The "It" Factor.

[LSN80]

So many times in the world of professional wrestling, we discuss the concept of the "It" factor. We argue over whether or not one particular wrestler has the elusive X factor, but so often we fail to define exactly what the X-Factor is. We talk about what it will take for a wrestler to get to the the next level within the WWE, to scale the ladder even higher in their career, and how to get bookings. We generally agree on a consensus of which WWE wrestlers have "It". John Cena, HHH, CM Punk, and Randy Orton are almost universally agreed about as having that factor, among a select few others. And for every wrestle we agree on that have "IT", we can name wrestlers on the card who have their place, but certainly not the "IT" factor to get to the top. Evan Bourne, Tyson Kidd, Jack Swagger, and John Morrison, amongst others. All have their place on the card, and can be good hands when called upon. And each man is needed and respected in their place on the card, but they seem to be missing the antangible that defines the "It" factor.

Within the context of the WWE, we often argue what characteristics are necessary to be combine to equal that factor. We look at charisma, mic skills, defined characters, a good look, and wrestling ability. But there are many wrestlers that may have most of these, but they're where they are for a reason. They fall short with regards to having the "It" factor. Why? If pressed, I would argue having drawing power is that "It" factor, the most important quality a wrestler can have.

Plain and simple, wrestling is first and foremost a business. The bigger the stage, with the largest being the WWE, more is required of talent. Just wrestling a solid match, no matter how competently it is executed, is simply not enough. The big name wrestlers need to transcend into becoming larger than life personas. In fact, there's a solid argument argument to be made that executing one's persona into drawing power is more important than the underlying and fundemental wrestling skills that are required to have a great match. Simply put, drawing power is more important then anything else within the business. The question a promoter like Vince McMahon often must answer is this: Can you honestly see people lining up to buy tickets to see ____ on the card? Wrestlers are entertainers, but if they don't have the ability to put asses in the seats, their entertainment value is lessened significantly to their employer. It doesn't matter if you're an Internet Sensation, or how accomplished in the ring one is. A great resume coming in to a new company means absolutely nothing if they aren't presented as and stand out as draws. Drawing power is truly the "It factor", as everything else pales in comparison.

Thoughts on this?

 

[This Is My Name Thank You]

I believe the "It" factor is everything you stated thrown into one. The one with the "IT" factor needs to be a shining light in a dark room. He has to be able to grab someone’s attention and keep your eyes glued on them. They have to have charisma, charm, mic skills, talent, a look to back their character, and be able to wrestle (somewhat) and again keep eyes glued to you. That to me is the "IT" factor and the total factor including the ability to draw.

If you’re going out playing a sports jock character and you look like the Blob from X Men no one is going to believe you. You need to fit the profile of the person you portray. Like Taker for instance, he is huge, tattooed up, looks scary, good mic skills, really good in the ring and he fits the whole Undertaker gimmick well. If you had Batista playing that role would you believe it that much? Probably not and you would not want to watch.

So to me as I stated this "IT" factor is everything that you stated in your opening post. To me the main thing is I have to believe that this person fits the gimmick that he is portraying and all the other factors need to be implied too.

 

[mrhexum]

To me, the "It" factor is almost a cop-out term for "unexplained" success. That's not saying said success hasn't been earned, more so that the path or reason(s) for that success hasn't been defined. It is really a term that can be looked at several ways.

For me, when I think of the term it seems that the person it's being applied to doesn't have that one thing or set of things that makes you go "That's why they've made it". Instead, they posses just enough talent in each area to look and perform at a solid level. You could also look at the "It" factor as a way of saying that person doesn't have a career dooming flaw.

I can see your final point, but, I have to disagree. I think that having the "It" factor is what leads to one becoming a draw.

 

[Gaz]

The way i see it the "IT" factor is the ability to connect on some level with the crowd or at least a reasonable proportion of the crowd. This is mainly down to the story telling of the character in the ring and in promos. The gimmick the wrestler portrays is also very important as pointed out above, if the gimmick does not match the wrestler the audience is never going to buy into it.

A perfect comparison to show this is between HBK and Daniel Bryan one obviously has the "IT" factor while the other at the moment does not. I think we can all agree that these are to great in ring workers and although not at HBK's level Bryan is not awful on the mic. The major difference is HBK was able to sell the story to the fans have them cheering or booing him but always reacting to him and feeling empathy to to the situation he is in.

This is some thing all the wrestlers with the "IT" factor have in common and i feel that it is this connection with the audience that gives them the "IT" factor. This is also the same thing that makes them draw audiences, as the audience buy in to this characters story lines.

 

[S.J. Maximus]

There's no question that drawing power is the "It" factor but I don't think that's a mystery. The question is, what affects drawing power? The intangible "It" factor is the ability to captivate crowds and draw fans far and near into a stadium (or arena) to pay to see you. But what causes them to want to pay and see you? I think that question is the one that's hard to answer. You saying the It Factor is drawing power is like me saying water is H2O. Yes, both of those statements are true (because they're synonyms) but now we have to define the synonym that you replaced It Factor with. What do you think effects drawing power? Which qualities do you think defines a big draw? If you answer those 2 questions, then you'll also have your answer to It Factor.

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

It is impossible to describe the "IT" factor.

Some people have it, that something special that creates a connection between performer and audience. That little bit that makes them stand out from the crowd, that something that you cannot teach.

It is impossible to say that it is their wrestling ability, as there are plenty of phenomenal wrestlers who certainly do not have "IT". It isnt their look, or else all the bodybuilder style wrestlers would be megastars. You can't teach it, it is something that little bit different that some people just have.

The Rock had it. Just by raising an eyebrow, getting over with a ridiculous finishing move, silly catchphrases and just acting, looking and talking like a star.

Austin had it. He never had the best body, or the best in-ring ability, but he had that charisma, that special something to connect with the audience in a way few ever had before, and that few ever will again.

This IT factor makes people want to pay to watch that person perform, any many of the modern day WWE roster are not must-see talent, and thats a shame. To me, the IT factor could be described as someone who scores highly in charisma, personality, fitting their gimmick, being able to connect with a crowd, showmanship, being able to talk, the swagger of a star and good wrestling ability.

 

[Wade's Public Transit Bomb]

When I see someone use that term I think two things:

1) It is waaaayyyyyy over-fucking-used. Just because you like [name] doesn't mean he or she was meant to be a big deal. If they have been around for years and are still in the same spot that they were when they started, they probably weren't meant to be a big deal/main eventer. (Looking at you Morrison, Dolph, Swaggie, and Kofi)

2) I really, really think that it is something your can't make or force. People always talk about "well, if they repackage him, he will have charisma!" Err.. No.


For me, the 'it' factor is something you really can't explain. We can't say it is because of charisma because that term lost its meaning a lot time ago (again, just because [you] likes someone doesn't make something they aren't.) We can't say it is a certain look because big names in pro wrestling have all had different looks (i.e. Dusty compared to John Cena). We can't say it is because of actual talent because that is totally subjective.

 

[macho_boy]

del rio is a prime example who has no it factor.. nothing going for him and he shud not be employed by wwe.. ratings are down and i can think of the reason why this is.. coz rio is rubbbbish

 

[Daniel]

You're right, LSN. Drawing power is the most important thing that a wrestler needs. I used to think that good wrestling wasn't really about drawing money. It is. Wrestling is all about making money and the best wrestlers are the ones who make the cash. It's why John Cena is the best in the world. But he draws because he has the "it" factor, he doesn't have the "it" factor because he draws.

You may seem lost. And that's OK. I'm a bit lost and I'm writing this post. What I'm trying to say is that I don't think the "it" factor is drawing power. The "it" factor is the ability to make people care, or the ability to connect to a universal audience. Plain and simple. But the thing is, it's inextricably linked to drawing power. If a wrestler can make an arena care about them, it is a certainty that the people will part with their cash because of them.

Drawing power is essential for a successful wrestler, but this post is about why people draw. And it's because they have the "it" factor. AKA, the ability to make people care.

 

[Mustang Sally]

Can you honestly see people lining up to buy tickets to see ____ on the card?

This topic takes me back to the "Should Dolph Ziggler be in the main event" thread from a few days ago. Some people thought he should be a main eventer because he wrestles so well. That's nice, but it's not nearly enough to make a star.

The fact is, most of the guys on the roster wrestle well. Most can put up a competent offense and are able and willing to sell for their opponents. It could certainly be argued that Dolph wrestles better than John Cena. But then, why do people line up to buy tickets when Cena is on the card, while Dolph can work his ass off and get only a lukewarm reaction from the crowd?

It's the "IT" factor. If you can explain why one person has it and another doesn't, you could probably be the greatest talent scout in Hollywood, filtering through hundreds of wanna-bes and choosing the one who will appeal to millions of people. Movie studios would pay you a fortune if you could save them time and investment by picking the winners.

With Cena, you could see "IT" from the beginning. Remember his early days with the rapping and moving awkwardly around the ring during his matches? Yet, you watched him and could tell that someone special had come into WWE. It certainly wasn't his looks, was it?

Steve Austin had it. On the surface, he was just one of many redneck tough guys, cleaning house and talking dirty. What made him different from all the similar personae that came before him?

It was the "IT" factor. Either you've got it or you don't. I've never seen anyone develop it after not having it when they started. The best they can hope for is to catch on with an inspired gimmick or program...... but that's not "IT." You gotta be born with "IT."

Charisma.

 

[Sub-Xero]

The IT factor really can't be defined as one absolute thing, it's more a combination of attributes that make a star. In wrestling, I think the biggest thing is to be able to have a good match with anyone. I stated in a previous post that The Rock could have a 3 star match with a fire hydrant. Obviously, being an exceptional worker contributes to the IT factor.

You also have to be good on the stick. That's the main reason a guy like Billy Gunn was never a top draw. He looked great, wrestled very well, had all the right friends, but couldn't cut a good promo to save his life. He was always a tag team specialist, and during his best days, he only ever said 5 words per show (We got two words for ya...). Mick Foley, however, regardless of which incarnation he was on any given day, could cut a promo that could convey a message, tell a story, and intimidate his opponent all in one. So now we have working and talking.

A wrestler MUST have a distinctive look if he is to have the IT factor. Austin had the bald head, The Rock had the eyebrow, HBK had the moves and the smirk, Edge had about a hundred teeth. It doesnt have to be a good look, see: Mankind, Dusty Rhodes, Hollywood Hogan. But it needs to stand out, there had never been any 6'10" Old West morticians before, but since 1991, the Undertaker has taken that role and evolved it into the Phenom you see (occasionally) today. The list now includes Look, Wrestling Ability and Promos.

The last component of my interpretation of the IT factor is the ability to make the audience give a shit about you. Whether they cheer or boo, you have to matter. Nobody gave a damn about the Million Dollar Man's latest client, The Ringmaster. He used his boss's finisher, and feuded with Savio Vega. Steve Austin found a way to draw the audience into his world and make them listen to what he had to say. At the 1996 KotR he defeated a less than stellar Jake Roberts, and with one turn of a phrase, he grabbed the collective attention of America, and suddenly we couldn't get enough of this guy. I would wager that this is the most important part of the IT factor. Without Charisma, you're just another fake fighter spewing catch phrases into the silence. However, this attribute is magnified my the other three. Yes, you can be naturally charismatic, but if you'r putting on 5 star matches, cutting goosebump-raising promos, and show people something they haven't seen before, well, they're probably going to pay attention.

At least that's my assessment of an indefinable quality.

 

[LSN80]

I can see your final point, but, I have to disagree. I think that having the "It" factor is what leads to one becoming a draw.

This is almost a chicken before the egg type of argument. My argument is that the promoters have to decide who have the "It" factor, and push them to the point where the audience has to make a decision: Do we care about this wrestler and his gimmick? Has he effectively executed the storyline in which he was given with storytelling on the mic and in the ring? If a wrestler has the It factor, it's generally recognizeable in 9/10 wrestlers in a promotion, to both the audience and the promoter. This leads to promoters giving them the opportunity to succeed, and you and I opening our wallets to pay to see them.

A perfect comparison to show this is between HBK and Daniel Bryan one obviously has the "IT" factor while the other at the moment does not. I think we can all agree that these are to great in ring workers and although not at HBK's level Bryan is not awful on the mic. The major difference is HBK was able to sell the story to the fans have them cheering or booing him but always reacting to him and feeling empathy to to the situation he is in.

I would argue that if Bryan doesn't have it now, he never will. The "It" factor is something you can't teach most of the time. I think this plays more to gimmicks here and execution of said gimmick. HBK had incredible depth and diversity in his character that he could be a beloved face one week, and kick Hulk Hogan's head off the next. And instantly, we're invested. Even if the storyline turns out to be a disapointment of some kind, they have our investment. What do we know about Daniel Bryan? He's a submission specialist who's a vegan that doesn't own a TV. There's absolutely no depth there. He connects with most fans somewhat because of his wrestling skills, but nobody gets overly excited about him. He hasn't been able to successfully execute a storyline that's believable to his weak character that makes you and I care.

What do you think effects drawing power?

Opportunities to execute a meaningful storyline, and the ability to pull it of within the ring and on the mic. The intrinsic ability to make everyone in the audience care about what they do next, booed or cheered. This is a question that takes things to a different level, as I was referencing what ultimately makes someone a draw. But it's good to be able to reference exactly what makes someone that.

Which qualities do you think defines a big draw? If you answer those two, you'll have your answer to the "IT" factor.

Not necessarily. Some people draw big because of the opportunities that are presented to them.I look at the Rey Mysterio's the Eddie Guerrero's and the Chris Benoit's for examples. All drew HUGE at times when they were given workable storylines. Tell me you didn't care about Benoit's quest to be a champion, Rey's winning the Royal Rumble and the World Title in memory of Eddie, or Eddie claiming he fathered Rey's son. Yet othertimes, they utterly failed at drawing big, and slid back into the mid-card. Compare that to John Cena, who has shown the ability to take bad storylines and make people care anyway. He has a connection to the audience, whether one loves him or dislikes him. It's connection that leads to a big draw. But a big draw doesn't always= the It factor. It's the consistency that so few have.

This IT factor makes people want to pay to watch that person perform, any many of the modern day WWE roster are not must-see talent, and thats a shame. To me, the IT factor could be described as someone who scores highly in charisma, personality, fitting their gimmick, being able to connect with a crowd, showmanship, being able to talk, the swagger of a star and good wrestling ability.

I would argue, sadly, that wrestling ability is the least important of these things in being a big draw. It is important? Sure it is. But men like the Rock and Austin that you mentioned were average wrestlers, at best. But they had the ability to fit their gimmick and define their character in a way that made fans care. Their in-ring psychology was off the charts, and they had amazing charisma. The fact is, the biggest draws are unique characters with gimmicks that are best executed. I believed Stone Cold could kick anyones ass. I believe it when John Cena talks about Hustle, Loyalty, and Respect. And it's those few successful and believable characters that successfully become large draws.

This topic takes me back to the "Should Dolph Ziggler be in the main event" thread from a few days ago. Some people thought he should be a main eventer because he wrestles so well. That's nice, but it's not nearly enough to make a star.

That was the reason I made this thread, to be honest. I was debating several posters over whether Dolph has "it". He doesn't. His character hasn't been defined enough, and he doesn't tell a story that's uniquely his own within the ring and on the mic. As I stated in that thread, I could find 100 guys who could competantly do what Ziggler does. But there's only one John Cena.

It's the "IT" factor. If you can explain why one person has it and another doesn't, you could probably be the greatest talent scout in Hollywood, filtering through hundreds of wanna-bes and choosing the one who will appeal to millions of people. Movie studios would pay you a fortune if you could save them time and investment by picking the winners.

Exactly. Which forces any wrestling promotion whose goal is to make moneyto be pretty damn accurate with those few precious top spots. We've seen and heard stories about promoters who missed the boat with a wrestler, and he goes on to be a gigantic draw elsewhere.

 

[Peoples_Champ]

To me, the IT factor has to do with charisma and charm, but also has to do with timing and psychology. Would a Shawn Michaels character work in the Sammartino era and vice versa?

I think psychology is always underrated by the IWC. People watch entertainment (whether movies or wrestling) to be visually and mentally pleased. When an antagonist connects with the audience at the right time in the right location, it's thanks to their psychology. Its the reason why Larry the Cable Guy and Jeff Dunham took off, the timing of their characters couldn't have been better. Its also the reason why Nation of Domination didn't get heat but The Rock did.

An underdog techie (say some guy working on computers in the back who The Miz picks on every week ends up beating Miz) could get the "It" factor right now because thats who the audience can appreciate - everyone is on a computer and, lets face it, we're all nerds at heart

Some characters will always have the "It" factor (Vince McMahon - the jackass boss, Hogan / Angle / Swagger - the real American / American hero / all-American American), but the "It" factor has more to do with psychology and timing then anything else - case and point, Ron Killings has been around forever, and even face R-Truth got a push, but it wasn't until heel R-Truth came around that he got over.