Would The Undertaker and Kane been as successful without their gimmicks?

[HBsam31]

This is a tough question. As someone else mentioned Kane was saddled with some silly gimmicks before and he is kind of a gimmick driven character. I couldn't see Glenn Jacobs reaching that type of success without the Kane character. With the Undertaker it is really hard to say. He could of easily done something else and attained success with that. I agree with those that said Paul Bearer is also a driving force in the two of the getting so over. This was just a tough question to answer.

[shalliin]

Originally Posted by fouldsy91

As we all know, The Undertaker and Kane's gimmicks are two of the most famous in WWE history.

The Undertaker debuted in 1990 and Kane in 1997. But, my question is, without their gimmicks they were given do you think they would have had as much success as they had?

I'm not disputing their wrestling talent as for their size they are probably the two best ever. However, what if Kane was only a character for a certain amount of time like he was originally intended for, would he have had as much success as a repackaged character (he had already been several characters before this also).

And with The Undertaker, there was a rumour he was supposed to be in the egg what was supposed to be The Goobedly Gooker and being called "Eggman".

Another question that could be asked is would they have been successful without Paul Bearer?

So what are people's thoughts on this matter?

Ah, I think you're the only one to have heard this rumor, as Mark Calloway was always intended since Vince approached him to come in as the Undertaker. In fact, it was initially supposed to be Kane the Undertaker, an homage to the old west morticians. They dropped the Kane and kept the Undertaker, and finally tapped Glen Jacobs to flesh in the Kane character after his runs as Isaac Yankem and Fake Diesel.

I think Calloway could have been successful without the Taker gimmick, but liekly wouldn't have lasted as long as he has and certainly wouldn't have the history of the Streak. Jacobs likely would have bounced around a bit as he struggled to fit in as he really game in at a time when gimmicks were on the donhil slope and so called realism was coming in. This is not a nock against either as talent or skills, as I have long held that Taker is the best bigf man to ever step in the ring skill wise and Jacobs is up there in the top 5 to top 10 easily, though lets also be fair and admit that their gimmicks by nature limitted what they were capable of showing of their true skillsets in the early part of their careers. Certain more acrobatic or athletic moves had to be limeted and they weren't able to show mat skills as often as they have in later years. Early Kane would never do the low drop kick modern Kane does, and early Taker never used grappling or submissions hold except a few times a bear hug or sleeper against some of the massive people WWE had to bring in to show as a threat to him. He still had the ability to tombstone and shokeslam guys upwards of 400 pounds and though it isn't mentioned much, he did slam Yokozuna during some of hteir matches, something only Lex Luger was credited as being able to do.

[shalliin]

Originally Posted by Long Island Iced D

No offense but this question is kind of pointless/unanswerable. Obviously Undertaker and Kane are extremely gimmick driven characters. The Kane gimmick was only formed off Undertaker's. Only way to validate this question would to be suggest another gimmick. Although, Undertaker is the greatest gimmick character in wrestling history while Kane has to be top ten. So for a general hypothetical response, even if they both were successful, it is hard to believe they could achieve the equal amount of success. Then again, anything is possible.

The Paul Bearer question is very interesting. When Undertaker debuted, the WWE/WWF was filling with gimmick characters. While most failed, Taker lasted. I think Paul Bearer was the perfect mouthpiece for Taker and genuinly was just creepy and disturbing. So this question is a bit easier to give an opinion. I believe Bearer had a significant impact in Taker's career and allowed him to gain that original popularity. Taker kept his momentum going just by evolving his character over time. Paul Bearer is in my opinion the greatest manager of all time because he did what a manager is mean't to do, he put over his client until they were able to thrive on their own. Not only did the Undertaker thrive, he became one of the greatest of all time.

RIP Paul Bearer

Let's not forget Taker came in as part of Dibiase's Million Dollar team, and was originally given Brother Love as a manager. Love was being moved off tv and he brought in Bearer to take over as Taker's manager and that's when Taker really started taking off. once he had Paul, despite his role supposed to be a heel, he was forced into a face because of fans reactions and his silent charisma drawing people onto his side. It helped that Bearer was actually a mortician and so was able to add a lot of realism to the Funeral Parlor segments.

[shalliin]

Originally Posted by GameOver

Depends what you classify as a success, he was part of a Twin Towers type team in WCW managed by Teddy Long. and since it was WCW it's no suprise he didn't get much success, he was never gonna amount to anything like Triple H, Mick Foley, Steve Austin.

As a replacement for Sid in Skyscrappers with Dan Spivy. Before that he had a few roles as Punisher and Mean Mark Callous in Lawler's territories.

Don't forget that it sometimes takes a while for anyone to find that one role that let's them break out.

Before HHH, he was Hunter Hearst Helmsley a conneticut prureblood who came to the ring dressed like he was in the British Navy. Prior to that he was the same character but going by Jean Paul Levesque in WCW.

Everyone should know about Foley by now, but as a reminder he was Cactus Jack Manson, had some matches in WCW, and WWF at the time as a jobber, worked for a while in territories in Texas and south west, before becoming just Cactus Jack, then got the call and came to WWE as Mankind as a foil for Taker.

SImilar story for Austin, he was Stunning Steve in WCW, before that he spent some time in territories as a similar character, then with the situation in WCW changing went to ECW, basically created Stone Cold there, came to WWE as Ringmaster a supposedly unbeatable ring technician for Dibiase and then morphed into the Rattlesnake. (huh, both Taker and Austin 'brought' into WWE and worked for Dibiase.)

So it's almost impossible to wonder what if about taker and kane's gimmicks without wondering about these others. If Foley never became Mankind, but stayed as Cactus Jack, he likely would never be the legend he is now, one of the first things that also pops in my head when I think of HHH is the slop bucket matches he had against the godwins and seeing him getting backdropped into the pigpen.

[Jack-Hammer]

I think they'd have been successful. In some ways though, I think Kane's gimmick has held him back in some ways.

The Undertaker was something different that a LOT of modern fans hadn't been exposed to: a near 7 footer who was not only big & strong but pretty damn athletic. I know that when I was 10 years old, I'd never seen a guy walk the top rope, let alone someone of his size. Taker has always had a good look about him and a great presence that I think the Undertaker gimmick was able to fully exploit. Taker is also pretty good on the mic, especially for someone whose character doesn't really require him to talk. While some people didn't like his biker gimmick, I really enjoyed it. I think there was far more of his actual personality involved in it. Taker has the look, the presence and the overall aura to play a big, tobacco chewing redneck biker from Texas. He should as that's pretty much what he is.

Kane's gimmick is basically a spin off of The Undertaker's but with more than enough tweaks to give him his own individual identity. At the same time though, as I alluded to, I think Kane's character has sort of held him back. Over the past several years, Kane has demonstrated that he's really good on the mic. His promos during the time in which he was looking for the person who "attacked" his brother and during his WHC run were solid gold. He put great intensity & emotion into every one of them. He's also someone who doesn't get enough credit for being good in the ring, especially for a big guy. While he's not as fast or as coordinated as Taker, Kane is still someone who can consistently put on quality matches.

[Lariat Barrage]

I don't really understand the question. If you're asking if Undertaker and Kane would have been popular without being Undertaker and Kane, then the answer is an emphatic no.

Mark Calloway and Glen Jacobs wouldn't have been as popular without being known as Undertaker and Kane. Undertaker's one of the most famous characters the WWE's ever had. His streak at Wrestlemania's also one of the draws for Wrestlemania and has been for quite a while now.

Prior to Glen Jacobs being Kane, he was Isaac Yankem, DDS. And before that, he was Nailz, an escaped convict set to get revenge on Big Boss Man. Lets just say Jacobs is glad Kane was created.

So to answer your question, there's no possible way the two characters would have been trumped by anything else Mark Calloway or Glen Jacobs would have done.