WrestleZone Debaters League: All Star Game

[Gelgarin]

Yes Undertaker WAS extremely over the top, while he may have some elements about his character that still remains it is still a shadow of what he has done in the first decade he was around. Take the Royal Rumble where he was locked in a casket and raised up to the ceiling, that was major on the OTT factor whilst he doesn't do anything remotely similiar.

As for the Edge being sent to hell matter, lots of people were literally questioning it and going WTF? at the ridiculousness of it. This was one of the drawbacks of this current OTT factor of the Undertaker today, it doesn't shock as it once did, it's more questioning whether it takes certain elements too far. They certainly forgot it the moment Edge came back within four months of being sent to hell and winning the WWE Title, Edge even said he was sitting at home rather than sitting in hell making that element a failure.

So you concede that the conclusion to Undertaker's program with Edge was over the top. Given that your original claim was that Undertaker had become generic instead of over the top, I'll take that as you backing down.

Which you're exactly agreeing that it has phased out to a point where it's not getting over because the audience has changed as much as the WWE has. Wrestling in a way matured the moment the initials W.W.F. were removed from the product because it truly signified that it's not about being crazy and over the top, it's about simple entertainment.

Yet since the name change OTT characters have continued to be pushed, and have continued to be focal points of the show. The very fact that Boogyman and Eugene were pushed into programs with main event talent flat out proves that the product hasn't changed. I know you think that anything that didn't happen in the past six weeks in ancient and irrelevant history, but from the perspective of the real world that's simply not the case.

But at the same time, during the Golden age, we got wrestlers like HBK and Bret Hart who have been named as some of the greatest of all time and gave us some of the matches of the year. Hell, even Savage vs. Steamboat was more about technical skill and ability rather than the gimmicks and that was named the greatest ever wrestling match of all time! And we look at the 21st Century, when discussing about what matches are the best matches that have been, more standard style matches got named ahead of gimmick based matches because of the technical ability that the superstars provide when telling a story in the ring. We're taking matches and wrestling credibility more seriously than who has a better gimmick and certainly the OTT ones are not matching up to the bigness of the Undertaker.

I would question what the hell match types have to do with this debate, but instead of wasting time with that I'll just prove that you don't know what you're talking about instead.
This decade five of the past eight PWI matches of the year have had some kind of major gimmick attached to them. That number jumps massively if you extend your research to the late 90's.
Dave Meltzar has given WWE the match of the year award seven times in its history, and six of those have been for gimmick matches.
I don't see how this has any relevancy to the discussion in any case, but I'm always happy to help trim the fat.

Or maybe it's more we're learning that we're right in proving that you could not find an over the top gimmick on Raw right now?

And here we have your entire debate. There is no OTT gimmick on RAW right now (sans Hornswoggle) therefore there will never be one ever again. As memory serves there were no major over the top gimmicks in 1972... it still doesn't prove anything.
My side has proven that the popularity of over the top wrestlers fluctuates. We have proven that over the top gimmicks are still able to get over and we have proven that they are still getting pushed.

In contrast all you've achieved is to ignorantly and falsely claim that professional wrestling has been moving in the same direction for its existence (ignoring physical evidence to the contrary), and to prove that nobody with an over the top gimmick main evented last nights RAW. The past twelve months are not a solid indication of what's going to happen over the next hundred years, so the total amount of relevant information that you've managed to bring forward levels off around the zero mark.

WWE is currently based on entertainment and they're doing so from providing stories and giving moments to enjoy for the fans with Guest Hosts and the current build up to Bragging Rights to find out the top brand. Seems like the OTT gimmicks don't seem to be playing around much except for Undertaker giving a great promo in some smoke, wasn't anything OTT there even.

Really? Because the show I watched contained the Deadman talking about collecting wayward souls. Are you just going to start making information up now?

Getter the the less laughable part of your argument; you clearly still don't understand the question. We're not talking about now, we're talking about the future. What? Do you think that they're going to keep building the show around guest hosts forever more? The product undergoes constant makeovers, and you can try to cover your tracks by getting pissy all you like, but you still haven't been able to provide evidence as to why another OTT gimmick will never make it big.

Most of the updates on the main site have referenced about how even Stephanie has been disappointed and upset with Vince because of him wanting to go beyond storytelling and doing any means of pulling ratings outside of wrestling. Look them up.

No I don't think I will. You want me to swallow something then provide evidence yourself. Otherwise I'll treat it for what it is, second hand here say from an unreliable source quoting an unreliable source. Last I checked debates were still supposed to centre around facts.

You mean the big fat bald jobber who likes to show use his pyro skills everytime he enters the ring and has nothing booked for him? As said numerous times by all of us, Kane is a shadow of his former self and stopped being a full OTT gimmick the moment he did a Kanearoonie. Since then it's been the same mode that Snitsky and Mike Knox have filled. Great example there.

You see this is why nobody in the industry takes smarks seriously. You legitimately think that anybody who isn't main eventing Wrestlemania hasn't made it big. Kane has moved between the main event and the upper midcard for over a decade. Only six other guys in the entire company can match that record. Anyone who thinks he's nothing but a jobber clearly doesn't understand wrestling.
As for being over the top, I've already proved that. Sadistic torture and magic powers are over the top. Kane has dabbled in both recently.

And likewise, Undertaker had to reinvent himself to keep his character fresh by humanising himself and then going to a combined gimmick where people praise his ring work more than anything now.

If by people you mean you...

At the current moment the only thing that is rightly summed up is you're making complete assumptions out of nothing. You take a meer small factor out of posts and blow it out of proportion when you have nothing solid backing up your cause

Except logic, observational evidence and legitimate historical references.
You in contrast are spending your time trying to deny that a man you plays the character of "The Dead Man" and harvests souls is over the top. Trying to claim that people who have had played a major role on the show and been pushed over main eventers are nobody's. Making claims about the chaining nature of the product that don't stand up to scrutiny, and persisting with the week argument that the past six months presents a legitimate example for the rest of the WWE's existence.

I'm pretty happy with the way this is going.

Only during an era when gimmicks were solely focused on rather than being about wrestling matches. Wrestlemania 3 changed things from there as the storytelling became more of a focus.

Except Kane, Undertaker, Ultimate Warrior and every other over the top gimmick in living memory got over after that point. So Wrestlemania three clearly didn't change things.

Oh boy that has been the line of this debate. Can you actually name something that has been hugely successful out of these men that was successful and made them into the big main event superstars they are? Oh wait they haven't! Eugene got squashed, buried and fed to Triple H. Hornswoggle can't get out of a programme with Chavo Guerrero, Santino Marella and Evan Bourne, the local job squad of the current WWE product. As for Boogeyman, clearly he's a big success since he's still in the WWE...oh wait!

OK. Friendly advice. Sarcasm is only funny if you inject a certain level of subtlety into it, otherwise you just sound like a tit.

Anyway; Boogyman got pushed over two world champions at two of the biggest shows of the year.
Eugene was involved in frequent matches, angles and feuds involving HHH, Hulk Hogan, Kurt Angle and The Rock. Obviously, it wasn't the main event of Main so you'll dismiss it, but in my eyes when your fighting main event talent on the second biggest PPV of the year, that make you a little more than a nobody.

Then we get to Hornswoggle, the most consistent and successful non wrestling talent outside of Vince McMahon. He's an over the top gimmick. He's also hugely over with the kids, which as you have been kind enough to concede, is the target demographic right now.

So those three, with a little help from Kane and Undertaker, prove that OTT gimmicks are still getting pushed and can still get over. Why are we still debating again?

Evidence please?

Just gave it to you.

Given none of the Main Event outside Undertaker has an OTT gimmick and since they pulled the plug on Hassan back in 2007 and anyone else that has an OTT gimmick is not even on Raw (Hornswoggle has no OTT gimmick at this time) or Smackdown (excluding Taker), it's looking like that an OTT gimmick has no chance except to be stuck on ECW when it's clearly not causing the viewing figures to jump into the 3s and 4s on the Nielson Rating. If they were that big, they wouldn't be on ECW and despite them being there, they haven't improved the ratings at all on that show.

We. Are. Not. Talking. About. This. Precise. Moment. In. Time.

But thanks for doing some of my work for me. Hassan got pushed and got over. Proof that an over the top gimmick can achieve both. WWE had to pull to plug on him, but it had nothing to do with him not getting over.
It has happened before, it will happen again.

The simple act of watching proves they are not AS over the top as they once were.

Which would be great if 'is Kane as over the top as he used to be' was the debate question. But unfortunately it's now.
But thank's for conceding that Kane and Undertaker are both over the top.

Or more again your igorance to actually read the posts we're providing making up your own points here. So far I have seen Lee, myself, D-Man, FTS and GD all prove that we have mentioned the product has shifted and will continue to, but away from the OTT gimmick factors that dominated the 80s and 90s.

Which would be great, except I, unlike you, am aware that wrestling existed before then.

Low gimmick Thesz gives way for high gimmick Rogers/Rocca.
High gimmick Rogers gives was for low gimmick Sammartino.
Low gimmick Sammartino gives way for high gimmick Hogan.
High gimmick Hogan gives way for low gimmick Hart/Michaels.
Low gimmick Hart/Michaels gives way for high gimmick Austin.

The history of professional wrestling in the United States has been a constant fluctuation between gimmickry and legitimacy. If you limit your analysis to the past ten years then you can just about make the case that we're moving away from gimmickry right now, but any kind of realistic historical analysis shows us that if we are moving away, it's only to move back at a later date.

No no. The question isn't about wrestling changing, it's about whether an old school way of getting over can still be successful in the future and at the moment you have failed to provide anything of decent evidence to back your cause.

Undertaker is still over. Kane got over. Hassan got over. Hornswoggle got over. Gimmicks can still get over.

At this current time the key evidence is here. Two gimmick based superstars that have an OTT background got brought back in the past year; Goldust and The Hurricane. They both have been put on ECW and at the moment they have remained in constant limbo, not going anywhere or benefitting the cause. ECW has no improved ratings from their presence on the show and they're not looking to jump on board to Raw or Smackdown any time soon. Clearly this proves that the OTT gimmick, one that got over by beating The Rock cannot even get near the Main Event still despite returning to the praise of the fans. So while praise and being over on ECW is great they're not competing for titles at the moment, not even the ECW title, so well done there.

Christian came back recently to massive applause from the fans. He's been stuck on ECW since his return, and ratings haven't improved. This, by your logic, proved that wrestlers who aren't packaged with over the top gimmicks can't get over. How about Chris Masters, Orlando Jordon, Lance Cade, Shelton Benjamin, Charvo Guerrero, Snitsky, Carltio, Kennedy, Nunzio, Balls Mahonie, Kid Kash, Johnny Nitro, Paul London, Brian Kendrick and all the rest of the plethora of talent who haven't had over the top gimmick and have accomplished (by your standards) absolutely nothing. What do they prove?

It proves that right now the audience has matured and changed since the Hogan and Attitude days and they don't want an OTT gimmick dominating the roster

The audience has matured? A decade ago the WWE was pushing shock TV and courting adolescent and young adult males. These days they're aiming their product mainly at young children who pop for Hornswoggle. What to explain your logic a bit better?

I'm suprised you know of logic since most of this post by you made no sense at all.

That's untrue, but since you clearly can't present an argument based on facts I can appreciate why you're descending to this level.

I'm not going to repeat myself for a third time but you can clearly tell that Kane is barely even as over the top as he once was and is just another bad bald guy beating up people and Undertaker may be OTT at the moment but he is watered down for the PG era.

Good for you. Because every time you repeat that you only go to show that you haven't understood the question. Whether undertaker is more or less over the top than he was ten years ago holds precisely no relevance. You yourself have conceded that one of the most popular guys in the company is still over the top, so immaterial of how his character has evolved, he still proves my point.

So at this current time the logic of the Omega Team seems to be drawing itself out the window

You know when is a good time to make remarks like this?

Answer: Any time other than directly after you've accused your opponent of not making sense.

As much as society evolves, so does WWE and this is why there is a highly unlikely chance that an OTT gimmick will get over because any of the Main Event members of the rosters who use to have a big gimmick (not even remotely OTT) have dropped them to be credible members of the roster and it will continue that way as currently OTT gimmicks do not make Main Event Superstars in this current era of WWE.

And for the twenty seventh time. We're not talking about the current era of WWE. We're talking about the future. I've presented evidence that wrestling moves in cycles and I've presented evidence that OTT gimmicks still get pushed and get over.

You have presented a categorical list of ways to totally misunderstand what you are supposed to be debating.

I can guess where the smart money is going right now.

 

[D-Man]

You've actually broken a record. You helped prove my point in your 2nd full sentence.

During the original PG era of pro wrestling - the 80's and early to mid-90's, over the top gimmicks were more prevalent than they were in the attitude era. Hulk Hogan. Ultimate Warrior. Iron Sheik. Sgt. Slaughter. Undertaker. Tatanka. Repo Man. Okay, forget Barry Darsow, you get my point.

I didn't prove anything except that shit that happened 20 years ago seemed to work back then. We can refer to eras of old as much as we want, but it doesn't change the fact that we're in a completely different business now. I guess no one has noticed but Vince's product has been directly parallel to the trend of the times.

Prior to the 80's, television was a new product. Realism in wrestling is what sold tickets. Lou Thesz & Georg Hackenschmidt were real and began their careers having legitimate wrestling matches. But once wrestling started becoming scripted, realistic wrestlers were still the ones that were drawing most of the crowds. Sure, they had nicknames like "Killer" Kowalski and "Gorilla" Monsoon, but those nicknames were as prevalent as Floyd "Money" Mayweather is now.

When the 80's hit, television programming evolved and shows became more graphically enhanced. Hence, more cartoons and heroes appeared on television. So, Vince recreated this trend within his product. It became popular because that is what was popular on TV at the time.

During the 90's television evolved into shows "pushing the bill" and fighting against censorship. Blood, violence, and racy storylines ruled the TV airwaves. So, Vince did it, too. He mixed in some of his old and new, created a hybrid of over the top, violent characters.

Now, in the new milennium, television has reverted back to reality-based television. Audiences aren't interested in the same things that they were over the past 20 years. Superheroes like the Hurricane, villains like the Boogeyman, and cartoonish characters like Hornswoggle aren't an interesting in today's product. They are used as fillers because they have little to no shelf life. People only want to see real fights, real drama, and real situations with real characters that they can all relate to.

In closing, you guys can all sit there and compare today's product to shit that's gone on for the past 50 years and try to say that it will come back full swing, but that's only because it's your only defense against the fact that television, its audience, and trends are completely different now and will never go back to the way they used to be. If anything, some more hybrids characters will be created on WWE television, but most of their character will be based around reality.

I am arguing that the more PG WWE gets, and the more they target kids, the more colorful and gimmicky the characters will be. That's why two of the WWE's most popular guys lately have been Rey Mysterio and Jeff Hardy.

What is so over the top about Rey and Jeff? The fact that they are high-flying? Because they dress in outfits that contain colors that glow? You guys are trying to bring normal television characters down to the level of being "Over-the-Top" just to prove your side of the debate. There's a fine line between Rey Mysterio/Jeff Hardy and Kane/Undertaker. They're not even in the same league when pertaining to an OTT character.

Maybe not, but an Ultimate Warrior, an Undertaker? Hell, I don't consider Jeff Hardy over the top, but he's close.

How? Why? Explain this to me. Jeff Hardy is a rock and rock character type that paints his face and jumps off ladders to pulverize his opponents. THAT'S over the top?? That just makes him athletic and have a good taste in music. Once lightning bolts come shooting out of his ass, then you'll have an argument here.

At this rate, we'd have to consider that EVERY wrestler is over the top. The only things that you guys are proving is the fact that actors (wrestlers) are all over the top. Unless we can draw the line between the two different types of characters, we'll never get anywhere here.

How would these guys be considered, Normal Character or Over-The-Top?

Zack Ryder
William Regal
Batista
John Cena
Randy Orton
Christian
CM Punk
Edge

It seems to me that these guys are going to play versions of real people with the volume turned up in order to portray a character on television. Where do we draw the line as to what is "over the top"?? We have to figure this out...

 

[SK]

Before I dive into any rebuttals, allow me to throw in my argument.

There will be another successful over the top character in the WWE.
I see no reason why there wont be another successful over the top character in the WWE, through the past we’ve seen many attempts at OTT characters, some successful, some not so much. However, these over the top characters are very important in the WWE, look at Macho Man Randy Savage, The Ultimate Warrior, Mick Foley, Kane and obviously The Undertaker. This is a list of hugely successful over the top characters in the WWE spanning over 30 years with impressive résumé’s.

These characters have always been in the WWE and the ones who play their character well and can connect with the crowd, find themselves being pushed to the top of the card. Throughout this debate, I’ve yet to hear one coherent argument as to why there won’t be another successful OTT character, so far it seems to be the debate that there are no OTT characters and for some reason the WWE is turning into MMA? This however, is a bad argument, the WWE is still trying to push OTT characters and gives them chances, look at R-Truth, Kizarny, Kane, Undertaker, Goldust, they are not all disappearing, it’s just a matter of time before one of these characters becomes successful.

The Undertakers prolonged success shows that over the top characters can still be successful in today’s product, the fans love him, he can disappear, bury people, send lightening bolts, dim the lights and the fans will still eat it up. I think in the WWE’s case it’s about finding the right wrestler to be able to impress and connect with the crowd, they need someone who can pull off an OTT gimmick, like The Undertaker.

These characters are undeniably important to the WWE, they can forward feuds, give new dimensions to feuds and give creative some original ways to go with feuds and end matches. In the past this has always been the same, be it with successful or unsuccessful OTT characters. Can anyone actually give me a legitimate reason as to why there won’t be another successful over the top character in the WWE? Vince is constantly tying to push new gimmicks that are OTT, these characters have worked in the past and could easily continue to work with the right gimmick and wrestler to pull it off.

 

[gd]

Before I dive into any rebuttals, allow me to throw in my argument.

Let's get this party started.

There will be another successful over the top character in the WWE.
I see no reason why there wont be another successful over the top character in the WWE,

What about the fact they OTT gimmicks are usually jokes in the WWE today and that it is the more realistic characters that are the most popular now (Cena, Orton, HHH).

through the past we’ve seen many attempts at OTT characters, some successful, some not so much.

Mostly not so much.

However, these over the top characters are very important in the WWE, look at Macho Man Randy Savage, The Ultimate Warrior, Mick Foley, Kane and obviously The Undertaker.

None of those are very recent, and Kane isn't even OTT anymore.

This is a list of hugely successful over the top characters in the WWE spanning over 30 years with impressive résumé’s.

Which one of those debuted within the last 10 years? None of them.

These characters have always been in the WWE

Not recently, at least no successful OTT recently.

and the ones who play their character well and can connect with the crowd, find themselves being pushed to the top of the card.

Well, duh. Way to point out the obvious. Wrestlers who get over are successful, that is true for everyone. Recently, none of these have been OTT except for Taker.

Throughout this debate, I’ve yet to hear one coherent argument as to why there won’t be another successful OTT character, so far it seems to be the debate that there are no OTT characters and for some reason the WWE is turning into MMA?

I'm not sure about the MMA thing, but there are certainly less crazy/outlandish characters and more "realistic" wrestlers.

This however, is a bad argument, the WWE is still trying to push OTT characters and gives them chances,

This is a bad argument as well.

look at R-Truth,

His push has pretty much died in favor or Drew McIntyre, who is plain as can be.

Kizarny,

He got released after like a week.

Kane,

Used to be good, now just a jobber.

Undertaker,

The exception. He also debuted almost 2 decades ago, so isn't relevant as far as "today's stars."

Goldust,

Jobbing on ECW.

they are not all disappearing,

Some are still there, they're just irrelevant.

it’s just a matter of time before one of these characters becomes successful.

Proof? A lot of the argument of your side has just been speculation. "Well, someone will probably be OTT and good." That is an awful way to debate.

The Undertakers prolonged success shows that over the top characters can still be successful in today’s product, the fans love him, he can disappear, bury people, send lightening bolts, dim the lights and the fans will still eat it up. I think in the WWE’s case it’s about finding the right wrestler to be able to impress and connect with the crowd, they need someone who can pull off an OTT gimmick, like The Undertaker.

Obvioulsy Taker is the exception, not the rule. For whatever reason there was something about him that was able to click with the fans and be successful with the crowd. However, for every Taker, there are dozens upon dozens of Boogeymen and Spirit Squads.

These characters are undeniably important to the WWE,

Besides Undertaker, they are pretty much useless.

they can forward feuds,

So? Non-OTT wrestlers can do this just as easily. Even so, what does this have to do with the question?

give new dimensions to feuds and give creative some original ways to go with feuds and end matches.

What does this even mean? How can't normal wrestlers do this? What does this have to do with the question?

In the past this has always been the same, be it with successful or unsuccessful OTT characters.

Mostly unsuccessful, what's your point? The question is not whether or not there will be OTT characters, it's whether they will be main eventers.

Can anyone actually give me a legitimate reason as to why there won’t be another successful over the top character in the WWE?

Because there haven't been any successful ones in the WWE since Undertaker. Because most of the talent being pushed currently doesn't have any insane gimmick (Morrison, Swagger, Ziggler, etc.) Because they aren't as believable or shocking as they were 20 years ago. Because they are silly.

Can you give me a reason as to why there well be? I think not.

Vince is constantly tying to push new gimmicks that are OTT,

Like who recently?

these characters have worked in the past

Not for around 20 years.

and could easily continue to work with the right gimmick and wrestler to pull it off.

Sure, it could happen, I could also win the lottery. However, you have no concrete proof, it's all speculation.

 

[Gelgarin]

So... it seems neither Disarray or D-Man can summon up the strength to actually respond to my argument, which is a shame, because it quite nicely disproves a number of claims that they are still trying to get away with.

Let's run them down.

I didn't prove anything except that shit that happened 20 years ago seemed to work back then. We can refer to eras of old as much as we want, but it doesn't change the fact that we're in a completely different business now. I guess no one has noticed but Vince's product has been directly parallel to the trend of the times.

Prior to the 80's, television was a new product. Realism in wrestling is what sold tickets. Lou Thesz & Georg Hackenschmidt were real and began their careers having legitimate wrestling matches. But once wrestling started becoming scripted, realistic wrestlers were still the ones that were drawing most of the crowds. Sure, they had nicknames like "Killer" Kowalski and "Gorilla" Monsoon, but those nicknames were as prevalent as Floyd "Money" Mayweather is now.

When the 80's hit, television programming evolved and shows became more graphically enhanced. Hence, more cartoons and heroes appeared on television. So, Vince recreated this trend within his product. It became popular because that is what was popular on TV at the time.

During the 90's television evolved into shows "pushing the bill" and fighting against censorship. Blood, violence, and racy storylines ruled the TV airwaves. So, Vince did it, too. He mixed in some of his old and new, created a hybrid of over the top, violent characters.

Now, in the new milennium, television has reverted back to reality-based television. Audiences aren't interested in the same things that they were over the past 20 years. Superheroes like the Hurricane, villains like the Boogeyman, and cartoonish characters like Hornswoggle aren't an interesting in today's product. They are used as fillers because they have little to no shelf life. People only want to see real fights, real drama, and real situations with real characters that they can all relate to.

I have to laugh here. You spend a couple of hundred words posting a [highly flawed] look at the way the product in professional wrestling has shifted over the years, then try to use that as evidence that the product is never going to change again.
If you were in the 1940's you'd have been denying that George Wagner would ever catch on.
If you were in the 1950's you'd have been denying that Bruno Sammartino could ever carry an east coast promotion.
If you were in the 1970's you'd have been denying that Hulk Hogan could ever keep himself over with his limited in ring ability.
If you were in the 1980's you'd have been denying that that Bret Hart could become a major player in the wake of Hulkamania.
If you were in the 1990's you'd have been denying that Stone Cold Steve Austin would ever be deemed appropriate enough to build a TV show around.

Now we're in the new millennium, and here you are denying that we'll ever see an over the top superstar again, despite all the historical evidence pointing the other way. It's truly baffling.

What about the fact they OTT gimmicks are usually jokes in the WWE today and that it is the more realistic characters that are the most popular now (Cena, Orton, HHH).

Let the record show that Disarray still doesn't understand the question. What is over today is not what we're talking about. We're looking to the future.

None of those are very recent, and Kane isn't even OTT anymore.

Kane brutally tortures people and uses magical powers. We've presented examples of both already. Later on you're going to make a hypocrite out of yourself and accuse us of employing "an awful way of debating", so I'm just going to throw out there that it's probably a good idea for you to try reading earlier arguments, instead of posting drivel that's already been disproven.

Which one of those debuted within the last 10 years? None of them.

Kane legitimately debuted 12 years, got extremely over, and still has a major following despite frequently working as enhancement talent for the past few years.

Muhammad Hassan debuted 4 years ago, got extremely over, and still has a major following despite not working at all for the past few years.

Umaga debuted properly 3 years ago, got over, and got into the main event on multiple occasions.

You either have a really bad memory, or have blinders attached to your face if you think over the top characters can't get over in the modern era.

Not recently, at least no successful OTT recently.

And the last year matters more than fifty years of historical evidence because?

The exception. He also debuted almost 2 decades ago, so isn't relevant as far as "today's stars."

Was he on Smackdown last week? I do believe he was; ergo, he is one of today's stars. As I recall, he cut an extremely over the top promo that everybody has been raving about. Proof?

Proof? A lot of the argument of your side has just been speculation. "Well, someone will probably be OTT and good." That is an awful way to debate.

Coming from a side who have produced nothing beyond "there aren't many over the top superstars right now, therefore there will never be any ever again", the accusation of dependence on speculation is so comically hypocritical that I hardly know where to start.

Yes we're speculating on the future of the product, so are you. The difference is that we're backing our speculation up with over fifty years of historical evidence, and dozens of relevant examples of OTT characters getting pushed and getting over.

You in contrast are backing your speculation up with the events of the past twelve months, and judging by the way your team can't agree on whether the Undertaker counts as an over the top gimmick, I don't think you're doing a very good job.

Obvioulsy Taker is the exception, not the rule. For whatever reason there was something about him that was able to click with the fans and be successful with the crowd. However, for every Taker, there are dozens upon dozens of Boogeymen and Spirit Squads.

I'll take that.

ATTENTION EVERYONE!

A representative of the opposing team has just claimed that for every couple of dozen over the top gimmicks that get pushed, a couple will get over.
Since my side as already proved that over the top gimmicks are still getting pushed on a regular basis, this looks rather like to concession of the argument to me.

Besides Undertaker, they are pretty much useless.

At the rick of sounding like Slyfox, if you think Kane is useless then you don't understand the business. It's not real. Kane is the most valuable enhancement talent in company history (possibly sans Mick Foley). You do not have to main event Wrestlemania to be important.

Mostly unsuccessful, what's your point? The question is not whether or not there will be OTT characters, it's whether they will be main eventers.

Once again you might benefit from having actually read what's been said earlier. I presented a long and not even remotely comprehensive list of people with "realistic" gimmicks who have accomplished nothing with their careers over the past few years.
It has been pointed out to you multiple times in the debate that the vast majority of wrestlers don't get over, and you have yet to show any evidence that an over the top gimmick makes it any harder.

What happens to the majority is irrelevant. We are asked if an over the top character will ever be a major success, and you yourself have basically conceded that this will be the case.

Because there haven't been any successful ones in the WWE since Undertaker.

Lies.

Because most of the talent being pushed currently doesn't have any insane gimmick

Irrelevant, we're not talking about today, we're talking about the future. Hassan, Boogyman and the litany of other names we have presented prove that over the top characters are still getting pushed.

Like who recently?

Go read our posts.

Not for around 20 years.

Good grief... because nobody during the attitude era was over the top. Kane, Undertaker, Austin, Hogan and Mankind were all figments of my imagination then?
Do you even know what you're saying any more?

Can you give me a reason as to why there well be? I think not.

We already have, multiple times. May I go back to my recommendations that you read the thread instead of just skimming the most recent post and trying to contribute.

We will see such a character again because they have almost always been a part of pro wrestling. Because all the historical evidence shows that OTT gimmicks fluctuate in and out of favour with the crowd, and even in today's climate (which you guys have pointed out a few million times isn't very conducive to OTT gimmicks) OTT characters are still getting pushed and getting over. The WWE shows no signs of going anywhere so time is on our side.

Compare that to a strategy of ignoring every example you can't deal with, ignoring the evidence that is put forward so that you repeatedly make claims that have already been disproved, and in many cases totally ignoring the text of the question.

Sure, it could happen, I could also win the lottery. However, you have no concrete proof, it's all speculation.

Gosh! No concrete proof regarding what is going to happen in the future. I wonder why that could be? Perhaps I left my time machine at the dry cleaners.
And since you seem to be physically going out of your way to look like a hypocrite, I'll point out that you're depending on speculation as well.

We speculate that there will be another OTT character, you speculate that there wont. The only difference is that we speculate based on what history and logic show to be likely.

We can't prove what the weathers going to be like, or whether the sun is going to rise tomorrow. But we evaluate the evidence, we look at patterns and presidents, and we arrive at the mote likely conclusion. That's what is known as logic, and it's totally on our side in this debate.

 

[D-Man]

So... it seems neither Disarray or D-Man can summon up the strength to actually respond to my argument, which is a shame, because it quite nicely disproves a number of claims that they are still trying to get away with.

Let's run them down.


I have to laugh here. You spend a couple of hundred words posting a [highly flawed] look at the way the product in professional wrestling has shifted over the years, then try to use that as evidence that the product is never going to change again.
If you were in the 1940's you'd have been denying that George Wagner would ever catch on.
If you were in the 1950's you'd have been denying that Bruno Sammartino could ever carry an east coast promotion.
If you were in the 1970's you'd have been denying that Hulk Hogan could ever keep himself over with his limited in ring ability.
If you were in the 1980's you'd have been denying that that Bret Hart could become a major player in the wake of Hulkamania.
If you were in the 1990's you'd have been denying that Stone Cold Steve Austin would ever be deemed appropriate enough to build a TV show around.

Ah, Gelgarin... I knew a ridiculous insult would make its way over to my side of the room sooner or later... especially after mentioning anything that has to do with wrestling prior to 1980. And I'll rebut one of your statements when I get there. For right now, I was itching to take on one of IC's responses. I guess your views in the debate didn't seem to pose much of a threat to my side. However, if you choose to come direct, there's no way I'm gonna back down.

Now, although my "history" was flawed, that's because I didn't need to map out the details of each era as written by the encyclopedia, mighty Wikipedia, or the even mightier Gelgarin. I quickly gave a review just to get my point across. But in your typical debating style, the only way you could make a point was to put words in my mouth. Bravo for proving absolutely nothing. So, I'll repeat myself again, but this time I'll use words you can understand...

I was merely stating that the business has evolved. Methods of entertainment and characters in professional wrestling used in the past were nothing more than a one trick pony. OTT gimmicks and characters served their purpose when their existence was relevant. They all revolved around what was becoming popular on television at the time. The late 1970's and throughout the 1980's had cartoons and graphically enhanced heroes and cartoonish characters on TV, so Vince took advantage and created characters to mimic those icons. The 1990's were rebellious years that pushed censorship on television and the WWE took advantage. There was a place for over the top characters in those eras and they were popular because of their relevance.

In today's market, everything is based around reality. Reality TV, reality sports, scriptless television shows, shock-TV... all of these factors are being implemented in today's pro-wrestling product. An over-the-top and clearly ridiculous character is not going to be taken seriously in today's market. That type of character has been dying over the past 10 years and barely catching on with audiences. Furthermore, there is little to no evidence stating that the focus of the product is going to change.

Let's face it... people know that wrestling is fake. Even children know it now. They also know that if they want to watch characters, they have Saturday morning cartoons. But, in terms of wrestling, even children are looking for a television program based on sports that mimics reality. They want action, drama, and storylines that are dummied down to their young level. And as much as we think that characters like the Boogeyman and Hornswoggle is the ticket into their hearts, it's obviously been a failure. They didn't respond to those characters because they clearly don't care for them. This market may change some more over the years, but the one trick pony of OTT characters has taken it's last ride.

 

[Gelgarin]

Ah, Gelgarin... I knew a ridiculous insult would make its way over to my side of the room sooner or later... especially after mentioning anything that has to do with wrestling prior to 1980. And I'll rebut one of your statements when I get there. For right now, I was itching to take on one of IC's responses. I guess your views in the debate didn't seem to pose much of a threat to my side. However, if you choose to come direct, there's no way I'm gonna back down.

Now, although my "history" was flawed, that's because I didn't need to map out the details of each era as written by the encyclopedia, mighty Wikipedia, or the even mightier Gelgarin.

I humbly apologise. I appreciate that the luxury of 'knowing what you're talking about' isn't open to everyone. That being said, I maintain that if you don't have an understanding of an era then it's probably not a good idea to spew wildly inaccurate information, then get pissy when you're called out on it.
Let's cherry pick through your fantasy.

once wrestling started becoming scripted, realistic wrestlers were still the ones that were drawing most of the crowds.

Aside from the fact that wrestling was pretty much always scripted, let's pull up Matt Farmer's research (validated by Dave Maltzar in the August 21 '06 edition of WON) and take a look at the top draws for each generation.

1930-39 - Jim Londos is king, most likely drawing over a million people during the course of the decade. Wrestling was viewed as a legitimate sport, and all the top draws were legitimate athletes.

1940-49 - Jim Londos has dropped down the fifteenth position, and who's that eccentric young man sitting pretty as the second biggest draw in the world? Why I do believe it's the extremely gimmicky and over the top gentleman known as Gorgeous George. Even Thesz admitted that George Wagner was an accomplished wrestler, yet he chose to go the entertainment rout, because it drew better. Nobody from this era got more attenetion that Gorgeous George.

1950-59 - Looks like we've had a swing back towards the legitimate guys, because Thesz is back on top across the vast majority of the country. OTT characters are starting to gain some traction on the east coast (with Rocca fast approaching Thesz's numbers) but it's still a generation for the legitimate workers across most of America.

1960-69 - Oh dear, what have we here? Between 1960 and 1963, over the top heel Buddy Rogers managed to draw a bigger collective gate than any other star had managed in a decade. The east coast I mentioned now dominates the wrestling scene, and their high gimmick NWA champion is paving the way for things to come.

...

Or was he?

By 1964 Rogers had decided (quite literally) to have a heart attack, leaving a void open at the top. A void filled by legitimate athlete and gimmick free superstar, Bruno Sammartino. Looks like the crowd want a legitimate athlete again... my how wrestling fluctuates.

1970-79 - Interestingly enough, this generation has a tie for the title of best draw in the world, with the crowds split between the massively over the top Sheik, and the hugely down to earth Bruno. An interesting situation given that they both operated in the same area.

So... since you qualify your "time before wrestling became scripted" as being before the 80's, I feel fairly validated in claiming that you don't have a clue what you're on about.

In closing, you guys can all sit there and compare today's product to shit that's gone on for the past 50 years and try to say that it will come back full swing, but that's only because it's your only defense against the fact that television, its audience, and trends are completely different now and will never go back to the way they used to be.

You see I still don't understand how you can't see the irony here. The focus of the product has changed every generation. Hell, how long has this new PG kick been in force? You sit there, and look at a comprehensive list proving that that OTT charters have fluctuated in and out of popularly as time has gone by, and endlessly repeat "yes, but it's not going to happen this time". Methinks you're fooling no one but yourself.

I was merely stating that the business has evolved. Methods of entertainment and characters in professional wrestling used in the past were nothing more than a one trick pony. OTT gimmicks and characters served their purpose when their existence was relevant.

One trick pony? Time for me to bring in some more scary evidence.

Here is a list compiled by Dave Meltzar of the ten highest drawing superstars of all time.

1) Hulk Hogan
2) Ric Flair
3) Bruno Sammartino
4) Buddy Rogers
5) Steve Austin
6) The Sheik
7) Andre The Giant
8) Lou Thesz
9) Bob Backlund
10)Undertaker

You'll notice that of the ten best drawing wrestling in the history of the world, 50% of them used over the top gimmicks to get over. Better yet, let's look at the dates during which each of those five operated as major players in the WWE.

Buddy Rogers - 1950-1965
The Sheik - 1970-1980
Hulk Hogan - 1980-1990
Steve Austin - 1990-2000
The Undertaker - 1990 Onwards.

So, between 1950 to today's date, the WWE has pretty much always has a phenomenally successful over the top gimmick on its roster. I don't think a one trick pony can run solidly for sixty years, and Undertaker's success proves that OTT gimmicks aren't as irrelevant as you'd like to make out.

In today's market, everything is based around reality.

And of course the reality TV bubble isn't going to burst. Big Brother is pulling in half the ratings of earlier seasons (wikipedia if you're interested). Reality TV will die just like every other television trend in the entire history of the industry.

Furthermore, there is little to no evidence stating that the focus of the product is going to change.

You mean aside from the fact that's it's changed with every single generation in the past? Like I said earlier, I don't have an physical evidence that the sun is going to rise, but it's always happened before, so I make the logical conclusion.

Let's face it... people know that wrestling is fake.

People knew wrestling was fake during the attitude era. Didn't stop OTT characters getting over. It hasn't hurt Undertaker in recent years. It didn't stop Hassan getting over or Umaga getting into the main event. People knowing wrestling is fake is in no way a recent phenomena, and as such doesn't help your argument.

this market may change some more over the years

Bravo, another opponent concedes the debate. That make's 40% of the opposing team now.

D-Man just quite transparently admitted that the market is going to change. He thought he could get away with the concession by branding over the top gimmicks as being a flash in the pan one trick pony.
Unfortunately I have proven that over the top gimmicks have always been a key part of the WWE and that this one trick pony has been carrying a heavy load for almost sixty years.

Obviously with this in mind we can clearly see that over the top gimmicks are not going anywhere.

 

[D-Man]

I humbly apologise. I appreciate that the luxury of 'knowing what you're talking about' isn't open to everyone. That being said, I maintain that if you don't have an understanding of an era then it's probably not a good idea to spew wildly inaccurate information, then get pissy when you're called out on it.
Let's cherry pick through your fantasy.

My inaccurate information of history that happened years before I was a sperm in my father's fuck-stick really doesn't have much bearing on anything. If you paid attention you'd notice what my real point was. But, we'll read your banter anyway. After all, ball-busting is the only way that you seem to get your point across, so two can play at this game.

Aside from the fact that wrestling was pretty much always scripted, let's pull up Matt Farmer's research (validated by Dave Maltzar in the August 21 '06 edition of WON) and take a look at the top draws for each generation.

Once again, as I stated in my previous post, I must have misunderstood my "History of Professional Wrestling" DVD that I only watched once. My bad. But feel free to dig the knife even deeper. After all, your history lesson didn't make a point before. Why would it have a point now?

1930-39 - Jim Londos is king, most likely drawing over a million people during the course of the decade. Wrestling was viewed as a legitimate sport, and all the top draws were legitimate athletes.

1940-49 - blah, blah blah...

1950-59 - blah, blah blah...

1960-69 - blah, blah blah...

1970-79 - blah, blah blah...

Can I wake up now? Is it over yet?

You see I still don't understand how you can't see the irony here. The focus of the product has changed every generation. Hell, how long has this new PG kick been in force? You sit there, and look at a comprehensive list proving that that OTT charters have fluctuated in and out of popularly as time has gone by, and endlessly repeat "yes, but it's not going to happen this time". Methinks you're fooling no one but yourself.

What are the differences between all of the eras you listed in your history lesson and the past 40 years? Television and the scope of wrestling have all drastically changed.

In the "Golden Years", (do you approve if I refer to them this way?) television was merely used as a tool to raise awareness of professional wrestling to the public. It was broadcasted in its simplest form... it was a show that contained matches and few promos. But then again, television was also very simple back then. Just the concept of the new technology was enough to entice audiences. But professional wrestling was still relying on live events to generate dollars back then since not everyone owned a television in their homes. Over the top gimmicks didn't matter back in those days because people still believed wrestling was real (and gimmicks just made for more entertainment in the same way that Muhammed Ali entertained the boxing audience) and people were willing to watch just about anything, as long as they could see wrestling.

Fast forward to today's market where everything revolves around television. It's importance to the sport of pro-wrestling is obvious... wrestling promotions can't survive these days without it. Major wrestling corporations have shut down because they did not have a national television deal. Wrestling has evolved to completely be in correlation with what is relevent in today's television world. Like I explained earlier, the demand for heroes, special characters, and OTT gimmicks has severely diminished since television has gone in a completely different direction. Wrestling will continue to ride the coat tails of television and take its present trends into consideration when creating the wrestling product.

One trick pony? Time for me to bring in some more scary evidence.

Here is a list compiled by Dave Meltzar of the ten highest drawing superstars of all time.

You'll notice that of the ten best drawing wrestling in the history of the world, 50% of them used over the top gimmicks to get over. Better yet, let's look at the dates during which each of those five operated as major players in the WWE.

Buddy Rogers - 1950-1965
The Sheik - 1970-1980
Hulk Hogan - 1980-1990
Steve Austin - 1990-2000
The Undertaker - 1990 Onwards.

So, between 1950 to today's date, the WWE has pretty much always has a phenomenally successful over the top gimmick on its roster. I don't think a one trick pony can run solidly for sixty years, and Undertaker's success proves that OTT gimmicks aren't as irrelevant as you'd like to make out.

Aren't we debating on whether a new OTT gimmick will gain success in the future? According to your list, the only OTT gimmicks that exist into today are ones that have been recycled since the late 1990's. I'm failing to see anyone new on your list. We can go back and look at the past all we want, but unless all factors of today's trends and television stay the same, looking at the past proves absolutely nothing. So, to me, this proves my point better than it proves yours.

Big Brother is pulling in half the ratings of earlier seasons (wikipedia if you're interested). Reality TV will die just like every other television trend in the entire history of the industry.

Wow... now THERE'S some proof. Big Brother must be the benchmark of reality TV, huh. That's why reality television shows like Rock of Love on VH1 are breaking network records in ratings, Hells Kitchen just surpassed The Apprentice and became one of Fox's top rated television shows, and American Idol is still destroying every other show on television, being the number one show in the Nielsen's Ratings for five consecutive seasons. Not to mention that new reality shows and concepts are being created everyday on all of the different networks. Even channels like Food TV have caught onto the trend and boosted their ratings. But reality TV is dying, huh?

Like I said earlier, I don't have an physical evidence that the sun is going to rise, but it's always happened before, so I make the logical conclusion.

See? I can take your sentences, post them here, and take them out of context, too! Nice philosophy. But, considering the fact that this statement goes both ways in this debate (as proven by both of us) it's pretty much a moot point.

It didn't stop Hassan getting over or Umaga getting into the main event.

Was Hassan really considered over the top? This goes back to my original argument... we need to draw the line between who was considered OTT and who wasn't. I don't believe Hassan was anything more than a man of Arabic descent playing that kind of character. He didn't have special powers and he didn't come straight out of a comic book. There's nothing that can convince me that he belongs in the catagory of the OTT gimmick.

As for Umaga, I don't consider him main event. I consider him a guy that was pushed to the moon and no one gave a shit about. Then, once his time came and went, he was thrown out like yesterday's trash along with Eugene, the Boogeyman, Kizarny, etc...

D-Man just quite transparently admitted that the market is going to change.

I said the market might change. And then again, you might get struck by lightning tomorrow (I hope not... my remarks aren't personal, of course). Your all-star team might win this debate. But, I think that the odds of these things happening are pretty slim.

He thought he could get away with the concession by branding over the top gimmicks as being a flash in the pan one trick pony.

Unfortunately I have proven that over the top gimmicks have always been a key part of the WWE and that this one trick pony has been carrying a heavy load for almost sixty years.

Obviously with this in mind we can clearly see that over the top gimmicks are not going anywhere.

The only thing that you have proven was that history will repeat itself. If all factors remained the same over time, I would have no problem with agreeing with you. But so much has changed in television over the past 30-40 years that you can no longer make this assumption. Too many factors have changed over the years. And I'm not talking about the WWE's use of gimmicks... they've obviously been used redundantly and had their share of success in the past. But television is leaps and bounds above where it was a decade ago, the trends have changed, the market has changed, and the WWE's entire direction and landscape has changed. What's popular now is different than what was popular back then because television has dictated it to be that way.

So, how can anyone prove that things will remain the same? They can't, and that's why OTT gimmicks will remain in the market but never repeat their past success again.

 

[gd]

Let the record show that Disarray still doesn't understand the question. What is over today is not what we're talking about. We're looking to the future.

I think looking at this present can be very useful in

Kane brutally tortures people and uses magical powers. We've presented examples of both already. Later on you're going to make a hypocrite out of yourself and accuse us of employing "an awful way of debating", so I'm just going to throw out there that it's probably a good idea for you to try reading earlier arguments, instead of posting drivel that's already been disproven.



Kane legitimately debuted 12 years, got extremely over, and still has a major following despite frequently working as enhancement talent for the past few years.

All of this is true, but Kane has really been toned down the last few years. He hasn't done anything especially crazy or OTT since his inferno match with MVP.

Muhammad Hassan debuted 4 years ago, got extremely over, and still has a major following despite not working at all for the past few years.

Following from who?

Umaga debuted properly 3 years ago, got over, and got into the main event on multiple occasions.

He wasn't able to stay there though.

You either have a really bad memory, or have blinders attached to your face if you think over the top characters can't get over in the modern era.

I never said OTT wrestlers can't get over, they just don't make it big.

And the last year matters more than fifty years of historical evidence because?

Over the last few years, OTT characters have been less and less prevelant and none have been extrememly successful. The WWE is clearly changing, the company is pushing more and more guys who are more or less plain or generic superstars with a few, small things that give them some character. None of the young guys who have had success are OTT.

Was he on Smackdown last week? I do believe he was; ergo, he is one of today's stars. As I recall, he cut an extremely over the top promo that everybody has been raving about. Proof?

Apparently I didn't word that correctly. Obviously Taker is still extremely successful today and very OTT, but he debuted a long time ago. There are not any successful OTT superstars who have debuted recently that are near Taker level.

Coming from a side who have produced nothing beyond "there aren't many over the top superstars right now, therefore there will never be any ever again", the accusation of dependence on speculation is so comically hypocritical that I hardly know where to start.

Yes we're speculating on the future of the product, so are you. The difference is that we're backing our speculation up with over fifty years of historical evidence, and dozens of relevant examples of OTT characters getting pushed and getting over.

You in contrast are backing your speculation up with the events of the past twelve months, and judging by the way your team can't agree on whether the Undertaker counts as an over the top gimmick, I don't think you're doing a very good job.

The past 12 months? How about the past 10 years. There have been no OTT gimmicks close to Taker in that time period, and there aren't any now that aren't in the undercard.

I'll take that.

ATTENTION EVERYONE!

A representative of the opposing team has just claimed that for every couple of dozen over the top gimmicks that get pushed, a couple will get over.
Since my side as already proved that over the top gimmicks are still getting pushed on a regular basis, this looks rather like to concession of the argument to me.

Congrats, you were able to turn my words around into conceding the debate. Hundreds seemed like to high of a number, as there aren't that many wrestlers, so I went with dozens. But if you want to get so picky about it, how about I say for every Taker there are millions of unsuccesful OTT gimmicks.

At the rick of sounding like Slyfox, if you think Kane is useless then you don't understand the business. It's not real. Kane is the most valuable enhancement talent in company history (possibly sans Mick Foley). You do not have to main event Wrestlemania to be important.

Obviously Kane has been important, but he's hardly OTT anymore, as said before.

Once again you might benefit from having actually read what's been said earlier. I presented a long and not even remotely comprehensive list of people with "realistic" gimmicks who have accomplished nothing with their careers over the past few years.
It has been pointed out to you multiple times in the debate that the vast majority of wrestlers don't get over, and you have yet to show any evidence that an over the top gimmick makes it any harder.

What happens to the majority is irrelevant. We are asked if an over the top character will ever be a major success, and you yourself have basically conceded that this will be the case.

Randy Orton, John Cena, Triple H, Chris Jericho, Punk and Batista are all guys who aren't OTT as main eventers. In fact, all main eventers besides Taker aren't OTT, even if they were OTT as mid carders. This is about whether an OTT wrestler will be "big" AKA a main eventer, and the truth it they won't.

Lies.



Irrelevant, we're not talking about today, we're talking about the future. Hassan, Boogyman and the litany of other names we have presented prove that over the top characters are still getting pushed.



Go read our posts.



Good grief... because nobody during the attitude era was over the top. Kane, Undertaker, Austin, Hogan and Mankind were all figments of my imagination then?
Do you even know what you're saying any more?



We already have, multiple times. May I go back to my recommendations that you read the thread instead of just skimming the most recent post and trying to contribute.

We will see such a character again because they have almost always been a part of pro wrestling. Because all the historical evidence shows that OTT gimmicks fluctuate in and out of favour with the crowd, and even in today's climate (which you guys have pointed out a few million times isn't very conducive to OTT gimmicks) OTT characters are still getting pushed and getting over. The WWE shows no signs of going anywhere so time is on our side.

Compare that to a strategy of ignoring every example you can't deal with, ignoring the evidence that is put forward so that you repeatedly make claims that have already been disproved, and in many cases totally ignoring the text of the question.



Gosh! No concrete proof regarding what is going to happen in the future. I wonder why that could be? Perhaps I left my time machine at the dry cleaners.
And since you seem to be physically going out of your way to look like a hypocrite, I'll point out that you're depending on speculation as well.

We speculate that there will be another OTT character, you speculate that there wont. The only difference is that we speculate based on what history and logic show to be likely.

We can't prove what the weathers going to be like, or whether the sun is going to rise tomorrow. But we evaluate the evidence, we look at patterns and presidents, and we arrive at the mote likely conclusion. That's what is known as logic, and it's totally on our side in this debate.

Basically the debate has come down to your side saying that there is bound to be another OTT star as big as Taker in the WWE because the WWE is bound to revert back to an OTT gimmick company.

However, this cycle is not going to continue. As D-Man said, TV today is much different and more important to the WWE than it was in the past, and reality is what is the most popular. The product is clearly changing toward becoming more "realisitic" and OTT characters have no place in it, at least at the top.

Also, assuming the WWE will be around after 2012, the end of the world, is quite an outlandish statement to make.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

Was Hassan really considered over the top? This goes back to my original argument... we need to draw the line between who was considered OTT and who wasn't. I don't believe Hassan was anything more than a man of Arabic descent playing that kind of character. He didn't have special powers and he didn't come straight out of a comic book. There's nothing that can convince me that he belongs in the catagory of the OTT gimmick.

Couldn't resist.

Yes, Hassan was over the top. It wasn't as simple as him being a disgrunted man from Detroit who happened to be of Muslim or Arabis descent. It was a matter of him railing against policies, claiming political facism in his promos, and in the move that eventually led to his dismissal, being carried out of the ring like a martyr by men in ski masks. It is over the top similar to how Sgt. Slaughter, Iraqi sympathizer, was over the top by burning the American flag in the ring.

As for Umaga, I don't consider him main event. I consider him a guy that was pushed to the moon and no one gave a shit about. Then, once his time came and went, he was thrown out like yesterday's trash along with Eugene, the Boogeyman, Kizarny, etc...

I disagree. People gave a shit about him. He had a good series with John Cena, co-main evented one of the biggest and highest drawing Wrestlemania's in history, and helped put over a number of top babyfaces. He came and went because of his wellness policy violations, NOT his character.

 

[D-Man]

Couldn't resist.

You dick.

Yes, Hassan was over the top. It wasn't as simple as him being a disgrunted man from Detroit who happened to be of Muslim or Arabis descent. It was a matter of him railing against policies, claiming political facism in his promos, and in the move that eventually led to his dismissal, being carried out of the ring like a martyr by men in ski masks. It is over the top similar to how Sgt. Slaughter, Iraqi sympathizer, was over the top by burning the American flag in the ring.

But once again, here's that blurred line between what's over the top and what isn't...

If you recall correctly, Hassan began in the WWE as nothing more than an Arabic American informing people of his decent. Once the crowd received him as being a heel, Hassan's facial expressions and intentions on television became more heelish. As his character was more and more over as a normal heel, the WWE amplified his character to the point where he become over the top. He was successful because of who he was originally, not because of the OTT character that the WWE morphed him into.

I disagree. People gave a shit about him. He had a good series with John Cena, co-main evented one of the biggest and highest drawing Wrestlemania's in history, and helped put over a number of top babyfaces. He came and went because of his wellness policy violations, NOT his character.

He wasn't over... he was just shoved in our faces and no one caught on. He was a heel whose only purpose was to feud with main eventers. After his match with Lashley at WM was over he was tossed down into midcard feuds with CM Punk. His wellness policy violations were the documented reasoning for his departure from the company, but it didn't look like he was going much of anywhere before he left.

 

[Gelgarin]

My inaccurate information of history that happened years before I was a sperm in my father's fuck-stick really doesn't have much bearing on anything. If you paid attention you'd notice what my real point was. But, we'll read your banter anyway. After all, ball-busting is the only way that you seem to get your point across, so two can play at this game.

Once again, as I stated in my previous post, I must have misunderstood my "History of Professional Wrestling" DVD that I only watched once. My bad. But feel free to dig the knife even deeper. After all, your history lesson didn't make a point before. Why would it have a point now?

Can I wake up now? Is it over yet?

Wow. I think what we have here is a classic example of what psychologists refer to as an 'inferiority complex'.
I wouldn't get too worked up over it man; I don't begrudge you for being ignorant of wrestling history, I just don't like to see people making up information in the hopes that nobody will notice. That rather smells like cheating to me.

What are the differences between all of the eras you listed in your history lesson and the past 40 years? Television and the scope of wrestling have all drastically changed.

In the "Golden Years", (do you approve if I refer to them this way?) television was merely used as a tool to raise awareness of professional wrestling to the public. It was broadcasted in its simplest form... it was a show that contained matches and few promos. But then again, television was also very simple back then. Just the concept of the new technology was enough to entice audiences. But professional wrestling was still relying on live events to generate dollars back then since not everyone owned a television in their homes. Over the top gimmicks didn't matter back in those days because people still believed wrestling was real (and gimmicks just made for more entertainment in the same way that Muhammed Ali entertained the boxing audience) and people were willing to watch just about anything, as long as they could see wrestling.

That somewhat depends on what you mean by golden years. If you're talking about the original golden age when wrestling first started appearing on TV (the 1950's) then I approve of the terminology.

Unfortunately we then have the second golden age (Wrestlemania and Saturday Night's Main Event) and the Attitude Are which blow your theory out of the water. Television in those era's was just an integrated into society as it is today, and was equally (if not more) important to the WWE's business strategy.
What do the second golden age and attitude era have in common? Both were dominated by over the top gimmicks. Zing!

Fast forward to today's market where everything revolves around television. It's importance to the sport of pro-wrestling is obvious... wrestling promotions can't survive these days without it. Major wrestling corporations have shut down because they did not have a national television deal. Wrestling has evolved to completely be in correlation with what is relevent in today's television world. Like I explained earlier, the demand for heroes, special characters, and OTT gimmicks has severely diminished since television has gone in a completely different direction. Wrestling will continue to ride the coat tails of television and take its present trends into consideration when creating the wrestling product.

We'll we've already proven that Vince is still pushing OTT gimmicks, so at least part of this speculation is bull. If anything Vince is going in the opposite direction. He's courting children (the most open audience to OTT characters), whilst the vast majority of reality TV watchers are in the 18-49 year old demographic. He's going out of his way to play down the sports aspect of his programming, even discouraging the commentary staff from describing the talent as athletes (if wrestlezone is to be believed). He's ditching the fan interactive PPV (which never drew well anyway) which was the closest WWE ever got to reality TV.

Of course, all of this is immaterial since the product will have shifted again by this time next decade, but I'm too much of a grown up to simply type "blah blah blah" to get out of dealing with something.

Aren't we debating on whether a new OTT gimmick will gain success in the future?

Wow, you finally get it. Yes we are, and the fact that they have been successful at every single point in the past is pretty relevant.

Wow... now THERE'S some proof. Big Brother must be the benchmark of reality TV, huh. That's why reality television shows like Rock of Love on VH1 are breaking network records in ratings, Hells Kitchen just surpassed The Apprentice and became one of Fox's top rated television shows, and American Idol is still destroying every other show on television, being the number one show in the Nielsen's Ratings for five consecutive seasons. Not to mention that new reality shows and concepts are being created everyday on all of the different networks. Even channels like Food TV have caught onto the trend and boosted their ratings. But reality TV is dying, huh?

So your opinion is that the reality TV bubble is never, ever to burst. I'll admit, it does rather fit in with your view of the world (that noting is going to change, ever) but unfortunately it once again contradicted with logic, common sense and history.
The flame of the family sit-com burned out. Crash TV ended. Tell me, how's the traditional game show doing? In the UK reality TV has mostly been reduced to talent contests, and each of them only has a shelf life of a few years before having to be re-invented.

Tastes change with every generation. It happens with world views, it happens
with music and it happens with television. Pretending that the market is not going to change it burying your head in the sand.
Oh, and for the record, I never once said that it was going to die in the near future, that's you making up information again, I said the trend would end... lik every other trend since television began.

See? I can take your sentences, post them here, and take them out of context, too! Nice philosophy. But, considering the fact that this statement goes both ways in this debate (as proven by both of us) it's pretty much a moot point.

That didn't make sense... so evidently you can't. For one, you havn't proven anything yet. You've said that there isn't one now (when there is). You've said that there havn't been any recently (when there have). And you've said that there will never be one again (when there quite evidentially will).
Perhaps you're just 'making up' that you've proved something in the hope that nobody will notice. Start as you mean to go on and suchlike I suppose.

Was Hassan really considered over the top?

Yes. He was originally brought up by Lee and Phoenix, both on your side, both of who acknowledged him as an over the top gimmick. I just ran with what you guys gave me.
This is supposed to be a team game, so you could try and keep your arguments consistent.

As for Umaga, I don't consider him main event.

Did he fight in the main event?
I do believe he did.
Did he get victories over Triple H, Shawn Michaels and John Cena?
I do believe he did.
Was he involved in one of the biggest Wrestlemanaia matches in recent history?
I do believe he was.
Does your biased and manufactured opinion transcend fact?
No, I do not believe it does.

The only thing that you have proven was that history will repeat itself.

You know grammatically you've presented this as an statement. If you wanted to qualify it you should have used different punctuation. I mention this simply because you've been having such fun insisting that your being quoted out of context every time you get something wrong, that I thought I'd give you some legitimate ammunition for a change.

So, how can anyone prove that things will remain the same? They can't, and that's why OTT gimmicks will remain in the market but never repeat their past success again.

What an abstract conclusion. Over the top gimmicks will not rise again because you can't prove that things will remain the same... I have no idea how to argue with that.

____________________​

I think looking at this present can be very useful in

Did you intend to write indeed or something else?
Anyway, I never denied that the present can by useful what considering this question, you simply have to consider it along side the past.
In the present there is a hugely over character using an over the top gimmick.
At every point in the past since the company's existence there has been an extremely over character using an over the top gimmick.

Past - Check
Present - Check
Massive change in the past year - Nope
Future - not too hard to predict

All of this is true, but Kane has really been toned down the last few years. He hasn't done anything especially crazy or OTT since his inferno match with MVP.

Savagely torturing Ray Mysterio and using magic powers against Edge don't count because?

Following from who?

Smarks. We fucking love the guy. Seriously, do a search on his name and find out.

He wasn't able to stay there though.

Relevancy? The question just asks if they make it big, not if they stay there for a couple of generations. Cena has only been on top for a few years, but you wouldn't deny that he's made it big.

I never said OTT wrestlers can't get over, they just don't make it big.

Statistically almost nobody gets over, and you can't offer any evidence to back up the claim that an OTT gimmick makes it harder. Umaga and Undertaker made it big. Point disproven.

Over the last few years, OTT characters have been less and less prevelant and none have been extrememly successful. The WWE is clearly changing, the company is pushing more and more guys who are more or less plain or generic superstars with a few, small things that give them some character. None of the young guys who have had success are OTT.

And this presents a realistic model for the WWE for the rest of time because?
The golden age didn't last forever. Nor did the attitude era. Nor will this PG push.

Apparently I didn't word that correctly. Obviously Taker is still extremely successful today and very OTT, but he debuted a long time ago. There are not any successful OTT superstars who have debuted recently that are near Taker level.

Why does this matter? Most wrestling stars weren't watching in 1990. The WWE attracts new fans all the time, and Undertaker stays over. That is proof that the character can still get over in a modern environment.

Congrats, you were able to turn my words around into conceding the debate. Hundreds seemed like to high of a number, as there aren't that many wrestlers, so I went with dozens. But if you want to get so picky about it, how about I say for every Taker there are millions of unsuccesful OTT gimmicks.

You want to say that? OK. Please name a million unsuccessful OTT gimmicks.

...

...

...

I'm waiting.

Tell you what, why not raise the stakes. By your standards, the following people have failed to make it big.

Spike Dudley
Steven Richards
Bubba Ray
D-Von
Willaim Regal
Lance Storm
Chavo Gurerro
Tajiri
Bill DeMott
Tommy Dreamer
B-2
Matt Hardy
Test
Charlie Haas
Jamal
Shelton Benjamin
A-Train
Maven
Jamie Noble
Hardcore Holly
Hark Henry
Rhyno
Matt Morgan
Gregory Helms
Rene Dupree
Rico
Christian
Nunzio
Billy Gunn
Heidenreich
Daniel Puder
Kenzo Suzuki
Luther Reigns
Orlando Jordan
Scotty 2 Hotty
Simon Dean
Mark Jindrick
Viscera
Paul London
Brian Kendrick
Lance Cade
Trevour Merdoch
Snitsky
Finley
Kid Kash
Funaki
Psicosis
Sylvan
Carlito
Joey Mercury
Jonny Nitro
Tatanka
Super Crazy
Chris Masters
Kenny Dyksta
Sabu
Sandman
Kevin Thorn
Elijia Burke
Matt Striker
MVP
The Miz
Ken Kennedy
Chuck Palumbo
Kozlov
JTG
Shad
Mike Knox
R-Truth
Dolph Ziggler
Jim Duggen
Jimmy Wang Yang
Paul Burchill
Jack Swagger
Danny Basham
Doug Basham
Billy Kidman
Curt Hawkins
Jach Ryder
Primo
Chief Morley
Sylvain Grenier
Robert Conway
Kofi Kingston

Are you still going to try and say that the small number who failed with OTT gimmicks failed for that reason alone?

Very few of these guys had an over the top gimmick, and that's just from the past few years. Shall we take this as evidence that a realistic gimmick makes it ridiculously hard to get over, or shall we simply take the logical solution which is that most guys in WWE don't get over, and Boogyman's failure to forge a connection with the crowd has nothing to do with this debate?

Obviously Kane has been important, but he's hardly OTT anymore, as said before.

And I pointed out before why you were wrong, and you refused to deal with it.

Basically the debate has come down to your side saying that there is bound to be another OTT star as big as Taker in the WWE because the WWE is bound to revert back to an OTT gimmick company.

However, this cycle is not going to continue. As D-Man said, TV today is much different and more important to the WWE than it was in the past, and reality is what is the most popular. The product is clearly changing toward becoming more "realisitic" and OTT characters have no place in it, at least at the top.

Because PPV's didn't constitute a massive chunk of the company's gross income during the attitude era? (thanks Slyfox for the stats).
During the attitude era the WWE were drawing bigger numbers for their non mania PPV's. Summerslam of 1998 drew more buys than it ever has since. During the OTT gimmick era the WWE was pulling some of its highest ever TV ratings. If you think that TV only became important in the past five years then I'll have to ask where on earth you've been?

Also, assuming the WWE will be around after 2012, the end of the world, is quite an outlandish statement to make.

Nice. If I repped people for being funny then I'd rep this.

 

[D-Man]

Wow. I think what we have here is a classic example of what psychologists refer to as an 'inferiority complex'.
I wouldn't get too worked up over it man; I don't begrudge you for being ignorant of wrestling history, I just don't like to see people making up information in the hopes that nobody will notice. That rather smells like cheating to me.

That was actually my feeble attempt to act as immaturely with debating as you. I guess I failed... I'm too mature for this. Sorry. I'll go back to the style that's been doing so well in this league thus far.

That somewhat depends on what you mean by golden years. If you're talking about the original golden age when wrestling first started appearing on TV (the 1950's) then I approve of the terminology.

WOW... we agree. That's precisely what I meant.

Unfortunately we then have the second golden age (Wrestlemania and Saturday Night's Main Event) and the Attitude Are which blow your theory out of the water. Television in those era's was just an integrated into society as it is today, and was equally (if not more) important to the WWE's business strategy.
What do the second golden age and attitude era have in common? Both were dominated by over the top gimmicks. Zing!

No "zing" needed. This just repeats my claim that you're ignorant to my point. This can't keep going back to what was done in the past during a completely different time and age in television. I won't explain it again if you're too ignorant to understand it.

We'll we've already proven that Vince is still pushing OTT gimmicks, so at least part of this speculation is bull. If anything Vince is going in the opposite direction. He's courting children (the most open audience to OTT characters), whilst the vast majority of reality TV watchers are in the 18-49 year old demographic. He's going out of his way to play down the sports aspect of his programming, even discouraging the commentary staff from describing the talent as athletes (if wrestlezone is to be believed). He's ditching the fan interactive PPV (which never drew well anyway) which was the closest WWE ever got to reality TV.

So you want some teamwork? Here ya go... GD and I both said on MULTIPLE occasions that we aren't saying that gimmicks will disappear. We're simply stating that they won't be successful. You know, the topic of this debate? Hopefully you listened this time, pal.

Of course, all of this is immaterial since the product will have shifted again by this time next decade, but I'm too much of a grown up to simply type "blah blah blah" to get out of dealing with something.

Actually, it wasn't immaturity. I was sparing a completely irrevevant history lesson and saving space in the thread. The exact history of pro-wrestling isn't where my point was coming from and I already conceded that I made erroneous statements in regards to that history. But being the fine scholar that you are, you decided to pounce on me for it to make yourself look smarter than me. If it pertained to the subject at hand and represented some kind of importance towards the topic, it would've gained you points with the judges.

Wow, you finally get it. Yes we are, and the fact that they have been successful at every single point in the past is pretty relevant.

Already established... AGAIN. And once AGAIN, television and its audience are completely different during our present day. All that you're proving here is that just because something happened multiple times in the past then it's definitely going to happen again in the future. If that's the case, then look out world... World War III is just around the corner. After all, we've had two of them, right?

So your opinion is that the reality TV bubble is never, ever to burst. I'll admit, it does rather fit in with your view of the world (that noting is going to change, ever) but unfortunately it once again contradicted with logic, common sense and history.

Once you prove that it IS going to burst, I'll stop taking this stance. And let's not prove it by saying that other shows like it died out in the past.

The flame of the family sit-com burned out. Crash TV ended. Tell me, how's the traditional game show doing? In the UK reality TV has mostly been reduced to talent contests, and each of them only has a shelf life of a few years before having to be re-invented.

Looks like I saw this one coming...

The only thing that's concrete in this argument is that things change over the years and the old stuff dies out. Sitcoms and game shows died but were replaced by newer concepts of television programming. All you're proving is that reality-type of wrestlers may also fade away eventually, but it doesn't prove that OTT gimmicks will make a comeback. It just says that another breed of professional wrestler will be created.

Tastes change with every generation. It happens with world views, it happens
with music and it happens with television. Pretending that the market is not going to change it burying your head in the sand.

I'll admit, the market will change. But how does it prove that OTT gimmicks will make a comeback? Oh, this is where you start your "history repeats itself" speech and we chase our tails again, right?

Oh, and for the record, I never once said that it was going to die in the near future, that's you making up information again, I said the trend would end... lik every other trend since television began.

Really? Ok, let's go to the video tape...

And of course the reality TV bubble isn't going to burst. Big Brother is pulling in half the ratings of earlier seasons (wikipedia if you're interested). Reality TV will die just like every other television trend in the entire history of the industry.

Yeah you said it. I guess we’re both lying now, aren’t we?

That didn't make sense... so evidently you can't. For one, you havn't proven anything yet. You've said that there isn't one now (when there is). You've said that there havn't been any recently (when there have). And you've said that there will never be one again (when there quite evidentially will).
Perhaps you're just 'making up' that you've proved something in the hope that nobody will notice. Start as you mean to go on and suchlike I suppose.

It made total sense. I said that you take one sentence out of an entire explanation, put your spin on it, and make it look like its a false statement. It's easy to eliminate context out of a statement and quote to prove your own theories. You said:

Like I said earlier, I don't have an physical evidence that the sun is going to rise, but it's always happened before, so I make the logical conclusion.

I said it proves both of our points because I can't prove that OTT gimmicks will go away, but it's always happened before so I make the logical conclusion. The only difference is what I have been explaining... when it comes back it won't be as successful as it's been in the past.

Did he fight in the main event?
I do believe he did.

So did Funaki on Smackdown, once.

Did he get victories over Triple H, Shawn Michaels and John Cena?
I do believe he did.

You win some, you lose some. That doesn't make you "successful." That's WWE's attempt at making you successful. But the audience didn't buy it.

Was he involved in one of the biggest Wrestlemanaia matches in recent history?
I do believe he was.

Oh come on now... everyone and their mothers knew that he would lose that match. It was viewed as a joke at the time and a publicity stunt. You think he was put in there because he was "successful"?? I see it more like the WWE needed someone as tall and large as Lashley to trick the audience into thinking he posed some kind of a threat. That's not success... that's just an attempt at good scripting.

Does your biased and manufactured opinion transcend fact?
No, I do not believe it does.

My opinions are as biased and manufactured as anyone involved in a debate. Yours are no different. But thanks for pointing it out.

You know grammatically you've presented this as an statement. If you wanted to qualify it you should have used different punctuation. I mention this simply because you've been having such fun insisting that your being quoted out of context every time you get something wrong, that I thought I'd give you some legitimate ammunition for a change.

Honestly, this makes no sense to me. I must have read this statement about 10 times and I don't get what you're implied. Seriously... what are you talking about??

What an abstract conclusion. Over the top gimmicks will not rise again because you can't prove that things will remain the same... I have no idea how to argue with that.

What's so "abstract" about it? OTT gimmicks aren't working on pro-wrestling television these days so if things in television don't change, these facts won't either. Looks clear and concise to me.

 

[Gelgarin]

That was actually my feeble attempt to act as immaturely with debating as you. I guess I failed... I'm too mature for this. Sorry. I'll go back to the style that's been doing so well in this league thus far.

I'm sure it was. Would you like a hug?

No "zing" needed. This just repeats my claim that you're ignorant to my point. This can't keep going back to what was done in the past during a completely different time and age in television. I won't explain it again if you're too ignorant to understand it.

Your point was that over the top gimmicks stopped working because of the proliferation of the television into the industry.

Fast forward to today's market where everything revolves around television. It's importance to the sport of pro-wrestling is obvious... wrestling promotions can't survive these days without it.

The second golden age and the attitude era prove this to be wrong, since both happened when TV was an equally integral part of wrestling. Therefore your argument was incorrect.

Basically to summarise this little adventure. You make an argument talking about the past. I show that you don't understand what you're talking about. You run away claiming that history is irrelevant anyway.

So you want some teamwork? Here ya go... GD and I both said on MULTIPLE occasions that we aren't saying that gimmicks will disappear. We're simply stating that they won't be successful. You know, the topic of this debate? Hopefully you listened this time, pal.

Yet Vince keeps pushing them again and again. If only you were running the industry eh?

Already established... AGAIN. And once AGAIN, television and its audience are completely different during our present day. All that you're proving here is that just because something happened multiple times in the past then it's definitely going to happen again in the future. If that's the case, then look out world... World War III is just around the corner. After all, we've had two of them, right?

Have world wars been constantly happening? No they haven't. A better example would be predicting that the US will get involved in another armed conflict. They've been involved in one or two, more or less every year since 1950, so it's not a stretch to assume that they'll be in another.
There have been one or two OTT gimmicks in the industry every year since 1950, so it doesn't look like a massive leap of faith to assume that we'll see another one. Especially since they're still getting pushed and still getting over.

Once you prove that it IS going to burst, I'll stop taking this stance. And let's not prove it by saying that other shows like it died out in the past.

Why not? Because you don't have a counterargument. Every trend in television since the medium was invented has fluctuated in and out of popularity (with the possible exception of the shipping forecast, which was never popular).

The only thing that's concrete in this argument is that things change over the years and the old stuff dies out. Sitcoms and game shows died but were replaced by newer concepts of television programming. All you're proving is that reality-type of wrestlers may also fade away eventually, but it doesn't prove that OTT gimmicks will make a comeback. It just says that another breed of professional wrestler will be created.

Another helpful concession there. You concede that I have proved that reality based gimmicks will fade out of popularity. You are now contesting that what replaces them won't be reality based or over the top...

but how is that possible? Thing's are either over the top or they aren't. It's a binary state. If the non over the top characters fall then over the top characters are the only thing that can take their place.

RIGHT. TIME OUT.

D-Man is now trying to call me a liar, and misquote me to prove it. This doesn't sit too well with me, so I' going to present all the quote (without omission) in sequence, to bring his attempts to cheat (or lack of reading comprehension) into the light.

Reality TV will die just like every other television trend in the entire history of the industry.

Wow... now THERE'S some proof. Big Brother must be the benchmark of reality TV, huh. That's why reality television shows like Rock of Love on VH1 are breaking network records in ratings, Hells Kitchen just surpassed The Apprentice and became one of Fox's top rated television shows, and American Idol is still destroying every other show on television, being the number one show in the Nielsen's Ratings for five consecutive seasons. Not to mention that new reality shows and concepts are being created everyday on all of the different networks. Even channels like Food TV have caught onto the trend and boosted their ratings. But reality TV is dying, huh?

for the record, I never once said that it was going to die in the near future, that's you making up information again, I said the trend would end... lik every other trend since television began.

Now quite how the fuck this makes me a liar I'm unsure. I said something that D-Man has now conceded; that the reality TV bubble will burst. He miss-quoted me and claimed I was saying it would fall in the immediate future, I pointed out his mistake... nope, looks like I'm in the clear here.

There's still only one of us trying to make up information in this debate.

I said it proves both of our points because I can't prove that OTT gimmicks will go away, but it's always happened before so I make the logical conclusion.

No. My logic is this.

The Sun has always risen. --- OTT Gimmicks have always been a cornerstone of wrestling.

Nothing has changed.

The Sun will continue to rise --- OTT Gimmicks will continue to be a cornerstone of wrestling.

Your argument is;

The Sun has always set. --- OTT Gimmicks have always gone away.

Something has changes, though you can't settle on what/when it was.

The Sun will never rise again --- OTT Gimmicks will never rise again.

Can you see how my example makes sense and yours doesn't?

So did Funaki on Smackdown, once.

I thought it was Taka, and do you seriously think that those are comparable examples, or are you just trying to dodge the point?

You win some, you lose some. That doesn't make you "successful." That's WWE's attempt at making you successful. But the audience didn't buy it.

You said that he wasn't main event. I showed that he was beating main eventers in the main event. I won.

Oh come on now... everyone and their mothers knew that he would lose that match. It was viewed as a joke at the time and a publicity stunt. You think he was put in there because he was "successful"?? I see it more like the WWE needed someone as tall and large as Lashley to trick the audience into thinking he posed some kind of a threat. That's not success... that's just an attempt at good scripting.

Everyone and their mothers knew that Undertaker was going to go over in his last half dozen Wrestlemanias... I suppose they were all minor matches as well?

My opinions are as biased and manufactured as anyone involved in a debate. Yours are no different. But thanks for pointing it out.

Except I back mine up with actual examples.
You say that Umaga wasn't a main eventer because you don't consider him a main eventer.
I say that Umaga was a main eventer because he frequently competed in the main event against other main eventers.

See the difference?

What's so "abstract" about it? OTT gimmicks aren't working on pro-wrestling television these days so if things in television don't change, these facts won't either. Looks clear and concise to me.

Well for a start that's not even close to what you said;

So, how can anyone prove that things will remain the same? They can't, and that's why OTT gimmicks will remain in the market but never repeat their past success again.

And secondly, you've already conceded that things in TV will change, so it's rather a moot point.

The only thing that's concrete in this argument is that things change over the years and the old stuff dies out.

And for the record, even when you're conceding my point, you still get it wrong. The old stuff never truly dies out. Millionaire and Jeopardy prove that there's still space for a game show to make it big. Malcolm in the Middle shows us that the family sit com still has a couple of legs to walk on, and The Undertaker shows us that over the top gimmicks can still work in professional wrestling.

What goes around has a habit of coming around; and what stays around forever seldom vanishes off of the face of the earth for no reason.

 

[Phoenix]

Ok, I've had enough of this.

RIGHT. TIME OUT.

D-Man is now trying to call me a liar, and misquote me to prove it. This doesn't sit too well with me, so I' going to present all the quote (without omission) in sequence, to bring his attempts to cheat (or lack of reading comprehension) into the light.

Now quite how the fuck this makes me a liar I'm unsure. I said something that D-Man has now conceded; that the reality TV bubble will burst. He miss-quoted me and claimed I was saying it would fall in the immediate future, I pointed out his mistake... nope, looks like I'm in the clear here.

I'm sorry but the frick this is kind of statement?! This is coming from the one main person who has been infamously mis-quoting people for the entire debate and the moment it happens to him he throws his toys out of the cot. I know you're trying to provoke a reaction but resorting to these tactics when you've been applying the exact same tactics as D-Man did back at you is just low and I just hope you personally think twice about mis-quoting people before deciding to throw a hissy fit because it's being done back!

Basically to summarise this little adventure. You make an argument talking about the past. I show that you don't understand what you're talking about. You run away claiming that history is irrelevant anyway.

Again your hypocrisy is one I find ironic. You go about how we mustn't focus on the present to prove how the future works but the fact is you've decided to go down a further tense by showing how relevant the past is to impact on the future. YOU decided to talk about the past and it has proven nothing except how the OTT gimmicks have been phased out because nowadays, much like Undertaker, it shown in a blue moon.

As GD rightly stated, to look at the future we must look at current events, not the past. The past is the example of what has been, what has been successful, what to follow and what to avoid. This is the prime example of what the WWE is today, it's taken the elements of past and present builds to the future by taking out the irrelevant (OTT gimmicks) and focus on the important matters (Storytelling). Undertaker is current the only big superstar on the current roster who plays an OTT role, but when he's gone, there's no-one that can replace him or revive this gimmick of OTT-ness because it has been phased out. The reason why Undertaker is over is because he is a Legend who found fame through a certain gimmick, much like Hogan, Savage, Austin, The Rock and it's like how we can admire classics like Tom and Jerry because they're the rare jewels that come into our lives. But much like Tom and Jerry, outside of the original airings, what original programming comes out of television and the WWE? Answer nothing remotely similar because they phased out and the newer view on reality television has taken hold.

We have shows like Big Brother, The Apprentice, Strictly Come Dancing, X-Factor, American Idol, Britain/America's Got Talent, Ghost Hunter (or whatever it's called) and more, dominating our screens. While Big Brother is one that is phasing it out, it is because (much like OTT gimmicks), the formula does not work anymore and audiences are rejecting it to watch something newer and fresher which is exactly what WWE is doing because OTT gimmicks are a thing of the past, not the future.

There have been one or two OTT gimmicks in the industry every year since 1950, so it doesn't look like a massive leap of faith to assume that we'll see another one. Especially since they're still getting pushed and still getting over.

But the point of this debate is NOT about who gets over, it's about who gets big and currently outside of the Undertaker, all the OTT gimmicks get stuck on the midcard and then end up being future endeavoured or being a jobber for life.

Why not? Because you don't have a counterargument. Every trend in television since the medium was invented has fluctuated in and out of popularity.

No, television works by playing what's popular. When one item gets popular and viewed regularly by audiences, more follow suit. It's much like the movie business, the moment Ridley Scott made Gladiator, so many films based on Ancient Rome, Greece, Egypt, etc followed suit until it got dull and a newer subject or format took our screens. The same goes to television, it's why I have constantly said I was proud to be born in 1987 because it was the best time to be a child for the programmes to watch and I compare that to what the current kids have today and it's nothing like it because kid's interests have changes greatly. To me, nothing has matched my childhood in terms of kids TV and I feel sorry because the future won't provide such excellence that I got to see.

This is why WWE won't bring in another OTT gimmick to be big because the interest dies down, it's why John Cena evolved from a rapper into the people's hero, it's why Randy Orton evolved from the Legend Killer to the Viper, it's why Jeff Hardy evolved from a spot monkey to a ring worker and main event hero. In short, they have to drop the OTT factor to be taken seriously in the Main Event and actually survive there.

You said that he wasn't main event. I showed that he was beating main eventers in the main event. I won.

You say that Umaga wasn't a main eventer because you don't consider him a main eventer.
I say that Umaga was a main eventer because he frequently competed in the main event against other main eventers.

That's not what he said, he said he never stayed in the Main Event and never actually got pushed into the Main Event. Umaga only had one WWE Title shot on PPV and look what happened next? He spent the rest of the year feuding over the Intercontinental Title, so it's clear that they dropped the ball because Umaga may have got over, but he never got big. It's much like Snitsky or Kane, they try and be these over the top monsters, but the moment they have a chance to be that big superstar, they fail. There's a difference to getting over and getting big, which is what this debate has been about.

Best comparison to Umaga on this is Edge. Edge's big chance to get from the Upper Midcarder (which is what Umaga always was) into the Main Event was the Matt Hardy feud and he took that to the edge and tried to get that extra grasp, but something kept holding him back and what came that solidified his status as a Main Eventer? He became the Rated R Superstar. This was not an over the top gimmick, it was a gimmick that we could take seriously for a main eventer competing with the likes of Cena, Triple H, HBK, Undertaker, etc. He actually feuded with them and didn't just have one off matches and beat them and it was that gimmick that got him big and we now see him as a Main Eventer not a random midcarder who holds the belt. The same goes for Jeff Hardy, he finally got his Main Event spark and got the big moment by changing his ways and methods with facepaints and giving intense promos and he got what was needed to become WWE Champion, it's why Triple H refused to job to him, because prior to that, Jeff was a glorified Upper Midcarder that didn't have that extra spark in him to make him the big superstar we now finally saw at the end of 2008.

This is how the likes of Edge and Jeff Hardy got big where, in comparison, the likes of Umaga, etc got over but never got big because he didn't have the capacity to be big with that gimmick.

And secondly, you've already conceded that things in TV will change, so it's rather a moot point.

We all know TV changes, so don't act like it's a big thing that D-Man agrees it changes, because this is what is stopping any OTT gimmick from being big in the WWE. Because the product and audience has changed and looks differently at the product than the kids of the 70s, 80s and 90s do. Just look at the product since it went into 2001 and you can see that it wasn't about being OTT anymore, it was about being able to prove you can be the top man of the company by being what the fans support you doing. This is why Randy Orton had to wait a few extra years before we considered him Main Event material despite winning the World Title about 4 years prior to that. Again, he had to drop his "OTT" (if that) gimmick to solidify his ME status.

The old stuff never truly dies out. Millionaire and Jeopardy prove that there's still space for a game show to make it big.

Much like Undertaker, it's a format that can stay over because it got big originally. But what gameshows have since been as big for the past decade? Something like Deal or No Deal, that has been made big because it worked with the audience. Millionaire and Jeopardy stay around because it's a format that proved successful despite having a difference audience to today.

Malcolm in the Middle shows us that the family sit com still has a couple of legs to walk on, and The Undertaker shows us that over the top gimmicks can still work in professional wrestling.

Actually MitM only got over because Family Sitcoms were still big when it arrived, a null and void statement. Undertaker shows us HIS over the top gimmick still works in professional wrestling, not all, his own. That's why Undertaker is still big because he made that gimmick a success and made the adjustments to solidify his Main Event Status. None of the OTT gimmicks that have come and gone have been able to emulate that because despite the fact they can get over, they cannot get big because they don't have that spark to be big and in the Main Event. In order for us to accept a guy as a Main Eventer, they have to drop the OTT gimmick factor and evolve their character, it's why John Morrison is more popular than the over exaggerated Johnny Nitro, because he adapted his character to appeal to the fans and got over without being over the top, he dropped it to get there.

While it has saddened me that I had to personally go direct on Gelgarin for his tactics about this subject, it has still failed to show how an Over The Top Gimmick can be made big in the WWE. Currently there are existing OTT gimmicks that are over, but they are not big as the debate question asks. Undertaker may not be the full affect version of himself that we have seen but he has been able to keep his gimmick big because he got it over a decade ago and has been of a legendary status for so long, we accept his gimmick because it's what made him a legend. Why would we want to welcome Mark Calaway randomly coming down when it's the Undertaker that we want to see. It's much like seeing Hulk Hogan without Red and Yellow on him or Cena not being dressed up in the Sesame Street colours or Triple H having his sledgehammer. It's the factors that solidified those men in the Main Event and kept them big and factors their legendary status compared to those that have gimmicks but will remain in the midcard or get future endeavoured.

At this time the audience will not accept an OTT gimmick outside of the Undertaker as a Main Event Superstar because they want to see a legit competitor lead the company and represent it. You wouldn't want Doink the Clown as WWE Champion so why would they even bother now when OTT gimmicks have been phased out and the focus of the future is about the unique individuals that tell the story through their words, and their actions.

 

[Gelgarin]

I'm sorry but the frick this is kind of statement?! This is coming from the one main person who has been infamously mis-quoting people for the entire debate and the moment it happens to him he throws his toys out of the cot. I know you're trying to provoke a reaction but resorting to these tactics when you've been applying the exact same tactics as D-Man did back at you is just low and I just hope you personally think twice about mis-quoting people before deciding to throw a hissy fit because it's being done back!

Oh please spare me your manufactured indignation, it's not even a remotely convincing performance, and unless you're willing to back it up with some examples then I'm not even going to consider it part of the debate.
When I felt I was misquoted I presented a string of quotations to demonstrate my point. In contrast you guys are just using it as a get out of jail free card whenever you feel under pressure.

Tell you what Phoenix; you've got another 24 hours before this thing closes, please present me with a list of this infamous cheating I've been participating in. Please, I'm literally agog. If you can't then may I suggest getting over it, because I'm not buying this crusader of righteousness act.

Again your hypocrisy is one I find ironic. You go about how we mustn't focus on the present to prove how the future works but the fact is you've decided to go down a further tense by showing how relevant the past is to impact on the future. YOU decided to talk about the past and it has proven nothing except how the OTT gimmicks have been phased out because nowadays, much like Undertaker, it shown in a blue moon.

Untrue. I quite clearly acknowledged that the present day was relevant to the discussion. My objection, as I stated quite a few times, was your teams assertion that the present day was the "only relevant factor". You lot sat there for three pages of this debate with a thesaurus finding new ways to phrase the argument "there are no over the top stars today, therefore there will be none ever again".
History, as I have said countless times, shows that over the top gimmicks have been phased out of the product multiple times before and have always come back.

Has anyone on your side presented a valid reason why this time is different to when it happened in 60's or the 90's? Nope, the best attempt we've had was D-Man and his heavily adulterated history of television.

As GD rightly stated, to look at the future we must look at current events, not the past. The past is the example of what has been, what has been successful, what to follow and what to avoid. This is the prime example of what the WWE is today, it's taken the elements of past and present builds to the future by taking out the irrelevant (OTT gimmicks) and focus on the important matters (Storytelling).

But at no point in the WWE's history have OTT gimmicks proved irrelevant. 50% of the best drawing workers in the history of the industry have been over the top workers, and at least one of them has been a major star in the company since it's conception.
The only thing suggesting that over the top characters are irrelevant right now is you lot, and if I ask you to back it up you'll revert back to the "well there aren't any now... well, not many" argument you've been parroting for forty posts of discussion.

Undertaker is current the only big superstar on the current roster who plays an OTT role, but when he's gone, there's no-one that can replace him or revive this gimmick of OTT-ness because it has been phased out. The reason why Undertaker is over is because he is a Legend who found fame through a certain gimmick, much like Hogan, Savage, Austin, The Rock and it's like how we can admire classics like Tom and Jerry because they're the rare jewels that come into our lives. But much like Tom and Jerry, outside of the original airings, what original programming comes out of television and the WWE? Answer nothing remotely similar because they phased out and the newer view on reality television has taken hold.

They phased them out in '63 when Rogers had a fake heart attack, and again in '93 when Hogan was on his way out. Why is this time different?

But much like Tom and Jerry, outside of the original airings, what original programming comes out of television and the WWE? Answer nothing remotely similar because they phased out and the newer view on reality television has taken hold.

I can't say I totally grasp what your trying to say, but it looks like your once again trying to tell me that the WWE has stopped pushing OTT gimmicks (something that your team mates have been trying to distance themselves from). I've already proved this to be untrue so we'll move on.

We have shows like Big Brother, The Apprentice, Strictly Come Dancing, X-Factor, American Idol, Britain/America's Got Talent, Ghost Hunter (or whatever it's called) and more, dominating our screens. While Big Brother is one that is phasing it out, it is because (much like OTT gimmicks), the formula does not work anymore and audiences are rejecting it to watch something newer and fresher which is exactly what WWE is doing because OTT gimmicks are a thing of the past, not the future.

And these shows you list will be big forever? Of course not, people will get bored and turn to something else. Personally I think you've still to present any evidence that Vince spends his time trying to ape whatever is main stream (he didn't try to go after MMA, I don't remember him trying to incorporate elements of game shows or any other TV fad) The only concession to the trend I recall seeing was Cyber Sunday, which has already been canned.
What determines how the WWE product is going to change in Vince. If Vince thinks PG content is good for business then that's what we'll get. If Vince thinks that a show full of HiaC matches is good for business than that's what we'll get. If Vince thinks pushing over the top gimmicks is good for business (which he does) then that's what'll happen.

You keep telling me that the odds of one getting over are slim, but I've already proven with actual evidence (as opposed to just saying something and hoping you don't get called on it) that the same is true for everyone. I'd say that less than 10% of talent that gets pushed end up becoming a big star for any length of time. Umaga made it and Hassan was on his way, I don't think that that's too bad a record.

That's not what he said, he said he never stayed in the Main Event and never actually got pushed into the Main Event. Umaga only had one WWE Title shot on PPV and look what happened next? He spent the rest of the year feuding over the Intercontinental Title, so it's clear that they dropped the ball because Umaga may have got over, but he never got big. It's much like Snitsky or Kane, they try and be these over the top monsters, but the moment they have a chance to be that big superstar, they fail. There's a difference to getting over and getting big, which is what this debate has been about.

If you're involved in a PPV main event, are getting victories over the top names in the company (Including HHH, which they always save for special occasions) and are involved in the most heavily promoted Wrestlemania event in memory then you've made it bug. The think otherwise is a completely unrealistic standard to hold anybody to.

Best comparison to Umaga on this is Edge. Edge's big chance to get from the Upper Midcarder (which is what Umaga always was) into the Main Event was the Matt Hardy feud and he took that to the edge and tried to get that extra grasp, but something kept holding him back and what came that solidified his status as a Main Eventer? He became the Rated R Superstar. This was not an over the top gimmick, it was a gimmick that we could take seriously for a main eventer

Didn't he bring a bed to the ring and have fake sex on live TV? Because that sounds pretty damn over the top to me. Thanks.

The same goes for Jeff Hardy, he finally got his Main Event spark and got the big moment by changing his ways and methods with facepaints and giving intense promos and he got what was needed to become WWE Champion, it's why Triple H refused to job to him, because prior to that, Jeff was a glorified Upper Midcarder that didn't have that extra spark in him to make him the big superstar we now finally saw at the end of 2008.

So Jeff was made more over the top to get him over? Is this some kind of debate league heel turn? Because I don't need a sidekick.

We all know TV changes, so don't act like it's a big thing that D-Man agrees it changes, because this is what is stopping any OTT gimmick from being big in the WWE. Because the product and audience has changed and looks differently at the product than the kids of the 70s, 80s and 90s do. Just look at the product since it went into 2001 and you can see that it wasn't about being OTT anymore, it was about being able to prove you can be the top man of the company by being what the fans support you doing. This is why Randy Orton had to wait a few extra years before we considered him Main Event material despite winning the World Title about 4 years prior to that. Again, he had to drop his "OTT" (if that) gimmick to solidify his ME status.

I wound't consider Orton to be any more OTT now than he was then. He's a pretty larger than life character, but a bit too much of a grey area for me to use.
Incidentally, you're still using the backward logic of claiming that the product has changed, then expecting us to buy that it will never change again.
Even if OTT gimmicks are put on the shelf (which there is no evidence of happening) why will they never come back again? They did the last couple of times they started to fade.

If something worked well in the past then it will get reawakened in the future. Hell, right now WWE is hinting at bringing back War Games? You think there a significant market of 35 year olds who are desperate to see that concept watered down and resurrected? Of course not, but the idea worked in the past so they're going to try it again.

Much like Undertaker, it's a format that can stay over because it got big originally. But what gameshows have since been as big for the past decade? Something like Deal or No Deal, that has been made big because it worked with the audience. Millionaire and Jeopardy stay around because it's a format that proved successful despite having a difference audience to today.

Deal or no Deal and are you smarter than a ten year old are the only once I can think of over the past few years, but then I'd rather take a soldering iron to the rectum that watch a game show. My point is that concept existed for a while, there was a buzz for a while, then it ended. Even after that point though, the concept still comes round again on a regular basis (in both old and new incarnations) and is still easily capable of making it big.

Why you've made me spend a perfectly good paragraph talking about mother fucking gameshows is a mystery we will have to leave for another day.

Mostly because I don't want to debate sit-coms with you, I'll willingly drop the Malcolm in the middle example. I didn't watch it, I was just trying to present a US friendly example. I'm confident some have come round since the family sit com fell from grace.

None of the OTT gimmicks that have come and gone have been able to emulate that because despite the fact they can get over, they cannot get big because they don't have that spark to be big and in the Main Event. In order for us to accept a guy as a Main Eventer, they have to drop the OTT gimmick factor and evolve their character, it's why John Morrison is more popular than the over exaggerated Johnny Nitro, because he adapted his character to appeal to the fans and got over without being over the top, he dropped it to get there.

Or maybe it had something to do with him getting pushed. It's funny the correlation those two often show.

While it has saddened me that I had to personally go direct on Gelgarin for his tactics about this subject, it has still failed to show how an Over The Top Gimmick can be made big in the WWE.

I don't have to. Kane, Undertaker, Hogan, Hassan, Savage, Warrior, and Umaga have already done it for me.

Currently there are existing OTT gimmicks that are over, but they are not big as the debate question asks.

I see your team is still having trouble with the question. At no point does it attach any qualifying statements to the word "big". We've presented a very realistic standpoint that making it big happens when you start main eventing PPVs and knocking off main eventers. You're pretending to disagree with this because otherwise it totally sinks your argument.

Undertaker may not be the full affect version of himself that we have seen but he has been able to keep his gimmick big because he got it over a decade ago and has been of a legendary status for so long, we accept his gimmick because it's what made him a legend.

Let me get this straight? The legions of new fans, frequently of very young age, who swarm to the WWE every year like the Undertaker because he got over before they were born? Doesn't sound very likely to me. More probably is that they like him because he's extremely cool, and phenomenal talent, and is working arguably the most popular gimmick (Sans Hogan) in the history of professional wrestling.

Why would we want to welcome Mark Calaway randomly coming down when it's the Undertaker that we want to see.

We wouldn't, because his over the top gimmick is over in today's product. Thankyou.

At this time the audience will not accept an OTT gimmick outside of the Undertaker as a Main Event Superstar because they want to see a legit competitor lead the company and represent it.

Sure they do. The ratings are secretly being carried by smarks who want to see Shelton Benjamin rise to prominence. WWE gave up on the people who want to see legit workers because most of them are deserting to MMA (Even Vince admitted in a recent interview that fans who want legitimate performers know where to go).
The WWE is targeting kids right now, hence the PG era, and that provides no reason for them to stop pushing over the top gimmicks.

This is why they haven't.

This is why they won't.

Easy.

 

[Phoenix]

In Summary

With the deadline nearly upon us, I feel it's time to wrap it all up.

Firstly, I want to say while it's been a blast doing this All Star Debate, I do wish we had seen more of the Omega Team in action but I want to extend my hand to Gelgarin for being a spirited fighter of the team. Judges, I hope you will be ok with judging this as you will have a lot to read but big kudos to everyone involved this week and those who will judge this.

What we have learned

We have learned that when it comes to comparison the past and present to get our view of the future, we get a lot of clashes of opinions but it has been shown that television and audiences change and develop over time. The 1950s didn't even show any nudity or sex and look at how it is now? But when it comes to the matter of what is big and what is not, something successful in a formula can be used and evolved to still be big with an ever changing audience who's attitude and opinions have evolved with the times.

While it's no secret that the Undertaker's Over The Top Gimmick as the Deadman is big and a success, we have debated, insulted and sweated blood over whether an OTT gimmick will be big again in the future and it has come clear to myself and my Alpha Colleagues that there will not another big OTT gimmick incomparison to an OTT gimmick that gets over. In this present, we see many superstars with big gimmicks come and go in the form of Umaga, Goldust, Hurricane, Hornswoggle, to name a few and while they can get over with the audiences, they aren't able to soldify themselves as big, the missing piece of the puzzle that solidifies them into the Main Event and feuds with the top members of the roster and being the face of the company.

We have learned that audiences have seen and preferred members of the roster go over at the expense of their gimmick, John Cena stopped wrapping to keep himself in the Main Event, Randy Orton evolved from the Legend Killer to the Viper, etc. And while they have gimmicks are part of their character, usually an enhanced version of the simple good guy vs. bad guy, they lose their OTT factor so they can represent the company as a legitimate competitor rather than as a joke. The Undertaker was different because he rose up during a gimmick dominating period and remained on top by re-inventing himself to keep his character fresh and it's worked, he's fought in the Main Event for over a decade and doesn't look to be stepping down the ladder on bit.

As to whether another OTT gimmick can get big in the WWE, I don't think it's possible because the audience have a tendancy to change their view on products and people so they have to be refreshed in order for them to be accepted as the men who headline Wrestlemania or the guy who wins the Royal Rumble or even the guy who wins his first WWE Championship. While an OTT gimmick can get over, it cannot get big now and the audience will evolve themselves still to not allow them to still get big. It has been shown that to be big, you have to drop the OTT factor and the current crop of up and rising superstars are doing it. Dolph Ziggler stops saying "Hi", Johnny Nitro evolved into John Morrison, The Miz evolved from a weird host guy to being awesome while the main gimmick guys are fighting the jobbers or are even being the jobbers.

With WWE being set for the future with the up and rising members of the roster coming through on Smackdown and ECW, the ones that stand out don't have an OTT element, not even Drew McIntyre. If these members of the roster are the future for the WWE and will head the company in the next five to ten years, it's very unlikely a gimmick that plays Over The Top is going to excel ahead of them, they can only dream of reaching the heights Undertaker managed to do.

This and the many other reasons stated in this debate is why, Lee, FTS, GD, D-Man and I strongly and rightly support the matter that an OTT gimmick will not be big in the WWE again, they may get over but they will not get big.

Thank you for your time to read through all of this.

 

[D-Man]

In Summary

With the deadline nearly upon us, I feel it's time to wrap it all up.

I just want to add to this and repeat something that seemed to get lost in a very large shuffle of debating... history does not always repeat itself. And if it does, it never comes back exactly the same as it did before, especially in television.

Many genres of television have tried to suck a few remaining drops out of the teet of previous television show concepts that were successful in the past. Game shows and sitcoms tried making comebacks that equaled their popularity in their hey-days but in the long run, they fell short. At first, a large audience is drawn. However, after an initial season or another easily measurable, short period of time, the idea becomes stale quickly and dies out (just like Who Wants to Be a Millionaire and Deal or No Deal).

The same can be said about OTT gimmicks in wrestling. They were everywhere in the 1980's (most of which were very successful), still alive and mildly successful in the 1990's in terms of the ratio between created OTT gimmicks and ones that proved to be successful (Undertaker, Austin, Mankind), and are very few and far between after the year 2000 (Umaga, Festus, Hornswoggle). As much as they keep trying to make comebacks, they have an initial spark, but over a short period of time they slowly die out (Umaga's undefeated stint, programs with top stars and losses, his Wrestlemania storyline that resulted in jobbing to Lashley, and then flatline). OTT gimmicks just don't have the steam that they once had.

Now, welcome to the new era of professional wrestling. Many things have changed in the past 30 years and different types of characters have been created, destroyed, pushed, and de-pushed. Reality-based characters and OTT gimmicked characters have all gotten their taste of the spotlight. At our present time, it seems that the WWE has successfully created a hybrid between the two and it seems to be making good progress. But, the full-on OTT gimmicks are failing more and more and as each one is created, they're burning out quicker and quicker. The members of the Alpha Team believe the flame has finally been extinguished.

Over the Top gimmicks may return, but they'll never be successful like their predecessors once were.

 

[Mr. TM]

And the Debate is Closed.

It is now up to the viewers of WrestleZone to vote for the All Star game winner. Now votes can turn to popularity contests, but lets not have that here. Which side was the better debating side, you can vote on any measurement that you possess. You have 9 days to pick our All Star winners!

Read and Vote!

 

[Mr. TM]

Just to bump this up, there seems to be a tie, and with less than two hours, lets get a winner in this thing!