WrestleZone Debaters League: All Star Game

[Mr. TM]

WrestleZone Debaters All Star Game

Topic: Will there ever be an 'over the top' gimmick (such as The Undertaker) that will make it big in the WWE again?

Teams

Alpha
Phoenix
The D-Man
fromthesouth
General Disarray
Lee

Omega
SK
IC 25
Gelgarin
Tastycles
SavageTaker

Layout
The WrestleZone Debaters League All Star is a team debate, made up of the All Stars from the WrestleZone Debaters League who according to the WrestleZone Forums was the best debater. According to the standings from week 8, the tops of the league in each division automatically became captains of their team.

The prize is huge for the winning side. They will be able to choose the debate topic before the debate in the Finals. If Team Alpha were to win, the winner of Team Alpha in the playoffs would have the chance to choose the debate topic in the final, and vice versa.

The debate will run from Sunday, October 11 until Friday October 16th. It is a free for all, so any member of the team can go at will, or by any strategy that the captain chooses.

The Winner will be chosen by the Forums.

Good Luck

 

[Mr. TM]

The All Star Game is up. There are no time limits. The first team to pick a side (yes or no) will get that side. Captains must choose.

Any other questions, PM me.

 

[SK]

Due to Gelgarin's request and both sides being easily arguable, we will take the side that there will be an 'over the top' gimmick (such as The Undertaker) that will make it big in the WWE again, I'll have my post up right after I finish some uni work, either team feel free to go ahead and post, my team certainly don't have to wait for me.

 

[Phoenix]

As Captain of the Alpha All Star Team. I choose that there will NOT be another "over the top gimmick" that will make it big in the WWE.

 

[Lee]

Will there ever be an 'over the top' gimmick (such as The Undertaker) that will make it big in the WWE again? We of the Alpha five have chosen to opt for no there will not be an 'OTT' gimmick to make it big in the WWE. By that one would assume that it will be a fresh new gimmick and not someone from another promotion (for example Sting from TNA) so lets have a look at it.

History of the over the top gimmicks

If we look through history of OTT gimmicks in WWE there is a particular trend that one must look at. Did these guys make it big? Whilst we had the Undertaker, Macho Man and the Ultimate Warrior for everyone one of these we had five or six of the likes of Doink the Clown, the Repo Man, the Bushwackers and the Genius to name a few. Looking at it through a history over the top gimmicks generally didn't make it big.

They were rampant during the late 80s of course with the barbarian, Brutus “the barber beefcake” and hacksaw Jim Duggan these were really over the top guys who didn't make it 'big.' Certainly not as big as the Undertaker. By the time we got to the attitude era, we began to see these all as good as wiped out, save for one guy. The Undertaker....

The Undertaker

He is without a doubt a fine example of an over the top gimmick, he started in the early 90s as this powerful phenom that got his power from his Urn, he was mysterious, he took down souls, he, he ...he decided to become a biker and an American bad ass. Even the most biggest over the top gimmick had to be humanised because the fans just weren't buying it. Eventually he was type cast and a very watered down version of the Deadman emerged, this OTT gimmick had now become less OTT. This was the same time Kane became humanised, after the de-masking he went from the big red machine to the fat bald jobber.

Surely OTT Gimmicks can go over now?

Lets have a look at the ones in recent time:

Goldust: Ah yes Goldust, he's back on ECW, is he making it big? Erm no...

Boogeyman: He was very over the top...was he a joke? You bet....big? No.

Hornswoggle: Comedy skits weekly = not big

Santino Marella: Jobbing week in week out = not big.

The Hurricane: Mid carder on ECW = not big

The Spirit Squad = HAHAHAHA!

I think the closest OTT gimmicks we've had in the past ten years have been RTC, Kevin thorn and Pirate Burchill. Neither of these were big, they were essentially mid carders.

So even looking at the history of the OTT gimmicks it shows that those who made it big were from another era and were very few in numbers, why would they be successful again during another era especially one which has become a lot more cynical with wrestling.

 

[Gelgarin]

There will be an 'over the top' gimmick (such as The Undertaker) that will make it big in the WWE again.​

Thank you SK. Since I recommended that Team Gelgarin take this side of the argument, I think it would be prudent for me to supply the opening remarks and explain exactly why.
Members of my team will certainly bring additional points into the argument, but for me the defence of the above statement revolves around the following argument.

Over the top gimmicks have been successful before, and since professional wrestling isn’t going anywhere, it stands to reason that they will do so again.​

Normally I’d flesh things out a little more in the name of eloquence, but it occurs to me that I’ve got licence to only contribute 20% of my traditional word count, so I think we’ll leave the opening statement at that and get right down to the topical analysis.

I think it’s necessary right off the bat to define precisely what we mean when we talk about an over-the-top gimmick. Personally I’m of the opinion that Hulk Hogan is pretty over the top, but since the question specifically references the Undertaker, I’m willing to limit my definition to;

Any superstar who exhibits abilities or behaviour not displayed by regular human beings.

Personally I think this definition needlessly limits my side of the argument, but since we have quite an extensive common sense advantage, I’m willing to give up Santino Marella as an example. That being said, now that we have come to a non controversial agreement over what constitutes an ‘over the top’ gimmick, I can move on to present my first in depth argument.

Reason the first – Over the top gimmicks have been a cornerstone of professional wrestling.

• Undertaker.
• Ultimate Warrior.
• Sting.
• Great Muta.
• Many, many more.

I picked the four biggest international megastars I could think of, just because I didn’t want to crush everybody under the weight of a list so early on in the game. Various supernatural entities have participated in professional wrestling over the years to tremendous success. I’d even go so far as to say that the supernatural gimmicks are those best remembered by history. You know why this is important?(other than the fact that I doubt anyone can present me with any evidence as to why the status quo has changed)

It’s because wrestling gimmicks are constantly reused and recycled. We’ve had a handful or nature boys now. Rich city slickers and anti American foreigners have come and gone more times than I can remember. Does anybody want to tally up exactly how many masked psychotics or cowboys we’ve had? Gimmicks that make money will get reused over time. There’s a limited amount that you can do with a wrestling character, and honestly I’d call it naive to try and say that some of the most successful characters in the history of professional wrestling won’t come around again over time.


Reason the second – Over the top gimmicks are still alive and well.

Team ‘whoever’ is going to try and convince you that Undertaker constitutes the last of a dying breed. That he is the only supernatural gimmick left, and that once he is gone the supernaturals will fade from professional wrestling for good. Unfortunately (for them) it’s just not true.

The Undertaker has hardly been isolated over the past decade. Fellow supernatural Kane (who has at various times displayed powers over fire, electricity and the ability to teleport) has remained an active and over part of the roster for the entirety of the past decade. We’ve also got the sordid popularity sensation that is known as Hornswaggle, a” leprechaun” who lives underneath the ring. Hardly grounded in reality I’m sure you’ll agree. If you’ll permit me to wade slightly further into the past, I can also bring up guys like Boogyman or Kevin Thorn.
That’s without me even attempting to put forward The Hurricane, Kung Fu Naki and Festus, none of whom are supernatural in essence, but all of whom aptly display that Vince has absolutely nothing against over the top gimmicks.
Kane and Undertaker flat out prove that over the top gimmicks can still make it big, and the rest prove that Vince has no objection to pushing them, so with those two cogent pieces of information we can easily conclude that it is only a matter of time before a supernatural gimmick makes it big again.
This leads me on to…

Reason the Third – Professional Wrestling isn’t going anywhere.

Seriously… if a time bracket was placed on the original statement (as in if it was claimed that another over the top gimmick won’t make it big… in the next decade) then I might be able to see where our opponents will be coming from, but with the open ended nature of the question, saying that something is never going to happen again seems to me to be extremely presumptuous.
Under one name or another the WWE has been around for almost sixty years, and it shows no sign of dying at any point in the near future.
There’s not too much to expand on with this point, but it does rather emphasise the fact that time is on our side in this debate.


So… over the top gimmicks have been used frequently and successfully in the past. They are used frequently as successfully in the present. Does anybody want to try and give me a legitimate reason why this won’t be the case in the future?

 

[Lee]

So we decide on what over the top is, great stuff. But have we decided what constitutes WWE?

Reason the first – Over the top gimmicks have been a cornerstone of professional wrestling.

• Undertaker.
• Ultimate Warrior.
• Sting.
• Great Muta.
• Many, many more.

I picked the four biggest international megastars I could think of, just because I didn’t want to crush everybody under the weight of a list so early on in the game. Various supernatural entities have participated in professional wrestling over the years to tremendous success. I’d even go so far as to say that the supernatural gimmicks are those best remembered by history. You know why this is important?(other than the fact that I doubt anyone can present me with any evidence as to why the status quo has changed)

Seems not, of your list two have never appeared in WWE thus halving your argument already. Lets look at the supernatural entities outside of the Undertaker in WWE:

Papa Shango, Kane, Kevin Thorn...those big huge names that have too professional wrestling by storm. One became a pimp, the other a fat man and the other...well where is he?

It’s because wrestling gimmicks are constantly reused and recycled. We’ve had a handful or nature boys now. Rich city slickers and anti American foreigners have come and gone more times than I can remember. Does anybody want to tally up exactly how many masked psychotics or cowboys we’ve had? Gimmicks that make money will get reused over time. There’s a limited amount that you can do with a wrestling character, and honestly I’d call it naive to try and say that some of the most successful characters in the history of professional wrestling won’t come around again over time.

I could tally them up but it would be pointless as that's not the question as to how many of these gimmicks have been successful but simply how many of these gimmicks have been big in WWE. Not many as I have shown in my previous post.

Reason the second – Over the top gimmicks are still alive and well.

Team ‘whoever’ is going to try and convince you that Undertaker constitutes the last of a dying breed. That he is the only supernatural gimmick left, and that once he is gone the supernaturals will fade from professional wrestling for good. Unfortunately (for them) it’s just not true.

so tell me then Gelgarin which Over the top gimmicks are big in WWE today?

The Undertaker has hardly been isolated over the past decade.

We established that.

Fellow supernatural Kane (who has at various times displayed powers over fire, electricity and the ability to teleport) has remained an active and over part of the roster for the entirety of the past decade.

He's hardly supernatural today, he's a complete watered down version of what he used to be.

We’ve also got the sordid popularity sensation that is known as Hornswaggle, a” leprechaun” who lives underneath the ring. Hardly grounded in reality I’m sure you’ll agree

Damn someone as picky as you should realise it's Hornswoggle. But on the point, a comedy guy used for the kids can hardly be defined as big.

If you’ll permit me to wade slightly further into the past, I can also bring up guys like Boogyman or Kevin Thorn.

Neither of whom were big, one ate worms, the other jobbed to Stevie Richards.

That’s without me even attempting to put forward The Hurricane, Kung Fu Naki and Festus, none of whom are supernatural in essence, but all of whom aptly display that Vince has absolutely nothing against over the top gimmicks.

But neither are big though which is the point of it. The gimmicks may be in use but they're not the big stars, they're not the main eventers they're just there.

Kane and Undertaker flat out prove that over the top gimmicks can still make it big, and the rest prove that Vince has no objection to pushing them, so with those two cogent pieces of information we can easily conclude that it is only a matter of time before a supernatural gimmick makes it big again.

But Kane is not big today though is he?

Reason the Third – Professional Wrestling isn’t going anywhere.

Seriously… if a time bracket was placed on the original statement (as in if it was claimed that another over the top gimmick won’t make it big… in the next decade) then I might be able to see where our opponents will be coming from, but with the open ended nature of the question, saying that something is never going to happen again seems to me to be extremely presumptuous.
Under one name or another the WWE has been around for almost sixty years, and it shows no sign of dying at any point in the near future.
There’s not too much to expand on with this point, but it does rather emphasise the fact that time is on our side in this debate.

Society evolves, we know that much. With the whole thing of wrestling being fake, with the WWE going for the normal gimmick route. With wrestling evolving as a whole going almost to an MMA thing can you see an OTT gimmick making it big in the WWE again? We just wouldn't buy it.

So… over the top gimmicks have been used frequently and successfully in the past. They are used frequently as successfully in the present. Does anybody want to try and give me a legitimate reason why this won’t be the case in the future?

Well I've just shown that OTT gimmicks in WWE seem to not be the big stars (aside from the 80s-early 90s) with the exception of the Undertaker being the only one today.

 

[Gelgarin]

Anyone got a fly swatter?

Seems not, of your list two have never appeared in WWE thus halving your argument already. Lets look at the supernatural entities outside of the Undertaker in WWE:

I'll concede Muta, but explain to my why an over the top gimmick would be easier to get over in WCW as oppose to WWE. It's the same audience.

I could tally them up but it would be pointless as that's not the question as to how many of these gimmicks have been successful but simply how many of these gimmicks have been big in WWE. Not many as I have shown in my previous post.

So, let me condense Lee's logic down to a single sentence.

The Undertaker is the only superstar with an over the top gimmick in the past five years, therefore he is the only superstar with an over the top gimmick that will ever exist.

Sorry, but that's rubbish. I hope FTS or Phoenix get here soon, or this is going to start to become dull.

So tell me then Gelgarin which Over the top gimmicks are big in WWE today?

Kane and Undertaker. That's approximately 25% of the wrestlers who have managed to remain over for a period of ten years or longer. Not bad when you actually start to think about it.

He's hardly supernatural today, he's a complete watered down version of what he used to be.

On July 6th 2007 Kane was named as the number one contender for Edge's World Championship. During the build up for the match Kane displayed the powers of teleportation, ability to manipulate the lights and the ability to somehow enter a television set.

So we have Kane competing for a main event title, and using supernatural powers to intimidate his opponent. Explain to me how he's not a major supernatural gimmick?

Damn someone as picky as you should realise it's Hornswoggle. But on the point, a comedy guy used for the kids can hardly be defined as big.

*Clap* *Clap* *Clap*

Well done Lee, I'm happy for you. You managed to accomplish something. I spelled Hornswoggle wrong. Thank you for bring that essential and relevant point to light, I am sure it has helped your cause no end. Normally I'd suggest that you instead devoted your time to dealing with the point at hand, but I see you've taken a stab and that already and in doing so made my job a lot easier.

Hornswoggle is aimed at kids you say. My answer, so if WWE. Hornswoggle is aimed at their key demographic, and if your going to try and deny that he's over then you're evidently not watching the shows. You might think that a wrestler is only big if he's main eventing Wrestlemania, but those of us who live in the real world are fully aware that the big names are those who have important roles on the show. Hornswoggle is on the main show every single week. He is aimed at the most important demographic and is over with them. I'd call that a successful over the top gimmick.

Neither of whom were big, one ate worms, the other jobbed to Stevie Richards.

For a start, Boogyman (despite being one of the least talented wrestler the WWE has ever hired) got victories over JBL and Booker T during 2006. The first at the Royal Rumble, and the second at Wrestlemania (you know, the biggest show of the year). Secondly, the fact that he didn't stay over is irrelevant. 90% of wrestlers don't get over. The point is that he was pushed.

This proves that Vince is willing to push over the top gimmicks. Are you really going to tell me that you think every single attempt until the end of time is going to end in failure?

Society evolves, we know that much. With the whole thing of wrestling being fake, with the WWE going for the normal gimmick route. With wrestling evolving as a whole going almost to an MMA thing can you see an OTT gimmick making it big in the WWE again? We just wouldn't buy it.

The WWE isn't going after MMA fans. Vince himself confirmed that on the front page a few days ago. The WWE is courting kids, otherwise known as 'the group most likely to accept an over the top gimmick'. So year, it sounds pretty possible to me.

Incidentally, that's very much for handing me additional ammunition by talking about how society evolves. Yes it does, and sooner or later it's going to swing round to a point where people really want to over the top supernatural gimmicks again. We've got the rest of the WWE's lifespan to be proved right, and you can endlessly echo that [aside from two top stars] there are no over over-the-top gimmicks right now, and we've got the past, peasant and future on our sides.

Thanks for playing though.

 

[Lee]

Anyone got a fly swatter?

Insult #1, wow you're a big man.

I'll concede Muta, but explain to my why an over the top gimmick would be easier to get over in WCW as oppose to WWE. It's the same audience.

No it's not, look at the big WCW stars that came to WWE, look how many made it big. How many WCW stars are still there? Helms and Rey Mysterio. Wow.

So, let me condense Lee's logic down to a single sentence.

The Undertaker is the only superstar with an over the top gimmick in the past five years, therefore he is the only superstar with an over the top gimmick that will ever exist.

You'd like to assume that but unfortunately your ignorance to the subject at hand is hardly convincing to change the view that you can't actually name an OTT gimmick outside of the Undertaker who is big in the WWE.

Sorry, but that's rubbish. I hope FTS or Phoenix get here soon, or this is going to start to become dull.

Insult # 2....Getting scared now.

Kane and Undertaker. That's approximately 25% of the wrestlers who have managed to remain over for a period of ten years or longer. Not bad when you actually start to think about it.

Clearly you've not been watching Smackdown as much as you like. what has Kane done supernaturally? kidnap khali's translator? Kane's gimmick has been humanised he's turned from a scarred tortured supernatural being to a crazed psycho, basically the format for most big guys aka Snitskys, Mike Knox and the only effects kept from his old days are his pyros plus we've established Kane isn't big now though is he?

On July 6th 2007 Kane was named as the number one contender for Edge's World Championship. During the build up for the match Kane displayed the powers of teleportation, ability to manipulate the lights and the ability to somehow enter a television set.

So we have Kane competing for a main event title, and using supernatural powers to intimidate his opponent. Explain to me how he's not a major supernatural gimmick?

Kane actually never did teleport during the gimmick during the build up all he did was appear at certain times in a stalkerish way to get into Edge's mind because they had to do a sudden switch due to undertaker's injury and what happened next? Edge gets injured and the great Khali wins the belt and Kane gets lost in the mix again so clearly his gimmick of stalking edge worked so well because he went on to become world champion....oh wait. Kane has been a shell of his supernatural element since he told us to suuuuck iiiit and did a Kanearooni!

*Clap* *Clap* *Clap*

Well done Lee, I'm happy for you. You managed to accomplish something. I spelled Hornswoggle wrong. Thank you for bring that essential and relevant point to light, I am sure it has helped your cause no end. Normally I'd suggest that you instead devoted your time to dealing with the point at hand, but I see you've taken a stab and that already and in doing so made my job a lot easier.

Aww shux insult #3...you should take your own advice though shouldn't you?

Hornswoggle is aimed at kids you say. My answer, so if WWE. Hornswoggle is aimed at their key demographic, and if your going to try and deny that he's over then you're evidently not watching the shows. You might think that a wrestler is only big if he's main eventing Wrestlemania, but those of us who live in the real world are fully aware that the big names are those who have important roles on the show. Hornswoggle is on the main show every single week. He is aimed at the most important demographic and is over with them. I'd call that a successful over the top gimmick.

We saw the same damn match with a different stipulation over and over again and it wasn't getting big, it was getting annoying, there's more "get rid of hornie" posts rather than "yeah he's great actually". Chavo Guerrero would agree with you here. Also Michael Cole's on the same show weekly, is he big? Nope.

For a start, Boogyman (despite being one of the least talented wrestler the WWE has ever hired) got victories over JBL and Booker T during 2006. The first at the Royal Rumble, and the second at Wrestlemania (you know, the biggest show of the year). Secondly, the fact that he didn't stay over is irrelevant. 90% of wrestlers don't get over. The point is that he was pushed.

Wrestlemania is about memorable matches, tell me one good thing about Boogeyman vs. Booker t?

The idea here is Booker keeps faking injuries to get out of matches and is threatened with being fired if he doesn’t wrestle. He was found out anyway and here’s your result. Boogeyman gets a mouthful of worms and kisses Sharmell making her run. He then hits a chokebomb on Booker and pins him clean. Holy fuck that was worthless
Rating: D-. It’s lucky to get this. Sharmell’s cleavage is all that’s carrying this. It was a total waste of time and made Booker look really bad. Totally pointless bullshit.

That was an amazing match there then yeah?

There's a difference between being pushed and being big, you can be pushed and not make it to that level. Shelton Benjamin can tell you that.

This proves that Vince is willing to push over the top gimmicks. Are you really going to tell me that you think every single attempt until the end of time is going to end in failure?

I'm happy to say that there won't be an OTT gimmick that will be successful. As I have already showed the OTT gimmicks at the moment are those who have essentially been typecast in that role and only one of those are 'big'

The WWE isn't going after MMA fans. Vince himself confirmed that on the front page a few days ago. The WWE is courting kids, otherwise known as 'the group most likely to accept an over the top gimmick'. So year, it sounds pretty possible to me.

Did I say they were going for MMA fans? No I said it's becoming more like MMA meaning that gimmicks are pretty humanised and it's totally believable that the character would exist. Look at Punk v Hardy, Orton v Triple H, Jericho telling everyone they're hypocrites.

Incidentally, that's very much for handing me additional ammunition by talking about how society evolves. Yes it does, and sooner or later it's going to swing round to a point where people really want to over the top supernatural gimmicks again. We've got the rest of the WWE's lifespan to be proved right, and you can endlessly echo that [aside from two top stars] there are no over over-the-top gimmicks right now, and we've got the past, peasant and future on our sides.

Damn those peasants. We've had a handful from the past and present who have been big and OTT in the WWE. That's five or so in sixty years, I'd like to take my chance and say we won't see a big OTT gimmick.

Thanks for playing though.

Attempt at insult #4....you're awesome man, pwnd me there.

 

[SavageTaker]

No it's not, look at the big WCW stars that came to WWE, look how many made it big. How many WCW stars are still there? Helms and Rey Mysterio. Wow.

It looks like someone doesn’t know their history very well. How many WCW stars are there in the WWE? Other than Mysterio and Helms, there is also Big Show, Chris Jericho, The Undertaker, Triple H, Finlay, and William Regal. All of those wrestlers worked with WCW before they worked with WWF/E.

You'd like to assume that but unfortunately your ignorance to the subject at hand is hardly convincing to change the view that you can't actually name an OTT gimmick outside of the Undertaker who is big in the WWE.

There have been quite a few “Over the top” gimmicks in the WWE other than The Undertaker. Next you’ll ask me to tell you some…so here’s a few of them: Mickie James playing the psycho/obsessed fan of Trish Stratus, Edge also has an “over the top” gimmick, Kane, Goldust, e.t.c.

Clearly you've not been watching Smackdown as much as you like. what has Kane done supernaturally? kidnap khali's translator? Kane's gimmick has been humanised he's turned from a scarred tortured supernatural being to a crazed psycho, basically the format for most big guys aka Snitskys, Mike Knox and the only effects kept from his old days are his pyros plus we've established Kane isn't big now though is he?

So because Kane hasn’t done something that is supernatural lately, he’s not an over the top gimmick is what you’re basically trying to say. Correct? Well, if it is then that’s just ridiculous. He still has an over the top gimmick because kayfabe wise, he still has those powers and people know he has them.

Kane actually never did teleport during the gimmick during the build up all he did was appear at certain times in a stalkerish way to get into Edge's mind because they had to do a sudden switch due to undertaker's injury and what happened next? Edge gets injured and the great Khali wins the belt and Kane gets lost in the mix again so clearly his gimmick of stalking edge worked so well because he went on to become world champion....oh wait. Kane has been a shell of his supernatural element since he told us to suuuuck iiiit and did a Kanearooni!

So because he got lost in the mix he no longer is an over the top gimmick because he didn’t become a world champion. Winning titles isn’t the only way to make it big. Warrior didn’t win many titles and he still became very big. Kane made it big with his gimmick but he won a few titles. It can go both ways.

We saw the same damn match with a different stipulation over and over again and it wasn't getting big, it was getting annoying, there's more "get rid of hornie" posts rather than "yeah he's great actually". Chavo Guerrero would agree with you here. Also Michael Cole's on the same show weekly, is he big? Nope.

It doesn’t matter how many times you saw the same match or how annoying it was to you and others, the gimmick still made it big because the target demographic was entertained by what they saw.

I'm happy to say that there won't be an OTT gimmick that will be successful. As I have already showed the OTT gimmicks at the moment are those who have essentially been typecast in that role and only one of those are 'big'

You still haven’t given any good reasons as to why there will never be another big over the top gimmick in the WWE.

Did I say they were going for MMA fans? No I said it's becoming more like MMA meaning that gimmicks are pretty humanised and it's totally believable that the character would exist. Look at Punk v Hardy, Orton v Triple H, Jericho telling everyone they're hypocrites.

It doesn’t matter if WWE is becoming more like MMA right now. The debate is asking if there will ever be another big over the top gimmick which has a very good possibility of happening since the WWE will probably be around for many years to come.

Damn those peasants. We've had a handful from the past and present who have been big and OTT in the WWE. That's five or so in sixty years, I'd like to take my chance and say we won't see a big OTT gimmick.

History has shown that it tends to repeat itself at times and it won’t be any different when there’s another over the top gimmick in the WWE that is making it big.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

IC25's Two-cents

There will absolutely be another over the top gimmick in the future. And not just one. Several.

A recent debate I had on the future of Hornswoggle took a good, hard look at the PG era of WWE at the preset time. Hornswoggle is certainly an example of that PG era feel. Every time in the past that WWE has been a PG show, comic-book style over the top gimmicks have been the norm. Eventually, one of them will strike gold.

Only 3 years ago, the very normal Booker T transitioned into the rather over-the-top "King Book-ah" and became World Heavyweight Champion. So a dude from Harlem wins king of the ring and suddenly has the accent of a British Nobleman? Interesting...

Umaga was fairly gimmicky, being the savage samoan with no english speaking ability. He was part of a Wrestlemania Main Event and fought for the WWE Title several times before wellness issues took him out.

As long as kids with imaginations watch pro wrestling, there will always be a place for over the top gimmicks. They may not be the norm now, but they'll absolutely make an appearance every now and again.

 

[Lee]

It looks like someone doesn’t know their history very well. How many WCW stars are there in the WWE? Other than Mysterio and Helms, there is also Big Show, Chris Jericho, The Undertaker, Triple H, Finlay, and William Regal. All of those wrestlers worked with WCW before they worked with WWF/E.

And someone doesn't realise that I was talking of the point when WCW merged with WWE. Of that list you gave how many have the same gimmick? Exactly.

But then in comparison Triple H and Undertaker's run in WCW is a very distant memory but also at the same time, they got over because of their gimmicks in the WWE which have now become humanised and far less than OTT than back in the Attitude era.

There have been quite a few “Over the top” gimmicks in the WWE other than The Undertaker. Next you’ll ask me to tell you some…so here’s a few of them: Mickie James playing the psycho/obsessed fan of Trish Stratus, Edge also has an “over the top” gimmick, Kane, Goldust, e.t.c.

The point is how many of these are big?

Out of the four there, two has already been covered. Now when it comes to the "Over the top" factor, Mickie James was playing the role of somebody that exists in society, she was playing an obsessed fan. Now WWE, Hollywood, TV, etc are filled with obsessed fans who build shrines and stalk people, in comparison to the Undertaker's gimmick, it is a normal thing that happens in life in comparison to say The Goon, a hockey player who wrestles? Hmm

As for Edge, his gimmick is that of being the equivelent of a porn/rock star, he does outrageous traits and earns his gimmick from controversial. Live sex celebrations, Mardi Gras Parties, telling everyone they're wrong; he may be the best heel in the business but his gimmick is similiar to what you see in someone like Billie Wild or the Young Ones mixed with Tommy Lee, it's not as over the top when it exists in life outside of the 'E.

Kane, Goldust and Mickie are not big. You're missing the point

So because Kane hasn’t done something that is supernatural lately, he’s not an over the top gimmick is what you’re basically trying to say. Correct? Well, if it is then that’s just ridiculous. He still has an over the top gimmick because kayfabe wise, he still has those powers and people know he has them.

When has he displayed them recently? Can you homestly tell me the last time he sent a bolt of lightning towards his foe? Every time he gets a rival he ends up kidnapping them and torturing them; Mysterio, Kelly Kelly, Khali's translator. If he has mystical energy he wouldn't need to physically kidnap someone, he's just use the powers that he supposed to have rather than, oh yes, trigger some pryos going off...

What I am saying is Kane is not big or is as over the top as he once was. Evidence:

[YOUTUBE]/v/AqXoJn9ZmS8&hl=en&fs=1&[/YOUTUBE]

Sheesh.

So because he got lost in the mix he no longer is an over the top gimmick because he didn’t become a world champion. Winning titles isn’t the only way to make it big. Warrior didn’t win many titles and he still became very big. Kane made it big with his gimmick but he won a few titles. It can go both ways.

Do I need to say it again, Kane is not big and hasn't been for five years. You're missing my point that of the OTT gimmicks ten years ago they all becamse watered down versions with only those who were typecast still in that position and of that only one would be deemed big.

It doesn’t matter how many times you saw the same match or how annoying it was to you and others, the gimmick still made it big because the target demographic was entertained by what they saw.

Wow kids were entertained, great work ST. Does it mean he's big? You see my point.

You still haven’t given any good reasons as to why there will never be another big over the top gimmick in the WWE.

*sigh* I clearly did several times over, if you can't read don't post, but here we go. The reason is because in the past there have hardly been any OTT who have been big. In fact as I showed there have been more OTT gimmicks that wern't big than those that were. The only one at the moment is a guy who is big because of his rich history with the company. Can you imagine a main eventer debuting like that? We just wouldn't buy it.

It doesn’t matter if WWE is becoming more like MMA right now. The debate is asking if there will ever be another big over the top gimmick which has a very good possibility of happening since the WWE will probably be around for many years to come.

And again you've failed to prove this.

History has shown that it tends to repeat itself at times and it won’t be any different when there’s another over the top gimmick in the WWE that is making it big.

Not really, we had OTT gimmicks during the 80s and early 90's and very few of these would be consituted as big. Look at the last person who debuted with an OTT gimmick who was big in WWE. Mohammed Hassan, then 7/7 happened and he was gone. Since then I can't think of anyone who has debuted with an OTT gimmick who has even been given a big push.

 

[FromTheSouth]

Anyone got a fly swatter?

I do. And I'm bout to use it.

I'll concede Muta, but explain to my why an over the top gimmick would be easier to get over in WCW as oppose to WWE. It's the same audience.

It's not necessarily the same audience. WWE went for more "realistic" story lines earlier than WCW. nWo, while different, was still over the top. Hollywood Hogan, while not one of the oddities, was still over the top. The WCW audience was into gimmicks more than stories.

So, let me condense Lee's logic down to a single sentence.

The Undertaker is the only superstar with an over the top gimmick in the past five years, therefore he is the only superstar with an over the top gimmick that will ever exist.

Sorry, but that's rubbish. I hope FTS or Phoenix get here soon, or this is going to start to become dull.

The Undertaker, and possibly Kane, are the only two over the top gimmicks in the WWE. You aren't distinguishing between gimmicks and over the top gimmicks. Everyone has a gimmick. Not everyone is a comic book character. This is where we differ. There won't be anymore comic book character that will be super successful in the WWE. Not in the near future anyway. Maybe 25 years from now, the public consciousness will change, but as the company stands now, there isn't a place for it.

1. All the characters now and just people with one hyperbolic personality trait.

a. Cena and his hussle
b. Punk and straightedge
c. HHH and intensity
d. Orton's diabolical nature

none of them are over the top gimmicks.

2. The restrictive moveset keeps over the top characters at bay.

For someone to truly be over the top, there needs to be a moveset for them to illustrate the exaggerations. No one does anything very different than anyone else anymore. When the Undertaker burst onto the scene, tombstones were something new, walking the ropes was something new. Now, there may be variations on moves, but nothing that no one has seen before.

Kane and Undertaker. That's approximately 25% of the wrestlers who have managed to remain over for a period of ten years or longer. Not bad when you actually start to think about it.

Talk about a misuse of stats.

On July 6th 2007 Kane was named as the number one contender for Edge's World Championship. During the build up for the match Kane displayed the powers of teleportation, ability to manipulate the lights and the ability to somehow enter a television set.

So we have Kane competing for a main event title, and using supernatural powers to intimidate his opponent. Explain to me how he's not a major supernatural gimmick?

Well, the question of is whether there will be another over the top gimmick. Kane and Taker get away with it because there powers are well established amongst the viewers. Getting someone else over as supernatural won't happen because it will water down the Undertaker. Whoever is next to try and use supernatural abilities will face serious credibility problems. Furthermore, the question isn't about whether or not someone else will be over the top, but whether they'll hit it big. It might entertain the kids, but the current trend is to keep that shit out of the main event.

*Clap* *Clap* *Clap*

Well done Lee, I'm happy for you. You managed to accomplish something. I spelled Hornswoggle wrong. Thank you for bring that essential and relevant point to light, I am sure it has helped your cause no end. Normally I'd suggest that you instead devoted your time to dealing with the point at hand, but I see you've taken a stab and that already and in doing so made my job a lot easier.
[/QUOTE

Wow, be nice. This is an all star game. We're not sliding into second to break up the double play.

Hornswoggle is aimed at kids you say. My answer, so if WWE. Hornswoggle is aimed at their key demographic, and if your going to try and deny that he's over then you're evidently not watching the shows. You might think that a wrestler is only big if he's main eventing Wrestlemania, but those of us who live in the real world are fully aware that the big names are those who have important roles on the show. Hornswoggle is on the main show every single week. He is aimed at the most important demographic and is over with them. I'd call that a successful over the top gimmick.

He may be over, but he's not a big star, nor is he an essential part of the show.

For a start, Boogyman (despite being one of the least talented wrestler the WWE has ever hired) got victories over JBL and Booker T during 2006. The first at the Royal Rumble, and the second at Wrestlemania (you know, the biggest show of the year). Secondly, the fact that he didn't stay over is irrelevant. 90% of wrestlers don't get over. The point is that he was pushed.

And despite his push, the lack of things you can do with "The Boogeyman" character kept him from hitting it big.

This proves that Vince is willing to push over the top gimmicks. Are you really going to tell me that you think every single attempt until the end of time is going to end in failure?

Tell me when one of those over the top gimmicks goes over HHH. Then, maybe I'll agree that he's in the big time. JBL may have been a star, but he wasn't on the level where a victory over him was career defining.

The WWE isn't going after MMA fans. Vince himself confirmed that on the front page a few days ago. The WWE is courting kids, otherwise known as 'the group most likely to accept an over the top gimmick'. So year, it sounds pretty possible to me.

But he's marketing Cena and DX to kids, not The Boogeyman. These guys would be considered over the top in a bar, but not in professional wrestling. Let me know when the world's toughest barber is facing an IRS agent with a bad attitude in the main event at Wrestlemania.

Incidentally, that's very much for handing me additional ammunition by talking about how society evolves. Yes it does, and sooner or later it's going to swing round to a point where people really want to over the top supernatural gimmicks again.

So, what you're saying is that even though all of the major evolution in film and television over the past sixty years has been about making everything more real, eventually, that quest is going to stop, and the WWE is going to turn into Heroes? OK, maybe, but I think that society's quest for realism may be the downfall of the WWE before it is the rebirth.

We've got the rest of the WWE's lifespan to be proved right, and you can endlessly echo that [aside from two top stars] there are no over over-the-top gimmicks right now, and we've got the past, peasant and future on our sides.

The present is very much not on your side. I'm not sure the future is either.

Thanks for playing though.

No problem.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

A list of some over the top gimmicks

Irwin R. Schyster - An angry tax representative who wrestled in a shirt and tie. 2-time WWF Tag Champion and one-half of one of the more successful tag teams in the 90's.

The Mountie - Canadian Royal Mounted Cop, complete with tazer and self-performed entrance theme. Beat Bret Hart for the Intercontinental Title, and then became one half of the successful tag team "The Quebecers."

Honky Tonk Man - Elvis impersonator. Longest reigning Intercontinental Champion in WWF history, also part of a successful tag team with Greg Valentine known as "Rhythm & Blues."

Eugene Dinsmore - A mentally ******ed wrestling savant. Former WWF Tag Team Champion and one of the more "over" performers in recent memory.

GoldDust - Sexually ambiguous film obsessive. Multiple time Intercontinental Champion, still active today.


Here is what I have to ask - what do you define as "big?" Does a "big" name wrestler have to be a main eventer, in the title picture with the Cenas and Ortons of the world? I don't think so. IRS, Honkey Tonk, and Mountie were all PPV regulars in fairly congruent feuds for years at a time when there were only 3 PPV's a year.

In fact as I showed there have been more OTT gimmicks that wern't big than those that were.

The ratio of gimmick success shows that, over the top or not, more gimmicks fail than succeed. It happens that way. But it's also fair to say that when one catches on, it sticks pretty well. Curry Man and Shark Boy were quite over with TNA crowds for a while, you know.

Not really, we had OTT gimmicks during the 80s and early 90's and very few of these would be consituted as big.

Ironically, that's the last time the WWF targeted a PG audience. Safe to say we may be seeing more of these gimmicks again soon? Yes, it is.

Let me pose THIS to you, Lee. Mick Foley. A deranged man with triple personalities. He was WWF Champion with TWO of those personalities (Mankind and Cactus Jack) and wrestled several main events in a third (Dude Love), as well as winning the TNA WOrld Title as himself. HE was an over the top gimmick, and not only was he big and successful, he is held in a high reverence even today, and I'd not be shocked to see him in the HOF someday.

 

[gd]

A list of some over the top gimmicks

Irwin R. Schyster - An angry tax representative who wrestled in a shirt and tie. 2-time WWF Tag Champion and one-half of one of the more successful tag teams in the 90's.

The Mountie - Canadian Royal Mounted Cop, complete with tazer and self-performed entrance theme. Beat Bret Hart for the Intercontinental Title, and then became one half of the successful tag team "The Quebecers."

Honky Tonk Man - Elvis impersonator. Longest reigning Intercontinental Champion in WWF history, also part of a successful tag team with Greg Valentine known as "Rhythm & Blues."

Eugene Dinsmore - A mentally ******ed wrestling savant. Former WWF Tag Team Champion and one of the more "over" performers in recent memory.

GoldDust - Sexually ambiguous film obsessive. Multiple time Intercontinental Champion, still active today.

^^^ List of nobodies.

Here is what I have to ask - what do you define as "big?"

Considering it's what is going to make the WWE "big" again, I'd say that means something like the attitude era, huge ratings, massive popularity. None of the guys you listed have the ability to do that.

Does a "big" name wrestler have to be a main eventer, in the title picture with the Cenas and Ortons of the world?

Yes, considering it is the main eventers that draw in casual fans and new fans, who are vital to making the WWE uber-popular again.

I don't think so. IRS, Honkey Tonk, and Mountie were all PPV regulars in fairly congruent feuds for years at a time when there were only 3 PPV's a year.

Well, that isn't going to do the WWE any good if they want to be big again. They need main eventers that will draw in a ton of viewers and that they will be able to market, these guys were never hugely popular and weren't the reason for the WWE being huge back in the day.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

^^^ List of nobodies..

Please tell me you're not serious. Those are some fairly big names with impressive resumes.

Considering it's what is going to make the WWE "big" again, I'd say that means something like the attitude era, huge ratings, massive popularity. None of the guys you listed have the ability to do that.

So you're basically restricting this debate to "Hogan and Austin?" I don't think that's the criteria the debate is meant to be based on. I also think you're not doing your team any favors by suggesting that it is.

Yes, considering it is the main eventers that draw in casual fans and new fans, who are vital to making the WWE uber-popular again.

Well, fair enough. Foley was a main eventer. Undertaker was a main eventer. Ultimate Warrior was a main eventer. None of them STARTED as main eventers, they started in the mid-card. I think that supports the idea that another main-event level, over the top gimmick is not just possible, it's likely.

Well, that isn't going to do the WWE any good if they want to be big again. They need main eventers that will draw in a ton of viewers and that they will be able to market, these guys were never hugely popular and weren't the reason for the WWE being huge back in the day.

So again, you're restricting this entire debate to Austin and Hogan.

 

[FromTheSouth]

Well, fair enough. Foley was a main eventer. Undertaker was a main eventer. Ultimate Warrior was a main eventer. None of them STARTED as main eventers, they started in the mid-card. I think that supports the idea that another main-event level, over the top gimmick is not just possible, it's likely.

That's true, but look at the landscape today. As it is right now, how would you fit an over the top gimmick into the company? In all honesty, Kofi Kingston is over the top when compared with the gimmicks of today. He's today's equivalent of Tito Santana, which is awesome, but not some kind of memorable character. But, when you compare him to Cena, Orton, Swagger, etc., he is actually playing a character, as opposed to exaggerating himself.

It's just that today's business doesn't have room for it. Even the Undertaker rarely does anything gimmicky anymore. Three times a year he does a promo that involves druids and smoke, but that's it. It has disappeared from the business.

So again, you're restricting this entire debate to Austin and Hogan.

It is a little restrictive, but I think we can agree that "making it big" is somewhere north of IRS and somewhere south of Hogan and Austin.

 

[Gelgarin]

It's just that today's business doesn't have room for it. Even the Undertaker rarely does anything gimmicky anymore. Three times a year he does a promo that involves druids and smoke, but that's it. It has disappeared from the business.

All right, hands up. I'll admit, I'm a little bit of a recluse these days. I tend to spend the majority of my time indoors, and have clearly missed out on the proliferation of matter transportation, control of all forms of electricity (including lightning), and coming back from the dead into day to day use.
Taker has done all of the above in the past five years, and the assertion that he's not working a supernatural gimmick is totally ill founded.

Beyond that however, you make a mistake that more or less proves our argument. You talk about "today's business". We're not just talking about today's business. We're talking about tomorrows business, and next years business, and the WWE in five, ten, twenty and thirty years time. The question asks will there ever be an over the top gimmick again, and thus far nobody on your side of the argument has been able to explain the my why the product is never going to change again.

Ever since George Wagner professional wrestling has had its over the top gimmicks. From Gorgeous George and The Sheik to Chief Jay Strongbow to Randy Savage and The Ultimate Warrior to Undertaker and Kane to whoever the next generation of stars hands us. Over the top gimmicks have always been big in professional wrestling.

Can somebody explain to me why they will never be big again?

 

[IrishCanadian25]

That's true, but look at the landscape today. As it is right now, how would you fit an over the top gimmick into the company?

Let's take a step back and look at the attitude era, then. Who were the big stars when Mick Foley, playing the Mankind personality, finally broke through and won a major title? Steve Austin, The Rock, Kurt Angle, DX, The Undertaker. Austin and Rock were more iconic than Cena and Orton, but they were no more "over the top" in terms of gimmicks. The envelope was pushed with content, sex, language, and blood, but Austin was packaged as the rebellious side of the everyday man, and The Rock called himself the People's Champ. Kurt Angle was as straight and legitimate an athlete as WWF had every seen.

And yet, despite that landscape being far less gimmicky and far more natural in terms of characters, a deranged "hardcore legend" with split personalities and a sock puppet broke through to become a multiple time WWF World Champion.

If Foley could break through when Austin, Rock, HHH, and Angle were at the top of the company, isn't it safe to believe that the landscape NOW is even MORE conducive to a gimmick wrestler doing the same, especially given the PG-nature of the content and the marketing to kids?

 

[Phoenix]

All right, hands up. I'll admit, I'm a little bit of a recluse these days. I tend to spend the majority of my time indoors, and have clearly missed out on the proliferation of matter transportation, control of all forms of electricity (including lightning), and coming back from the dead into day to day use.
Taker has done all of the above in the past five years, and the assertion that he's not working a supernatural gimmick is totally ill founded.

No no, what Lee rightfully said was that his gimmick was TONED DOWN since compared to his earlier carnations of the Deadman. Prior to 2000, Undertaker was scarificing superstars, threatening Vince McMahon for control of the company, black weddings and sending forth his bolts of lightning.

Now in the build up to the return of his Deadman gimmick, granted there was lightning, rain and shaky rings. But since he actually returned, the main thing we've seen him do is his lights out/teleportation gimmick. Other parts of it have included doing similiar fashions to DX, stealing limos and dropping crap/blood on his opponent, seems very generic to me as opposed to over the top. But even now, when was the most recent time you could actually name Undertaker sending lightning down in his opponents direction? I will give bonus points if it's within the last year.

Beyond that however, you make a mistake that more or less proves our argument. You talk about "today's business". We're not just talking about today's business. We're talking about tomorrows business, and next years business, and the WWE in five, ten, twenty and thirty years time. The question asks will there ever be an over the top gimmick again, and thus far nobody on your side of the argument has been able to explain the my why the product is never going to change again.

But without focusing on the present, we cannot head forward to the future, to get a better understand you must see what is current and how it will affect the future. So our focus on the present is not proving your argument at all, it solidifies our statement about how the history of the WWE has led to this point where gimmicks are alot less over the top and it's more focused on the stories and entertainment factor.

You complain we haven't answered your question, well here is an answer. If you compare how the WWE was in late 1980s to early 90s and see how the audience followed over the top gimmicks because the notion of kayfabe, spoilers and the people behind the art did not enter their mind compared to now where a lot of our emphasis is based on how REAL the story telling can be. The kids and adults of this day and age have evolved alot since nearly 20 years ago, their sense of realism outdoes their imagination nowadays. We go online and read internet spoilers, find out more truths about the product that while the likes of the Undertaker are able to still get over. Can you actually see any of the roster that is going to be around in the next 5-10 years and think "Hmm, he'll get over if we make him Undertaker Mark 2.0". No, simply put, the nostalgia has been replaced with belief, entertainment has replaced the gimmick and elements that made up the Golden Age and the Attitude Era.

But where we look at the braniac that is Vince McMahon, he's not going to around for too much longer in the future and his children will take up the mantel, they won't be about over the top gimmicks, they will be about storytelling. They known that the children of today are not as gullible as they once were and they will continue to evolve with that built up interllect as they look to continue to be a family friendly based product. Much like the PG era is here to stay, the gimmicks are going out slowly from over the top to believeable.

Ever since George Wagner professional wrestling has had its over the top gimmicks. From Gorgeous George and The Sheik to Chief Jay Strongbow to Randy Savage and The Ultimate Warrior to Undertaker and Kane to whoever the next generation of stars hands us. Over the top gimmicks have always been big in professional wrestling.

Can somebody explain to me why they will never be big again?

Because any of the top members of the roster who USE to have an over the top gimmick do not have it anymore.

Sample Number 1: John Cena - It's no secret that John Cena got over because of his rapper gimmick. But the moment he won the WWE Championship and was elevated into Main Event Status, the gimmick was dropped. He doesn't rap anymore, he doesn't play a character, he is himself. Yes it's a version of Cena we mainly hate but when the crowd chants his name because he being a wrestler who kicks the bad guy's ass, he's now over because they want to see him entertain through promos and being the good guy, not because he'll rap about stealing yo mamma from Undertaker's yard

Sample Number 2: Randy Orton - He got over by being the Legend Killer. His gimmick was to take out legends and be better than them and what happened to him? He got one month with the World Title and never saw it again. He fell back because the gimmick worked for his build but it didn't get him over enough as it did. It was only until he evolved into the Viper, a psychotic man who gets his kicks out of hurting people, that got him sealed into the Main Event. He's had runs with the WWE Title that make Edge envious and it's because he removed the OTT factor by simplifying it to being just evil and that's why he's the top heel of the company and the reigning WWE Champion. Could you see him being champ if he came out saying "I beat Ric Flair, etc", no you can't. They tried it and it failed!

Let's take a step back and look at the attitude era, then. Who were the big stars when Mick Foley, playing the Mankind personality, finally broke through and won a major title? Steve Austin, The Rock, Kurt Angle, DX, The Undertaker. Austin and Rock were more iconic than Cena and Orton, but they were no more "over the top" in terms of gimmicks. The envelope was pushed with content, sex, language, and blood, but Austin was packaged as the rebellious side of the everyday man, and The Rock called himself the People's Champ. Kurt Angle was as straight and legitimate an athlete as WWF had every seen.

Firstly, Kurt Angle wasn't even in the company when Mick Foley had any of his title reigns. Angle arrived at Survivor Series 99, Mick's last reign came the Raw after Summerslam.

Yet you try and play the fact that the Attitude Era was the gimmickfest of the last decade. DX of then was alot more over the top than the most reason versions ever got near, the DX of today is just a shadow of what they do. Again it was toned down to fit the PG era despite their controversial T-shirts. Oh yeah back then they would do anything on TV that was over the top, it's what got DX over, now it's just a retired bandwagon that doesn't even come close to what they have acheived, just having the same fireworks. Fun!

Undertaker was sacrificing people on symbols and had a satanic cult following, how in the frick is that not over the top?

Austin of this age is not over the top but he got over by being an over the top rebel by destroying property, raiding people's houses, driving monster trucks and the big one, beating up his own boss. This is heightened imagination that we can only dream of on a day to day basis. How often do we want to beat up our own boss and soak him in a beer bath. He even head a gun up to his head and did the Looney Tunes themes of "Bang" as a joke. That's how over the top Austin was. Now he just comes down, stuns a few people and drinks some beers, again another shadow of what he once was.

So Mankind got over in a period where the over the top gimmicks ran riot and what's happened to them? They've been phased out or watered down because it's not PG enough. What is the point of telling us a gimmick got over when they popular? It does nothing because you cannot name anyone legitimate outside of The Undertaker is over and big in the WWE and actually being used on the Main Event stage!

And yet, despite that landscape being far less gimmicky and far more natural in terms of characters, a deranged "hardcore legend" with split personalities and a sock puppet broke through to become a multiple time WWF World Champion.

It served the greater purpose of getting The Rock up into the Main Event. Mankind's reigns were even shorter than Edge's and they only spanned the time of about 2 months when he fought with The Rock. Yet if he was so over, why didn't he Main Event Wrestlemania with Austin? Oh that's right because he wasn't legitimate Main Event material, it was more about The Rock than Mick Foley and you know it! His last reign lasted only a DAY and why? Because Austin didn't want to go down to Triple H but Mankind would put him over. His played his role much like Jillian Hall played her part last night on Raw to put Melina over.

If Foley could break through when Austin, Rock, HHH, and Angle were at the top of the company, isn't it safe to believe that the landscape NOW is even MORE conducive to a gimmick wrestler doing the same, especially given the PG-nature of the content and the marketing to kids?

Given that Angle was top of the company a year after Foley won his last title and wasn't even around when it happened, I can count that out. But as Austin's gimmick of the OTT rebel, The Rock having his OTT speeches and Triple H getting over as The Game and prior to that the Blueblood, it's safe to say that Foley got over because he fitted in with a gimmick filled company.

Now they are sparce and the moment Goldust or the Hurricane wins the WWE Title, let alone the ECW Title, give me a call. Fact is the gimmicks are not what the Main Event is made of outside of the Undertaker and they're not even over the top or considered that. The last legitimate over the top gimmick that was big was Muhammad Hassan and look what happened there...

Point being is that the gimmicks worked once but much like the audience, the company has and will continue to evolve. Evolution doesn't go backwards, it goes forward, so how can anyone get over when it's not about how over the top they are, it's about how good they are as a wrestler with skill. It's basic and simple and it works for the current fans and the newer fans to come.

 

[D-Man]

It's about time I get to debate with your ass...

Let's take a step back and look at the attitude era, then. Who were the big stars when Mick Foley, playing the Mankind personality, finally broke through and won a major title? Steve Austin, The Rock, Kurt Angle, DX, The Undertaker. Austin and Rock were more iconic than Cena and Orton, but they were no more "over the top" in terms of gimmicks. The envelope was pushed with content, sex, language, and blood, but Austin was packaged as the rebellious side of the everyday man, and The Rock called himself the People's Champ. Kurt Angle was as straight and legitimate an athlete as WWF had every seen.

And yet, despite that landscape being far less gimmicky and far more natural in terms of characters, a deranged "hardcore legend" with split personalities and a sock puppet broke through to become a multiple time WWF World Champion.

If Foley could break through when Austin, Rock, HHH, and Angle were at the top of the company, isn't it safe to believe that the landscape NOW is even MORE conducive to a gimmick wrestler doing the same, especially given the PG-nature of the content and the marketing to kids?

The perfect answer to this (and simply put) is the mere fact that the only way an over-the-top character like Foley, Austin, or the Rock could break through again is if the landscape of the WWE reverts back to a rating above a PG level. All of those characters needed more freedoms and less criticisms in order for their gimmicks to shine in that era. According to Vince and the rest of WWE management, they don't plan on changing the landscape again. They are simply looking to entertain a different audience now.

Now, combine this audience with the influx of reality television, new sports like MMA, and more television censorship. And keep in mind that the audience will always be split between different age brackets. The WWE will continue to use goofy gimmicks to entertain the children that watch the show, but when they need a character to carry the company on their shoulders into the promise land, they won't be looking for a clown, a crazed dentist, a hardcore legend, a carny, or a troll. They'll be looking for another reality-type character with a realistic personlity, realistic in-ring moveset, and realistic tendancies.

OTT Gimmicks will never fail to exist in professional wrestling. Hell, it's a TV show aimed to entertain all age demographics, including children. But none of the OTT characters can ever be sophisticated enough to convince Vincent Kennedy McMahon that his billion dollar company needs to be carried on their shoulders. He'll look to something reliable for that role, and the OTT gimmicks won't fit the bill.

 

[gd]

Please tell me you're not serious. Those are some fairly big names with impressive resumes.

Maybe to smarks they are, but to casual wrestling fans, they have no idea who they are.

So you're basically restricting this debate to "Hogan and Austin?"

Them, and other guys that are big names like HBK, Hart, Rock, they made the WWE "big", guys like Goldust and Eugene did not contribute much to PPV buyrates or TV ratings.

I don't think that's the criteria the debate is meant to be based on.

I don't think The Mountie ever contributed signifcantly to the WWF being "big."

I also think you're not doing your team any favors by suggesting that it is.

Ouch, pulling out the guilt card, I may as well stop posting.

Well, fair enough. Foley was a main eventer. Undertaker was a main eventer. Ultimate Warrior was a main eventer. None of them STARTED as main eventers, they started in the mid-card. I think that supports the idea that another main-event level, over the top gimmick is not just possible, it's likely.

Was Warrior an over the top gimmick? I guess facepaint was over the top back then. Anyway, what current midcard in the WWE has an over the top gimmick that is poised to jump into the main event scene? No one. Some of the stars who are rising the fastest are Rhodes, Dibiase, Swagger, Ziggler, and Morrison, whose gimmicks are over the top at all.

What's Goldust doing? Jobbing on ECW.

So again, you're restricting this entire debate to Austin and Hogan.

Or just guys who are actually big names and made a significant impact in the popularity of the WWE.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

Maybe to smarks they are, but to casual wrestling fans, they have no idea who they are.

Smarks has nothing to do with it. My grandfather is a pro wrestling fan, as are a few of my co-workers. My grandfather is 70, co-workers in their 30's, I am 28. Smarkdom has nothing to do with it - it's a function of age and length of time as a fan. IRS and Honky Tonk may not have a lot of meaning to the 10-25 year old crowd, but I remember them well.

Them, and other guys that are big names like HBK, Hart, Rock, they made the WWE "big", guys like Goldust and Eugene did not contribute much to PPV buyrates or TV ratings.

So you're allowing only a very small, specific criteria to be used because it benefits your argument. I expected as much.

I don't think The Mountie ever contributed signifcantly to the WWF being "big."

He didn't hurt it. Certainly he wasn't Hogan, but he was a servicable midcarder with a lot of PPV matches.

Ouch, pulling out the guilt card, I may as well stop posting.

Nah, I like you. Stick around.

Was Warrior an over the top gimmick? I guess facepaint was over the top back then.

Did you ever hear him cut a promo? He was over the top, because he was INSANE and INCONGRUOUS. He hailed from Parts Unknown and talked gibberish about other worlds and shit. He was totally mental. He was over the top.

Anyway, what current midcard in the WWE has an over the top gimmick that is poised to jump into the main event scene? No one.

The question asks if an over the top gimmick with ever be big in the WWE again. It doesn't ask if there will be one in the next 5 years.

Or just guys who are actually big names and made a significant impact in the popularity of the WWE.

Kindly refer to my Mick Foley argument.

And I'd argue that "The Immortal" Hulk Hogan was Over the Top, too.

It's about time I get to debate with your ass...

If I ever let you near my ass, you'd lose that debate, too.

The perfect answer to this (and simply put) is the mere fact that the only way an over-the-top character like Foley, Austin, or the Rock could break through again is if the landscape of the WWE reverts back to a rating above a PG level.

You've actually broken a record. You helped prove my point in your 2nd full sentence.

During the original PG era of pro wrestling - the 80's and early to mid-90's, over the top gimmicks were more prevalent than they were in the attitude era. Hulk Hogan. Ultimate Warrior. Iron Sheik. Sgt. Slaughter. Undertaker. Tatanka. Repo Man. Okay, forget Barry Darsow, you get my point.

I am arguing that the more PG WWE gets, and the more they target kids, the more colorful and gimmicky the characters will be. That's why two of the WWE's most popular guys lately have been Rey Mysterio and Jeff Hardy.

The WWE will continue to use goofy gimmicks to entertain the children that watch the show, but when they need a character to carry the company on their shoulders into the promise land, they won't be looking for a clown, a crazed dentist, a hardcore legend, a carny, or a troll.

Maybe not, but an Ultimate Warrior, an Undertaker? Hell, I don't consider Jeff Hardy over the top, but he's close.

So Mankind got over in a period where the over the top gimmicks ran riot and what's happened to them? They've been phased out or watered down because it's not PG enough. What is the point of telling us a gimmick got over when they popular?

My point was that an over the top gimmick like Foley got over at a time where there was already a top-heavy main event roster. Similar to now.

Firstly, Kurt Angle wasn't even in the company when Mick Foley had any of his title reigns. Angle arrived at Survivor Series 99, Mick's last reign came the Raw after Summerslam.

I know, I wanted to illustrate the era well, though, and Kurt was still lumped in with that era.

It served the greater purpose of getting The Rock up into the Main Event.

And in the process, Mick was a significantly over multi-time WWF Champion during the biggest boom in pro wrestling history. Austin and Rock were healthy and huge at the time, as was Triple H. Foley, over the top gimmick and all, broke through.

 

[Gelgarin]

Righty O, Irish is unleashing a world of pain on his side, so I'll just focus on the arguments aimed directly at myself.

Now in the build up to the return of his Deadman gimmick, granted there was lightning, rain and shaky rings. But since he actually returned, the main thing we've seen him do is his lights out/teleportation gimmick. Other parts of it have included doing similiar fashions to DX, stealing limos and dropping crap/blood on his opponent, seems very generic to me as opposed to over the top. But even now, when was the most recent time you could actually name Undertaker sending lightning down in his opponents direction? I will give bonus points if it's within the last year.

2006 Royal Rumble. Roughly half way between coming back from the dead, and sending a rival superstar to hell. I hate to think what you classify as over the top behaviour if those three events fail to register.
Undertaker is extremely over the top, and extremely over. Proof that a character of such nature can work in today's environment.

But without focusing on the present, we cannot head forward to the future, to get a better understand you must see what is current and how it will affect the future. So our focus on the present is not proving your argument at all, it solidifies our statement about how the history of the WWE has led to this point where gimmicks are alot less over the top and it's more focused on the stories and entertainment factor.

Yet by using your logic, I could look at the gimmick heavy years of the WWF, and assert that it proves that grounded realistic gimmick would never again have a place in professional wrestling. Of course history shows us that it's completely untrue.

Back is days of old the most popular wrestler in America was the hyper legitimate Lou Thesz. Then, a certain section of the crowd began to swing away from this focus on realism, and the biggest fish in the country became the charisma based, over the top characters of Antionio Rocca and Buddy Rogers. That were big for a few years, until the rise of Bruno Sammartino, another simple and legitimate character.

The what happened? Ahh yes; Hulk Hogan. Once again the younger generations of fans were drawn to support one of the most over the top guys in the promotion. Hogan Savage and Warrior ruled the roost for a while, until eventually we again began to see more "realistic" characters like Bret Hart phased in. That went on for a while until... BANG! Attitude Era. OTT madness is the order of the day again. Eventually the flame burns out, and we wind up at today's date.

And what to we learn from this? Well for a start we learn that trying to predict what wrestling is going to do over the next fifty years based solely on last night's RAW is a complete waste of time, but more importantly we discover that professional wrestling in America has constantly swung back and forth between different production values, and since you are all still to inform me as to why this will no longer be the case, I think it's a fair assertion to make that we'll see the rise of OTT gimmicks again.

But where we look at the braniac that is Vince McMahon, he's not going to around for too much longer in the future and his children will take up the mantel, they won't be about over the top gimmicks, they will be about storytelling.

Evidence please?

Because any of the top members of the roster who USE to have an over the top gimmick do not have it anymore.

Apart from Kane and Undertaker of course.

According to Vince and the rest of WWE management, they don't plan on changing the landscape again.

Evidence please?

________________________________________​

So, because we've got something of a clusterfuck developing right now, I think it would be prudent to sum up our argument.

Over the top gimmicks have been pushed heavily in the past, and have become hugely successful. Hogan, Savage and Warrior are fair evidence for this.

Over the top gimmicks have been pushed heavily in the present, and have become hugely successful. Kane, Undertaker, Eugene, Hornswoggle and Boogyman are fair evidence of this.

Since the WWE shows absolutely no signs of going anywhere, it seems fair to assume that over the top gimmicks will be pushed heavily and become hugely successful once again.

Our opponents have tried to put forward the argument that guys like Kane and Undertaker are no longer over the top. Unfortunately the simply act of watching the show disproves this.

Our opponents have tried to put forward the argument that the direction of the product has changed, and as such over the top gimmicks will never be pushed again. Unfortunately a rudimentary knowledge of wrestling history tells us that the direction of the product has constantly shifted, and unfortunately our opponents have failed to present any evidence for why this will no longer be the case.

Our opponents have correctly pointed out that I can't be relied upon to spell Hornswoggle. It's not much of a victory, but I didn't want people to think I was being biased in my commentary.

Perhaps somebody on the opposing team can take a stab at evidence as to why professional wrestling isn't going to change over the next fifty years. And when I say evidence, I mean actual evidence, not half bakes assertions backed up by nothing beyond your own private 'reckoning'

Whilst your at it, I'm still waiting on an explanation as to why Kane and Undertaker don't utterly disprove the theory that over the top characters can't make it big. Our side has proved that they are both still over the top, and are both still big, so I'm really struggling to see where your logic is coming from here.

 

[Phoenix]

2006 Royal Rumble. Roughly half way between coming back from the dead, and sending a rival superstar to hell. I hate to think what you classify as over the top behaviour if those three events fail to register. Undertaker is extremely over the top, and extremely over. Proof that a character of such nature can work in today's environment.

Yes Undertaker WAS extremely over the top, while he may have some elements about his character that still remains it is still a shadow of what he has done in the first decade he was around. Take the Royal Rumble where he was locked in a casket and raised up to the ceiling, that was major on the OTT factor whilst he doesn't do anything remotely similiar.

As for the Edge being sent to hell matter, lots of people were literally questioning it and going WTF? at the ridiculousness of it. This was one of the drawbacks of this current OTT factor of the Undertaker today, it doesn't shock as it once did, it's more questioning whether it takes certain elements too far. They certainly forgot it the moment Edge came back within four months of being sent to hell and winning the WWE Title, Edge even said he was sitting at home rather than sitting in hell making that element a failure.

The what happened? Ahh yes; Hulk Hogan. Once again the younger generations of fans were drawn to support one of the most over the top guys in the promotion. Hogan Savage and Warrior ruled the roost for a while, until eventually we again began to see more "realistic" characters like Bret Hart phased in. That went on for a while until... BANG! Attitude Era. OTT madness is the order of the day again. Eventually the flame burns out, and we wind up at today's date.

Which you're exactly agreeing that it has phased out to a point where it's not getting over because the audience has changed as much as the WWE has. Wrestling in a way matured the moment the initials W.W.F. were removed from the product because it truly signified that it's not about being crazy and over the top, it's about simple entertainment.

But at the same time, during the Golden age, we got wrestlers like HBK and Bret Hart who have been named as some of the greatest of all time and gave us some of the matches of the year. Hell, even Savage vs. Steamboat was more about technical skill and ability rather than the gimmicks and that was named the greatest ever wrestling match of all time! And we look at the 21st Century, when discussing about what matches are the best matches that have been, more standard style matches got named ahead of gimmick based matches because of the technical ability that the superstars provide when telling a story in the ring. We're taking matches and wrestling credibility more seriously than who has a better gimmick and certainly the OTT ones are not matching up to the bigness of the Undertaker.

And what to we learn from this? Well for a start we learn that trying to predict what wrestling is going to do over the next fifty years based solely on last night's RAW is a complete waste of time, but more importantly we discover that professional wrestling in America has constantly swung back and forth between different production values, and since you are all still to inform me as to why this will no longer be the case, I think it's a fair assertion to make that we'll see the rise of OTT gimmicks again.

Or maybe it's more we're learning that we're right in proving that you could not find an over the top gimmick on Raw right now? Yeah, you know the flagship show? The prime show in WWE? Oh yeah that's right doesn't seem to be any OTT gimmicks running wild there. Let me see Cena? Nope his rapper gimmick is nearly 5 years gone. Orton? Ah damn, not been killing any legends recently. Triple H? Does nothing but plug useless crap related to DX.

WWE is currently based on entertainment and they're doing so from providing stories and giving moments to enjoy for the fans with Guest Hosts and the current build up to Bragging Rights to find out the top brand. Seems like the OTT gimmicks don't seem to be playing around much except for Undertaker giving a great promo in some smoke, wasn't anything OTT there even.

Evidence please?

Most of the updates on the main site have referenced about how even Stephanie has been disappointed and upset with Vince because of him wanting to go beyond storytelling and doing any means of pulling ratings outside of wrestling. Look them up.

Apart from Kane and Undertaker of course.

You mean the big fat bald jobber who likes to show use his pyro skills everytime he enters the ring and has nothing booked for him? As said numerous times by all of us, Kane is a shadow of his former self and stopped being a full OTT gimmick the moment he did a Kanearoonie. Since then it's been the same mode that Snitsky and Mike Knox have filled. Great example there.

And likewise, Undertaker had to reinvent himself to keep his character fresh by humanising himself and then going to a combined gimmick where people praise his ring work more than anything now. But also doesn't have the main OTT factors he use to have, only showing the odd one in a blue moon but it doesn't special because it's all been done before prior to 2000.

________________________________________​

So, because we've got something of a clusterfuck developing right now, I think it would be prudent to sum up our argument.

At the current moment the only thing that is rightly summed up is you're making complete assumptions out of nothing. You take a meer small factor out of posts and blow it out of proportion when you have nothing solid backing up your cause

Over the top gimmicks have been pushed heavily in the past, and have become hugely successful. Hogan, Savage and Warrior are fair evidence for this.

Only during an era when gimmicks were solely focused on rather than being about wrestling matches. Wrestlemania 3 changed things from there as the storytelling became more of a focus.

Over the top gimmicks have been pushed heavily in the present, and have become hugely successful. Kane, Undertaker, Eugene, Hornswoggle and Boogyman are fair evidence of this.

Eugene? Hugely Successful? Hornswoggle? Hugely Successful? Boogeyman? Hugely Successful?



Oh boy that has been the line of this debate. Can you actually name something that has been hugely successful out of these men that was successful and made them into the big main event superstars they are? Oh wait they haven't! Eugene got squashed, buried and fed to Triple H. Hornswoggle can't get out of a programme with Chavo Guerrero, Santino Marella and Evan Bourne, the local job squad of the current WWE product. As for Boogeyman, clearly he's a big success since he's still in the WWE...oh wait!

You're basing your evidence on guys with gimmicks that have been recent but have never got big as the point of this debate is proving. If they can't get over now, what hope does any of the OTT gimmicks have?

Since the WWE shows absolutely no signs of going anywhere, it seems fair to assume that over the top gimmicks will be pushed heavily and become hugely successful once again.

Evidence please?

Given none of the Main Event outside Undertaker has an OTT gimmick and since they pulled the plug on Hassan back in 2007 and anyone else that has an OTT gimmick is not even on Raw (Hornswoggle has no OTT gimmick at this time) or Smackdown (excluding Taker), it's looking like that an OTT gimmick has no chance except to be stuck on ECW when it's clearly not causing the viewing figures to jump into the 3s and 4s on the Nielson Rating. If they were that big, they wouldn't be on ECW and despite them being there, they haven't improved the ratings at all on that show.

Our opponents have tried to put forward the argument that guys like Kane and Undertaker are no longer over the top. Unfortunately the simply act of watching the show disproves this.

The simple act of watching proves they are not AS over the top as they once were. We never said they were not OTT, but rather that they haven't been near the heights they reached back in the day. Evidence?

Before

After

Our opponents have tried to put forward the argument that the direction of the product has changed, and as such over the top gimmicks will never be pushed again. Unfortunately a rudimentary knowledge of wrestling history tells us that the direction of the product has constantly shifted, and unfortunately our opponents have failed to present any evidence for why this will no longer be the case.

Or more again your igorance to actually read the posts we're providing making up your own points here. So far I have seen Lee, myself, D-Man, FTS and GD all prove that we have mentioned the product has shifted and will continue to, but away from the OTT gimmick factors that dominated the 80s and 90s. You have failed to provide evidence to support your cause except name wrestlers who have not been big or have actually kept a constant OTT factor outside of the Undertaker who has been watered down.

Perhaps somebody on the opposing team can take a stab at evidence as to why professional wrestling isn't going to change over the next fifty years. And when I say evidence, I mean actual evidence, not half bakes assertions backed up by nothing beyond your own private 'reckoning'

No no. The question isn't about wrestling changing, it's about whether an old school way of getting over can still be successful in the future and at the moment you have failed to provide anything of decent evidence to back your cause. At this current time the key evidence is here. Two gimmick based superstars that have an OTT background got brought back in the past year; Goldust and The Hurricane. They both have been put on ECW and at the moment they have remained in constant limbo, not going anywhere or benefitting the cause. ECW has no improved ratings from their presence on the show and they're not looking to jump on board to Raw or Smackdown any time soon. Clearly this proves that the OTT gimmick, one that got over by beating The Rock cannot even get near the Main Event still despite returning to the praise of the fans. So while praise and being over on ECW is great they're not competing for titles at the moment, not even the ECW title, so well done there.

It proves that right now the audience has matured and changed since the Hogan and Attitude days and they don't want an OTT gimmick dominating the roster, they want straight up wrestling of good guy vs. bad guy and while the audience will still change, they have moved on and matured since the OTT that the 90s gave us (not just in wrestling but in society) where decency and respect plays rolls and the kids know what they are watching. I mean the top guy of the past year was Jeff Hardy and he didn't even have an OTT gimmick, he got over because of his charisma and ring work, he didn't have an OTT gimmick that put him over and he's been with the company for roughly over 16 years (on and off).

Whilst your at it, I'm still waiting on an explanation as to why Kane and Undertaker don't utterly disprove the theory that over the top characters can't make it big. Our side has proved that they are both still over the top, and are both still big, so I'm really struggling to see where your logic is coming from here.

I'm suprised you know of logic since most of this post by you made no sense at all. I'm not going to repeat myself for a third time but you can clearly tell that Kane is barely even as over the top as he once was and is just another bad bald guy beating up people and Undertaker may be OTT at the moment but he is watered down for the PG era. Outside of those, nothing is even getting into the Main Event, not even Kane is in there!

So at this current time the logic of the Omega Team seems to be drawing itself out the window because all the evidence they keep providing seems to be what guys were big during gimmick filled eras and what OTT gimmicks were in WWE that still failed to get big during a time where OTT gimmicks are not playing as much as a major as they use to. As much as society evolves, so does WWE and this is why there is a highly unlikely chance that an OTT gimmick will get over because any of the Main Event members of the rosters who use to have a big gimmick (not even remotely OTT) have dropped them to be credible members of the roster and it will continue that way as currently OTT gimmicks do not make Main Event Superstars in this current era of WWE*.


*Undertaker was made into the Main Event prior to then during the gimmick filled eras so he does not count on this statement