Are gimmicks just anchors?

[Steve-O-Matt]

Gimmicks, they can range from the legend killing, viper... to some guy ball room dancing. It's funny that in this business of professional wrestling, you would see this kind of thing. But lets go a little in depth with them, shaaall we?

When it comes to gimmicks, there are two kinds in my opinion:

Heavy-gimmicks
These are the kind like Los Matadores, Fandango, 3MB... but also Bray Wyatt, Undertaker and Kane. The kind where you have a set way of doing things from the get go, with little to no room to put in your own personality. Whilst these are generally failures, if done right, they can thrive straight to the top.

Light-gimmicks
This is more the kind of "okay, so this is you overall, but you have to fill in the blanks yourself." Randy Orton, post-draft Cena, Daniel Bryan... but also, Curtis Axel, Tyson Kidd and Cesaro. The gimmick isn't so heavily impossed giving you more range and freedom to put your own spin on it.

Now why do I bring these up? Well, initially you would think that having a light-gimmick would be the best way to go, as it gives you legitamacy and with a more serious tone, you can see yourself main eventing rather than pandering to the crowd. BUT like with this, you also run this risk of being dull, falling through the cracks and just being ignored, see Curtis Axel, Justin Gabrial, Tyson Kidd, Curt Hawkins and other names that just don't get over.

On the other hand, you have heavy gimmicks, which, like I said, can be silly, lame, annoying and can really hurt the heart of the wrestler as they would feel like a joke. BUT there also comes benefits with these, as if you can take your heavy and silly gimmick AND get over, you are a made man baby. See Undertaker, Kane, Bray Wyatt instant pushes straight to the moon with heavy gimmicks.

One is low risk with a slow reward, but the other is high risk, but with a huge reward.

So here are a few questions I'll leave you with:

Who is the best / worst heavy-gimmick?
Who is the best / worst light-gimmick?
If you were a wrestler, which would you prefer?

 

[Jack-Hammer]

It depends upon the gimmick itself, the wrestler's ability and, of course, the storylines involved. There's no single, clear cut way to really get into one gimmick over another from my perspective.

For instance, take the feud with Kane and Daniel Bryan right now. With all the various horror movie clichés that they used this past Monday, Kane comes off as hokey and downright cheesy. However, if you use him as he was used during the build up of his match with Bryan at Extreme Rules as a vicious, monstrous brute bent on causing as much damage as possible, then I think the gimmick works extremely well. If the year was 1994 and all of us were in our teens, we'd think all the various horror theatrics were really great. Most of us certainly thought so back in the day during the 90s and into the Attitude Era with all the stuff that Taker and Kane were doing. You know, the "lightning bolts" that would sometimes strike out of nowhere, Taker rising out of coffins, Taker performing some sort "satanic" rituals and blood sacrifices, etc. Here we are, however, 20years later and we might look back over that stuff fondly in a tongue-in-cheek sort of way, we don't have the same reaction now that we once did. When they do it today, we sort of roll our eyes because it sucks and, also, I think we might even feel a little bit embarrassed that we once thought it was really cool.

Heavy gimmicks can sometimes hinder a wrestler instead of helping him and vice versa. When I think of The Rock, I tend to think of him more as a heavy gimmick because he's simply so over the top with his mannerisms and catchphrases. Even though it's ultimately just him taking his own personality and jacking it up to the nth degree, it still comes off as a gimmick because nobody can genuinely be that cocky in real life and only Grade A assholes, with the exception of small children, mentally handicapped, or The Hulk , can refer to themselves in the third person. If you took The Rock and Orton and switched their gimmicks, there's a good possibility that both might very well flounder because the character simply might not be well suited to them.

 

[Dan Severn's Moustache]

It doesn't matter whether a gimmick is heavy or light, what matters is if the character is captivating to the major audience, and rather than allow the commentators to explain the character to us, let the character show us what they can do or

Let's look at a failed character and a character that worked. My examples will be Duke "The Dumpster" Droese and Mr Perfect respectively.

The commentators told us that Duke was a garbage man, and he brought a trash can to the ring, and that was it. We never saw his character evolve or even saw them do much with their persona. That was it. The gimmick had no lasting value.

On the contrary, we saw a guy like Mr Perfect performing impressive feats and we saw what the character was about, we weren't just told. As a result, we were able to connect with the character more and develop a better understanding.

It's the same with lighter gimmicks. Justin Gabriel is the "Cape Town Werewolf" and that's it. We don't see him in backstage segments or ring segments doing anything that lives up to his nick-name, he just does high flying moves.

In contrast, Randy Orton is/was "The Viper", and we got to see him living up to his name, striking people with the RKO and ripping into his opponents as if they were prey, as well as being a complete badass. This creates a much bigger impression on people. It's the same with Cena "Rising above hate", or Stone Cold Steve Austin saying "Screw authority." or Hulk Hogan proclaiming he's going to run over his adversaries. It worked because they actually lived up to their gimmick.

So in conclusion, it doesn't really matter what gimmick you have. What matters is if you use the gimmick to your advantage and connect with the audience with it. Of course, some gimmicks are dead on arrival, but as long as you can provoke the correct crowd response and live up to your gimmick successfully, you should be fine gimmick wise.

As for the questions;

Undertaker is the best heavy gimmick of all-time, no questions asked, and it's not even close. The contributions to wrestling the gimmick has done hasn't even been close to surpassed by any other wrestler. The worst is subjective, but I suppose the Gobbledy Gooker gets that reward. Just...no.

The worst light gimmick is pretty much every bland wrestler ever. The best is Stone Cold Steve Austin, for reasons listed above.

I'd rather a well-thought out heavy one more than anything. It would allow me to make an instant connection with the audience, which would be the catalyst for me to go on to have success in the wrestling business.

 

[Pérez84]

The above poster pretty much killed this issue.

I have to say yes to the listed question. Gimmicks are like anchors, normally a handicap for the wrestler. But sometimes a wrestler needs and anchor to not get lost in the sea. There are some examples of people who got better with a heavier gimmick: Wade Barrett, Heath Slater, Husky Harris ........... Also there are other people ruined by a heavy gimmick.

It's clear that almost every huge superstar in history had/has monikers-light gimmicks rather than heavy-cartoonish gimmicks: Hogan, Flair, Bret, Austin, Rock, HHH post DX, Cena, Orton...... They could bring the best of themselves one way or another. To reach that level of popularity with a cartoonish character you must be named Undertaker or at least Kane. Hard job here.

 

[JPiSWAR]

Wyatt will never be The Undrtaker or Kane.. Those days have gone. Sadly R.I.P

 

[MC_Live]

It's all based on the performer. Regardless of what the gimmick is, if the guy performing is truly good, he'll eventually get over somehow. Sometimes that involves dropping gimmick and going somewhere else with a character, such as Austin dropping the Ringmaster, or Cesaro dropping the yodeling. But eventually, the performer will get over if they're good enough. Punk, Bryan, hell even Zack Ryder got over before WWE killed him. So gimmicks are just a piece to the puzzle. Presentation, that's the deciding factor. If the performer can make the gimmick work, he'll get over. So heavy or light only matters if the guy in the ring is good enough to pull it off.

With that said, I'll answer the questions.
1) Undertaker is the greatest Heavy Gimmick. Without a doubt.
2) I think Steve Austin is the greatest light gimmick, but HBK is right there too.
3) If the gimmick is a good idea that can be executed well, a heavy gimmick is a better way to go because it's a connection you can build with the audience. Ultimately, getting over is about making the audience care. And the more character traits you have, the better off you'll be. Examples like Husky Harris/Bray Wyatt, Debut John Cena/Dr. of Thuganomics, even Bradshaw/JBL. It's all about if the performer can pull it off, and if the audience cares.