In Pro Wrestling, EVERYTHING Has the Potential to Succeed.

[The Doctor]

This is a maxim that I hold true. Everything, from the greenest wrestler to the lamest angle, has potential. Now, there are going to be exceptions to the rule, but for the most part I believe that the statement is accurate.

It all comes down to execution. There is a way to get everything over if done correctly. Take, for example, Charlie Haas. On his own, he was floundering for the longest time. He was a talented performer yet no one cared about him.
And then, the impersonations started. Every week he would come out as a different wrestler...and it worked. He provided genuine humor to RAW and was over. When they stripped away that gimmick, he became nothing again.

For another example, try Mike Adamle. Adamle had so much wasted potential. He could have become anything from a great commentator to a very good heel GM. The man commentated for the Olympics, for goodness sakes. If only he had done research, he could have been great. They could have molded him into a General Manager who didn't care about wrestling or his job, or he could have become a bumbling fool. He was already over as an unintentional heel, they just needed to expand his character and give him a chance.

ANd for the most extreme example...Beaver Cleavage. That name brings forth memories of terrible gimmicks and major flops, but really it had potential to succeed. Not potential to be madly over, but as a comedy piece it could have worked. I actually found the gimmick to be hilarious and it was just never given the chance. Imagine if they had continued the vignettes and taken the gimmick to an extreme conclusion. It would have been Squicky, but it could have been damn entertaining as well.

I fully believe that no matter what it is, it can work. It all has to do with how things are executed and presented.

 

[Tenta]

An interesting read, Doc. And I must admit, it brightened my perspective on the ways of professional wrestling. To some extent, I'd have to agree with the ideals in which you profess in this thread. However, let's go through this together, and see if there's any measure I can find to disagree on.

This is a maxim that I hold true. Everything, from the greenest wrestler to the lamest angle, has potential. Now, there are going to be exceptions to the rule, but for the most part I believe that the statement is accurate.

I'll simply add one addendum to this rule of yours; For the Angle/Gimmick to work, the booker must create something in which the crowd can be emotionally invested in. The reason why Hulkamania grew to be so big was how invested we all were in this phenomenom in which we were all a part of. It wasn't just a fad meant for one or two members of the audience; we all were Hulkamania. Doc, you'll understand this, but it's partially why Lady Gaga's little thing of "Monsters" is working well. We feel a sense of belonging to the gimmick, and thus, we feel it is our responsibility to keep that thing going. I'm shocked by how loud of a reception Hulk Hogan and, in comparison, Lady Gaga get whilst on stage, or in the ring. It's almost as if the fans believe that if they don't cheer, their favorite performer is going to die, right on stage. People really do feel as though Hulk Hogan will die in the ring without your cheers. Thus, people become so emotonally invested, that they identify with the person who is performing.

Now, let's take The Gobbeldy Gooker. By your assertion, it had the potential to get over. By my assertion, I argue that if the Gobbeldy Gooker were to get over, he would have to make us feel invested to it. We'd have to be able to relate to that character, and feel as though we live vicariously throught that gimmick. As we know, Gooker failed, and it was because no one could get on board with it. It certainly was out there, and because we can't relate to it, we didn't pop for it.

It all comes down to execution. There is a way to get everything over if done correctly.

That, and what is booked for the viewer is relevant to the audience's life.

Take, for example, Charlie Haas. On his own, he was floundering for the longest time. He was a talented performer yet no one cared about him.
And then, the impersonations started. Every week he would come out as a different wrestler...and it worked. He provided genuine humor to RAW and was over. When they stripped away that gimmick, he became nothing again.

You bring up something interesting here. But the question I have is, Doc, Did Charlie Hass actually get over? Or, was this a case of a wrestler whom lived off earlier gimmicks, in which we were emotionally invested to, and to some extent, still are?

I'd argue Hass did nothing to make us care for Charlie Hass. All he did was provide gimmicks in which we used to care for, and thus, got over by proxy.

For another example, try Mike Adamle. Adamle had so much wasted potential. He could have become anything from a great commentator to a very good heel GM. The man commentated for the Olympics, for goodness sakes. If only he had done research, he could have been great. They could have molded him into a General Manager who didn't care about wrestling or his job, or he could have become a bumbling fool. He was already over as an unintentional heel, they just needed to expand his character and give him a chance.

Again, fair enough point, and I'd agree. It did have potential, but because Adamle couldn't relate to the fans, he was given the boot.

ANd for the most extreme example...Beaver Cleavage. That name brings forth memories of terrible gimmicks and major flops, but really it had potential to succeed. Not potential to be madly over, but as a comedy piece it could have worked. I actually found the gimmick to be hilarious and it was just never given the chance. Imagine if they had continued the vignettes and taken the gimmick to an extreme conclusion. It would have been Squicky, but it could have been damn entertaining as well.

Now here's where my critique comes in; Cleavage failed because no one related to the jokes. It wasn't too funny to make innuendos about his own mother, Doc. While it did have the ability to be unintentionally funny, incest is a taboo matter in society, and typically, people get really uncomfortable on the matter. It's why Paul Burchill and Katie Lea failed, and why Stephanie nixed an incestual gimmick between her and Shane, or even worse, her and Vince.

Which brings us to another critique I'd have: Matters of taboo in society will never get over. Blackface is never going to get over in wrestling now, because we're all uncomfortable with it. A supremacist will not be able to get over, as it is really uncomfortable. People can't relate to the gimmick, and are left to stew over what is, and always will be, a poor choice in comedy.

I fully believe that no matter what it is, it can work. It all has to do with how things are executed and presented.

Alas, you have my critiques. But overall, I'd say a very solid outset on the business, my friend

 

[Nitafrong]

In the general sense I think I would have to agree with you Doc, though as with Tenta I have to do so with some minor revisions. Clearly when the WWE or TNA for that matter come up with a storyline and put it into motion they wish these all to succeed but due to a number of factors they may do or they way fail miserably. However it is also clear that these storylines are not always equal. Charlie Hass's gimmick of impersonating other wrestlers is not accrued any of the same importance as Shawn Michaels need to beat the Undertaker at Wrestlemania for instance. Shawn’s storyline is supported by near constant hype video's on WWE programming as well as increased mike time between the two stars. In the case of the latter the WWE is doing everything within its power to make said storyline a success whereas much less support was given to the former as management didn't care as much about it.

Of course the support given by the management isn't a guarantee of success and the lack of it doesn't prevent some performers from breaking that glass ceiling. Certain wrestlers can make a particular angle popular and based on their popularity the management will give increasing support to them. Jeff Hardy for instance was unlikely to be a star that WWE would have liked to push post his second suspension and yet his popularity seemingly forced their hands.

So yeah I would agree with your overall point- that every angle does in fact have that particular potential to succeed- but their chances of doing so rely to some extent upon the management pushing said angle.

 

[The Doctor]

I'll simply add one addendum to this rule of yours; For the Angle/Gimmick to work, the booker must create something in which the crowd can be emotionally invested in.

Oh, absolutely. In fact, I have another thread planned talking about that.

Now, let's take The Gobbeldy Gooker. By your assertion, it had the potential to get over. By my assertion, I argue that if the Gobbeldy Gooker were to get over, he would have to make us feel invested to it. We'd have to be able to relate to that character, and feel as though we live vicariously throught that gimmick. As we know, Gooker failed, and it was because no one could get on board with it. It certainly was out there, and because we can't relate to it, we didn't pop for it.

Also very true. Gooker may be one of the exceptions to the rule. Or, it could have been executed a lot better. The main reason it flopped so badly was because of the disastrous way it was brought in. People were really wondering what was in the egg, hoping it was something fascinating or interesting...and it was a guy in a chicken suit.

If he was brought in better, he could have been a Hornswoggle-like character, or someone who made an occasional appearance. He could have gotten over with the kids.

You bring up something interesting here. But the question I have is, Doc, Did Charlie Hass actually get over? Or, was this a case of a wrestler whom lived off earlier gimmicks, in which we were emotionally invested to, and to some extent, still are?

I'd argue Hass did nothing to make us care for Charlie Hass. All he did was provide gimmicks in which we used to care for, and thus, got over by proxy.

And that's a point I'm trying to make. Haas couldn't get over until he got an interesting gimmick. He could run with the gimmick and both it and him got over. You say he was just channeling gimmicks like Hogan and Austin's, ones that we cared about, but what about the time he came out as CHL? What about Santa Haas? He got great reactions during both of those times and showed that he could take the gimmick of impersonation and run with it.

Again, fair enough point, and I'd agree. It did have potential, but because Adamle couldn't relate to the fans, he was given the boot.

Him not relating to the fans is what could have made him successful. He was already getting heat. If he had done either blatantly heelish things or did things to make him seem completely uncaring about his job, the fans would have boo'd him even harder.

Now here's where my critique comes in; Cleavage failed because no one related to the jokes. It wasn't too funny to make innuendos about his own mother, Doc. While it did have the ability to be unintentionally funny, incest is a taboo matter in society, and typically, people get really uncomfortable on the matter. It's why Paul Burchill and Katie Lea failed, and why Stephanie nixed an incestual gimmick between her and Shane, or even worse, her and Vince.

Which brings us to another critique I'd have: Matters of taboo in society will never get over. Blackface is never going to get over in wrestling now, because we're all uncomfortable with it. A supremacist will not be able to get over, as it is really uncomfortable. People can't relate to the gimmick, and are left to stew over what is, and always will be, a poor choice in comedy.

I totally agree. Cleavage needed modification. For example, what if the valet was his girlfriend? It would have been shock humor to be sure, as you wouldn't expect an old 50's TV show to have vulgar jokes and innuendo, but I believe it could have worked. And that's why it had potential to succeed.

No wrestler or angle is dead in the water. That's all I'm trying to say. Everything can work, even if it needs modification before it works.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

It seems that today more than ever, it is all about instant gratification. People want it fast and if you can't produce, then you are no good. Sometimes that comes into play when turning a character face or heel and not knowing when to pull the trigger. I'm going to use two wrestlers to illustrate this point.

Randy Orton turned face in August 2004 after he was kicked out of Evolution. That face run lasted for about six months until he challenged the Undertaker at WM 21. He hasn't been face since. His face run is considered to be a failure because he just wasn't believable. This is a case of pulling the trigger too early. Brock Lesnar leaving had something to do with it because they needed a new youngest heavyweight champion and that fell on Orton (If Hardy would have beat the Undertaker in 2002, he would have been the youngest heavyweight champion). It took Orton to get himself back together as a heel and his year-long feud with the Undertaker helped more than people think it did.

Batista's heel turn has been great as of late which makes you think why didn't they do it sooner. He was a face for almost five years with little character progression. When you look at the guy, he is big and intimidating. I never found a reason why I should cheer for him because most of the heels he has faced are smaller than he is. It looks from an outsider's perspective that he is bullying them and makes you want to boo him. How many faces Batista's size have had the success that he has obtained in the past twenty years or so? This is a case of pulling the trigger too late. He could still have some of the feuds now since he is a heel but just imagine how better they would have been two or three years ago.

Pulling the trigger too early or late on a wrestler's face or heel turn is very crucial to success. You want the fans to cheer or boo you with no middle ground in between. The days of Stone Cold are long and gone and being a face who does heelish things won't fly today. The higher ups need to listen to the audience because by the way they act, you know what to do with a particular wrestler. You don't want to go against the audience because if you do, you could hinder a wrestler's progress for a long time.

Like Doc said, execution is presentation are key. You have to present a character to the audience and make sure that it is believable. There is nothing wrong with being a comedy character like Haas was doing or what Santino is doing now. They know their roles and do them as best as they can and sometimes that is all what it takes.

 

[Blade]

In theory, I think you're spot on, Doc. It all comes down to context with the ideas put forward in professional wrestling. There have been instances where some angles failed the first time but were retried and were successful. The crucifictions in ECW and WWF spring to mind. There was a big backlash when the Sandman was crucified in ECW. He was put on an exact replica of a christian cross, and barbwire was put on his head as a replacement of the crown of thorns put on Jesus' head. But later, WWF had Steve Austin crucified by The Undertaker. He was crucified on the Undertaker's T symbol and it was one of the highest rated segments of the year. It was a renactment of Jesus' crucifiction, if was a unique crucifiction and it didn't get half the backlash that ECW got. Like I said, context.

But there are some cases where ideas are so bad that no matter how they're executed or in what context, they will fail. The Katie Vick/ Necrophilia angle could not have worked in a million years, no matter who was writing or booking it. It was just wrong and disturbing on so many levels. That was simply never going to work.

But you've gotta flip the coin. I mean, it's possible that in pro wrestling everything has potential to fail. If someone in 2003 had said that Goldberg would be facing Brock Lesnar at Wrestlemania 20, people would've pissed themselves. Two of the most intense badasses in the world beating seven shades of shit out of each other for 20 minutes? What wrestling fan wouldn't want to see that? But we know how that turned out.

So yeah, you can't have one without the other. Just as how all (or at least 99%) of stuff has potential to succeed, it all has just as much potential to fail

 

[Tastycles]

By and large, I agree with you, but there are exceptions. There are some things that are just totally lame and no matter how much of an effort is invested in them, they are going to be completely gash. Things like Gobbledygooker is a prime example. Hornswoggle can get over with kids because he is the same size as them, Gobbledygooker is more frightening than anything else. Stuff like Mantaur is in this category too, it's just stretching the audience's limits of letting loose too far.

The other exception to the rule is stuff that is just too risque. There are two ways that this manifests itself. The first is in the straight up tastless, and nothing sums this up better than Katie Vick. Nobody can get behind something like that. The other is things that may be popular, but are too risky for the storyline to pan out because some people may be too offended to follow it to fruition. This is why Mohammed Hassan didn't last, and why you don't get racists in wrestling.

 

[Blue Chipper]

Agreed with almost everything said in this thread. Any and every angle, gimmick, storyline, wrestler, etc. has the chance to succeed. A paralyzed wrestler has the chance to flourish, an incest angle has the chance to flourish, an 80-year-old emo gimmick has the chance to flourish. In fact, this is true in life as well, that a said thing has the chance to succeed, but that's another thread.

Professional wrestling is a unique animal. It's much different than any other entertainment product. The audience is the deciding factor on how successful something is, and anything can be over.

If it's booked properly, if it's marketed properly, if the creative team heeds the audience, it can succeed.

Alas, you have my critiques. But overall, I'd say a very solid outset on the business, my friend

I'm not saying this to be rude, or to act like I am a know-it-all, but the word "alas" isn't a synonym for "thus" or something, it means "unfortunately". Trivial, yes, but I see you use it a lot.

 

[Dagger Dias]

That's a very interesting thing to think about, Doc. Everything DOES have the potential to succeed. That doesn't mean it will though. Something terrible has the POTENTIAL to succeed.... let's take the worst possible idea for an angle in wrestling history.... how about Hornswoggle ending Undertaker's undefeated streak for an example of something absolutely horrible? Even something as awful as that has the POTENTIAL to succeed. It's potential is like 0.0000000001% or less of succeeding, but the potential is still there. Does that mean it's going to succeed? Most likely not.

Something having the potential to succeed and something actually succeeding are two very different things. No matter how good or bad an idea is for a match, angle, character, etc.... the potential to succeed is there, but the fans must also accept it and it's up to the wrestler(s) involved as well as the federation to make it succeed by living up to that potential to succeed.

Blade brings up another excellent point. Everything has the potential to fail as well. Most of us are excited about the Taker/Michaels rematch right? Even something as awesome as that has the potential to fail. Odds of it failing? Very low. It could still happen though. Like Blade said, people couldn't have predicted that Lesnar VS Goldberg would become the epic fail of a match that it was.

So yes, everything DOES have the potential to succeed because anything is possible, however anything could fail too. It's a very interesting topic to think about!

 

[Scotty]

Everything has potential to succeed, yes. Will it succeed depends on the amount of fans you appeal to, IMO. You could have the best gimmick in the world but if the majority fans do not accept you, then it will ultimately fail. Whether it be the gimmick of a racist or a loveable mentally handicapped man-child. They will both succeed, but the loveable mentally handicapped man-child will succeed more as more people can relate to him then they could a racist. Does that mean the racist gimmick fails? I wouldn't say that, because no matter how tasteless a gimmick is, there are actual people who are racists and will ultimately enjoy the gimmick. I do believe though that in Pro Wrestling there are no real failures, just things that succeed more then others.