Being charismatic & being good on the mic....

[L@RISANO]

In this thread posted by Jack-Hammer a couple of days ago:
http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showthread.php?t=275639

There was a WWE ranking of the "Greatest Talkers in the business".

However, I think there are guys who have been very average on the Mic, but are Charismatic by appearance or in-ring work, then there are those who are great on the mic, but yet, crowds don't neccessarily ever get behind them.

Often we hear that Wrestler X sucks on the mic, so he can't get over...so is Mic Work the Main Ingredient for Success??

All that said; I have to ask what is more important to the success of the SuperStar in reaching the Main Event...being Charismatic(Ultimate Warrior) or being Good on the Mic(Arn Anderson)?

 

[Creepy Old Man]

There's a distinct difference between being charismatic and being a fluent talker, and wrestling fans often show their ignorance by thinking the two are interchangeable. Charisma is an intangible X factor. Often charismatic wrestlers are great talkers, but guys like Bret Hart, Brock Lesnar, Jeff Hardy and others have proven that's not always the case. I've heard some crazy reactions for those guys over the years, and that doesn't happen for people with "no charisma".

 

[Jack-Hammer]

I think it's true sometimes that a sense of charisma doesn't really translate as well on the mic for some as it does for others. I don't think that the two automatically go hand in hand. Charisma can be something of an intangible x-factor that's hard to describe. In 1964, United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said in regards to obscenity in the case of Jacobellis v. Ohio: "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that." In this case, Stewart was talking about hardcore pornography and the phrase "I know it when I see it" has sort of become a cultural statement regarding subjects that can be interpreted in different ways by different people.

Charisma is one of those subjects. I think something of a common stereotype regarding charisma is that they tend to have certain looks, have this sort of magnetic personality or aura about them that causes people to listen to or follow them. They have to have some qualities in order to have the others that we associate with charisma. In the case of wrestling, and I know I've made this mistake in the past without really knowing it until stopping to think about it, that charisma doesn't automatically translate into being a smooth operator on the microphone. For instance, Randy Savage had a lot of charisma but, at least to me, the guy sometimes came off as sounding kinda silly on the mic. Not saying that he was bad on the mic, just kinda silly and that doesn't automatically equal being lousy. Half the time, with the pained expressions he'd make with his raspy voice, you'd think he was passing kidney stones. Whether we know it or not, as human beings, we all sometimes have this instinct to categorize people or things, to label them as one thing or another based on cultural or personal perceptions. It can be anything ranging from "Well this guy's only 5'3" and about 150 pounds, so he's nobody to be afraid of" or "That chick's dressed like a ****, she must be looking to get laid tonight." Charles Manson was only about 5'3" and a buck 50 or so in weight, but he was loaded with charisma on a level that most people would never dream possible. Considering he was a fanatical cult leader who convinced perfectly normal people to commit bloody murder for him in the hopes of starting a race war that he called Helter Skelter, I think it's pretty safe to say that Manson was very much somebody to be afraid of. Miley Cyrus might dress or behave in a sexually provocative way as a means of generating buzz and attention, but it doesn't automatically mean she'll drop 'em and spread 'em at the drop of a hat.

 

[sanefan_har]

While it's not the main ingredient for success (Bret Hart, Andre the Giant, Jeff Hardy) it's definitely an added bonus to the character development of a superstar.

Examples supporting my case :

Bray Wyatt : Without his promos and his attire, he's just an overweight superstar with a vanilla character (evidenced heavily by his stint as Husky Harris). His mic skills and delivery are way above par, and now he's got the whole world in his hands.

Stone Cold Steve Austin : Again, his character was reinforced by his husky "don't give a crap"-esque promos and he went on to be the most popular professional wrestler of his time. If you think I'm wrong, look at "Stunning" Steve Austin and The Ringmaster and get back to me.

 

[dd23beatlesfan1]

Yeah, there's definitely a difference between being good on the mic and being charismatic. As has been pointed out there have been a number of wrestlers over the years that were charismatic as hell, but weren't that great on the mic. A couple of examples...

Bret Hart: With the exception of his 1997, Bret was never very creative or smooth or clever on the mic. His promos were pretty basic. Definitely not bad, but basic. But it didn't matter. Bret had the "it factor" where the fans just instantly got behind him, even back in his Hart Foundation days. Bret is someone that you could relate to. His character what that of an honorable, noble man that believed in competition and winning, and being a hero. He didn't need promos to be over with the crowd. From his mannerisms like his walk to the ring, the way he carried himself as a no-nonsense type of wrestler, people got behind him. Not to mention he was smaller, more athletic and put 100% into every match he had, and fans appreciated it. Many female fans considered him a sex symbol, and guys liked him because he was tough, no-nonsense. Bret's probably the biggest example of a guy who wasn't that great on the mic, but oozed charisma.


Jeff Hardy: Jeff Hardy is another one. He's another person that people relate to, because he's small and gives 110% to every match. He did the craziest things and the fans loved it. And again, he's not great at all on the mic. He's just relateable to people.


Brock Lesnar: Again another guy that's not the best on the mic, except for taped promos for matches, where he's phenomenal. But live on the mic, he's always had Paul Heyman or someone else to do the talking and he doesn't need it. Wrestling fans love a beast-tough guy type of wrestler, and no one demonstrates that more than Lesnar. Not good on the mic, but people love him because he's so good in the ring, and because he completely dominates.


Goldberg: He's exactly like Lesnar. He didn't say much at all, he just went into the ring and kicked ass. And wrestling fans love wrestlers like that.


Early Undertaker: Taker is actually a great promo guy, particularly in the late 90's and early 00's as the American Badass character. But early on his career, he didn't say much though what he did was awesome and perfect for his gimmick. But again he didn't say that much, it was mostly Paul Bearer talking. But his character was so mesmerizing and unique that fans got behind him. Fans didn't care about his promos that much. They cared about how invincible he was in the ring and how he dominated.


Bruno Sammartino. If you go back and watch is promos he wasn't exactly lighting the world on fire with his mic skills. He was your typical humble, heroic figure when it came to his mic skills. He certainly wasn't a Buddy Rogers, Killer Kowalski, or Billy Graham on the mic. But again he didn't need it. He was able to connect to the fans and he became their hero.



So the proof is in the pudding that mic skills are not the end-all be all on a wrestler getting over. It definitely helps and being great on the mic does make a wrestler a better overall performer, but yeah it's not everything.

As for which is more important, great mic skills or having charisma to get over with the fans? Obviously it's the charisma, because as has been pointed out, there have been plenty of wrestlers over time that got over and became big draws without being creative, unique and awesome on the mic. But every wrestler that has ever been over has had to have a type of charisma to do it. Either by their-in ring work, their character, their mannerisms and presentation of their character, etc.

 

[Kodo Sawaki]

so is Mic Work the Main Ingredient for Success??

No. Simple fact: Most over person on the WWE roster now is Danyel Bryan. He is average talker...

The Miz is great talker. Yet except that one world title and help in setting up "once in a lofetime" match he didnt do too much great stuff with his work...

So having great mic talk helps a lot, but is not main ingridient for success. For that you need more then a number of factors like charisma, skills, right gimmick etc. and mic work is just one of that factors.

 

[Dagger Dias]

The ability to provide good promos on the mic is important, but it is not the ticket to stardom. The Miz is great on the mic, but not gifted in the ring and thus will never be believable in anything beyond a midcard champion role. Mic skills are important, in some ways more important than in-ring ability, but it does take in-ring skills to get you to the top too. A wrestler who sucks on the mic can still find success through a manager speaking for him if he can work a good match. So, it's not everything. The wrestler might not get as far without either being able to do promos or have a manager supporting him who does though.

 

[whoopin' ass]

Problem with the "I know it when I see it approach" is that it doesn't always use real criteria to judge. Look at a movie like Moneyball - how many teams were hiring ball players that they felt looked like ball players but who actually sucked? They knew it too!

I think charisma is more important. People talk about Hogan - Hogan's promos suck with the dude and brother being dropped all the time. But people are draw to his charisma and overlook the stuff that he does. There are a lot of guys who talk okay but it is how they talk that gets the crowd interested so I think charisma is more important but I think you need to be able to talk too otherwise you are in trouble. We have seen a lot of guys with a great look who open their mouth and kill their career.

 

[Dirk]

The ability to provide good promos on the mic is important, but it is not the ticket to stardom. The Miz is great on the mic, but not gifted in the ring and thus will never be believable in anything beyond a midcard champion role. Mic skills are important, in some ways more important than in-ring ability, but it does take in-ring skills to get you to the top too. A wrestler who sucks on the mic can still find success through a manager speaking for him if he can work a good match. So, it's not everything. The wrestler might not get as far without either being able to do promos or have a manager supporting him who does though.

I agree with you in that mic skills aren't always your Willy Wonka golden ticket, but I don't think everybody needs in-ring skills either. Batista managed to become a star an impressive look and booking alone. Warrior did it with that and cocaine...

Now, there are lots of ways to define in-ring skills...
I could say that Cena has average ring skills because:
*He relies (mostly) on a handful of moves.
*He is not a technical master.
*The story he tells is repetitive.
On the other hand, I could say that Cena has amazing ring skills because:
*He uses a handful of moves to establish familiarity and get those moves over.
*His matches convey his character.
*His matches elicit a massive response among fans.
Both viewpoints have valid claims.

*

I think a wrestler's charisma comes down to whether people buy into him(/her) or not, simple as that. Rather than part of the equation, charisma would translate as your ability to get over and STAY over.

 

[whoopin' ass]

Jack-hammer, I do want to say something in regards to you Miley Cyrus reference. One thing that people need to understand too is charisma is not controversy. In the case of Cyrus, she is an idiot - listen to her talk and you want to pop you own eardrums. But she is doing things to get attention that are designed for just that. Her actions are no different than Madonna 25 years ago, just modernized. The haircut and tattoos are because that is what is "cool" or "edgy" today but if she was doing this 10 years earlier, those wouldn't work. In her case, it is a form of artificial manufactured charisma. That's usually why pop stars have a career of about 5 years as they themselves are not charismatic but the industry can hop on what is considered cool at the time and give them that appearance of charisma. Problem is things change and in a few years their image is stale.

 

[Dagger Dias]

I agree with you in that mic skills aren't always your Willy Wonka golden ticket, but I don't think everybody needs in-ring skills either. Batista managed to become a star an impressive look and booking alone.

Evolution helped him in his case, and yes his appearance being that of a champion helped him overcome his mic issues as a face. When a heel, he's not bad on the mic though. Batista has good enough ability in the ring to be believable in his role too. Someone like David Otunga or Mason Ryan may have the appearance of a title contender, but then they work a match and it leaves you scratching your head. That was never the case with Batista for me. Evolution involvement or not. He improved in promos over time, so there's that too. I meant wrestlers who just can't cut promos to save their life, even after having been there long enough to improve. They are the ones who need managers no matter how good they are in the ring.

 

[UFOcalling]

I think sometimes charisma can be artificially created (for lack of a better term), just depending on how good a wrestler's opponent is (or will be). For example, Ric Flair could get babyfaces over just by being the biggest ass he could be and getting the fans in an uproar. Then the crowd decides to side with the good guy, if only because they want to see him cripple Flair in the ring (I know that's basically wrestling 101, the good guy doesn't have to work as hard as the bad guy, etc). Whether or not that charisma sticks with the babyface in question is up in the air, I'm sure it missed a lot more than it stuck...but you have to admit that "charisma" is something that can be "given" to someone who doesn't necessarily have that x-factor before facing the opponent that really gives him that charisma.

More on point though, I agree with the majority...charisma & mic skills are not the same, if so - then all great heels (at least the ones with great mic skills) in the wrestling business would have also made great babyfaces. I know that a lot of the heels did go on to get cheered eventually, but not every single one. Scott Steiner was a great heel character (as Big Poppa Pump), but he kind of floundered every time they tried to make him face (at least as far as I remember).

 

[BigThunder]

One thing I'd like to add about Lesnar. He may not have a tough guy voice like Harley Race, but even with his register, his promos are often pretty good. And his body language is *perfect*. Please look at the Post-WM XXX 30 with Heyman, and just how well his body language compliments what Heyman is saying. It's a thing of beauty.

 

[JJ15776]

I agree with you in that mic skills aren't always your Willy Wonka golden ticket, but I don't think everybody needs in-ring skills either. Batista managed to become a star an impressive look and booking alone.

I'm so glad somebody mentioned Batista. He's the perfect example of the difference between being charismatic and being good on the mic. Batista's promos are average, but his charisma is off the charts. And it's misleading to say it's just "an impressive look" because that implies anybody who looked like him could be in his spot. And Batista is my favorite example, because there's actually somebody who looks just like him. Mason Ryan can tell you that it takes more than an impressive look and strong booking. The only difference between Batista and Mason Ryan is Batista has charisma, and look at the drastically different careers they've had. And there are plenty of other guys that had a good looked and were booked strongly and never got anywhere...because they didn't have any charisma. There's just something about Batista that makes people react to him. You could see it right away, when he was working with Reverend D-Von as Deacon Batista. And you could see it before he ever touched a microphone. His look is a big part of it, but it's his demeanor. It's the way he carries himself. There's just something about him.

Jack-hammer, I do want to say something in regards to you Miley Cyrus reference. One thing that people need to understand too is charisma is not controversy. In the case of Cyrus, she is an idiot - listen to her talk and you want to pop you own eardrums. But she is doing things to get attention that are designed for just that. Her actions are no different than Madonna 25 years ago, just modernized. The haircut and tattoos are because that is what is "cool" or "edgy" today but if she was doing this 10 years earlier, those wouldn't work. In her case, it is a form of artificial manufactured charisma. That's usually why pop stars have a career of about 5 years as they themselves are not charismatic but the industry can hop on what is considered cool at the time and give them that appearance of charisma. Problem is things change and in a few years their image is stale.

To be clear, charisma and controversy are not antonyms. Doing something controversial does not make one uncharismatic. Like Jack-Hammer said, Charles Manson is one of the most charismatic people in human history...I would certainly say he's controversial. Same with Jim Jones. Ted Bundy was extremely charismatic, as was Adolf Hitler. Being an idiot doesn't make one uncharismatic either...Jeff Hardy is charismatic and he's an absolute moron. John Cena's not the sharpest tool in the shed, but he's got charisma for days. Tim Tebow makes Miley Cyrus look like Albert Einstein, but nobody will deny he's got charisma. Phil Robertson is charismatic and he's one of the stupidest people in the history of television.

If Miley Cyrus was around 10 years ago, it's entirely possible she wouldn't be doing what she's doing now. She could've been doing something completely different would've worked then. We have no way of knowing. And while time will tell if she gets stale in 5 years, that still won't mean she wasn't or isn't charismatic. Given how much her image has changed over the last several years, and how much she's been behind that image change, and how much her fan base has only grown in that time, it's clear that there's something about her that draws people to her. Just like the WWE can only do so much for a superstar, the "music industry" can only do so much for a performer. At the end of the day, it's up to the person in front of the crowds to make those crowds want to see them again. That can't be scripted or forced. The music industry can fabricate a pop star by giving them a catchy song and a lot of publicity, but if the star behind it isn't charismatic they disappear faster than you can say rickrolled. That's why there have been so many one hit wonders.

Being good on the mic isn't required to get over in the WWE, but being charismatic definitely is. No matter how good you are in the ring or how good you are on the mic, if you can't find a way to use that skill to make people react to you, you're doomed.