The "No Gimmick Needed" personalities in wrestling are detrimental to the business

[Ambiguous Turd]

This was a fad that began when Scott Hall and Kevin Nash went to WCW as the Outsiders and instead of being called Razor Ramon and Diesel, for copyright reasons, and not having their names changed to something else, these two began a trend of wrestlers simply being called by their real names.

Now, if it was just a few people, that's fine. However, soon we have The Shark coming out on TV and saying that he "was no longer a Shark, or an Avalance ... but rather his name is John Tenta".

Big Bubba Rogers was no longer "The Boss" or "Big Bubba Rogers", but rather a man called Ray Traylor.

Today, we have not just people being called by their real names, but a ton of wrestlers who simply have no gimmick at all.


Wakeless Watered-down Entertainment

John Cena
Batista
Triple H
Randy Orton
Chris Jericho
Ted Dibiase
Jack Swagger
Drew McIntyre
Matt Hardy
Mike Knox
Christian
Charlie Haas
Michelle McCool
Mickie James
Layla
Gail Kim
Trent Barreta
Caylen Croft


Total Nonstop Action

AJ Styles
Matt Morgan
Scott Hall
Kevin Nash
Samoa Joe
Tomko
Chris Sabin
Alex Shelley
Rhino

and others .....

I vehemently stand behind this being one of the key reasons why characters have become so stale, uninteresting, and boring to the audience ... because there simply is no reason to cheer or boo some of these people ... or cheer or boo them enough. They're just there.

I think the time has come that we get back to basics and accept that we need to move on from this "No Gimmick Needed" characters and start giving people a reason to cheer and boo people again through some use of gimmicks.

Do you agree or disagree that "No Gimmick Needed" characters need to be heavily scaled down and we go back to having characters that give the fans a reason to cheer or boo them?

 

[klunderbunker]

I'd agree to a point. I think at times they can certainly be awesome. Look at Bret Hart for example. He didn't have a gimmick. He was just a great wrestler. Same with Owen and Arn Anderson. They were just guys that could work a good match.

However, there are times when guys are dying for a gimmick. Look at Cena's promos. It's always him either bitching about not having the title and saying he won't give up or saying he's still champion and he rose to the occasion. It's ok once in awhile, but there needs to be a change of pace every now and then. Now before anyone gets to it, no, the rap gimmick needs to stay buried far into the ground. I'm saying he could say anything different or have a theme to himself or something. And the same goes for a ton of guys, not just Cena. Batista is just a muscle guy that's aggressive. Hardy is just a Hardy etc. TNA is the same as Morgan is just a big guy with muscles. Tomko has a unique look and Joe is Samoan. These things are supposed to pass as gimmicks or interesting aspects of the characters but they don't.

I don't want a repeat of 1994 where everything was insane, but a mix would help a lot I think.

 

[King Douche]

You mean 1995 not 1994. But yeah the gimmicks were stupid, lame and cheesy back then. I think the no needed gimmick makes wrestlers boring. They all need gimmicks for wrestlers so the fans can be connected to them. John Cena needs a gimmick so that he can stop being so dead in the ring. Other guys like Batista need a gimmick too, instead of just flexing muscles and acting like a tough guy.

 

[Dagger Dias]

I agree and disagree at the same time because we do need more true gimmicks, but some guys are honestly better off being "themselves" onscreen.

While I do agree that some of these "no gimmick" characters are detrimental to the business, there is also a second side to this argument. What about the guys who have the in-ring ability AND the mic skills, but are given a gimmick too weird to ever be taken seriously as a world champion? Those guys are better off being themselves rather than a gimmick. Also, some "no gimmick" characters are talented enough to get the fans to care about them enough to cheer or boo despite the lack of a true gimmick. These guys should remain "themselves" onscreen.

Here's how I would want it. A bit of a mix. The main event would be a mix of "no gimmick" characters who play themselves, along with some gimmick characters who CAN be taken seriously and are still able to get over with the fans (stuff like Taker). Then in the midcard you have your jobbers, rookies, nobodies, and silly gimmicks.

It should be a mixture because both ends of the spectrum would result in a terrible product. No gimmicks whatsoever leads to a boring product. Too many gimmicks results in a cheesy product. Some type of middle ground is what every federation should strive for.

 

[Supernova]

It depends on the wrestler, someone like Bret Hart, Kevin Nash, Scott Hall etc could easily carry of the no gimmick thing and make it entertaining. On the other hand, guys like John Cena and Batista, and to an extent Randy Orton, Kofi Kingston, Drew McIntyre (i.e. a lot of guys around at the moment) can't really. It all depends on what the person is like with "no gimmick" - some will be entertaining anyway, in which case let them run with it, but a vast amount of people aren't that exciting and so need some form of gimmick to make them watchable.

 

[Aramis]

While I see your point I think that there is a limit to the presence that gimmicks should have in wrestling. Good gimmicks can be a great push for a wrestler, and put extra flavour to a show, but only when used in moderation. If the majority of wrestlers on a show play relatively normal characters then the addition of someone bizarre or eccentric can be a great juxtaposition to this. One of the reasons that the Undertaker stands out so much right now is because he is largely surrounded by people playing much more toned down characters. If everyone has a gimmick then it becomes a circus, and that takes away from the credibility that many more serious characters have acquired. Another factor is that gimmicks are harder for people to become emotionally invested in, the audience love a story that gets personal, one that they can empathise with a character over. This is harder to do with an over the top character, since they cannot be related to as easily by the audience.

I think that the more subtle, or watered down gimmicks can often lead to a character connecting with the audience better. While Scott Hall and Kevin Nash went by their own names in WCW the title “The Outsiders” was a gimmick in itself for them, and one that created a compelling and successful storyline for the time. Many wrestlers today have less offbeat gimmicks they act as an exaggerated version of themselves, which allows them to give the character more emotional depth and can make it easier for them to adapt the character to real life. I would think that getting the audience to actually care about characters is easier with less over the top gimmicks, even if getting initial notice is easier the more fantastical the gimmick. Characters based around real life and real people have more staying power than most gimmicks, though obviously there are several exceptions, such as the Undertaker and Kane, but for every Kane there have been a hundred Yeti’s and Bastion Booger’s.

Some gimmicks could be introduced that channel real aspects of the wrestlers personality, which could draw the crowd in gradually. I think an example such as the straight edge saviour gimmick that CM Punk is using on Smackdown at the moment is a good example of this. Everyone knew that Punk was straight edge, but as a face he did not usually make an issue of this, as a heel this is a perfect gimmick in that is gains him heat and furthers what I find to be a very interesting storyline. John Cena obviously had a rapper gimmick in the past, and was very successful with this, but he is now on the top of the wrestling industry without any particular gimmick. His everyman appeal is one of his most endearing factors to many people, especially children who find him to be a role model that they can look up to and do their best to be like. The wrestling dynamic at the moment is mostly made up of face/heel feuds over pride, titles or personal matters. Inserting gimmicks into this in moderation could spice it up in many cases, but overdoing it could damage the already shaky credibility of wrestling to casual viewers, as well as alienating those fans who watch to form bonds with characters relevant to real life.

 

[PsychoWard]

I think you have a really good point about getting back to the basics of wrestling and going back to more gimmick type names. Wrestler's should really only keep their real name if it has some sort of staying power. What I mean is, when creating your character can you see your real name as something people will connect with your wrestling character. Some criteria I would think you would take into account. How does it sound being announced when entering the stage. Does it sound good when the announce team is talking about you. Does it have any connection with your character.

The tag team of HALL & NASH sounds good. You can market that. Other names you just can't, which is why some wrestler's choose or are given a gimmick name.

I like the idea, if you use your real name, also incorporating a nickname or tag line to fit with it. For example "The animal" Batista or Dave Batista. Bret "the hitman" Hart. I think those examples are few and far between. I would like to see more wrestler take their real name and add something else to it. John "Squats" Cena! I think that really works especially with MMA or Boxing. Floyd "MOney" Mayweather, or Chuck "The Iceman" Liddcll

 

[jmt225]

Chris Candido, the man whose nickname was "No Gimmicks Needed"

... and that's the ONLY time that gimmick has worked, because you know what? Having no gimmick, was his gimmick.

Every professional wrestler needs something that separates them from everyone in the lockerroom. Most fans just won't care about guys with nothing but a regular name, and big muscles. Why should we give a fuck about them? They're not special in our eyes. We can see guys like that at any gym in America if we wanted to.

Ever since The Rock and Steve Austin left for good, I'd say the three most over babyfaces in the company since then have been RVD, John Cena, and Jeff Hardy. Why did people adore RVD at first? Of course, his flashy moves had something to do with it, but it was mostly because of his charisma and the fact that he came across as a pothead. Being "High" was his gimmick. When you look at Cena... he got over when he had the gimmick of a rapper. People LOVED him then. However, when he became just John Cena and nothing more, his fanbase declined heavily. And then there's Jeff Hardy, who is just different and has a 'look' that a lot of people can relate too.

These three guys are proof that gimmicks, and being "different," is what works in professional wrestling more so than anything. You look at someone like Edge. When he first turned heel and started feuding with HBK, did anyone care? No, because he was no different than any other heel in the business, but then he gets the gimmick of the Rated R Superstar who'll sleep with any woman alive (basically a modern day Rick Rude), and he becomes the most hated man in WWE, with something as simple as that gimmick. But then you look at someone like Sheamus, who is nothing more than a regular Irishman, and look at Randy Orton, who's just a normal guy with some anger issues... do they get any real heel heat? No, because there's nothing to truly hate about them, except that they sneak attack Cena and Kofi Kingston every now and then. Why should we care? There's nothing about Orton and Sheamus that separates them from the regular asshole in the street.

Point is, I completely agree with Sidious here. Gimmicks need to come back. They don't need to be over-the-top like back in the eighties, but EVERY wrestler should have SOMETHING, doesn't matter how little, that makes them stand-out from everyone else. It's a complete must, otherwise it's not truly a professional wrestling program as far as I'm concerned.