile stable or two, though recently they have de-emphasized stables in favor of pushing individuals and tag teams. Pretty much every other promotion uses stables in some form or another.

    Stables are almost always bad guys and are formed to mirror real-life gangs, a group of amoral people who band together to prey on weaker individuals who can't or won't fight back, and to steal (in wrestling, they steal championships). Used "correctly" they can be interesting and fun to watch. The best example of "used correctly" I know is AAA. Konnan is the leader of the largest and most powerful stable but there are many smaller stables, as well. Some ally with Konnan from time to time, some fight him, and the players change affiliation based on which stable is best for them at any given time. A couple of examples of NOT "used correctly" are the nWo and Immortal. The nWo was an awesome idea when they started it. A small group of powerful heels trying to "take over". They ruined it by sucking up members right and left to the point the nWo got so huge they had to split it up into various factions fighting each other, killing the reason for having the nWo to begin with. Immortal started out the opposite way: so huge that nobody had a chance against it. So TNA corrected that by splitting the group apart which gave Immortal a very credible opposing force (Fourtune). TNA leveled the playing field by doing this, making the "fight" more even and giving us the sense that both sides will have to "fight hard" (or cheat hard) to gain any advantage. That's conflict, and that makes an interesting story.

    I've never been a huge fan of stables (mostly because of what WCW did with the nWo) but AAA, and now TNA, are doing it right.

    With a charismatic and credible leader who can speak well for the whole group, stables CAN be interesting and fun to watch. I don't think we'll ever go back to the old days when we had stables like The Heenan Family, Adnan Al-Kaissie's Army, Skandor Akbar's Devastation Inc, and Paul E. Dangerously's Dangerous Alliance (stables led by a charismatic motormouth as*hole manager) mostly because pro wrestling doesn't seem to breed managers like Heenan and Dangerously anymore. And without a manager steering the ship stables are just collections of heels who always end up fighting each other.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 9 years ago

    I believe stables do not work unless having a superstar as a leader and charismatic upper midcarders or in some cases main eventers . If you look at the greatest stables in wrestling history, the original NWO was led by Hollywood Hulk Hogan the most popular wrestler of all time with Scott Hall who was a very charismatic good technical wrestler, and Kevin Nash best big man on the mike in the 90's through early 00's ( I would put him ahead of taker). The whole stable taking over a company in almost a gang warfare had never been done, and really was perfect for the beginnings of the Attitude Era. The 4 Horseman had Ric Flair, greatest heel of all time in my book with legends like Arn Anderson, Tully Blanchard and Ole Anderson. The ministry of Darkness was a fresh new idea that fit well with taker's dark era as the Lord of Darkness, and the edgy group was perfect for the attitude era. Evolution may not have had a revolutionary idea, but had a great heel in HHH who was the face of Raw for the duration of Evolution, while having the legendary Ric Flair as yes man, the perfect enforcer in Batista and a rising Randy Orton. Today's main eventers just would not mix well in a stable except for CM Punk who with the Straight Edge Society I liked the Manson bearded millitant straight edge CM Punk. John Cena works for an antagonist to a stable, but could not lead, Taker is at a point in his career where having a stable makes no sense, Orton s pretty robotic on the mike to lead a stable, AJ Styles is better as a solo wrestler, Sting I suppose could lead a stable but will retire soon, and other main eventers could not lead a stable. Let's face it, the mid carders of today are in my book the worst batch of midcarders in wrestling's history since the days of Thez, Rodgers and Gange. Since mid carders of today have very limited charisma ( except for Santino), and the main eventers of today don't mesh well in their career stage with stables, I believe stables can't be dominant like they once were, thus they aren't.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 9 years ago

    In my opinion, it gotten weaker. You got Nexus who was Invading WWE last summer, it seems like they had the perfect storyline, but at Summerslam they have to lose. So it gotten weaker because they don't look strong, poor booking, and simply, sometimes you can't take them seriously. Let take another example Legacy. Randy Orton did his job to accomplish a Championship in the WWE Championship, but Cody Rhodes & Ted DiBiase fail to win the WWE Tag Team Championship. So it made Legacy a little weaker.

    My thoughts on Stables in this Era of Wrestling. I'm going to say the other companies are having up-and-down, some company are improving when it comes to Stables, some isn't.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 3 years ago

    surely much less dominant, maximum manifestly using fact of innovative, they only shop attempting to place over the perfect face and its starting to be much less and much less dominant for the forged, look on the Nexus and look at Evolution, Nexus ran wild for a pair of week approximately 3 months later they nonetheless had no championships by the tip of Wade Barrett's rule the only championship journey they had grow to be the tag titles, in general using fact they had John Cena. Then Evolution they ran wild for a while triumphing very almost each call earlier Goldberg got here, he pulled them aside yet interior the tip they disbanded using fact Batista left them to win the international Heavyweight Championship. BQ : TNA's are notably poor aside from important adventure Mafia, look at those : international Elite, Fortune, TNA Frontline, all had notably lots no championship cloth/journey. do not comprehend lots approximately ROH.

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.