What if...

**The One** · 05-24-2008, 01:40 PM

What if The Undertaker didn't debut as the deadman, but instead debuted with the American Badass gimmick. Just a big guy from Texas on a Harley beating up 2, 3, 4 or 5 people at a time. Would it have worked? Would he have made the same level of impact that he's made?

Or what if you took gimmicks that worked in the Attitude era; Stone Cold, The Rock, The Game...but moved them to the 80's. Would people who tuned in to see Hulk Hogan saying prayers have stuck around for someone talking in the third person calling himself The Great One?

OK, and just because I can make this a never ending thread of questions; could an act like The Hardyz of gotten over back in the 80s or early 90s. The extreme, ladder jumping, table busting thing. I mean would it have been like an assult on their senses to go from Warrior doing a running splash to seeing Jeff Hardy do a swanton off a ladder?

These are questions that keep Tovo awake at night.

**Xero** · 05-24-2008, 02:32 PM

John Cena would have been Hogan's greatest rival.

**DarKCentaur** · 05-24-2008, 02:44 PM

No, I don't think so, because these gimmicks were not only before their time, but guys like Hogan and Warrior would have politically squashed guys like Austin and Rock before they ever became big. And the Hardys would have had no chance in hell to get over.

**thedamndest** · 05-24-2008, 03:10 PM

1) I think the character would have been a lot like the One Man Gang. It wouldn't have made sense to call him "The Undertaker" then so they probably would have called him some other generic name that probably wouldn't have gotten over. There had been big men before, but his look/gimmick were definitely what stuck out about him and got him over.

2) I don't think the gimmicks would work. They were reliant on pushing the envelope, and the 80's were a much more family friendly era of wrestling. I could see maybe the Rock sort of working, because Mr. Perfect worked, but not to the extent that he worked now (if that makes sense).

3) I think this goes along with my number two answer that the environment just wasn't ready for that type of thing yet. You see early ladder matches and they are so much more brawling and wrestling based than modern ladder matches which tend to be more aerial spot based. I think back then the crowd was still into a more "traditional" match.

**BigDaddyCool** · 05-25-2008, 12:04 PM

These are questions we will never be able to answer. So BDC doesn't care.

**thedamndest** · 05-25-2008, 12:15 PM

I just answered them.

**Kane Knight** · 05-25-2008, 01:03 PM

BDC lack imagination. That's why he's a Kliq fan.

Undertaker might have made it as the American Badass, but not with the name "The Undertaker." I think it's a longshot either way, because while it fit in the time, it didn't fit quite as well earlier. It's also worth pointing out that the ABA gimmick was built off an established character, and I'm not sure it would have been successful without that launch pad.

The Rock probably could have been epic in the same era as Hulkamania, because he really doesn't conflict that much. Austin, however, would have either fallen flat or destroyed the cartoony era.

It's also worth pointing out that the main reason the Attitude Era was so successful was that the kids who grew up on the cartoony Hoganesque stuff had grown up and wanted something more "adult." At the same time, other entertainment had also taken a turn like this. Introducing these gimmicks when they did worked because they paralleled other entertainment. In the 80s, most kids entertainment was bright and colourful and made to sell toys. As the 80s moved into the 90s, comics and cartoons started to become darker and more "edgy." Dark anti-hero types became the norm, instead of being more of a niche market.

A dark character in a bright market is a hard sell. It's not impossible, it's just difficult. A "real" character in a "fake" market is a hard sell, too.

As for the Hardyz, well, I think that it would have worked. Unlike the colourful versus dark or real vs fake, the Hardyz is more an issue of a style. High-Flying was something that would have fit in, provided it wasn't bloody or too violent (Thumbtacks, major injuries). But Jeff Hardy+a strobe light=bright and shiny for kids. And throwing shit off high places is EXCITING. They'd be the easiest sell in the late 80s/early 90s.

**BigDaddyCool** · 05-25-2008, 07:10 PM

BDC is full of imagination. Rock could have made it any in era, he has the level of charisma.

Austin was an every day man making it big. He could have worked in any era.

Undertaker...hard to say. I would think that if he was called the Undertaker, but presented as like a Hell's Angle, he could have worked.

I don't think people would be able to wrap their minds around the Hardy's.

**Theo Dious** · 05-26-2008, 02:54 PM

"Undertaker" works as a name in the same way "Widowmaker" does. If it didn't work without the death-obsessed, mortuary theme, he would have started calling himself Mark Calloway when he came back.

**Kane Knight** · 05-26-2008, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarthTedious

"Undertaker" works as a name in the same way "Widowmaker" does. If it didn't work without the death-obsessed, mortuary theme, he would have started calling himself Mark Calloway when he came back.

No. There's a difference between the name being brought up out of a vacuum and A continuation of a monicker.

05-24-2008, 02:32 PM	#2
Xero He's Here Posts: 60,735	John Cena would have been Hogan's greatest rival.

05-24-2008, 02:44 PM	#3
DarKCentaur ... Bank Posts: 3,494	No, I don't think so, because these gimmicks were not only before their time, but guys like Hogan and Warrior would have politically squashed guys like Austin and Rock before they ever became big. And the Hardys would have had no chance in hell to get over.

05-24-2008, 03:10 PM	#4
thedamndest A Property of Matter Posts: 25,543	1) I think the character would have been a lot like the One Man Gang. It wouldn't have made sense to call him "The Undertaker" then so they probably would have called him some other generic name that probably wouldn't have gotten over. There had been big men before, but his look/gimmick were definitely what stuck out about him and got him over. 2) I don't think the gimmicks would work. They were reliant on pushing the envelope, and the 80's were a much more family friendly era of wrestling. I could see maybe the Rock sort of working, because Mr. Perfect worked, but not to the extent that he worked now (if that makes sense). 3) I think this goes along with my number two answer that the environment just wasn't ready for that type of thing yet. You see early ladder matches and they are so much more brawling and wrestling based than modern ladder matches which tend to be more aerial spot based. I think back then the crowd was still into a more "traditional" match.

05-25-2008, 12:04 PM	#5
BigDaddyCool Pelvic Sorcerer Posts: 64,762	These are questions we will never be able to answer. So BDC doesn't care.

05-25-2008, 12:15 PM	#6
thedamndest A Property of Matter Posts: 25,543	I just answered them.

05-25-2008, 01:03 PM	#7
Kane Knight Ron Paul 4 EVA Posts: 152,467	BDC lack imagination. That's why he's a Kliq fan. Undertaker might have made it as the American Badass, but not with the name "The Undertaker." I think it's a longshot either way, because while it fit in the time, it didn't fit quite as well earlier. It's also worth pointing out that the ABA gimmick was built off an established character, and I'm not sure it would have been successful without that launch pad. The Rock probably could have been epic in the same era as Hulkamania, because he really doesn't conflict that much. Austin, however, would have either fallen flat or destroyed the cartoony era. It's also worth pointing out that the main reason the Attitude Era was so successful was that the kids who grew up on the cartoony Hoganesque stuff had grown up and wanted something more "adult." At the same time, other entertainment had also taken a turn like this. Introducing these gimmicks when they did worked because they paralleled other entertainment. In the 80s, most kids entertainment was bright and colourful and made to sell toys. As the 80s moved into the 90s, comics and cartoons started to become darker and more "edgy." Dark anti-hero types became the norm, instead of being more of a niche market. A dark character in a bright market is a hard sell. It's not impossible, it's just difficult. A "real" character in a "fake" market is a hard sell, too. As for the Hardyz, well, I think that it would have worked. Unlike the colourful versus dark or real vs fake, the Hardyz is more an issue of a style. High-Flying was something that would have fit in, provided it wasn't bloody or too violent (Thumbtacks, major injuries). But Jeff Hardy+a strobe light=bright and shiny for kids. And throwing shit off high places is EXCITING. They'd be the easiest sell in the late 80s/early 90s.

05-25-2008, 07:10 PM	#8
BigDaddyCool Pelvic Sorcerer Posts: 64,762	BDC is full of imagination. Rock could have made it any in era, he has the level of charisma. Austin was an every day man making it big. He could have worked in any era. Undertaker...hard to say. I would think that if he was called the Undertaker, but presented as like a Hell's Angle, he could have worked. I don't think people would be able to wrap their minds around the Hardy's.

05-26-2008, 02:54 PM	#9
Theo Dious EATER OF HOT POCKETS Posts: 14,340	"Undertaker" works as a name in the same way "Widowmaker" does. If it didn't work without the death-obsessed, mortuary theme, he would have started calling himself Mark Calloway when he came back.