Post by bryce on Jun 30, 2009 11:06:21 GMT -5
This is a system I have always been curious about. Notably, what one must do to advance through the ranks and what significance it actually plays. From my experience going lower midcard - midcard - upper midcard has been easy as long you write consistently, however it is jumping to main event that is always the hardest. I guess this is just out of curiousity more than anything, but I guess what I'm asking is how is it generally determined when someone is ready to be main event.
I guess what brought this is up really is that at the moment there are quite a few people who have been in upper midcard for many months and as well there's Freeman who just moved up. Personally this raised my eyebrow, I mean no doubt Freeman has written borderline main event material over the past month - two months but he has still yet to really show consistently (before you suggest the past two months, his writing was very much on a VERY GOOD WRITING - NOT SO GOOD - VERY GOOD - NOT SO pattern). The way I see it it is the job of the main eventers to lead by example, carry the show on their back and show the other people what they have to do to achieve this. Then there's Freeman who even at his best has never really shown that consistency for more than a month or two, while you have Train who has written consistently and never done what Freeman has in between his little spurts for ONE AND A HALF YEARS and Mainer who's nearly as consistent for the past 7 months.
I guess what I'm asking is, BK what do you look for when you decide to move people up? Personally I can't quite see why someone who's got maybe a little more quality (or suits the style more...) but is EXTREMELY erratic in when they actually deliver is being moved up when a solid dependable person(s) is left behind despite proving for a lot longer that they can be relied upon and get the job done.
So yeah there's my ramble for the day >_>
I guess what brought this is up really is that at the moment there are quite a few people who have been in upper midcard for many months and as well there's Freeman who just moved up. Personally this raised my eyebrow, I mean no doubt Freeman has written borderline main event material over the past month - two months but he has still yet to really show consistently (before you suggest the past two months, his writing was very much on a VERY GOOD WRITING - NOT SO GOOD - VERY GOOD - NOT SO pattern). The way I see it it is the job of the main eventers to lead by example, carry the show on their back and show the other people what they have to do to achieve this. Then there's Freeman who even at his best has never really shown that consistency for more than a month or two, while you have Train who has written consistently and never done what Freeman has in between his little spurts for ONE AND A HALF YEARS and Mainer who's nearly as consistent for the past 7 months.
I guess what I'm asking is, BK what do you look for when you decide to move people up? Personally I can't quite see why someone who's got maybe a little more quality (or suits the style more...) but is EXTREMELY erratic in when they actually deliver is being moved up when a solid dependable person(s) is left behind despite proving for a lot longer that they can be relied upon and get the job done.
So yeah there's my ramble for the day >_>