Dose it take a wrestler or a gimmick to get over?

[Rollermacka]

With all this talk about older gimmicks and when the WWE began to suck I wanted to open up the dissucion once more if it takes a talented wrestler to make a gimmick or a good gimmick to make a wrestler? What I mean is I was looking at some old early 90's WCW matches and they had "Mean" Mark Callous, Stunning Steve Austin and Jean Paul Levesqe all on the roster at one point or the other and these men eventally became The Undertaker, Stone Cold, and Triple H that really helped put the WWE over WCW in the late 90's. There are good examples of talented wrestlers like Terry Taylor or DDP given crappy gimmicks Red Rooster and "It's a good thing" where they didnt get over because of it. So do you think that it takes a good gimmick to get a wrestler over, or dose it take a good wrestler to get a gimmick over?

[Xero]

I think the gimmick, charisma and their mic skills means more than the wrestler in <s>Sports</s> Enteratinment. There are very few exceptions where someone got really over mostly on their wrestling (Bret Hart, Chris Benoit).

Don't get me wrong, being a good wrestler can mean a lot, but it's not necessary. <s>Sports</s> Entertainment is about the character development, not the in-ring aspect.

[thedamndest]

It takes both, but I think from the way WWE does things it takes an entertaining gimmick to get your foot in the door and make a connection with the crowd before people will start paying attention to your matches. And even if you have a good character going and you get a good reaction from the crowd, if the bookers decide to change you it may be for the worse and you could go back into the zero reaction zone. Let's look at Billy Gunn for this. He got pretty good reactions when part of the Smokin' Gunns, people kinda tuned him out after his heel run/Rockabilly phase didn't work, NAO were over as hell, solo heel run was not so great, The One Billy Gun was terrible, Billy and Chuck was awesome...now it may just be that Billy Gunn is a tag team guy, but there are more examples like this.

[Triple Naitch]

I think the gimmick is more important in getting people over. The mass public could care less about the in-ring skills of some wrestlers. Look at Charlie Haas. Nobody gave a shit about him, even though he is one of the better technicians in WWE, until he got his latest gimmick. Now he is being cheered better than ever before.

[BigDaddyCool]

I think the is the guy in the ring. Some dudes would get over with almost any gimmick.

[A7X]

Billy Gunn > Half the shit in the attitude era

[FourFifty]

Six of one, half dozen of the other.

Goldust made Dustin Runnels, but Dusty Rhodes made The American Dream.

[XL]

Yeah like 450 said...it can take either.

Look at HHH. He wasn't over in WCW, he was nothing special as Hunter Hearst Helmsley, but make him more "real", more "like his actual persona" in DX (and then laster as 'My Time' era HHH) and you have a star.

John Cena is almost the opposite. He started with a generic blue-chipper gimmick (his real persona I guess) and was mildly accepted. Give him a rapper gimmick and he went over huge.

Flip it again and you have Batista. Granted he had presence as Deacon Batista but he couldn't be considered over til he dropped the gimmick and eventually joined up with Evolution.

I think it can take the right guy / right gimmick / right time to get someone over.

[FourFifty]

Hell, sometimes you need the gimmick to make yourself.

Diesel made Kevin Nash, but then Kevin Nash made himself bigger. The Diesel gimmick and storylines helped him become himself later on.

[thedamndest]

There is some give and take to it. Diesel wasn't too ridiculous to begin with, but it also wasn't too far off from Kevin Nash. If he had come in as Kevin Nash, you're right, he probably would have been some bland big guy.

I wonder about these "Superstar Initiative" guys they've rushed in with little or no gimmicks. They're more "real" I guess, but when you're starting out you need something to make you stand out, and the easiest thing is a gimmick. The WWE tends to fuck these up and go overboard with ridiculous so I'm gonna say that for right now, simple is better for these guys, and we will see what develops over time.

[Outsider]

Depends on the gimmick and the wrestler.

You could even argue that the gimmick of people without gimmick is not having a gimmick.

You can do very well with limited wrestling ability and a good character (Look at the Undertaker) or well without much character but pure talent in the ring, but those who are the most memorable are those who combine both.

Also, most of the successful gimmicks end up blending in with the wrestler to become a 'charcter' rather than a gimmick.