Is the key to getting a guy over to have him beat a legend?

[Mr. Artistic guy]

Ok whilst you ponder this is correlation or examples is uncanny with the level of success a superstar subsequently went on to recieve. I'm just going to drop you a load of examples and as I'm sure you will, you can make your own mind up:

1) John Cena vs HBK - WM21- Speaks for itself, after this john cnea became a pillar of the WWE and is one to this day.

2) Batista vs HHH - WM21-Once again, the reason why batista and cena were the biggest two stars since attitude era.

3) Randy orton vs various legends-Speaks for itself but victories over the undertaker, dusty rhodes and others set this guy apart during the mid noughties.

4) Sheamus vs Goldust and later HHH Sheamus' feud with goldust was primarily what got him brought to raw when he defeated him. Sheamus' feud which HHH where he eliminated him from the WWE was what got him into solid top flight status.

5) Bret Hart vs roddy piper and later on bob backlund- These may have not been the whole reason he reached the top but they were very likely a contributing factor.

So now I have a couple of questions primarily being do you think this is the case?

If not why not?

Therefore do you think in this light the ted dibiase/goldust angle is a good thing?

Can you think of examples where a legend put a guy over in the last 10 years and they didn't make it (excluding when JOMO beat jericho recently) if you dont believe this to be the case?

 

[Gabbo]

Benjamin/Triple H.
Benjamin/Jericho.
Kennedy/HBK/Undertaker/Mysterio.
MVP/Flair.
Carlito/Flair.
Everyone/Kane.
Khali/Kane/Undertaker.

Actually there's loads... in the last few years alone.

I don't think you have much of a point, not in the way you think anyway. In order to prove the newer guys are a big deal they have to beat someone the fans can relate to as a big star. Just like in the MMA or boxing, until you beat the best around you're not going to get a title shot.

I don't think it's the win itself that guarantees success, the win is just a footnote in the ultimate push that brings success.

 

[Mr. Artistic guy]

OK I'll rephrase that, beat somebody at a big stage, ie a PPV, preferably Wrestlemania. And I'm talking explicitly about guys who have a long term career potential within then so it doesn't include khali for example. Although shelton is a good point nobody really knows what happened there, WWE just dropped the ball BIG TIME. With regards to Kane, well that was at a time when kane was fulfilling a goldust type character ie his sole function was to get guys over, anyone and everyone so beating kane then didnt really mean much, as much as it would mean right now.

And I disagree, the whole point is that it is a win as the end of the feud that cements the guy as a pillar, not just the feud in itself. Kennedy was injured a lot so nothing could come of it, they tried for a while and he was very over and top flight until the orton incident happened. Similarly with flair I liken it to kane, it was at a time when flair was putting guys over left right and centre so getting put over flair didnt really mean as much. The only one on that list I'm really accepting is shelton.

 

[skeet mg]

First off, John Cena faced JBL at WM21 to win the title, but yes that did make John Cena the face of the company.

I think getting a guy over is mostly just putting them in a feud with an established star, not always necessarily a legend. Right now, Wade Barrett woouldn't be over as much as he is without his feud with Cena, an established star and someone who (in my eyes unfortunately) will go down as a legend. Putting people in feuds against established stars or future legends will always get them over, provided the feud is handled well by creative.

Overall, putting a relative newcomer or midcarder in a feud with an established star to put them in the main event has been the formula for years, so these matches aren't anything new to the business. This method has and always will be the primary way of establishing a new main eventer.

 

[Calderownz]

It can help, but it's not a certainty. Benjamin kept giving HHH a run for his money, racking up a few wins as well. However, he's not even with the company any longer. So, it depends on what you do with the victory/feud and how you handle the WWE machine pushing you after wards.

Someone it might be able to work with is Ted Dibiase Jr. His current feud with Goldust could be a make or break moment and Goldy is certainly a legend in his own right.

 

[ilapierre]

No i don't think this is always the case. It depends on if the feud is built up properly and executed in a believable way. I remember in WCW 10 years ago this 190 pound guy Billy Kidman beat Hulk Hogan. This did not make Kidman look more credible, it made booking look really bad. I remember the Mountie beat Bret Hart and that didn't do anything for the Mountie. And Rey Mysterio beat some legends but it just didn't look right. I think the execution of a feud determines whether or not an unestablished wrestler can get over by beating a legend. The legend has to beat the up and comer most often and get better and better over a period of time. Unless your a monster like Yokozuna, the Undertaker or Brock Lesnar, there needs to be a believable 'maturation' period where the wrestler learns to become a better wrestler. An example of a wrestler being built up properly would be Owen Hart. His multi year feud with Bret Hart solidified him as a wrestler almost as good as the Hitman. Or Michaels' losing streak to Hitman for a couple years and then after a period of time he was able to beat him. Or DDP's years of mid card status prior to his classic feud with Randy Savage. A wrestler has to beat a legend to get over, but the whole feud has to be done right or else it comes across looking rushed and feeling illegitimate.

 

[ForeverRKO]

it depends , someone like Evan Bourne could beat undertaker and still not get the recognition .. but usually it only works with a heel beating a top face or a face beating a few top heels .

 

[The Viper Orton]

Not only beating a Legend, but beating a legend at a high status match Ex: WM or Summerlsam. Ex: Shelton beat Triple H on raw and Kennedy beat 5 times former World Champions yet nothing happend. Again CM Punk with all the talent in the world and beating undertaker hasnt made it, he needs a bigger stage for it.
Sometimes its not nessesary to beat them as long as you have a great performance, Ex: Randy Orton vs Taker at WM, Same goes for Austin vs Bret at WM, and a wild one here jericho vs HBK at mania (alot would argue about first unfied WHC, but he said it himself)
Simple enough

 

[Teddy Irving]

It is not necessary to beat the legend/established star to get over you just need to put up a great show against them. Look at miz he got "fired" then came back with a "new attitude and mean streak" against cena. Now i can't remember if he beat cena during this time but this was definatly what started him up the ladder. Its like others have said just beating someone isn't whats needed because it could just be called a fluke win you need to have the up and comer learn through a series of matchs before they get the win Dolph v Mysterio would be a good example except for some reason Rey didn't drop the title to Dolph

 

[Dave]

I wouldn’t say it all comes down to beating a legend of the company. However, I do think that putting them into a feud with some of the more experienced talent ought to get them noticed and over more quickly than giving them modest beginnings.

Really, I think that Triple H is the best talent to put these guys into battle with. When you think of all the talent he has put over in the last few years, it comes as no surprise that these are the guys who are going to take the WWE into the next era of the WWE. Look at people like Randy Orton, John Cena and Sheamus and you can see that a win over Triple H is probably the best start that any competitor can have in the WWE. Say what you like about Triple H but when someone goes over him, you know that the WWE are serious about them.

That being said, a win against him isn’t always necessary. What is necessary is that they come out looking as though they can hold their own in his ring. Sheamus could not get over him for a long time and his loss at WrestleMania could have ended him right there and then. However, he remained strong and the defeat never really hurt him in any major way because he still looked as though he could become successful. When he eventually did put Triple H out, you knew that he was going to be successful from there on out. A win isn’t a necessity but it could definitely help your cause, that’s for sure.