Is there no such thing as putting someone over?

[The Yes Guy]

What I'm trying to say here is that for a wrestler to be over, and for a feud to work, both wrestlers need to be of a similar calibre.

Take for example when Jericho came back to put Fandango or Bray over, it failed in epic proportions.
And this is just one of the examples.

So I think a Veteran working with a rookie who has not worked long enough, NEVER WORKS.!

So by that logic, the concept of putting a younger guy over does not exist.

What do u guys think.?

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Well, obviously a wrestler needs to know what he/she is doing inside the ring in order to make the program with the veteran worthwhile. If not, then he/she has no business being in the feud or even on the roster in the first place. Also, what exactly do you mean by a rookie? Do you mean some 19 year old kid that's been in the business for all of about 6 months or do you mean a "rookie" in the sense of a 25-30 year old man that's been in wrestling his entire adult life but is new to the roster he's working on?

However, the details lie in the booking as to whether or not putting someone over really works. It can't all be put on whether or not the young guy is in the same caliber as a veteran because there are some guys who're just flat out extraordinary inside the ring. For instance, when it comes to in-ring ability, how many guys running around out there, veterans or younger guys, are on or have been of a similar caliber to Kurt Angle?

When the 123 Kid upset Razor Ramon, it was fair to say that Sean Waltman wasn't on Scott Hall's level. Sure, he could do a moonsault off the top rope. And??? But, it was a feud that was used as a springboard to Waltman becoming one of the more significant stars in wrestling during the 1990s.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

What I'm trying to say here is that for a wrestler to be over, and for a feud to work, both wrestlers need to be of a similar calibre.

Not sure what you mean but I'm learning toward disagreeing with you. Guys get over lots of ways but ultimately they have to look competitive to convince the bulk of fans to support or fear them. The opponents are very responsible for making this happen. Whether it is Cena making Cesaro look competitive or Lesnar only beating CM Punk due to cheating or The Miz getting beat by an Uso. On some level guys are getting more over.

Take for example when Jericho came back to put Fandango or Bray over, it failed in epic proportions.
And this is just one of the examples.

Jericho and Bray was strictly for entertainment. I would argue that in that feud Jericho getting a win over Bray made the feud more about getting Jericho over as a competitor again than elevating Bray.

Fandango is a lost cause.

So I think a Veteran working with a rookie who has not worked long enough, NEVER WORKS.!

That isn't as strong of a statement as the title of this thread but I would argue that Kurt Angle did wonders for John Cena when he was a rookie.

So by that logic, the concept of putting a younger guy over does not exist.

What do u guys think.?

I think it can happen and has happened.

JH provided a great example with Hall and the 123 Kid. On top of that, think of recently what guys like Kane, Cena, Sheamus, Cena, Ryback, and Orton did for The Shield.

 

[FlairFan2003]

What I'm trying to say here is that for a wrestler to be over, and for a feud to work, both wrestlers need to be of a similar calibre.

Take for example when Jericho came back to put Fandango or Bray over, it failed in epic proportions.
And this is just one of the examples.

So I think a Veteran working with a rookie who has not worked long enough, NEVER WORKS.!

So by that logic, the concept of putting a younger guy over does not exist.

What do u guys think.?

I disagree. Many of the best feuds were between one wrestler who was much higher than his opponent, but the opponent benefitted in the eyes of the audience just by being allowed to compete and be competitive in a long run vs the much more experienced and established veteran...

Hulk Hogan in 1986 was about as big as wrestling star had ever been while Randy Savage was a small time regional talent who had never worked for the big shows in the AWA or NWA and was just getting his big break in WWE. Savage's run vs Hogan, even though he lost every match and the feud, a run in which he was allowed to be much more aggressive and have more offense in his matches than most of Hogan's opponents and have longer, more competitive matches, went a long way to establishing him as major force as a heel in WWE. Without Savage-Hogan 86 there probably isn't Savage-Steamboat 87.

Ric Flair vs Sting 1988 - Sting was even less established on the main stage than 1986 Savage, who was given a big push as in impending "Free Agent Talent" when he arrived in WWE and defeated (with much help) long time star and IC Champ Tito Santana. Sting had only been in the NWA for a few months after a brief and forgettable run as a tag teamer in the defunct UWF with Ultimate Warrior. There couldn't have been anyone on the planet who thought he had a snowballs chance of beating of Flair, especially if you followed wrestling logic (it seemed Lex Luger was being primed for the spot as Flair's next big challenger, especially after ditching his tag team with Flair and leaving the Four Horsemen right around the time Flair/Sting kicked off). On paper this looked like classic filler....in reality Flair and the NWA gave Sting multiple opportunities to upstage in televised promos and face offs and a tremendous 45 minute showcase on national TV in the year's most watched wrestling match on Cable. From this point on no matter what happened with Luger (who had a HOF caliber career) it was clear Sting was also a major rising star.

Speaking of Luger....how much did he benefit as a relative unknown immediately being teamed with Flair and having long drawn out feuds with established main event stars like Nikita Kolloff & Dusty Rhodes....

HBK vs Brett Hart in 1992 - Their feud and match culminating at S-Series 92 did for HBK what The Clash of Champions did for Sting....it showed the wrestling audience for the 1st time that this relative mid card talent who didn't appear to have th experience or ability to be a prime time player was in fact a main event talent. HBK tapped out clean as could be to end this match but the rub he got was huge.



Of course it's not a guarantee but nothing is. Winning itself doesn't help a talent alone either. Bray Wyatt last year looked like an unstoppable heel force that could be the next big superstar character in WWE during his run against John Cena, and although he had numerous great TV segments and bested Cena several times he still lost 2 of 3 major matches between them . Yet, a short time later he was mostly dominating a feud against Chris Jericho and winning most of the matches and no one cared, mainly because no one cares about Jericho any longer, a short term part timer who hotshots one feud, never wins, and quickly leaves often without warning and little or resolution to his on going storyline. Dominate Jericho and fans yawn....go toe to toe in a great battle (albeit a losing effort) against John Cena, now that makes you a star.

If done right however, having an established star run against a younger less established star is exactly the best way to give cred with the audience to the newer guy.

 

[FlairFan2003]

What I'm trying to say here is that for a wrestler to be over, and for a feud to work, both wrestlers need to be of a similar calibre.

Take for example when Jericho came back to put Fandango or Bray over, it failed in epic proportions.
And this is just one of the examples.

So I think a Veteran working with a rookie who has not worked long enough, NEVER WORKS.!

So by that logic, the concept of putting a younger guy over does not exist.

What do u guys think.?

Another thing to realize here is that in these examples, while Savage, Sting, HBK, Luger, and even Bray (vs Cena) all were elevated and gained more cred with the audience, they didn't "win" the feuds. Savage bloodied and beat Hogan in some of the most physical matches he had during that time, but he lost virtually every contest during that early run and never earned a pinfall victory. Sting had some great TV segments, busting up Flair's post Starrcade Victory Party and getting disqualified for nearly breaking Flair's leg in the Scorpion when he refused to break the hold in a televised match that actually pre dated Clash I but In the end he didn't beat Flair, losing consistently either by count-out or pinfall on the house show circuit while getting a draw in their blow off match. HBK fought valiantly against Hart in an epic match, much more competitive than many people thought the match would be, but he lost cleanly. Luger usually came up short vs Koloff although he did (with a lot of help) win the US Title off him, only to lose it to Rhodes, but there was no doubt he gained significantly not only through his association with those two as early opponents in his NWA run but also by being tied storyline wise as partners to Flair & Tully Blanchard.

In every case the younger, less established star was "put over" by the more well known and accepted "veteran" even though it was the vet who won most of the individual matches and for the most part won all the feuds (you could argue that by stealing the US Title Luger actually won his fued vs Kolloff, even though he lost a lot of individual matches).

Simply "getting a win" doesn't put anyone over. Anyone remember the great career run Billy Kidman had after beating Hulk Hogan....how about the magnificent career of Rico, who once beat Ric Flair on RAW...or Shelton Benjamin, a guy who beat Flair, HHH, & RVD in his prime in less than a year and won the IC Title to boot....those were all nice individual moments but to most wrestling fans what is remembered more....HBK vs Hart and Sting vs Flair or Shelton Benjamin vs HHH ????

 

[Navi]

Take for example when Jericho came back to put Fandango or Bray over, it failed in epic proportions.

Well this is probably the worst example you could have given. With Bray Wyatt, numerous people tried and failed. Cena, Bryan, Jericho and Ambrose. It just seemed that everyone who went into a feud with him came out looking worse than when they went in, whether they won or lost. It wasn't Wyatt's fault it was the booking each time, it made no sense. Also in the case of Ambrose some felt, myself included, that his interference in the Rollins/Ambrose match came out of nowhere and didn't have to happen. They should have let that feud come to a completion.

Fandango's gimmick is just awful and it would take a forklift to get him over quite honestly. It depends not on the caliber of the wrestler, but whether the fans will buy into the gimmick or not. Fandango went away, came back new and improved, which was bullshit. He's worse than he was before. I don't think anyone could get him over with what they've given him.

If the crowd gets behind you and shows an interest then anyone can get over no matter who they're feuding with.