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

[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?

 

[teampunk]

undertaker would have been pretty huge. his american badass character would have gone over pretty big. just not as big as the undertaker. kane, would have had a longer road, but he still would have gone over pretty big. big dudes always get the crowd pretty excited. and yes, paul bearer was huge in getting them over.

 

[gurvinder372]

Its a bit hard to say.
Over the last 2 decades Undertaker and Kane have proved that can play a character and make people care about them, so with a right character they would have made big in WWE.

Having said that Taker was playing a different character until 'Million Dollar Man' introduced him as Undertaker and shocked WWE universe, and Taker wasn't doing that well before he became Taker.

So, unless they had a solid character & debut as they are having today, I don't think they would have made big as they are today.

 

[gers09]

i think something would of came up for taker his american badass worked but no where near as big as deadman one but at same time had he not had been the deadman then his badass one could and probably would of been bigger than it was.

Kane a hard one he had a couple before kane and they didn't work but i think maybe something would of came up for him but i don't think he would be as big and as over as kane is

 

[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

 

[GameOver]

Thats a tough call, but certainly Taker has done more then just the Deadman, he's also been a biker and it worked. Kane has been an evil dentist and a parody of Kevin Nash.

So yes i think they could work without there Brothers of Destruction gimmick but i don't want things to change, that worked for decades and other then Kane getting caught up in a rut of permanent bridesmaid both guys characters have brought alot to the prgramming.

Neither Kane or the Badass Biker gimmick would've worked in the years that they debuted IMO.

 

[GameOver]

Its a bit hard to say.
Over the last 2 decades Undertaker and Kane have proved that can play a character and make people care about them, so with a right character they would have made big in WWE.

Having said that Taker was playing a different character until 'Million Dollar Man' introduced him as Undertaker and shocked WWE universe, and Taker wasn't doing that well before he became Taker.

So, unless they had a solid character & debut as they are having today, I don't think they would have made big as they are today.

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.

 

[Kodo Sawaki]

Without the gimmick, who knows...

Undertaker and Kane are pretty unique gimmicks and its questionable if they could manage to be big without them. Imagine Ryback as Skip Shefield and tell me if he would be big with that gimmick. Right place, right time and right gimmick and it payed to both Undertaker and Kane. Without that factors, who knows...

 

[lil bitch Kid]

Mark Callous, from a talent point of view, could have done anything. It all depends on what he was given instead of being Undertaker. If he'd been given the biker gimmick he took on later, sure, he could have done well. If he had been made Isaac Yankem, then no, which brings me to Kane. Look, the guy, Glen Jacobs, is talented, of course, but his success is directly attributed to the gimmick. When he was fake Diesel he used Nash's move set, but it was stupid. As Isaac Yankem, he was saddled with an idiotic gimmick. Now, as Kane, he started by mimicking Taker's move set, but unlike the fake Deisel, it had a great context. That being said, biker Callous wouldn't have been placed with Paul Bearer, and the Kane gimmick wouldn't have existed.

 

[SSJPhenom]

I agree with an above poster. The question as to whether or not 'Taker and Kane would've made it without their gimmicks is a pointless question and one that cannot be answered really. Let me put it this way; if the Undertaker and Kane never had those gimmicks, this is a conversation that we wouldn't be having.

I fully believe that without Paul Bearer, 'Taker, Kane, and even Mankind would never have gotten over to the extent that they did. Bearer was the perfect gimmick manager for the most unique character in the history of the WWE, the Undertaker. Bearer instantly got Mankind over by turning on the very popular Undertaker and aligning himself with Mankind. Also, the great promos that he cut leading up to the debut of Kane is something that instantly made Kane a player. It was a domino effect. Bearer helped put 'Taker on the map and by association with 'Taker, Bearer was able to put Mankind and Kane on the map.

Bearer did what a manager is supposed to do. Help put their guy over until the manager is no longer needed. Not only did Bearer do this with 'Taker, but he did it with Mankind and Kane as well and all three are huge names in the history of wrestling. Bearer just may be the greatest manager of all the times.

 

[CrucifiedRaven]

I will say... Undertaker, yes. Kane, no.

And I'm going to base this on what they've done in the past.

The Undertaker got over with the deadman gimmick. But his gimmick has constantly evolved over the decades. From this southern funeral worker, to the deadman, to the satanic demon, to the American Bad ass, and now back to the deadman/some combination of all of the above. Each version was unique in it's own way. And each version was super over. Even the contrast between his satanic demon character and the American Bad ass. He got over with both of them. So I'm comfortable enough to say that he is a great enough performer that he would have gotten over with any gimmick.

Kane on the other hand, no. He was given multiple chances with other gimmicks. Fake Diesel. Isaac Yankem. None of them had any lasting power. Until he was given the opportunity as Kane and he ran with it and has never looked back. But I think his past work and failures to get over without gimmick show that if it weren't for Kane, Glen Jacobs probably wouldn't have been close to as successful. I think I remember a shoot with Jim Cornett who mentioned that Glen was close to being fired and given the chance as Kane was basically his last chance to get over.

 

[tvcolosi]

Depends of the definiton used for success..

Kane did Memphis, and already in the WWF for 3 years or so as Issac Yankem and Fake Deisel. 6'10/330 and athletic, they would have eventually found some sort of persona for him.

Taker did World Class, Memphis and WCW/NWA, and was a moderate sucess already. "Mean" Mark Callius wasn't a household name. Although as a wrestling fan at the time, i knew who he was. He was going to be hired by Vince whether that gimmick came along or not.

Would they have been all time great like they are, maybe, likely not. But in the mid 90's any onr 6'8 that could wrestle at all was getting pushed too the moon.

Kane on the other hand, no. He was given multiple chances with other gimmicks. Fake Diesel. Isaac Yankem.

Not his fault, both of those gimmicks were doomed for failure. I see the oppisite side of your point. The fact they gave him those shots is because they really wanted to get him over. I cannot think of anyone who got 3 different gimmicks, without being fired and coming back.

 

[Saeros]

For me this is a bit of a silly question. You could ask the same about most people in WWE.

Would Steve Austin have had as much success if he wasnt given the Stone Cold moniker and given a chance to run with the no frills, bad ass character. Would John Cena of been as Successful if he'd been given a character like Luther Reigns or as one of the Basham Brothers.

Thats what a character is. Its finding that niche and running with it. Kane floundered as Issac Yankam and Diesel until they gave him the Kane character and he ran with it. You can't tell with Taker because he played Essentially the same character for 10 years with a few tweeks, and by that time was already hugely popular before he returned as the American Badass. Would he of been as successful playing that character from the off? Maybe, Maybe not.

Its all about finding the right character for the right person. Glen Jacobs wasnt convincing as Diesel, he didnt have the same cockyness and swagger that Nash did. Just like Luke Gallows wasnt convincing as the Fake Kane. And it wasnt entirely Jacob's fault really. The Fakes were doomed to fail from the moment they debuted and Issac Yankam was just silly...

And is the same with The Godfather. As Papa Shango, he was alright but he always looked uncomfortable and like he wasnt really there with the character. With Kama he improved but he still showed very little character and he still felt very stiff as a character. Then he became the Godfather and he made it work, he found his niche and everyone saw how charasmatic and enjoyable his character could be.

I mean Swap Nash and Jacobs. Would Jacobs of made Diesel work from 1993 onwards? Would Nash had made it as big as Jacobs had as Kane.

Thats why i believe the question is slightly strage. There are so so so many wrestlers that may of made it in the WWE given the chance to run with a certain character that were never given a chance or the right persona. It all depends on what Characters Calloway and Jacobs got given to them. As we saw, Jacobs failed with Playing a cool character, and with playing a bit of weird character. But with a psychopathic monster, he shone.

Luckily for them, and for us, Both Calloway and Jacobs got given amazing and in my opinion, 2 of the absolute best characters the WWE has ever produced.

 

[Papa Pillman]

Kane on the other hand, no. He was given multiple chances with other gimmicks. Fake Diesel. Isaac Yankem. None of them had any lasting power. Until he was given the opportunity as Kane and he ran with it and has never looked back. But I think his past work and failures to get over without gimmick show that if it weren't for Kane, Glen Jacobs probably wouldn't have been close to as successful. I think I remember a shoot with Jim Cornett who mentioned that Glen was close to being fired and given the chance as Kane was basically his last chance to get over.

So not getting over as "Fake Diesel" or "Dr. Issac Yankem" is Glenn Jacobs fault? If he could have made one of those gimmicks a long lasting success it would've been the greatest achievement in wrestling history.

It comes down completely to the viability of the gimmick. Give Callous or Jacobs a solid gimmick that fits their size, look, and personality and both had the ability to get over big with it. They proved that.

 

[donfryeismyhero]

I don't think so. Not because they aren't talented hard workers but sometimes, gimmicks DO matter. Taker in WCW as Mean Mark wasn't over at all although to be fair, he was green as shit in the ring & that may have played a big factor in that. Kane had a few gimmicks prior to being repackaged as the Big Red Machine, Issack Yankeem D.D.S. where he was paired with Jerry Lawler to feud with Bret Hart. They had some great matches but aside from that feud, no one cared for him. Then when Nash left for WCW, Vince thought anyone could pull off the Diesel gimmick, repackaged Kane for that & was proven wrong. Nash made the Diesel gimmick work, Glenn couldn't.

 

[CrucifiedRaven]

So not getting over as "Fake Diesel" or "Dr. Issac Yankem" is Glenn Jacobs fault? If he could have made one of those gimmicks a long lasting success it would've been the greatest achievement in wrestling history.

The question was would Kane have been as successful without the gimmick. It's impossible to answer a hypothetical question like this, so the only way to really answer it is to look at what they did without the gimmick. And the fact is that Glen Jacobs wasn't successful without the Kane gimmick.

While Mark Calaway has been successful with pretty much anything given to him in the WWE. Look at his American Bad Ass character and Crush's Disciple of Apocalypse gimmick. Not far off from each other. Both motorcycle riding, leather wearing bad asses. But the difference is that Mark is an extraordinary performer while Crush is just average.

It comes down completely to the viability of the gimmick. Give Callous or Jacobs a solid gimmick that fits their size, look, and personality and both had the ability to get over big with it. They proved that.

That's not the question. Obviously, yes they both got over with good gimmicks. Kane especially benefitted from it. The question is would they have been successful without it. Glen Jacobs, without Kane, wasn't.

 

[EastCoastFan]

The Undertaker and Kane characters worked, they got over with fans and that's why they were successful. Glenn Jacobs had runs in WWF as Isaac Yankem and the Fake Diesel, and neither of them ever really caught on. I'm sure Mark Calloway would have been a big star in WWF anyway, but probably not as big as he was as the Undertaker.

As for Paul Bearer, I remember reading an interview with him years ago where he said that reason WWF wanted to give Taker a manager was so they could have someone keep an eye on him on the road. Taker probably didn't need a mouthpiece, but Bearer added to the overall package. I don't know if the character of Kane would have ever been conceived without Bearer, though.

 

[Papa Pillman]

The question was would Kane have been as successful without the gimmick. It's impossible to answer a hypothetical question like this, so the only way to really answer it is to look at what they did without the gimmick. And the fact is that Glen Jacobs wasn't successful without the Kane gimmick.

While Mark Calaway has been successful with pretty much anything given to him in the WWE. Look at his American Bad Ass character and Crush's Disciple of Apocalypse gimmick. Not far off from each other. Both motorcycle riding, leather wearing bad asses. But the difference is that Mark is an extraordinary performer while Crush is just average.



That's not the question. Obviously, yes they both got over with good gimmicks. Kane especially benefitted from it. The question is would they have been successful without it. Glen Jacobs, without Kane, wasn't.

Obviously they would have to be packaged in some form. Glenn Jacobs with any packaging that wasn't a doomed character from the start(like a fake version of another character, or a demented dentist) would likely have gotten over and been successful.

The amount of changes that the Kane character has seen through the years proves that. Whether he was a stiff monster who didn't talk, the shift through the x-pac pairing, pulling off an unmasked version(who was at times both evil and more human-like), all the different divas he was involved with like the Lita angle for example, the Team Hell No/anger management angle; etc. whatever direction Jacobs has been asked to take "Kane" he has done it with positive results. That is a testament to Jacobs himself moreso than the gimmick.

 

[FlairFan2003]

Both guys have talent, but it takes drive, determination, luck, and most of all a great gimmick to become big. Isaac Yankem was never going to be anything but a bottom card joke. "Mean" Mark Callous essentially was "the other guy" with Sid Viscious, a guy who had a great look and parlayed it into a promotable gimmick.

Rocky Maivia was kind of boring, not nearly as "electrifying" as The Rock. I liked "Stunning" Steve Austin but he was never as big with audience as Stone Cold.

Certainly having charisma helps. Wrestling is full of guys who were athletic and could bounce around the ring but they never connected with the audience. Ric Flair & Tom Zenk were both smooth, athletic, in ring performers. One is a verified legend who has influenced some of the biggest stars to come after him, the other one basically was Tom Zenk, enough said.

Sometimes a guy needs an intial gimmick/storyline to get over and afterwards has the charisma and skill to remain big without the initial gimmick. I think both men had that kind of talent. Kevin Nash, formerly known as Oz and Vinnie Vegas, became famous as the brooding, menacing, body guard Diesel for whiny coward Shawn Michaels. Eventually he parlayed that into a successful in ring career that did well in his Diesel incarnation but thrived afterwards in the slightly more realistic Kevin Nash.

Bottom line, regardless of what gimmick/character it was, they needed something strong to establish them with the audience. Both of them had been around for awhile prior and niether had had much success.

 

[gurvinder372]

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.

For a professional wrestler, success could be defined a state when more and more people care & talk about your character, and want to see & anticipate every move of yours.

Also, I agree that being in WWE would have played a big role, though I guess there wasn't too much difference in popularity between WCW and WWF in 1990 (not sure, correct me if I am wrong).

 

[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]

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]

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]

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.