Is it an actual thing?

[gasM]

On more than one occasion, I've heard that WWE superstars have three chances to make it before they're deemed a lost cause. Or at least those who the WWE thinks could be a big player later on.

For example:

Glenn Jacobs: Started as Fake Diesel, then Isaac Yankem before making it as Kane.

Drew Hankinson: Started as Fake Kane, then Festus from Jesse and Festus (who I thought were awesome) then had one last stab as Luke Gallows before being released. I hear he's in TNA now with Aces and Eights Wolfpac Hollywood B Team. Or whatever.

Nick Nemeth: Started as Kerwin White's caddy, then Nicky from the Spirit Squad, and now he's making a go of it as Dolph Ziggler.

So is this a thing? Do you have a three gimmick/push rule in WWE? Or is it just an IWC rumour?

Note: Please excuse my lack of research, this was all from memory - hence my ignorance of TNA. Joking aside, I do like what little I see of TNA in 2013. Also I used the performer's real names not to sound smart, but to illustrate how each performer takes on a new character per "chance."

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Sounds like it's another IWC conspiracy theory to me. Sometimes, you have to simply try a lot of different personas and directions before finding one that works. I do think that it's highly possible that WWE will give wrestlers characters that are sort of lame as a test to see how well they're able to use what opportunity they've been given. Sometimes, they're just so flat out lame that there's nothing that can be done and the character is scrapped.

For instance, some people were pissing & moaning about Brodus Clay's current character. Brodus won't be wrestling in the main event anytime soon but you can't deny that he's shown genuine personality & charisma as the Funkasaurus. He's taken something silly, he's put everything he's had into it and he's actually pretty over. As a result, Clay is someone who might wind up being a much bigger star later on down the line with a much different character since he's shown he can be much more than a stereotypical monster heel.

 

[boywithbluehanger]

There might be some plausibility to this as it shows that the creative team does a fair amount of work before deciding that a wrestler (or the effort behind building him/her) is no longer worth the investment. Look at Jack Swagger for instance. When he started off on WWETV (outside of ECW) and eventually got his WHC run, it wasn't overall well-received. Then he got a second push by becoming a goon for Vickie Guerrero's mini alliance with Dolph Ziggler. After that ended with no one caring, he came back after a hiatus with his current gimmick. He hasn't trully gotten over in this "We The People" gimmick and has found himself in his first public bout of legal trouble to top it off. So I believe this is his 3rd chance and either they'll continue his push after it's over or they'll cut him loose.

That's not to say that there aren't many other guys who don't get 3 chances. John Morrision for example, had a 2 notable pushes and was released while in the midst of a aimless 3rd run as a face character.

 

[JoeyJoeJoe]

I can see this being an "actual thing", if only because each attempt is a significant dedication of time. If you look at what goes into each push: Create a character for a wrestler, draft storylines for him, do some marketing for the character, set up promos, and then give it time to run...each try is probably somewhere in the order of 3 months to a year long, if not longer sometimes. By the third go-around, you're looking at a guy being there for about a minimum of 3 years, and you should have a good sense of what the wrestler can do and accomplish.

 

[IHW]

I don't think this is true at all. I think the guys are given a gimmick, and given a shot to see if they can get it over. If the fans aren't accepting the gimmick, the guy could be given a second, or third chance. Look at Brodus Clay. Look at Ryback. Look at Fandango. Two shots, not three. I just think it happens sometimes.

 

[tvcolosi]

Other than Gallows, the others you mentioned are world champions... It shows that cream rises to the top.

Look at Nash, Master Blaster, OZ Vinnie Vegas then Diesel.
Scott Hall, Cowboy, then Diamond Stud then Razor.
Texas Red, Mean Mark, then bam, the Undertaker

If you have talent the bosses will keep you around,

 

[bxbigshow]

tvcolosi- while I will not argue the point as I doubt this "rule" is true...I will say the examples you gave are from a combination of WCW/AWA/WCCW then WWE gimmicks.

I think the question pertains to only WWE....

 

[Dysturbed]

I have heard of the the three chances or they are gone thing that you brought up but I dont' really buy it. I am not saying that there haven't been cases where it has been applied, but as an actual rule, I have my doubts. I think that it is all situational and on person to person basis.

Going with the Nick Nemeth example.... You listed three different gimmicks and equated that with being given three chances to make it. That would mean that if The Ziggler character hadn't ended up working out he would have in theory been out of shots. The thing is that the first two gimmicks that he had were probably not likely expected to ever get him much or any acclaim (at least the caddy one), rather just a way to get him on tv. In that scenario, one could argue that Ziggler is really his first true chance at being a breakout star.

With Drew Hankinson, the fake Kane gimmick was never likely intended to be anything than the short term deal that it was, so was that really a first shot (out of three) to make something of himself or just a first shot of appearing on tv without any big expectations? If it is the latter then his release came after two legit chances, not three.

 

[One to Remember]

a gimmick is a gimmick. Luke Gallow's as the fake kane should count because it was obvious he wasn't the real kane and his unmasking could had still kept the Fake Kane persona in story lines.

Maybe this could be a good real or a good bases for a rule but I doubt its a rule and I am sure you can find ten guys on their 4th or 5th persona.


Ron Simmons started out as that gladiator, then as Faarooq then as an Acolyte, then as half of the APA as Ron Simmons, then was released.

 

[Matisyahu]

Yeah I suppose it works out sometimes

JBL - Justin Hawk Bradshaw, Blackjack Bradshaw, Acolyte Bradshaw/APAshaw, JBL wrestling GOD thats four but it still applies I think

Bob Holly - Sparky Plug, Bombastic Bob of New Midnight Express, Hardcore Holly

Al Snow - Avatar, Shinobi, then Leif Cassidy, then got released and came back as t Al Snow w/ Head



Sometimes it hits in the middle and then drops out though

Viscera - Mabel/King Mabel, Viscera/later Love Machine Vis, then Big Daddy V, now released

 

[tonykegger]

Ryan Reeves: Tough enough contestant, Skip Sheffield, and now Ryback.

 

[The Butcher]

It is an actual thing, but not how the OP means. Michael Shermer of Scientific American calls it "Patternicity." I'll let him explain:

Traditionally, scientists have treated patternicity as an error in cognition. A type I error, or a false positive, is believing something is real when it is not (finding a nonexistent pattern). A type II error, or a false negative, is not believing something is real when it is (not recognizing a real pattern—call it “apatternicity&#8221. In my 2000 book How We Believe (Times Books), I argue that our brains are belief engines: evolved pattern-recognition machines that connect the dots and create meaning out of the patterns that we think we see in nature. Sometimes A really is connected to B; sometimes it is not. When it is, we have learned something valuable about the environment from which we can make predictions that aid in survival and reproduction. We are the ancestors of those most successful at finding patterns. This process is called association learning, and it is fundamental to all animal behavior, from the humble worm C. elegans to H. sapiens.

Basically, we're hardwired to see stuff like this. If there's a hint of a trend, we're going to follow that lead.

Such patternicities, then, mean that people believe weird things because of our evolved need to believe nonweird things.

So, sure, why not? This rule of 3's or whatever you want to call it can be a thing if you want it to be. Doesn't make it legit, but in time we'll learn.



http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=patternicity-finding-meaningful-patterns

 

[One to Remember]

if we are hardwired to see the patern why are there opposing viewpoints in this thread..? Or people that didn't see it at all?

And shouldn't that read "we are the decedents of those most successful at finding patterns."

 

[shalliin]

Other than Gallows, the others you mentioned are world champions... It shows that cream rises to the top.

Look at Nash, Master Blaster, OZ Vinnie Vegas then Diesel.
Scott Hall, Cowboy, then Diamond Stud then Razor.
Texas Red, Mean Mark, then bam, the Undertaker

If you have talent the bosses will keep you around,

You forgot he was 'The Punisher' as well, and at one point I think he was Master of Pain.