What makes you even MORE established?

[El Rev sXe]

This is actually a simple question, idk about the rest of you guys, but I see a pattern on WWE's more established supertars. You see guys like the Rock, Stone Cold, Hulk Hogan, John Cena, Randy Orton, Triple H, Kurt Angle, Ric Flair, Shawn Michaels, The Undertaker amongst many more, share this "pattern": winnning the Royal Rumble, feuding with Vince Mcmahon, being screwed (not necessarily by Mcmahon), feud with a celebrity, being part of a Hell in a Cell match etc (if you have another, please added it to your answer). Obviously it's not necessary to have them all. For example: Cena has won the Royal Rumble. been part of a hell in a cell match, feud with Kevin Federline but he hasn't fuud with VKM.

My point is that there is a time when you have already won your world title that you need to do one of these things in order to "cement" your legacy as another top dog in the books of WWE.

I've got two questions for you guys:

Do you agree that in order to become an ever bigger established superstar you need to take the path of this "pattern"?

If it's the case, wich one do you think is more important?

PS: I don't count main eventing Wrestlemania because probably that one is the biggest way to be an established superstar.

 

[Oracular Spectacular]

I think having a legitimate great match with an already established superstar puts you over the edge.

For example: Stone Cold cemented his legacy in the match against Bret Hart(before he won a title mind you) Showing that you can go with somone who has already proven he can go just adds so much to your career.

A lot of time matches like that will be talked about for so long that you can't even imagine that superstar without that match.

Winning the RR hasn't helped many people because we see oo many repeat offenders. I would say the last superstar that it really "cemented" was Rey, but Rey had already cemented himself before even coming to the WWE.

Only 2 HIaC matches have done the trick, and that was the Taker vs HBK and Taker vs Foley. Other than that the rest have been forgetable(except Cactus vs HHH)

 

[Disturbed]

There has been good HIAC matches besides those three. Think about Triple H vs Batista, remember that one? It helped establish Batista even more.

Now out of all those options, I went with winning the Royal RUmble. Look at all the guys it has helped establish, Batista, Stone Cold, Chris Benoit... etc. Now feuding with Vince and or a celebrity does not always help. Bobby Lashley feuded with Vince. Finlay feuded with Vince. A feud with Vince does not always help but the Royal Rumble for the most part always helps. Imagine if Morrison won the Rumble this year. Look at how much more it would help establish him.

 

[El Rev sXe]

I think having a legitimate great match with an already established superstar puts you over the edge.

For example: Stone Cold cemented his legacy in the match against Bret Hart(before he won a title mind you) Showing that you can go with somone who has already proven he can go just adds so much to your career.

A lot of time matches like that will be talked about for so long that you can't even imagine that superstar without that match.

Winning the RR hasn't helped many people because we see oo many repeat offenders. I would say the last superstar that it really "cemented" was Rey, but Rey had already cemented himself before even coming to the WWE.

Only 2 HIaC matches have done the trick, and that was the Taker vs HBK and Taker vs Foley. Other than that the rest have been forgetable(except Cactus vs HHH)

Well you have a valid point with having a match with an already established superstar. It worked with Sheamus...

However I don't think you got the point of the HiaC match, I wasn't talking about the match itself. I mean, the E doesn't trust on anyone for him to be part of a HiaC. Let's look for a sec: HHH, HBK, Taker, Foley, Y2J, Edge, Batista and more recently Cena, Orton, Sheamus and CM Punk were part. You don't see anyone doing this match, the only exceptions are Punk and Legacy, that was more of a good timing thing. But the rest of the list waited for them to becomd established superstars in order to participate in a HiaC.

 

[Wrestling Free Thinker]

WWE keeps talking about you and plugging you. Showing video clips that become "classic moments" etc. and stay on Vince's good side.

 

[ThePeoplesChampion]

Wait to the HIAC point of only established stars have been in them....does anyone not remember Big Boss Man and Rikishi being in one? none held the World or WWE title...and feuding with Vince also isn't a guarantee..ex. Bobby Lashley and Finlay...Outta all the options it has to be winning the Royal Rumble....You win the Royal Rumble and you go to headline Wrestlemania...look at the list of winners...HHH, John Cena, The Rock, Hulk Hogan, Stone Cold Steve Austin, HBK, Chris Beniot, Ric Flair, Undertaker...with the only exemptions being Jim duggan and big john studd...every winner has been or gone on to be Mega Stars in the business.

 

[Ace333]

Winning the Rumble is a good way to get established but another good way to get established in the Rumble if only for a few months is eliminating the most superstars in the Rumble. It gets you a footing to get into superstardom if you're not already a big name.

 

[darbare]

Winning the Rumble is definitely one of the biggest ways...another which is pretty obvious is winning the WWE title....look at past history....every WWE champion is special...they don't just put it on anyone...the world title is def not the way to cement a legacy...look at khaki...swagger....midcarders like punk at the time....and also Benoit...the WWE title is the most prestigious title and ur lucky to win it

 

[CelticCorey]

I wanted to go with Vince, but look at the list of guys who have won the Rumble:
Hulk Hogan
Yokozuna (Should be in the HOF)
Stone Cold
HBK
The Rock
HHH
The Undertaker
Randy Orton
John Cena
Edge


To name a few. Whether you like every name on this list or not these are amongst the biggest names in the history of not just the company but in all of wrestling and when you are in the same category with those names that has to mean something.

 

[dionlyone18]

I think the royal rumble..but i dont think you have to win it to get over..as Cena proved it in 2005 he made a statement with batista and thus the superstar was born..if you have a really good match and the fans are behind you and you gain respect from fans then youre good

 

[Undertaker the 5th]

I think it is crowd recognition. You could push a superstar down our throats, but if we are not buying his stuff, then there is no reason to keep pushing him. Some people like Shaemus also get in there because of friendships. Sure, he is good, but if HHH was not his friend, I think it would have taken him longer to get there. Another one that comes to mind is Drew Mcynitre. He was getting a big push by being the chose one, but people just do not care about him and he has fizzled out and it looks like it is going to take a lot for him to get back from that.

 

[samsam1704]

Id say having an amazing feyud is better than anything. Like, you can be a world champion loads of times but if your having shit feuds it means nothing. Like think about it. Jericho and Shameus have probably held the belt the same ammount of times in the last few years. Jericho you can remember his amazing feud with Micheals which made it amazing. Shameus had none, feuds mean the world and everthing in pro wrestling.

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

I think many of us have misinterpreted the question here. We would all agree that to get over initially, you do not have to do any of the following things that the OP has mentioned. It would depend on how well you connect with the crowd. The OP is asking what would the superstar have to do after that to become even bigger. Think of Austin after Wrestlemania 13. He was huge but it was nothing compared to how huge he would eventually become.

To answer the OP's questions, I do not think that following a set pattern is neccesary, though. But if the WWE is interested in making a guy the face of the company, they will ensure that he puts on a good showing in the Royal Rumble. By a good showing I mean reaching at least the top 2 and being in one of the main events of wrestlemania.

The rest of the events that you mentioned are not neccesary at all. A HIAC match is just a gimmick match which was done until very recently if the feud deserved it. Austin and Rock never participated in a singles HIAC match. Cena also did not do so WWE decided to do a PPV based only on HIAC matches.

Cena also did not feud with VKM and his feud with Bischoff was very boring to say the least. Although the WWE has tried to do the top face feuding with the authority figure angle quite a number of times, neither of them has been as good as the first one ie Austin vs Mcmahon. Also I do not think that feuding with Vince raised the popularity of anyone other than Austin, Rock or Randy Orton. The guys whom you have mentioned apart from these two were already at the peak of their popularities when they feuded with Mcmahon.

Feuding with a celebrity is also a rather redundant option. I'm pretty sure that Cena's feud with Kevin Federline did nothing for him. It just worked a bit once for Austin. And it is also debatable how much of an impact him feuding with Mike Tyson had. Austin was destined to become as popular as he became due as his feud with VKM had already been planned. But I guess Mike Tyson did bring in the ratings. The same cannot be said for Federline though

 

[Kofi/ZigglerClassic]

Backstage politics really and lack of wrestling ability. These days to make it to the top you need to be only good on the mic, kiss up to the boss or his daughter, give yourself to the company, and be unable to wrestle. That is how you can really make it to the top. If you lack one of those, your out and released.

 

[Ferbian]

Winning the Royal Rumble: This could go both ways. Was Chris Benoit becoming more established and considered a tough guy after going from number 1 all the way to winning? Sure, but on the other hand, would you really be considered "established" if you get a victory where you're either carried through it and staying in there by pure luck, or for that sake by entering number 30?

Not really no. In the end it's all about how you're booked in the match that establishes you more. So you could end up being established as much as you were when you entered the match, or you could be established enough through being booked in a dominant and legitimate way of winning the Royal Rumble.

Being in a HIAC: No, just no. Not gonna work. Do any of you remember Legacy by any chance? Cause I sure do, and I didn't consider them anywhere near more believable and established as a legitimate threat to Jeri-Show back when they were champions.

Feuding with Vince: It really depends. How are you gonna be booked? What sort of a feud would it be, and would it have a big enough success?

Let's remember this, someone gets over by feuding with Vince, and gets over in a big way. But they're not gonna become established automatically by that. It once again depends on how the feud is booked, and what the outcome will be.

Feuding with a celebrity: Just no. Not even gonna explain why, because the answer is obvious.

Others: Feuding with the top dog. Now that's something that might have a point in becoming established. But once again, like everything before, how are you booked, and what are the outcome of the feud? Will you have your ass whooped by the top dog (John Cena vs The Miz in 2009 for example?), or are you gonna be the one decisively putting down the top dog (Batista vs Triple H 2005?).

 

[Mr. Artistic guy]

Feuding with Vince McMahon with absolute certainty.

For one, being in a HIAC match is not something you get the oppertunity to ever do UNLESS you've already somehow got over, the only exception springing to mind being that of Boss Man, and even he was a 10+ years pro.

Winning the royal rumble would be the other one I would strongly argue if it wasn't for the fact that as has been pointed out in the last few days, very rarely does a superstar who isn't already established actually win. It would need to be a guy like Morrison, Del Rio or even Bryan winning the royal rumble to convince me otherwise.

Feuding with a celebrity...? It's sortof similar to the HIAC thing, you don't tend to get an oppertunity to do it unless your already over cue, jericho and mike tyson, big show and floyd mayweather, miz and pee wee herman etc... But even if you were a lower down star lets say a cody rhodes for example, the programme would have to be more lengthy than a one off confrontation to get the guy over, and one of confrontation are what you'd usually expect to see in these situations.

Others is obviously a pretty vague category and leaves a hell of a lot of scope for better options. For one I'd have to second Ferbian and say that feuding with a big name is definately the most oftenly used, tried and tested method for getting someone over, but I'd like to add my own addition which I'm not sure everyone will be convinced by.

I believe that as part of feuding with a big name, it has to culminate with one big victory that is either 1) CLEAN or 2) AT A BIG PPV, either of these I believe to be the key ingredient for getting a guy over in one such feud. Case and point for me would be CM Punk. The guy had great difficulty getting into the WWE main event picture even when he won MITB and cashed in. After losing the title first time round, he won MITB the second year in a row and cashed in on Jeff Hardy. At this time Jeff Hardy was huge in WWE and CM Punk claimed a victory over him in a cage match that eliminated him from being in the WWE. That for me is when Punk started to get astronomical in recognition.

But either way, I'm here to defend my choice of VKM feuds being the way to get someone most over. And I picked this because of your specific use of terminology, I believe a FEUD with Vince McMahon is only picked for those superstars beliveved to have enough potential to carry themselves to super stardome. Looking at the list.... The Rock, Stone Cold, DX, Randy Orton, Kurt Angle and any others, all big before feuding with McMahon, all HUGE after feuding with him. Anderson/Kennedy was picked to be his illegitamate son during that story, and had he not been injured at the time is came into fruition you had better beleive he'd never have moved to TNA when he did.

Often Mr. McMahon is mistaken for being the best heel in WWE history. But people forget how much of an advantage not being a wrestler and being the corporate stooge truly is. Michael Cole, Vickie Guerrero, they don't wrestle so avoid getting beaten when everyone knows if they ever had to fight they'd be paid back for all the hell they've given to other people. And yet because of the fact that they have backing by McMahon to go about their business treating good guys unfairly, they are untouchable and so the frustration towards them gets pent up very very easily.

The reason for this is because we hate such retins in real life. We hate governements who tax us but not the higher incomes, the bank managers taking home massive bonuses, football players who without that ball would be in and out of prison and on the dole. And we hate them because they are untouchable. In the wrestling world the most extreme example of this is of course McMahon himself. In the ring he is our rich bank manager who wouldn't help a child is they fell over.

That is why Austin v VKM is often regarded as the greatest feud of all time. I mean sure Austin and Vince played their parts well, but not always exceptionally (notice the reaction of McMahon the first time he got stunnered by Stone Cold), but we look through that because every time austin raise his finger and flips one of at the boss before slapping him silly, that's our hands he's using. We all know what he's feeling at that moment in time because we all feel it to. He is a hero of the people, and THAT....THAT is what a feud with Vince Mcmahon can get you, higher than nothing else ever could in the sport of wrestling. The beauty of the McMahon feud is that it hasn't been overused, it still occurs but infrequently and only for the most deserving of individuals.

All it takes is a guy with enough potential to produce the next viper or rattlesnake, or generally any reptilian creature.

 

[King Patrick Star]

I’m going to use the process of elimination to answer this question.

Winning the Royal Rumble.
Hacksaw Jim Duggan, Big John Studd, Hulk Hogan, Ric Flair, Yokozuna, Bret the Hitman Hart, Lex Lugar, Shawn Michaels, Stone Cold Steve Austin, Vince McMahon, the Rock, Triple H, Brock Lesnar, Chris Benoit, Batista, Rey Mysterio, the Undertaker, John Cena, Randy Orton, and Edge. All have won the Royal Rumble, but not all have been in a Hell In A Cell match nor have all feuded with the “Boss” nor have all won the WWE / World Title.

Being part of a Hell In A Cell.
Shawn Michaels, Undertaker, Stone Cold Steve Austin, Mick Foley, Kane, Big Boss Man, Triple H, Kurt Angle, Rikishi, the Rock, Chris Jericho, Brock Lesnar, Kevin Nash, Batista, Randy Orton, Vince McMahon, Shane McMahon, Big Show, Edge, CM Punk, John Cena, Cody Rhodes, Ted DiBiase Jr., and Sheamus. All have competed in the Hell In A Cell match, but not all have won the Royal Rumble match nor have all feuded with the “Boss” nor have all won the WWE / World Title.

Feuding with a Celebrity.
I’m not even going to get into this choice. Superstar vs. “Outsiders” can’t possibly be a reason to establish a Star. They would have already been established by this point in ones career.

Feuding with Vincent Kennedy McMahon.
I don’t think a match type or a celebrity really establishes you like the last choice. This right here, feuding with VKM, is the “correct” answer in my mind. Vince’s WM feuds alone are “legendary”. I use the term loosely. The list of Main Event / Main Attraction SuperStars (MegaStars, if that’s even a term), include, Bret the Hitman Hart, Stone Cold Steve Austin, Mick Foley, the Rock, the Undertaker, Hulk Hogan, Shawn Michaels, and Triple H. All these men have been WWE / World Champions. You fight the boss, you’re either established, or just one match away from being the WWE / World Champion (Lashley). You know, as well as I know, that if Bobby decided to stay, he too would be a WWE World Heavyweight Champion.

 

[Pay Per Ghost]

Great thread Rev,

Without a shadow of a doubt, it has to be winning the RR. All the men who have won, get that chance to main-event 'Mania, and it doesn't get any bigger than that. Also the fact that a RR winner is proclaimed as someone who beat 30 men to get there just makes him look that much more legit in the public's eye (even if they win entering at 27 or 28).