Slyfox696 on: Popular Misconception in Wrestling

[Kodo Sawaki]

I agree with Slyfox...

In order to get opportunity you need to get noticed. And that is based on your ability to do that and not their ability to make you that way. They can give you perfect storyline and that you make people to not care at all and ruin it. They just create path, you walk through it.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

To an extent, I got you. However, WWE does need to give guys the oppurtunity to develop said characters, or the chance to become a star. They give up on, or dont even try on so many people, its frustrating. This Daniel Bryan thing is nothing short of goddamn miraculous, after what he was given/not given. Its all up to a guy to get over what he is given, but he has to be given the chance to do so

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.

...In AWA. Bad example.

After a promo. And a KOR tournament win. Numerous promos, really. Given the chance to cut them.

After numerous promos. that he was given the chance to run with.

He came up wth that gimmick.....and proceeded to get to cut promos every time he was on TV, and feuded with the Undertaker.


They dont make stars, but people are damn sure given more oppurtunity than others.

 

[jameyt2003]

Its a bunch of shit that makes someone matter. We could start top-down or vice versa. Top-down would infer that the WWE has the power to create a star we will all immediately or soon accept. They put it out, for whatever reason, we eat it up and the show goes on. Now, there are fortunately many cogs in this machine that allow for some interesting scenarios. Not only do fans have an opportunity to decide the fate of a performer, so do the performers themselves. Im not sure how "out of control" things may be in the locker room of WWE. We hear many stories of how backstage politics and ridiculous contracts led to the downfall in quality of WCW programming. There is more than just what Brass(Vince & HHH), us, and the performers can do to effect a mans career path in this industry. Maybe an investor in the WWE doesn't like someone? Or that guy who has all the potential to make imaginations run wild is just a fuck up and cant handle this type of work.

I divide it into parcels to help my own understanding of this industry. WWE is the facilitator. There is extreme emphasis put on that word because we know the WWE has many facilities to create what pro wrestling looks like to the mass audiences. The fans are the people. WE THE PEOPLE. we certainly are. And we are in our own struggle with others when we feel that the product could be better. us IWC guys try our best to be whistle blowers. I think our voice is beginning to be heard, if only in echo's. Then there is everything else that makes running business such a pain in the ass. The performers, the venue itself, the networks, the investors, the government. I don't feel like taking this any further, but this is what this thread brought to mind.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

What WWE superstar is going to credit others for their success while they are on top? They'd be stupid to do such a thing. It's a complete slap in the face of kayfabe and a sign of weakness or even worse, humility. These are not characteristics of any superstar let alone top draws. And this is how Vince and the rest of WWE want it.

The idea that any of these guys made it on their own (or just with a platform) is as silly and markish as believing that Wrestler X "does it for all of youz guyz out der."

But more importantly, I'd be shocked if Jaredtyler and Jtstrike were not the same person.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

To an extent, I got you. However, WWE does need to give guys the oppurtunity to develop said characters, or the chance to become a star. They give up on, or dont even try on so many people, its frustrating. This Daniel Bryan thing is nothing short of goddamn miraculous, after what he was given/not given. Its all up to a guy to get over what he is given, but he has to be given the chance to do so





...In AWA. Bad example.

After a promo. And a KOR tournament win. Numerous promos, really. Given the chance to cut them.

After numerous promos. that he was given the chance to run with.

He came up wth that gimmick.....and proceeded to get to cut promos every time he was on TV, and feuded with the Undertaker.


They dont make stars, but people are damn sure given more oppurtunity than others.

They get more opportunity because they get over in their initial chances. In all of the above situations, they kept getting more over. So they kept getting more opportunity. Ate the point, that you get an opportunity, make the most of it, and get more opportunities.

 

[Rico_Len]

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.

You are right to an extent, but it only goes so far. Example: Macho Man is the worst gimmick of all time. Randy Savage is the GOAT. If the Macho man Randy Savage had never been in professional wrestling, and you were some middle-management in the WWE who came up to an up and coming Joe Schmoe and said: "We're going to dress you up as a flamboyantly colored disco dancer and call you Macho Man." That guy would look at you like you just ended his career, and likely have a few choice words for you as well that likely had to do with the costumes latent homosexuality.

Now, give that gimmick to Randy Savage and he turns it into one of the most iconic gimmicks of all time based off of HIS personality to the point where grown men today dress up as him for Halloween because he was just plain awesome.

On the other hand, give an average performer like say The Miz who is great on the mic but pretty poor in the ring, and he might make that gimmick work for a time but ultimately he would fail and he certainly wouldn't have ever been WWE Champion and have that awesome reign he did as champion.

Let's flip that now though. Give a guy an awesome gimmick, like The Undertaker, book him superman strong, and any Joe Shmoe could make that gimmick work for a while and end up with a good mid-card title reign, maybe even a world title reign (hey it worked for Lex Luger didn't it?). Ultimately the hack will be found out but not before he made a fortune off gullible marks that believed he really was as awesome as he was booked.

Give that gimmick and strong booking Callway got and he'll take the ball and roll with it and become a first ballot hall of famer.

Not only that but you get an amazingly talented performer like Mr. Perfect, Roddy Piper, Rick Rude, Ted DiBiase, and others that strong booking that guys like John Cena get and you've got legends that stand up just as well as Undertaker did. Because you will never convince anyone with any amount of brains that Undertaker, HBK, Flair or anyone else that was not the face of a generation like Hogan, Austin, Rock, Cena, etc, was somehow exponentially better than Hennig, Piper, Rude, DiBiase, Roberts, Hall, etc. who just floated in mid-card.

So yeah. CM Punk? Maybe he is huge today, but you won't convince me he's somehow head and shoulders greater than Dolph Ziggler. Head and shoulders than Bo Dallas? Oh hell yeah, but Ziggler? Ziggler could be the new HBK easily if they booked him as such, but instead he voices and opinion, and is punished by jobbing instead of getting a push, even though he has every bit the amount of charisma, and in-ring ability CM Punk has.

Popular misconceptions are frequently rooted at least to some very small degree in reality. What I explain above is that root.

FYI I applaud Johnny Curtis for taking on this generation's Macho Man gimmick and owning that bitch.

 

[DarksideEric]

They get more opportunity because they get over in their initial chances. In all of the above situations, they kept getting more over. So they kept getting more opportunity. Ate the point, that you get an opportunity, make the most of it, and get more opportunities.

Rock and Austin didn't get over in their initial success.

They got over in their "second chance/we'll let them be them."

 

[LoudClearVoice]

I completely agree with the OP. What happens these days is that the IWC gets obsessed with a guy because he was a good indy wrestler so they automatically assume that he'll be awesome in WWE and if he's not it's because of "creative" or because he's being booked wrong. I agree that if a guy has "it," he'll have success. People always forget that the #1 priority of the WWE is to make money. If a guy has talent and star qualities (ie. he is at least decent in the ring, can talk, can interact with the crowd), WWE provides a stage for his success. They're not going to hold a guy back if that guy can make money for the company.

Usually when the IWC is obsessed with someone and they claim it's creative or WWE execs holding him back, you have to dig deeper and find the real reason (which is usually that he can't talk or he's too generic or whatever).

 

[THTRobtaylor]

You are right to an extent, but it only goes so far. Example: Macho Man is the worst gimmick of all time. Randy Savage is the GOAT. If the Macho man Randy Savage had never been in professional wrestling, and you were some middle-management in the WWE who came up to an up and coming Joe Schmoe and said: "We're going to dress you up as a flamboyantly colored disco dancer and call you Macho Man." That guy would look at you like you just ended his career, and likely have a few choice words for you as well that likely had to do with the costumes latent homosexuality.

Now, give that gimmick to Randy Savage and he turns it into one of the most iconic gimmicks of all time based off of HIS personality to the point where grown men today dress up as him for Halloween because he was just plain awesome.

On the other hand, give an average performer like say The Miz who is great on the mic but pretty poor in the ring, and he might make that gimmick work for a time but ultimately he would fail and he certainly wouldn't have ever been WWE Champion and have that awesome reign he did as champion.

Let's flip that now though. Give a guy an awesome gimmick, like The Undertaker, book him superman strong, and any Joe Shmoe could make that gimmick work for a while and end up with a good mid-card title reign, maybe even a world title reign (hey it worked for Lex Luger didn't it?). Ultimately the hack will be found out but not before he made a fortune off gullible marks that believed he really was as awesome as he was booked.

Give that gimmick and strong booking Callway got and he'll take the ball and roll with it and become a first ballot hall of famer.

Not only that but you get an amazingly talented performer like Mr. Perfect, Roddy Piper, Rick Rude, Ted DiBiase, and others that strong booking that guys like John Cena get and you've got legends that stand up just as well as Undertaker did. Because you will never convince anyone with any amount of brains that Undertaker, HBK, Flair or anyone else that was not the face of a generation like Hogan, Austin, Rock, Cena, etc, was somehow exponentially better than Hennig, Piper, Rude, DiBiase, Roberts, Hall, etc. who just floated in mid-card.

So yeah. CM Punk? Maybe he is huge today, but you won't convince me he's somehow head and shoulders greater than Dolph Ziggler. Head and shoulders than Bo Dallas? Oh hell yeah, but Ziggler? Ziggler could be the new HBK easily if they booked him as such, but instead he voices and opinion, and is punished by jobbing instead of getting a push, even though he has every bit the amount of charisma, and in-ring ability CM Punk has.

Popular misconceptions are frequently rooted at least to some very small degree in reality. What I explain above is that root.

FYI I applaud Johnny Curtis for taking on this generation's Macho Man gimmick and owning that bitch.

You have to remember that Savage had a lot of leeway in creating his character as he did so in his father's promotion. He was always pushed strongly there and thus everywhere he went the gimmick was over before he made it to the WWF. Vince simply transplanted what was working and made it slightly more colourful with the costumes so he could make better toys and contrast to Hogan.

you can't compare that to Taker as you really had no clue what he would become back in 1990. The glaring misconception on him is that he was always this stellar worker... he wasn't... indeed from 1990 to 1996 or so Undertaker was pretty horrid in the ring most of the time.

He could do Old School so had the agility and the high neck clothesline but his matches were basic and based around him bumping, sitting up and choking opponents. For most of his time to that point he was in "giant" style matches at Mania rather than fighting for the title or with those who did so he wasn't improving. It was only when he began to work with Bret, Shawn, Foley, Rock, Austin after they panicked cos they nearly lost him to Mabel's botch that he actually moved up a gear and luckily for him he was an excellent learner from those guys and quickly caught up, then kept on improving.

But until that point, he was destined not for a 21 year streak but a loss anytime at Mania. When he was signed in 1990, the Warlord, Bulldog, Big Bossman, Earthquake all could have gotten that big man push over him and all got their shot at it - Taker showed enough in those early days to make the gimmick interesting and different but that he never held the title again for several years after 91 shows what they were looking for in him.

Even in 92-95, Davey, Warrior, Lex, Diesel, Razor and Yoko were ahead of him in terms of the push they were getting. Sure Taker was being built as unstoppable but in the same way Andre was never the top guy or the best, when the others are fighting for the titles and you're facing Kamala, Bundy or your Brian Lee shaped doppelganger at Mania or Summerslam that's not a path of a legendary worker even if you rarely lose.

Ultimately Taker built the gimmick, worked with the crap he was often given and clearly had potential and adaptability... but he did a lot of busting his ass behind the scenes and it took that freak broken orbital bone from Mabel for them to realise they had to shift directions with him into working with the safer, top workers or risk losing him. It wasn't innate in the way many people seem to believe and had it not happened that way, come 97-8. Mean Mark could have been part of the NWO with ease...

With Savage it was just there, he used his own personality and it clicked. That he had Elizabeth offset any questioning of his choice of attire or nickname and was the icing on a pretty awesome cake.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

There's another line of bullshit WWE and their superstars feed the masses of marks. When a guy makes it with a character, all of the sudden it is partially because that character is 'more true to who I really am' or 'I took a part of myself and put it in to that character'.

Isn't Hulk Hogan proof that these guys are just playing roles and the roles can work despite the real person playing the part?

 

[Rico_Len]

You have to remember that Savage had a lot of leeway in creating his character as he did so in his father's promotion. He was always pushed strongly there and thus everywhere he went the gimmick was over before he made it to the WWF. Vince simply transplanted what was working and made it slightly more colourful with the costumes so he could make better toys and contrast to Hogan.

Of course he did. My point wasn't that Savage got stuck with a gimmick and made it work. My point is that it was a gimmick no one else would ever want, and Savage made it godlike.

Much like Johnny Curtis is doing with the Fandango gimmick today. I love Johnny Curtis as Fandango, despite the fact that most people think he's the worst character in the WWE today (aside from Cena I guess). Every time I watch Fandango I can see in his eyes how much he is enjoying trolling the audience and being a douchebag. He's a complete slimeball, and I love it. It's what separates him from Zack Ryder. Zack Ryder hasn't a care in the world and loves being the complete tool he is and thinks everyone should love him for it, Johnny Curtis knows he's a douche, and enjoys the heat he gets from so-called smarks.

you can't compare that to Taker as you really had no clue what he would become back in 1990. The glaring misconception on him is that he was always this stellar worker... he wasn't... indeed from 1990 to 1996 or so Undertaker was pretty horrid in the ring most of the time.

I wasn't comparing it, I was contrasting it. Undertaker was a horrid worker to begin with, but he learned. That's why it always pisses me off so much when people see some green wrestler that anyone with any wrestling scouting ability to them could see had great potential and say he's not in the same league as so-and-so in whose vein the green wrestler performs. Example. Dolph Ziggler & HBK. Dolph Ziggler easily as good as HBK, but that doesn't mean he's going to perform to the level HBK did in his career. Yet you look at Spirit Squad Nicky to Midnight Rockers Micheals and Nicky compares amazingly well. Dolph Ziggler of today is miles better than The Boy Toy was. But the Dolph Ziggler of 5 years from now? /shrug My guess is that Dolph won't compare very well to the HBK of 1998/2002 at all. But he might, his ability is there, his charisma is there. He's probably just not the brown-nosing douchebag Shawn was back then.

Undertaker's gimmick however was instantly over and really quite a safe bet to run with. Sure it required a little tweaking. He debuted as Kane, The Undertaker afterall, but within next to no time at all he and Bearer had the gimmick down to a science. What really worked about the gimmick though was the booking side of it. No-sell, no-sell, no-sell, strangle, tombstone, win. Back then it was a very simple formula to get a superstar over.

He could do Old School so had the agility and the high neck clothesline but his matches were basic and based around him bumping, sitting up and choking opponents. For most of his time to that point he was in "giant" style matches at Mania rather than fighting for the title or with those who did so he wasn't improving. It was only when he began to work with Bret, Shawn, Foley, Rock, Austin after they panicked cos they nearly lost him to Mabel's botch that he actually moved up a gear and luckily for him he was an excellent learner from those guys and quickly caught up, then kept on improving.

But until that point, he was destined not for a 21 year streak but a loss anytime at Mania. When he was signed in 1990, the Warlord, Bulldog, Big Bossman, Earthquake all could have gotten that big man push over him and all got their shot at it - Taker showed enough in those early days to make the gimmick interesting and different but that he never held the title again for several years after 91 shows what they were looking for in him.

Even in 92-95, Davey, Warrior, Lex, Diesel, Razor and Yoko were ahead of him in terms of the push they were getting. Sure Taker was being built as unstoppable but in the same way Andre was never the top guy or the best, when the others are fighting for the titles and you're facing Kamala, Bundy or your Brian Lee shaped doppelganger at Mania or Summerslam that's not a path of a legendary worker even if you rarely lose.

Ultimately Taker built the gimmick, worked with the crap he was often given and clearly had potential and adaptability... but he did a lot of busting his ass behind the scenes and it took that freak broken orbital bone from Mabel for them to realise they had to shift directions with him into working with the safer, top workers or risk losing him. It wasn't innate in the way many people seem to believe and had it not happened that way, come 97-8. Mean Mark could have been part of the NWO with ease...

With Savage it was just there, he used his own personality and it clicked. That he had Elizabeth offset any questioning of his choice of attire or nickname and was the icing on a pretty awesome cake.

You make my point for me very well. Anyone could have been Undertaker and beat Hulk Hogan for the title in 1991 at Survivor Series, and that would have been huge for any wrestler. It certainly didn't require any real talent on Undertaker's part to run with that gimmick and make something successful out of it.

You talk to any up and coming wrestler and ask them if they would be ok with peaking their career in 1991 with a win over Hulk Hogan for the WWF title and they'd jump at the opportunity.

But Mark Callaway kicked ass and took it to the next level, and then the next.

Anyone can get over with a well booked easy gimmick.

A guy with strong talent in all aspects of pro-wrestling can take that same gimmick and booking and make it legendary.

A guy with strong talent in all aspects of pro-wrestling can also be held down by shitty booking coupled with a crap gimmick.

Perfect, Rude, Piper, DiBiase, Roberts, Hall just to name a few were all guys that could have been Hitman or HBK level stars had they been given the same push. People seem to think that Hitman and HBK were two of the greatest stars of all time, but really, they were merely well above average.

And don't get me wrong, there's very good reasons HBK and Hitman were picked instead of the others. I'm not saying that they got lucky, or politicked or anything like that. In perfect's case he was injury prone, otherwise he would have been world champ before Hitman or HBK as it was actually in the books for him to be the man first of those three. Rude was in much the same position until he got impatient and left the WWE to get away from Hogan. Piper had a rep as a loose canon, Roberts as a drunk, Hall, a druggie, DiBiase? ??? hell if I know why, bad luck I guess, I really don't know why in his case.

However, the greatest stars of all time are guys that became household names outside the world of pro-wrestling.

Ric Flair? He's as good as they get in pro-wrestling, but he didn't have the Hogan level charisma that just couldn't be denied by Hollywood and therefore unable to be buried by the bookers. That's why Hogan was the star of the 80's and known all over the world as a household name, and Flair was just some nobody to those people who didn't follow wrestling, despite being better in almost every single aspect than Hogan.

It's a combination of ability, booking, and gimmick.

 

[CyberPunk]

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.

I agree with everything you've stated here. Almost everything. Except for one thing. There's one thing with the company has under control, and that is giving that chance to shine.

The thing is what a performer does with the given chances. Can a performer do whatever it takes to get over with the chances provided? Yes, if that person has been given the ball to run with. Sometimes he does, sometimes he drops it as a hot cake. But what does someone need to do to get that ball? Or what about luck?

Take Fandango for example. He is saddled with one of the lamest gimmicks in the world of professional wresting (ball room dancer? Really?). However, he does everything in his power to make that work. And it worked for sometime. If only he didn't get that concussion. He might've been the IC champion already and then god knows what would've happened. From beating Jericho at Wrestlemania to buried under the lower card, all under 6 months. But at least he's on national TV and there's always hope he can break out of his rut.

For any wrestler, it's important that the machine shows faith in him. You might have the best gimmick in the world, but if you are not allowed to show that off, nothing would ever come out of it. Yes, once you receive that exposure, it's all up to you how you use it. Once you get that chance, it's up to you whether you can get over or not. A Zack Ryder can be a fad, or can be the next big phenomena. It's all about that chance.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

Of course he did. My point wasn't that Savage got stuck with a gimmick and made it work. My point is that it was a gimmick no one else would ever want, and Savage made it godlike.

Much like Johnny Curtis is doing with the Fandango gimmick today. I love Johnny Curtis as Fandango, despite the fact that most people think he's the worst character in the WWE today (aside from Cena I guess). Every time I watch Fandango I can see in his eyes how much he is enjoying trolling the audience and being a douchebag. He's a complete slimeball, and I love it. It's what separates him from Zack Ryder. Zack Ryder hasn't a care in the world and loves being the complete tool he is and thinks everyone should love him for it, Johnny Curtis knows he's a douche, and enjoys the heat he gets from so-called smarks.

I wasn't comparing it, I was contrasting it. Undertaker was a horrid worker to begin with, but he learned. That's why it always pisses me off so much when people see some green wrestler that anyone with any wrestling scouting ability to them could see had great potential and say he's not in the same league as so-and-so in whose vein the green wrestler performs. Example. Dolph Ziggler & HBK. Dolph Ziggler easily as good as HBK, but that doesn't mean he's going to perform to the level HBK did in his career. Yet you look at Spirit Squad Nicky to Midnight Rockers Micheals and Nicky compares amazingly well. Dolph Ziggler of today is miles better than The Boy Toy was. But the Dolph Ziggler of 5 years from now? /shrug My guess is that Dolph won't compare very well to the HBK of 1998/2002 at all. But he might, his ability is there, his charisma is there. He's probably just not the brown-nosing douchebag Shawn was back then.

Undertaker's gimmick however was instantly over and really quite a safe bet to run with. Sure it required a little tweaking. He debuted as Kane, The Undertaker afterall, but within next to no time at all he and Bearer had the gimmick down to a science. What really worked about the gimmick though was the booking side of it. No-sell, no-sell, no-sell, strangle, tombstone, win. Back then it was a very simple formula to get a superstar over.



You make my point for me very well. Anyone could have been Undertaker and beat Hulk Hogan for the title in 1991 at Survivor Series, and that would have been huge for any wrestler. It certainly didn't require any real talent on Undertaker's part to run with that gimmick and make something successful out of it.

You talk to any up and coming wrestler and ask them if they would be ok with peaking their career in 1991 with a win over Hulk Hogan for the WWF title and they'd jump at the opportunity.

But Mark Callaway kicked ass and took it to the next level, and then the next.

Anyone can get over with a well booked easy gimmick.

A guy with strong talent in all aspects of pro-wrestling can take that same gimmick and booking and make it legendary.

A guy with strong talent in all aspects of pro-wrestling can also be held down by shitty booking coupled with a crap gimmick.

Perfect, Rude, Piper, DiBiase, Roberts, Hall just to name a few were all guys that could have been Hitman or HBK level stars had they been given the same push. People seem to think that Hitman and HBK were two of the greatest stars of all time, but really, they were merely well above average.

And don't get me wrong, there's very good reasons HBK and Hitman were picked instead of the others. I'm not saying that they got lucky, or politicked or anything like that. In perfect's case he was injury prone, otherwise he would have been world champ before Hitman or HBK as it was actually in the books for him to be the man first of those three. Rude was in much the same position until he got impatient and left the WWE to get away from Hogan. Piper had a rep as a loose canon, Roberts as a drunk, Hall, a druggie, DiBiase? ??? hell if I know why, bad luck I guess, I really don't know why in his case.

However, the greatest stars of all time are guys that became household names outside the world of pro-wrestling.

Ric Flair? He's as good as they get in pro-wrestling, but he didn't have the Hogan level charisma that just couldn't be denied by Hollywood and therefore unable to be buried by the bookers. That's why Hogan was the star of the 80's and known all over the world as a household name, and Flair was just some nobody to those people who didn't follow wrestling, despite being better in almost every single aspect than Hogan.

It's a combination of ability, booking, and gimmick.

Ok but you're not acknowledging the stagnation Taker undertook... he didn't grow or improve for several years. he wasn't allowed to to an extent but in reality he didn't try to improve as he knew his spot early as an attraction rather than a title contender or a legend to be. The peak of his career was last WM... beating Hogan in 91 was ruined the moment Flair appeared cos it wasn't clean or even a proper win as it was given back within 3 days... Taker would have been better without that title in 91 and it was exactly the reason guys like Rude left the WWF.

Rude knew Vince was not at the time prepared to let smaller guys run with the title, DiBiase and the like hadn't produced quite what was needed but Rude had IT... Vince just listened to Warrior and Hogan rather than common sense. But put him in that 1990-91 title run, when Flair comes in, when Savage is still in his peak, when Bret and Perfect are on the rise...THEN feed him to Taker at the end of it and you have something special rather than Taker fighting grossly overweight under talented bums for 3 years as he did. Ultimately Bret and Shawn WERE lucky - that Vince got indicted, Perfect (who would have been ahead of both for a World title push) got hurt and that Vince fucked up Sid, Undertaker and Flair...in quick succession they were the guys to pick that ball up.

Had Rude held on a year, he would have probably been that guy first. Sure he'd have feuded with Bret but Shawn in particular lucked out that he went solo just when the steroid stuff was starting. He was a smaller guy they could point to and say "Look, he's not roided but he's exciting" and guys like DiBiase had just gone one or two years too old for that spot. Austin lucked out when Pillman crashed his jeep 3 days after signing, had that not happened Pillman wins KOTR 96 and feuds with Bret for the title... that's the spot he was hired for...

Taker didn't "Kick ass" until the late 90's when he was mixing with the top workers. Till then he was a dull worker fighting worse ones so he looked better cos of his gimmick. Once the shackles were off...THEN he kicked ass but he never came close in those first 5-6 years.

I disagree that Savage had the gimmick no one wanted. Break the gimmick down and he had borrowed the best bits from guys like Charles Manson in his beard and promos, Bowie in the zany dress and the singlemindedness in the ring that the guys like Bruno had. Vince didn't do anything with Randy he hadn't come up with himself, he just turned it up one notch.

Savage's gimmick was perhaps the most deliberate of the era in that it was created for you to know who he was immediately on sight (or even the music cue), remember every word he said but then just be wowed by the match he just put on till he next came to town and you repeated. I think everyone in the history of the business would want that.

 

[Kidpolean]

Fans make wrestlers stars not the WWE. You have to be good at what you do to become a star. If I go out and have the best match every night and get huge crowd reactions I will eventually get my chance. The WWE has NEVER EVER made anyone a star. The audience picks their stars. DB is getting a chance right now because of the crowd reactions he receives.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

I agree with everything you've stated here. Almost everything. Except for one thing. There's one thing with the company has under control, and that is giving that chance to shine.

The thing is what a performer does with the given chances. Can a performer do whatever it takes to get over with the chances provided? Yes, if that person has been given the ball to run with. Sometimes he does, sometimes he drops it as a hot cake. But what does someone need to do to get that ball? Or what about luck?

Take Fandango for example. He is saddled with one of the lamest gimmicks in the world of professional wresting (ball room dancer? Really?). However, he does everything in his power to make that work. And it worked for sometime. If only he didn't get that concussion. He might've been the IC champion already and then god knows what would've happened. From beating Jericho at Wrestlemania to buried under the lower card, all under 6 months. But at least he's on national TV and there's always hope he can break out of his rut.

For any wrestler, it's important that the machine shows faith in him. You might have the best gimmick in the world, but if you are not allowed to show that off, nothing would ever come out of it. Yes, once you receive that exposure, it's all up to you how you use it. Once you get that chance, it's up to you whether you can get over or not. A Zack Ryder can be a fad, or can be the next big phenomena. It's all about that chance.

No, he had one night... and some English fans adopted his music as a new craze... within a week there was a campaign to get the song into the top 40 charts (it missed by 10). Fandago is now doing everything he can to recover from that because, while on paper it's fantastic if you "get over" so quickly or cos of something like that... It's not Vince's way... so he suffered for a while while they "readjusted". The fans though they were doing him a favour but they killed him... Fandango and Bryan are pretty much the proof that it's not possible to get yourself over 100% - the music was the key to the Fandangoing craze, not the guy... had they put him with the Blue Danube and waltzing to the ring, his work might have made the difference... Music like that worked for Savage with Pomp and Circumstance, Triple H with Ode to Joy and Bryan's Ride of The Valkyries. The tools were there in Curtis, the resources were there from WWE but they still wanted control over how it progressed. With Bryan you saw a buzz in him the moment he got that music, even before the guitar version... he was now the geeky guy coming out to WTF music on the biggest stages... you can imagine the sell to Vince being hard until he realised the music would be free... the tools had already been there, the YES chant from him was bizarre but fitting - he got himself over, but Vince has made him jump through hoops of fire for it... and the conversation he had with Foley in Beyond the Mat is the same for Bryan... "This character will just not die" - you could tell Foley was being pushed through gritted teeth and it's the same for anyone who doesn't have the Machine behind them.

 

[Rico_Len]

Ok but you're not acknowledging the stagnation Taker undertook... he didn't grow or improve for several years. he wasn't allowed to to an extent but in reality he didn't try to improve as he knew his spot early as an attraction rather than a title contender or a legend to be. The peak of his career was last WM... beating Hogan in 91 was ruined the moment Flair appeared cos it wasn't clean or even a proper win as it was given back within 3 days... Taker would have been better without that title in 91 and it was exactly the reason guys like Rude left the WWF.

Well, yes and no. I mean, his moveset didn't improve, but I can't believe that he learned nothing during all that time, he just didn't appear to implement much in relation to his moveset. I think he got more comfortable on the mic, got a feel for how business was done in the WWE, and things like that, certainly got a good rep backstage, etc. But you're right that his moveset didn't improve much.

I don't really understand why Undertaker was hotshot to the top and put over by Hulk Hogan so readily, only to then lose it 10 days later (it was 10 right? Something like that at any rate).

Rude knew Vince was not at the time prepared to let smaller guys run with the title, DiBiase and the like hadn't produced quite what was needed but Rude had IT... Vince just listened to Warrior and Hogan rather than common sense. But put him in that 1990-91 title run, when Flair comes in, when Savage is still in his peak, when Bret and Perfect are on the rise...THEN feed him to Taker at the end of it and you have something special rather than Taker fighting grossly overweight under talented bums for 3 years as he did. Ultimately Bret and Shawn WERE lucky - that Vince got indicted, Perfect (who would have been ahead of both for a World title push) got hurt and that Vince fucked up Sid, Undertaker and Flair...in quick succession they were the guys to pick that ball up.

Had Rude held on a year, he would have probably been that guy first. Sure he'd have feuded with Bret but Shawn in particular lucked out that he went solo just when the steroid stuff was starting. He was a smaller guy they could point to and say "Look, he's not roided but he's exciting" and guys like DiBiase had just gone one or two years too old for that spot. Austin lucked out when Pillman crashed his jeep 3 days after signing, had that not happened Pillman wins KOTR 96 and feuds with Bret for the title... that's the spot he was hired for...

Taker didn't "Kick ass" until the late 90's when he was mixing with the top workers. Till then he was a dull worker fighting worse ones so he looked better cos of his gimmick. Once the shackles were off...THEN he kicked ass but he never came close in those first 5-6 years.

I'm with you on everything you say here, but I think Taker was at his best gimmick-wise as the zombie. I was a huge undertaker mark in 1991-1993, but by 1994 I was bored of him and I never really marked for him again until he returned with "The Last Outlaw" variation of his deadman gimmick a couple years back. That reminded me a lot of Roland of Gilead from The Dark Tower.

However, that said, I completely realize that I am a small minority in that aspect. I just dispute the fact that he didn't kickass until the late 90's, at best, he just kicked a whole lot more ass in the late 90's. Early zombie taker will always be the best incarnation in my humble opinion.

I disagree that Savage had the gimmick no one wanted. Break the gimmick down and he had borrowed the best bits from guys like Charles Manson in his beard and promos, Bowie in the zany dress and the singlemindedness in the ring that the guys like Bruno had. Vince didn't do anything with Randy he hadn't come up with himself, he just turned it up one notch.

When Fandango's vignettes started showing, do you remember what everyone's reaction was? "Seems... er.. manly" "Ugh I can't believe WWE is going with such a (insert homosexual slur here) gimmick, I hate WWE!" lol that's just about the only kind of reactions I ever saw. Even I wasn't a fan of it to begin with.

Then I watched him and realized Fandango is just a newer version of the Macho Man gimmick. Macho Man in turn was a 1970's remake of Ricky Star's dancing ballerina gimmick from the 1960's. No manly man mark is going to get on board with a pop-culture dancing flamboyantly dressed gimmick, unless that guy really is something special.

Johnny Curtis is already making the gimmick his own, just like Randy Savage totally owned his gimmick, and Ricky Star innovated his pop-culture dancer gimmick by tweaking Gorgeous George's Hollywood pretty-boy gimmick. They all took the gimmick in different directions.

Savage's gimmick was perhaps the most deliberate of the era in that it was created for you to know who he was immediately on sight (or even the music cue), remember every word he said but then just be wowed by the match he just put on till he next came to town and you repeated. I think everyone in the history of the business would want that.

The thing is that if you separate Randy Savage from The Macho Man, very little of what you describe here applies, in fact I would say none of it applies to the gimmick, and only to the direction Randy Savage himself wanted to take that gimmick.

And again, to the point of the thread's topic, if you place average Joe Schmoe in the Macho Man gimmick, the best thing that guy can hope to get is x-pac heat if he is pushed strongly, and nothing jobber in every other case. Whereas if you put average Joe Schmoe wrestler into the early undertaker gimmick you've got a world champion that likely fades into obscurity.

Or forget Undertaker if that confuses things for you, say that average Joe Schmoe wrestler is massively overweight, but he's alright in the ring and alright on the mic. Instant Yokozuna. (What's sad is that Yoko was an underachiever capable of so much more. I really wish he had stayed healthy and lasted into the attitude era, because I think The Sultan would never have come to be, gone straight to Rikishi, Rodney, and Rocky Maivia would have joined a Samoan stable instead of a black supremest stable, and imagine how different things would have been then if Dwayne never joined the Nation) When you give somebody a sumo gimmick and a name that means Grand Champion and then hotshot him straight to the WWF Championship. How can you help but get over at least so some extent?

 

[Yawa]

No, no, no, no, no...

Sly you are only half right with this. Yes it is true that a wrestling organization does not build stars. They can put them in a position to succeed of course, but for every home run there are many swings and misses.

That being said, what you're argument chooses to completely ignore is when they have a star beginning to get over, can they get out of their own way and let it happen.

You must remember this is the company that put The Rock in purple tights and would have had buried Steve Austin, or kept him a fan favorite called the Ringmaster if they had left it entirely up to creative to decide.

The problem here, with the modern WWE is, that when you start to get noticed you better be doing in a company approved away. Sure we have the miraculous summer of Bryan, but let's face it, it could have been the miraculous summer of Rhode's, Bryan, and Ziggler, and I'm sure if Vince had had his way, it would have been the miraculous summer of Fandango and Ryback.

The thing you're argument completely forgets about is also the company's biggest power. Being fully capable of burying someone when they get over outside of the WWE's own schedule.

This here is the company's biggest, glaring, fault. Never knowing when to get out of its own way. And one only need's to look a little to see that they've squashed some miraculous and unlikely rises these last few years, and still continue to do so.

That's the bigger issue IMO. Even the WWE back in the day wasn't a push party, back when guys had the leverage and freedom to get themselves over. But describing the current WWE as a place where stars are given every opportunity to "make themselves" is disingenuous at best. Tell that to Fandango. Or Ziggler. Or Mcyntire. Or the USO's. Or Kofi Kingston. Or R-Truth. Or Miz. Or future WHC Sandow ( can't wait to see how that half n hour reign gets booked).

It's not like they are going out there botching shoot interviews other stars would dream of having. They are being treated like jobbers, and for the E to expect any of those guys to breakthrough ( Kudos to Ziggler for almost doing it twice now) while being actively buried and marginalized, is nothing more than WWE Creative Officials placing their own short-comings at their jobs, on the star, while not doing a damn thing to help them.