Joined
·
12,426 Posts
This is obviously going to be a very subjective thread, since many people have personal opinions that differ.
One question-what do you all think is the formula for creating the top guy in the company?
Obviously, there are certain things that are placed more highly on the list of priorities.
First of all, you have to have the look. That's first and foremost the biggest priority. If you don't look like an intimidating guy who can go, why should anyone give you a second glance?
Second would be your personality, acting ability and mic skills. You absolutely have to have these to appeal to the audience. And its better if you can be multi-faceted. I have no doubt in my mind that if Steve Austin ultimately portrayed a homeless, disgruntled war veteran instead of a cursing, alcoholic ******* that he'd still have been successful because he had those charisma skills to pull off almost anything. That's just an example. You also need to have these skills not just for promo and vignettes, but for how you behave in ring and how it influences your style. Again, with Austin, being a blue collar *******, he changed his style to have lots of brawling, punching, kicking and stomping. It worked wonders because who would expect to see a ******* doing chain wrestling and fancy suplexes? Virtually no one, so he took that character and made it a style. That's what I'm referring to.
Third would be your ability to coexist and cooperate with other performers in ring-in other words, work ethic. Guys like Shawn in the mid 90s were really jerks and hard to work with. For a more recent example, a guy like Orton has a lot of issues with other performers, and I feel that that has really held him back. You have to know how to stand up for yourself and be confident and carry yourself like a star, but not so much that you're arrogant and selfish. This also comes into effect when putting other guys over.
Fourth is commitment. Let's face it, Brock was destined for greatness, but his disinterest in the work schedule was what did him in. You have to have a good attitude and be willing to sacrifice your time for the company.
Last I'd say is ring work. It'd be nice if everyone was Benoit caliber in ring, but look at guys like Hogan, Goldberg, Andre and Warrior. Incredibly successful, big draws, engaging stories and characters, and they were all really terrible in ring. The fact is that they were characters that could do the least, but get the most reaction for that, and that's what the casual audience likes. It would seem that being a savvy ring general is a bonus, but really not a big factor in who is THE top guy.
These are what the performer, to me, needs to bring to the table. If booked properly (something the WWE does), then you have a real chance to be successful. With this in mind, these elements seem to be what are brought together to make someone the best candidate to take the reigns and lead the company.
Thoughts? Anyone think differently or want to add anything?
One question-what do you all think is the formula for creating the top guy in the company?
Obviously, there are certain things that are placed more highly on the list of priorities.
First of all, you have to have the look. That's first and foremost the biggest priority. If you don't look like an intimidating guy who can go, why should anyone give you a second glance?
Second would be your personality, acting ability and mic skills. You absolutely have to have these to appeal to the audience. And its better if you can be multi-faceted. I have no doubt in my mind that if Steve Austin ultimately portrayed a homeless, disgruntled war veteran instead of a cursing, alcoholic ******* that he'd still have been successful because he had those charisma skills to pull off almost anything. That's just an example. You also need to have these skills not just for promo and vignettes, but for how you behave in ring and how it influences your style. Again, with Austin, being a blue collar *******, he changed his style to have lots of brawling, punching, kicking and stomping. It worked wonders because who would expect to see a ******* doing chain wrestling and fancy suplexes? Virtually no one, so he took that character and made it a style. That's what I'm referring to.
Third would be your ability to coexist and cooperate with other performers in ring-in other words, work ethic. Guys like Shawn in the mid 90s were really jerks and hard to work with. For a more recent example, a guy like Orton has a lot of issues with other performers, and I feel that that has really held him back. You have to know how to stand up for yourself and be confident and carry yourself like a star, but not so much that you're arrogant and selfish. This also comes into effect when putting other guys over.
Fourth is commitment. Let's face it, Brock was destined for greatness, but his disinterest in the work schedule was what did him in. You have to have a good attitude and be willing to sacrifice your time for the company.
Last I'd say is ring work. It'd be nice if everyone was Benoit caliber in ring, but look at guys like Hogan, Goldberg, Andre and Warrior. Incredibly successful, big draws, engaging stories and characters, and they were all really terrible in ring. The fact is that they were characters that could do the least, but get the most reaction for that, and that's what the casual audience likes. It would seem that being a savvy ring general is a bonus, but really not a big factor in who is THE top guy.
These are what the performer, to me, needs to bring to the table. If booked properly (something the WWE does), then you have a real chance to be successful. With this in mind, these elements seem to be what are brought together to make someone the best candidate to take the reigns and lead the company.
Thoughts? Anyone think differently or want to add anything?
