Would They Survive Today?

[PunksNo1Fan]

Ok, I wanna start something I've been thinking of recently.
If guys like HHH, HBK, Ric Flair, Undertaker etc began their wrestling careers TODAY, would they get as far as they have done?

I mean, take someone like The Undertaker. Some of things that we've seen him do we just know in these days are a mixture of impossibilty and great special effects. You can't hit someone with lightning in an roofed arena, it's just silly really no?

HBK as well, kicking Marty Jannetty through that window. Would that be taken seriously today? We all know watching it back how unreal it looked. Even if it was pulled off in a real barbers today, it wouldn't look good.

So my question is, would the WWE/WCW wrestlers of previous years be able to make it today with their gimmicks?
Who would be able to make it?
Who wouldn't because what they done 10/20 years ago was just TOO unreal?

 

[Daniel.Wood]

Remember when you watched these things happen, you were younger, as a child (or teenager) it's hard to distinguish between reality and make-believe , that's why Taker and Michaels were awesome back then because we held a certain naievty to believe they could actually do the stuff they did.

Now that we're older we'll look back and laugh and how rediculous some of it is, but back then it seems so freaking awesome. The kids of today will feel exactly the same for this current crop of stars (John Cena the superhero) so yes Taker etc still would have been succesful now, just not for our generation.

(I accept i've made some generalisations about people's ages here. I'm 19 anything my age or older would have lost the childish beliefs and would now hold a certain scepticism..)

 

[chenandlerbong]

Yes they would, because all the people you list are incredibly gifted at what they do. Granted, the gimmicks they got over with might not get over today, but the men themselves are too talented to not get over at all.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

If they'd started their careers in the WWE today as young men, they'd have little trouble getting over with the average wrestling fan because the talent is there. However, I believe that they'd very much have the same trouble with the IWC as John Cena, Wade Barrett, Sheamus & The Miz either currently do or have had in the past.

The IWC is filled with smarks that have these ridiculously high standards as to what they want in wrestling. How often do you hear complaints about John Cena's "5 Moves of Doom"? How often do you hear complaints that The Miz doesn't have the size or look to be WWE Champion these days? How often have you heard that Sheamus has only gotten pushed because he's been Triple H's workout partner? If a wrestler doesn't meet the often unrealistic standards that many of the IWC cling to, then he's automatically labeled a bad wrestler. Ric Flair would be criticized for being too slow or not athletic enough, Shawn Michaels would be criticized due to his overall size & look just as The Miz, Triple H would be labeled another product of the "Vince loves big muscular guys" booking philosophy and The Undertaker would be labeled something similar to Triple H. And all of them would be criticized for their move set just as John Cena is. Just like the PG bashers ignore the fact that pro wrestling in America has been almost entirely PG rated, the proponents of the "5 Moves of Doom" myth ignore the fact that every pro wrestlers has a certain set of signature moves that you see in almost every match that they're in.

 

[LSN80]

I believe that they would have some trouble, the same as today's wrestlers struggle to get over in many ways. Each of them would be attached to a stigma by you and I that would knock them down in the IWC's eyes. The talent would inevitably win out, but the criticism would still be there.

:HBK would be knocked for being too small and not having "that build" thats needed to become a successful WWE champion.
:The Undertaker would be criticized as being another "big guy" that Vince obviously loves, ignoring the obvious tools he has despite his size.
: HHH would be hammered for being too "slow and methodical", and for wrestling a "deliberate pace.
:Ric Flair would receive criticism because he wasn't the most graceful nor athletic wrestler at any time, nor did he have "prototypical size.

The problem is, people are going to find reasons to criticize new wrestlers, just because they fear change. We clamor for new blood, but when they're introduced, so many are so quick to label it as being "too soon." It's only after they've become established and make a consistent name for themsleves that they become embraced, then soon after we find other reasons to criticize them.

:John Cena uses the same 5 moves in every match.
: Randy Orton is slow and methodical, and wrestles a deliberate pace.
: The Miz is too small, and doesnt have the prototypical muscular build a "champion' should have.
: John Morrison is nothing more then a spot monket that can't talk.

The list could go on and on. Of course those wrestlers would have trouble, to an extent, because as the IWC we dissect, and look for flaws. The wrestlers we once embraced as " breakthrough stars"(Cena, Batista, Orton) have gotten boring, repetitive, and have a limited moveset. That same stigma could be attached to any of those wrestlers, if you want to find it. It's not gimmick related whatsoever, its the mindset that we have to find flaws in every wrestler we watch.

 

[fenfool]

Taker would be too cartoonish to really get a good start today, in that gimmick. I'm not sure he would have been given a chance. But I think the HBK/Marty Janetty thing could have been worked out well. It would be a bit different of course, but tag teams turn on each other all the time these days...if you do it right, it can be entertaining. I think some of the old school guys would work out well these days, because their presentation would have changed with the times. Flair was never really as cartoon-ish as, say, Hogan. HHH found success moving away from his initial gimmick. I think most of the people who really deserve to make it tend to find a way.

 

[Matowar]

Everybody still loves the Undertaker and he is still using the same gimmick. Paul Bearer just shot him with light from the urn a couple months ago. Did the announcers say that he must have a flashlight in there? No they were like OMG light from the urn. HBK was way over as himself now and he still would be. HHH didnt really get over until he became The Game, he would be better off never having been the snotty guy he was. If anything Flair would be even bigger because of the coverage he would get now. Flair was huge and he had a smaller audience in the 70's and 80's. Now I think that people like the Ultimate Warrior, Doink and others who used silly gimmicks would be left behind. But that is just my opinion.

 

[Kaeden]

The only one of them who'd have trouble would be the Undertaker. His gimmick is far too campy to get over in this era of wrestling. He was fortunate enough to break in an era where gimmicks were characters. Now, gimmicks are personalities. Would Undertaker be the same if he broke as perhaps, the ABA character, under his real name?

Shawn made his own ticket. He had the skills in AWA, worked his way up. It would simply be a matter of time.

Haitch is a little iffy. He obviously has the tools, but what really got him recognized was Shawn. Lest we forget, before DX broke, he was fighting in hog pen matches.

Flair was chosen, by the NWA, a collective of bookers, to be the biggest fish in the pond. He had 'it.' Maybe not in the WWE, at least not right away, but Flair would eventually make it to his spot.