IT Factor is the biggest pile of shit that has EVER been bandied about as an excuse for a theory in ANY field. Nothing is by accident or truly intangible, by calling guys that you're just showing you're not smart enough to understand what their skills are. Take two of the top actors in the world...
Robert Downey Jr. didn't get where he did cos he had "it factor" he had comedic talent from a young age, a showbiz family and opportunities to work as a result of the two. Over time his life struggles became part of the story and his sheer talent was recognised in serious roles like Chaplin... Then he did time... was "done", and someone took a chance on him and his talent shone through again, eventually making him the top guy in Hollywood and pretty much the most likeable... no "it factor" just a talented guy who people end up rooting for.
Hugh Jackman, a "pretty boy" to many was actually a talented stage music actor long before he donned a leather suit and fake claws... he had some choppy times at first with bad movies like Swordfish then eventually rose to his role as again, one of the more versatile actors out there... none of it is intangible for either guys.. no one looked at either and said "You've got IT!!! We're making you Wolverine or Tony Stark..."
In wrestling "it" is a convenient way to explain why some guys get more air time, success and thus money so you don't look too closely and see the Emperors New Clothes in some cases.
Steve Austin didn't have "it factor" he had excellently taught ring craft from his days learning with Chris Adams and an underutilised real life personality when he got over in 1996. All he did was be himself, it was only intangible to those who didn't "know the man" behind "Stunning Steve".
Mick Foley didn't have "it factor", he was basically a student of the game who was willing to put his body at risk more than his peers, had a surprisingly articulate and ultimately comedic way about him that he could channel into characters that belied his "wild man looks".
Bret Hart didn't have "it factor" he had a pedigree, a strong technical mindset and better than average looks for a smaller guy in the wrestling business...
Undertaker had size, natural agility and athleticism, the ability to emote through not emoting at all... and the two most important traits previously unseen levels of stamina and longevity (until this past year when that ran out) and an uncanny talent for learning from opponents quickly... it's not an x-factor, but he improved 100 times in 1996-1997 when they stopped putting him with "freak of the week" and made him a serious contender, cos he was learning exponentially from the guys he was put with.
John Cena... He didn't have "it" or Ruthless Aggression or anythng in between, he had a very sound wrestling knowledge (that is never used but evidenced in hanging with Angle and Jericho in his first 2 major matches), the ability to connect with younger fans on their level, the looks to be a poster child and sell lunchboxes and calendars and a work ethic similar to those guys already mentioned. He makes it easy for WWE to invest in him, even if we don't always see the whole picture.
See the pattern forming... all these guys are said to have "it" but never actually did, they had a solid set of traits that connected them with fans and made them worthy investments for WWE. WWE trots out the phrase for guys who don't connect or who need their "push" to mask their weaknesses. To a man they are all guys who were either not forseen to become what they did, were resisted or not used to their proper potential for several years or had to force their way into that spot, either by luck or judgement.
IT is being levelled at Roman Reigns and the other NXT graduates... only Reigns "needs" that because his pros don't outweight his cons like the others... Rollins, Ambrose, Bray all have those multiple strings to their bow. Only Reigns is being touted as a "company flag bearer" which is nuts as the last 20 years has been made up of totally leftfield candidates that were not manufactured or picked cos they had "it". Roman Reigns seems the "template" but he's actually the antithesis of what works... but like Nash in 1994, or Batista in 2005 Vince wants a big guy at the helm.
Some do get there through political means, Machiavellian manipulation and maneuvering is in itself a very valuable skill in life as well as showbiz, equally valid to any that the above guys have...
Nowhere does it become more preposterous than when you look at Daniel Bryan...
He is the ultimate "it factor" write off the one who gets dismissed with that insult most often these days...when the reality is he never had "it factor".
He had those top 5 in the world skills, a willingness to apply himself and play the machine at it's own game and the everyman quality... Kids hold Cena up as their hero, but they can look at Bryan and see their own dads or uncles or teachers... the smaller guy with the not cool look who surprises you when they actually turn out to be the coolest guy in the room when he turns out to be awesome at something you never knew he could do.
He was able to take the style no one in WWE thought he understood, much less could pull off, quietly studied it for a while and then with 2 words turned it on it's head and showed he was among the best at that style.
Stop talking about it factor because you just make yourselves look and read as REALLY dumb or not actually thinking or knowing why people succeed in show business or life. Everyone has "it factor" in that they're alive... that's where it ends.
