Slyfox696 on: Popular Misconception in Wrestling

[Slyfox696]

Every now and then I'll come across posts which say something to the equivalent of "The WWE (or any promotion) needs to build new stars". And every time I see that now, I cringe a little. So allow me to clear up this misconception.

Wrestling promotions do not build stars. Wrestling promotions do not create stars. What they do is allow stars to shine. They put talent in positions to succeed.

The WWE cannot create a superstar. This has been the flawed thinking of so many Hulk Hogan and John Cena haters for so long. The argument is "if they would book *insert talentless wrestler A* the way they do Cena, he would have been a star too.". To put this gently, it is utter bullshit. John Cena is not a superstar because the WWE made him a superstar. John Cena is a superstar because his talent met his opportunity and he made the most of it. Anyone who is blessed with the ability and destined to become a superstar will eventually figure out how to be a superstar.

Professional wrestling is ALL about making yourself. Anyone who complains the WWE didn't give someone a chance to be a star is fooling themselves. The fact of the matter is profession wrestling doesn't make stars, they give stars a chance to shine. And then they exploit those stars for massive amounts of money.



This free lesson in professional wrestling has been provided by Professor Slyfox. You are welcome.

 

[Wrestlefan27]

So you don't think good writing has anything to do with establishing characters? Got it. You don't think that characters can rise and fall in popularity depending on how the plot develops and what actions creative tells them they need to take? Got it.

You need to go back to school, professor.

 

[Spidey Revivey]

It had to be said. And Happy Birthday Slyfox.

Another semi-popular idea on this forum that I encounter is this notion that if they bring back [insert stipulation here] for a certain pay per view, it will sell. That's a misguided thought. Like with Battleground for instance. There's a list of people that have said "It should be like War Games", and these people are naïve. Your targeted audience most likely don't know what the hell War Games are, and even if they did, to what point or purpose should WWE bring it back? For nostalgic purposes?

If you ran a business purely on nostalgia, you're business won't stay afloat for long. Especially one on television.

 

[Slyfox696]

So you don't think good writing has anything to do with establishing characters?

It's pro wrestling. The writing, compared to other television shows, is always going to be sub-standard because they are dealing with sub-standard actors. So, no, it's not about writing, it's about those with talent and potential being put in situations to shine.

You don't think that characters can rise and fall in popularity depending on how the plot develops and what actions creative tells them they need to take? Got it.

You obviously haven't paid much attention to professional wrestling, have you?

You need to go back to school, professor.

I'm schooling you as we speak.

 

[Toroc102]

Its not black and white. Wrestling promotions can create stars or at least be partially responsible for them. You have to have a good performer for the role, but Kane for example is someone I would say was created by the WWF. They needed a good performer to pull it off but the star part of that character was created by the WWE.

or how about Umaga? I forget his real name but that was a character that was conceived by WWE writers, however they needed someone that could pull the role off.

Counter example-Stone Cold, everybody knows that story. The Rock, everyone knows that too. There are plenty of guys that have gotten over on their own, but I would say there are plenty of guys that couldn't get over on their own and were given a good gimmick/push/whatever by the promotion they were with. I heard a podcast with Jerry Lawler explaining the guy that plays Kamala came up to him asking if he could work for him and they gave him the whole gimmick. I would say Memphis created kamala, not the guy who played him.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

It's all chicken and the egg. WWE can't create stars without wrestlers who can be stars and wrestlers can't become stars without WWE (or whoever) giving them the opportunity to be stars.

I think the exception come straight from the wrestler's look and charisma. If we're talking the top four guys (Hogan, SCSA, The Rock, and Cena) no one guy could have made it without the machine and the WWE couldn't have duplicated their success with just any guy. If I had to pick I'd say Hogan (looks and charisma) and The Rock (charisma) were more likely successes without WWE's booking, writing, and promotion.

We're just in a time where Cena has been on top for so long that it forces people to make stupid arguments about their favorite guy not getting a chance. If WWE needed or could get that guy to bring in Cena level money they would. But despite everyone's efforts they don't get there. But it's all ok and doesn't have to be pushed too far because WWE is making plenty of money with Cena as their top guy.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

I agree to an extent that WWE cannot create stars, its not their job to take their wrestlers (or actors) and make them into stars, its their job to create an outlet for their stars to get over and they do that. With that said I can't ignore the fact that a large portion of their roster is guys they've developed through their development system. Only reason I bring it up is much of the roster seems to be extremely lacking in basic psychology, something all wrestlers should have before they end up on television.

In a lot of ways being a star is something the talent has to figure out on their own as the same rules don't apply to each guy. The wrestlers are ultimately responsible for their fate and they have to make it work, not expect the WWE to make it work for them and it's an attitude that plagues much of the locker room. You often hear <insert wrestler here> complain about how they never got a shot in WWE, well all I got to say to that is that they got to make their own shot, do what you gotta do to get noticed, don't blend in with the rest, break from the pack and that more than anything is the most apparent thing when looking at the roster. Very few in WWE currently have broken away from the pack and that needs to change, but that's not on WWE not at all. Wrestling is different than acting in a lot of ways and one of the biggest is that the writers can't just write lets say Zack Ryder to be a throat doctor and expect it to work, the talent have to find their own character and their own voice that works, even if what WWE is giving them sucks.

I'll go on the record saying I still hate the writing, I understand a lot of it has to do with what the WWE is working with but at the end of the day they can hire/fire whoever they want so if the talent isn't working out then get more talent. The writers often don't seem to put their talent in favorable positions either, not that it matters if you are good enough but they could do a better job at than they do. Some days it seems the writing is just as lazy as the talent, I just don't buy the writing is doing the best they can do. Whether its they aren't high on the talent they work with is irrelevant, if that's the hurdle than get better talent simple as that.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

As usual, I am largely in agreement with Slyfox, but with a caveat. He's dead on that wrestlers get over when wrestling promotions give the wrestlers a chance to shine, and I love that statement, but the promotion has to actually give them that chance. By that, I mean there has to be a degree of creative freedom for the performers and for the agents who help conceive the matches.

Furthermore, the promotion has to give the wrestler a platform. When Shane Douglas helped Paul Heyman turn Eastern Championship Wrestling into Extreme Championship Wrestling, it happened because Douglas won the title that gave him the pulpit to make his statement. Same holds true for Stone Cold Steve Austin. Had he been booked to lose King of the Ring to Jake Roberts or Savio Vega, then the Austin 3:16 catch phrase may never have been born.

I frequently have been concerned over WWE providing too little freedom to its talent. When they gave CM Punk talent, he ran with it, and turned things around for a short time. Now of course, not every talent is trustworthy of that freedom. I am sure there are plenty of guys who would not treat that freedom well, and on Live TV, that's gotta be terrifying for the WWE. But they seemed far more willing to give that freedom in the 90's and even the post attitude-era 2000's (the Lesnar / Angle / Taker / Cena / JBL / Guerrero days).

 

[Jstrike]

i agree somewhat but you gotta realize someone such as del rio has had chance after chance and wwe has made him a star. alberto has sucked badly and wwe wont give up on him. the miz is a big star but wwe is holding him back.
here's the deal wwe does make stars! john cena "real guy" ain't a star.
the John cena on wwe is a star. the rock is a star! dwayne johnson not so much. its wwe and the real person coming up with gimmicks. that really build to this. i do not personally think cena is more talented than guys who dont get pushed. i dont hate cena but cena is better than some wrestlers but not all.
cm punk has been the same level his whole career but without that famous pipebomb cm punk was never a star. wwe gave him the pipebomb so wwe made cm punk. im sorry but i don't get your point on this none the less its different than the average forum so kudos to you!

 

[Toroc102]

I think the problem with the WWE is that they don't let anyone get close to Cena. Like in my mind there is no way the entire company should be dependent on one man, its ridiculous.

I think the problem with this theory about company's making stars, is that the companies(really though, company, WWE of course) themselves take too much credit for creating stars and you tell a lie long enough people start to believe it. Yes the WWE won the Wrestling war, but now they get to retell their entire history, make it seem like every good idea that was ever thought up was thought up by them.

Whenever I hear a wrestling shoot, every wrestler is always talking about how WWE "makes stars". To me that is just a figure of speech that is taken too literally. I think the point wasn't that they literally construct stars out of nowhere, it was that the WWE/F was the company with the most stars, therefor "WWE/F made stars".

 

[Fire Marshall Bill]

i agree somewhat but you gotta realize someone such as del rio has had chance after chance and wwe has made him a star. alberto has sucked badly and wwe wont give up on him. the miz is a big star but wwe is holding him back.
here's the deal wwe does make stars! john cena "real guy" ain't a star.
the John cena on wwe is a star. the rock is a star! dwayne johnson not so much. its wwe and the real person coming up with gimmicks. that really build to this. i do not personally think cena is more talented than guys who dont get pushed. i dont hate cena but cena is better than some wrestlers but not all.
cm punk has been the same level his whole career but without that famous pipebomb cm punk was never a star. wwe gave him the pipebomb so wwe made cm punk. im sorry but i don't get your point on this none the less its different than the average forum so kudos to you!

Sifting through your version of English, I think I see where you're getting confused.

Basically he's saying that at some point, when the WWE gives you your chance, you have to take the ball and run with it. While you think Cena and CM Punk are not the best in the business, when they had their chances they took the ball and ran far. Now they're huge stars. People care about them. A good example on the opposite side of the spectrum is Antonio Cesaro (it's still early in his career so this isn't saying he's doomed). People around here love his wrestling ability, and he is fun to watch. But when he had his singles chance he bombed. I mean he was just putting people to sleep with his mic work. That's why he's now in a jobber tag team (with someone who's exactly the same way).

And I totally agree with Sly. The only caveat I have sort of goes along with IC. Companies like WWE have to give you a chance to take the ball and run with it. But you also have to earn that chance. If you're awful in the ring and awful on the mic, unless you're a hot Diva, why should they give you a chance? You're clearly terrible and aren't going to draw a dime.

This sort of goes along with a post I had in another thread. Someone called DB a "wrestler" and he should be doing that and not talking so much. If DB doesn't talk and get the crowd behind him with his words, eventually they're going to get bored watching the same old matches all the time. The best can get people to get behind them and stay behind them. That's taking the ball and running with it.

 

[Headman]

So you don't think good writing has anything to do with establishing characters? Got it. You don't think that characters can rise and fall in popularity depending on how the plot develops and what actions creative tells them they need to take? Got it.

You need to go back to school, professor.

Holy dip shitted comment batman! He said it's the WWE's job to put talent in a position to succeed but it's ultimately up to the individual and his God given talents. If you'd read the freaking post you might not look so stupid when replying.

Its not black and white. Wrestling promotions can create stars or at least be partially responsible for them. You have to have a good performer for the role, but Kane for example is someone I would say was created by the WWF. They needed a good performer to pull it off but the star part of that character was created by the WWE.

or how about Umaga? I forget his real name but that was a character that was conceived by WWE writers, however they needed someone that could pull the role off.

Counter example-Stone Cold, everybody knows that story. The Rock, everyone knows that too. There are plenty of guys that have gotten over on their own, but I would say there are plenty of guys that couldn't get over on their own and were given a good gimmick/push/whatever by the promotion they were with. I heard a podcast with Jerry Lawler explaining the guy that plays Kamala came up to him asking if he could work for him and they gave him the whole gimmick. I would say Memphis created kamala, not the guy who played him.

If the character Kane were handed to 911 instead of Glen Jacobs it would have failed. If the character of Umaga were handed to Rosie it would have failed. Once again we overlook the fact that it's the individual who gets the gimmick over not the other way around. I enjoy the replies this thread has gotten because it proves Sly isn't just making shit up. There really is a large number of people who cling to this idea that the WWE can create stars and the only reason they don't create new ones is because they care more about not hurting John Cena, Hulk Hogan and Steve Austin's feelings than they do about making money. Dumb.

 

[Mr_billy]

Also, another good point is a lot of people here also think people are being de pushed, punished, or not given a chance because they are not in the WWE Title hunt. Some of biggest stars in WWE history have never even been in the title hunt, such as Hacksaw Jim Duggan, Hillbilly Jim, and JYD. Just because you have TV time means you made it, and there is only so much room at the top. In order to stay viable on TV you have to give young people chances, and the do all the time.

 

[hatehabsforever]

The fact of the matter is, there are truthful aspects to both side of the argument. Slyfox is clearly accurate when he suggests that the performer himself (his talent, his charisma, his mic skills, his connection with the crowd, etc.,) is ultimately responsible for getting a character over. WWE in and if itself cannot just reach into its magical bag and create the next superstar who will carry the company on his shoulders. Most of the responsibility for that falls squarely on the performer himself.

The flip side of that, though, is that WWE has to create the scenario and the environment for said performer to excel. It matters not how talented a guy is only; if WWE doesn't put him in a position which has the potential for success, he is far less likely to successfully get over.

Take Kane for example. Glen Jacobs is responsible for getting that character over as successfully as he has and with such longevity. It is his unique skill set and persona that resulted in the success of the Kane character. If WWE had tried to give that character to Zack Ryder, or Ted DiBiase, or someone else, in all likelihood it would have failed.

However it is equally true that Jacobs needed the Kane character to succeed too. He couldn't get over as fake Diesel or Isaac Yankem, and had be been forced to stick with those characters, he likely would not have succeeded.

So sure, give credit where credit is due to the individuals who elevate their characters to the top. But also give credit to WWE for putting them in a favourable position to succeed in the first place. It unquestionably requires both for a character to break through that glass ceiling.

As Daniel Bryan is going to display for all of us on a go forward basis.

 

[SinCityBlitz]

Holy dip shitted comment batman! He said it's the WWE's job to put talent in a position to succeed but it's ultimately up to the individual and his God given talents. If you'd read the freaking post you might not look so stupid when replying.

It's not up to the individual because the higher ups decide who they are going to push. There are plenty of wrestlers who could have been big if politics didn't come into play. The individual has only so much say in how much his character gets over.

You want a perfect example.....Steve Austin. How over was he when he was the Ringmaster? Same guy different gimmick and he couldn't get over. You can stop sucking up to Sly now.

 

[Blade]

I think that it does come down to the wrestler. Mostly. A wrestler is the one who gets himself over. WWE aren't the ones who orchestrate making someone into a star. If someone is going to be a star, then they're going to be a star. With that said, WWE does have to allow that to happen.

For example, CM Punk was relatively over before his promo in 2011. But when he asked if he could cut the promo on the stage, WWE had to let him. With a promo that was quite offensive to some major people in WWE. If WWE had said no, and just let Punk job to others before he left. So, while it is mostly about what the wrestler does, the company does have to allow them to do it.

Admittedly, that might be a bad example because it seems that WWE really wanted to keep CM Punk for whatever reason, so he had the bargaining advantage, so he knew he could pitch the promo knowing that WWE were likely to say yes to him.

But yeah, the basic point is, if WWE lets them, a star will become a star. That's why Dolph Ziggler's complaining in interviews annoys me. I enjoy watching Ziggler in the ring, but he just hasn't found a connection with the audience, and that's all him, mixed with some unfortunate injuries. If he's as good as he thinks he is, he wouldn't have to complain.

 

[Cereal Killer]

I have to agree with this. It is all up to the star himself in order to become one. If he isn't where many of you guys think he should be; it's because he sucks. There it is, in a nutshell. It is no coincidence John Cena is in a higher position than Daniel Bryan. Why should McMahon put Bryan over Cena? Why hasn't he? Probably because John Cena IS better than Daniel Bryan. The same way Hulk Hogan was better than Randy Savage and Ric Flair. They both draw more than the latter, and have arguably (and according to Dave Meltzer) have had more memorable and marketable matches than anyone else.

For the most part, if a WWE star wants to become a top one, he needs to act upon it himself. He is the one that needs make sure he can cut a promo, keep the crowd awake and throw on a good wrestling match. The difference between Cena's and Punk's styles are that Punk uses a variety of athletic moves, while Cena can portray a story. That's what is more interesting in "sports-entertainment" and is what makes the money.

The only point where the WWE actually has to partake in creating a star is when they book the talented wrestler correctly, which is hardly ever an issue. One example is Zack Ryder. He was one of the hottest stars of 2011. Just watch Survivor Series 2011. The crowd were chanting his name in a match with the Rock in the main event, and the WWE failed excel. That's a once in a blue moon example. For those thinking Dolph Ziggler is a perfect example of a star not being booked properly; think again. As good as his matches are, he has bad psychology. Just take a look at a match of his, how can we take a man that over-sells and looks like he's come back from a war-zone serious enough as our world champion. Can you imagine Steve Austin or The Rock with Ziggler's acting or selling? No. Because they have stated a name for themselves as two of the best performers in the business, and in this case-have good psychology.

 

[Sweettre15]

The only point where the WWE actually has to partake in creating a star is when they book the talented wrestler correctly, which is hardly ever an issue. One example is Zack Ryder. He was one of the hottest stars of 2011. Just watch Survivor Series 2011. The crowd were chanting his name in a match with the Rock in the main event, and the WWE failed excel. That's a once in a blue moon example. For those thinking Dolph Ziggler is a perfect example of a star not being booked properly; think again. As good as his matches are, he has bad psychology. Just take a look at a match of his, how can we take a man that over-sells and looks like he's come back from a war-zone serious enough as our world champion. Can you imagine Steve Austin or The Rock with Ziggler's acting or selling? No. Because they have stated a name for themselves as two of the best performers in the business, and in this case-have good psychology.

Some of this I can't say I agree with. I mean there have been times where Ziggler HAS used over-athletic selling but most of his matches as of late have been top notch and gets the crowd involved each time. I am one of those people that say Ziggler has been badly booked because despite how much he engages the crowd, not just the smarks but even in other cities, Mcmahon refuses to do anything with him. When Ziggler was given the title, he was over in spite of the chicken shit booking and then got injured only to lose his title the second he returns and for what? To get ADR over as a heel and ironically being the only time people have given a damn about an ADR match? But it's still ADR who has the title and not Ziggler despite ADR having no charisma or having the crowd behind him.

So yes Ziggler is being wrongly used because he can get over without being rewarded for it and people like Alberto Del Rio dont even have be over yet they get lengthy title reigns and our shoved down people's throats. Ziggler has managed to get more popular than a lot of the guys WWE's pushed earlier this year whether it's Ryback, ADR, Swagger, Fandango, or Miz. That's still a fact along with the fact that his segments DO bring in more viewers.

As for the criticism of his selling, even though I think it's exaggerated, The Rock used to oversell like a motherfucker yet he doesnt often get crap for it. The Rock has cut handstand backflips and any somersault known to man when hit by finishers like The Stone Cold stunner or Rhyno's gore. Atleast with Ziggler, he'll actually make a finisher look devastating and not like a video game special attack.




__________________

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

Here is the ultimate argument to support the OPs case:

Top stars make WWE money. WWE likes making money. So if it was as easy as "book this guy like Cena" to make a guy a star, wouldn't they do it more often?

WWE writes the best they can and put who they think will succeed in a roll. If you get over, you get pushed more. Get more over, get pushed even more. Don't get over, don't get pushed. It's pretty simple.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

Every now and then I'll come across posts which say something to the equivalent of "The WWE (or any promotion) needs to build new stars". And every time I see that now, I cringe a little. So allow me to clear up this misconception.

Wrestling promotions do not build stars. Wrestling promotions do not create stars. What they do is allow stars to shine. They put talent in positions to succeed.

The WWE cannot create a superstar. This has been the flawed thinking of so many Hulk Hogan and John Cena haters for so long. The argument is "if they would book *insert talentless wrestler A* the way they do Cena, he would have been a star too.". To put this gently, it is utter bullshit. John Cena is not a superstar because the WWE made him a superstar. John Cena is a superstar because his talent met his opportunity and he made the most of it. Anyone who is blessed with the ability and destined to become a superstar will eventually figure out how to be a superstar.

Professional wrestling is ALL about making yourself. Anyone who complains the WWE didn't give someone a chance to be a star is fooling themselves. The fact of the matter is profession wrestling doesn't make stars, they give stars a chance to shine. And then they exploit those stars for massive amounts of money.



This free lesson in professional wrestling has been provided by Professor Slyfox. You are welcome.

To an extent you're right... but the reality is that the WWE has lost the skill it used to have of making it's roster seem like genuine superstars so those who did make themselves stand out became icons.

Look back to the Hogan era around this time of year, everyone had a feud on TV leading into Survivor Series. In a 2 hour show a new fan could learn who everyone on the roster was through their Survivor Matches. Who was being "pushed" as they would be captain of a team, who was the up and comers as they'd be "vice captains" or have prominent parts in the match by eliminating people like Bret in 1990, who was new like Taker in 90 and who was on the way down as they'd get eliminated early. The roster wasn't that much smaller than it is now and in 2 hours WWF writers got 40-50 men onscreen in some kind of relevant position. At all times everyone on WWF TV through to the mid 90's when they started using "scriptwriters" had a feud at all times even if it was with Kwang or Bastion Booger.

Today guys who are supposedly top 10 or 20 in the "Power 25" can't even get onto the PPV's or RAW because "creative has nothing for them" or other stories take priorites.

If the writers of The Walking Dead turned round and said "We got nothing in the season finale for Carl" the producers would get better writers... yet them saying "We got nothing for the guy who was champion 3 months ago is a regular occurrence." If Homeland's guys said "We're not using Brody cos he ate chicken over Saul's beard" or "he has heat with Claire Danes" then the network would say "at half a million an episode use him!"

Look at someone like Fandango, who did "get himself over" or rather his theme lit the fuse. The moment it started to catch Vince pulled back the reigns... the song in the charts stuff could have been huge, done right you could have brought Stacy back to team with Jericho based on the Dancing with the Stars connection and even sent Fandango to that show... but Vince doesn't want people getting themselves over in that way or the fans to decide who does, he wants the machine to do it, his way, so he can control it, package it, slap it on a lunchbox/plushie which we all buy like good little "fans" so he can ultimately sell to Disney (his wet dream I am sure, to be in the same company as George Lucas, a Billionaire again with "creative input") before he lets it go back to being pro wrestling company.

As the WWE is fond of saying "This is not professional wrestling, it's sports entertainment" so while your lesson may have been valid once or in TNA where you can get yourself over still (although for how long remains to be seen) the only real guys who do that now are indie guys... but what happens when they get to the WWE? Go to NXT...do not keep your name, do not expect a strong debut even if they were ROH or a TNA champion... they get taught how to do the WWE way of today, not how to get themselves over the way the guys who are now "Legends" or the next batch of, like Jericho, Taker, Trips et al had to. It's like Wayne Gretzky teaching Field Hockey.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

To an extent you're right... but the reality is that the WWE has lost the skill it used to have of making it's roster seem like genuine superstars so those who did make themselves stand out became icons.

Look back to the Hogan era around this time of year, everyone had a feud on TV leading into Survivor Series. In a 2 hour show a new fan could learn who everyone on the roster was through their Survivor Matches. Who was being "pushed" as they would be captain of a team, who was the up and comers as they'd be "vice captains" or have prominent parts in the match by eliminating people like Bret in 1990, who was new like Taker in 90 and who was on the way down as they'd get eliminated early. The roster wasn't that much smaller than it is now and in 2 hours WWF writers got 40-50 men onscreen in some kind of relevant position. At all times everyone on WWF TV through to the mid 90's when they started using "scriptwriters" had a feud at all times even if it was with Kwang or Bastion Booger.

Today guys who are supposedly top 10 or 20 in the "Power 25" can't even get onto the PPV's or RAW because "creative has nothing for them" or other stories take priorites.

If the writers of The Walking Dead turned round and said "We got nothing in the season finale for Carl" the producers would get better writers... yet them saying "We got nothing for the guy who was champion 3 months ago is a regular occurrence." If Homeland's guys said "We're not using Brody cos he ate chicken over Saul's beard" or "he has heat with Claire Danes" then the network would say "at half a million an episode use him!"

Look at someone like Fandango, who did "get himself over" or rather his theme lit the fuse. The moment it started to catch Vince pulled back the reigns... the song in the charts stuff could have been huge, done right you could have brought Stacy back to team with Jericho based on the Dancing with the Stars connection and even sent Fandango to that show... but Vince doesn't want people getting themselves over in that way or the fans to decide who does, he wants the machine to do it, his way, so he can control it, package it, slap it on a lunchbox/plushie which we all buy like good little "fans" so he can ultimately sell to Disney (his wet dream I am sure, to be in the same company as George Lucas, a Billionaire again with "creative input") before he lets it go back to being pro wrestling company.

As the WWE is fond of saying "This is not professional wrestling, it's sports entertainment" so while your lesson may have been valid once or in TNA where you can get yourself over still (although for how long remains to be seen) the only real guys who do that now are indie guys... but what happens when they get to the WWE? Go to NXT...do not keep your name, do not expect a strong debut even if they were ROH or a TNA champion... they get taught how to do the WWE way of today, not how to get themselves over the way the guys who are now "Legends" or the next batch of, like Jericho, Taker, Trips et al had to. It's like Wayne Gretzky teaching Field Hockey.

you're off base. Fandango was pushed. You're assuming Vince can make whatever he wants happen. What if Stacy wanted more money than the wwe felt she was worth?

Also, it doesn't matter what gimmick they give you, you should get over with it. Scott Hall once said "Vince originally wanted me to be GI Joe, and if he would have stuck with that, I would have worked to be the best GI Joe". In other words, get over with what they give you. Dustin got Golddust over. Cody rhoades has gotten everything over. John Cena got a white boy rapper over. Triple H got a snob over. Austin got the ringmaster over. They earned their keep and then got a push and got to stretch their legs a little more.

Also, I've heard from interviews with Punk that guys can come to creative with ideas but that most guys are too scared to. I think you are confusing what you read in dirt sheets with actual information (such as believing creative said "we got nothing for the champion").

 

[Jaredtyler]

i don't get this thread.
like jt strike has stated.
cm punk was'nt a star until wwe made him a star.
cm punk was already good talker wrestler.
but in reality punk wasnt no where near fame

 

[jmt225]

i don't get this thread.
like jt strike has stated.
cm punk was'nt a star until wwe made him a star.
cm punk was already good talker wrestler.
but in reality punk wasnt no where near fame

Sly's point is that WWE gives guys a platform to become a star; however, they don't "create" stars themselves.

Did WWE create Hulk Hogan? No, Hulk Hogan made Hulk Hogan.

Did WWE create "Stone Cold" Steve Austin? No, WWE created The Ringmaster.

Did WWE create The Rock? No, WWE created Rocky Maivia,

Did WWE create John Cena? No, Cena came up with the rapper gimmick on his own after being given a generic babyface role.

WWE has never been able to create stars. Literally, not one time they have. The stars that made the company what it is today, they all did it themselves. Did WWE grant them the platform to do it on? Sure, but that's as far as it goes.

 

[It's...Baylariat!]

If a wrestler is good enough to garner ratings, draw money, and put the WWE on the map, then the sky is the limit for them. It's not that the WWE makes them big, they just happen to have a huge stage to become big.

It's been mentioned ad nauseum that Austin, Hogan, Rock, and Cena created themselves and happened to be given freedom from the WWE to do what was needed to get themselves over. Austin was himself with the volume full blast. Same goes for The Rock, Hogan, and guys like HHH or HBK.

There's no lab for the WWE to find the next star. They can't 'create' a star. They can merely house a star and give him a huge platform to show off with.

In movies or TV, the cast isn't put together so they can be created as stars. They're given the platform to show off their craft.

The WWE does the same thing. Wrestling's simply in a downward cycle right now and very few stars exist right now.

 

[D-Man]

"Creation of Superstars" might be the biggest grey area that exists in the business of professional wrestling. There are so many underlying factors that it would probably make your head spin. Everyone needs to remember that no one can become a star until the audience has accepted the wrestler as one. That being said, naturally, there are building blocks to such an equation.

In the days of old, "Wrestler A" needed to have factors that made them marketable and that had the ability to create a buzz worthy enough to fill seats in an arena. In today's wrestling, they must also have factors that make them entertaining in a way that translates clearly over our television screens. Furthermore, a promotion must put their "machine" behind said wrestler and create opportunities for them to shine. Whether it be the right storyline, the right chemistry between themselves and another established superstar, a word used properly during a promo (i.e. "What!", "Yes!"), or a guy who just has an all-around IT factor (i.e. John Cena, The Rock, Austin) and can use their skills to connect with the audience that makes them. But you also have to include timing and circumstance.

In the end, it all culminates with a partnership... a figurative handshake, if you will. All of the factors I stated need to be present in some way, shape or form. It's a recipe that isn't effective unless the elements are combined into the proper formula.

Simply put, you can't be naive and say that only the WWE can create stars or only a superstar can make themselves into one. It's a combination of many too things combined to make one large grey area.