Wrestling Forum banner

1 - 20 of 66 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,426 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
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 redneck 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 redneck, he changed his style to have lots of brawling, punching, kicking and stomping. It worked wonders because who would expect to see a redneck 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?
 

·
Congratulations, you played yourself
Joined
·
9,528 Posts
Vince's backing and popularity.

Thats it.

We can talk all day about how you need "this and that"' but it all boils down to who's making the company the most money and who Vince likes the most.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,758 Posts
Charisma

One question-what do you all think is the formula for creating the top guy in the company?
Top guys aren't created by the company.They are chosen by the fans.

Example:Vince wanted Shawn to be the top guy.But the fans chose Stone Cold

Vince wanted Brock Lesnar to be the top guy.The fans chose John Cena.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,216 Posts
bad ratings occur due to bad booking. If they booked Punk as actually higher than Cena, then people would have bought him as the guy. Instead, Cena main evented every show.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,998 Posts
-Look good
-Be athletic
-Be willing to sacrifice everything
-Be tough (schedule, bumps)
-Character easy to relate with

Pretty much it.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,180 Posts
And already markedfordeath has turned this into a Cena/Punk mark war....


But to try and derail that: it really depends on a lot. Generally, you have to have buckets of charisma, a love for the business (why Brock failed), and you have to be able to reach outside of the company and present whatever image WWE is going for, be it squeaky clean (Cena) or that of a surly rebel (Austin).

Everything else comes after that and can be penciled in. Though I will say that having a very, very, very strong work ethic is HIGHLY underrated on the Internet. Cena outworked and does outwork everyone to keep his top spot. All the guys close to his level of drawing power are either retired, part-timers or dead and that's partly because he put his nose to the grindstone and never looked up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,426 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Charisma



Top guys aren't created by the company.They are chosen by the fans.

Example:Vince wanted Shawn to be the top guy.But the fans chose Stone Cold

Vince wanted Brock Lesnar to be the top guy.The fans chose John Cena.
That's only partly true.

Shawn crushed a disc in his back and was forced out, which gave Austin the clear path to run with the status of top guy. Brock got fed up with the schedule in 2004 and quit to try out for the Vikings while Cena was still challenging for the US title.

Besides, the fans clearly don't choose Cena now, yet he's still the top guy. The Fed will do what they want.

@MinistryDeadman95 A good character is clearly important, but its hard to fault a guy for being given a bad character to begin with. That's the WWE's fault. I'm trying to figure out what elements a wrestler himself needs to be the top guy. He needs to be able to act that character, but the character itself isn't up to him. Vince and company give it to them.
 

·
Ho!
Joined
·
17,616 Posts
The main thing is having charisma. Speaking as objectively as possible, that's the most important thing. It's an intangible that supersedes everything else and makes people watch and react you regardless of your actual skill level (unless you somehow suck sooooo much that it negates all the charisma, but we're talking there's no redeeming skill or part of you at all).

That being said, what would I look for in a top guy? Well, let me put it like this, take someone with the charisma of The Rock, the character of Damien Sandow/Bray Wyatt, the mic work of Mick Foley, the presence of The Undertaker, the badass-ness of Brock Lesnar, and the in-ring ability of Daniel Bryan all combined into one... and I'd think everyone would be happy with that.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,758 Posts
Shawn crushed a disc in his back and was forced out, which gave Austin the clear path to run with the status of top guy. Brock got fed up with the schedule in 2004 and quit to try out for the Vikings while Cena was still challenging for the US title.

Besides, the fans clearly don't choose Cena now, yet he's still the top guy. The Fed will do what they want.
Stone Cold would have surpassed Shawn Michaels no matter what.Wade Keller had remarked during the 1998 RTWM,he hadn't seen a wrestler as popular as Stone Cold since Hulk Hogan himself.

Unlike Brock,Cena's rise to the top was natural.Half the crowd may boo Cena but he still draws the most ratings.He sells PPVs and is the biggest merchandise draw.Cena has the most fans.That's why he is still on the top.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,426 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
And already markedfordeath has turned this into a Cena/Punk mark war....


But to try and derail that: it really depends on a lot. Generally, you have to have buckets of charisma, a love for the business (why Brock failed), and you have to be able to reach outside of the company and present whatever image WWE is going for, be it squeaky clean (Cena) or that of a surly rebel (Austin).

Everything else comes after that and can be penciled in. Though I will say that having a very, very, very strong work ethic is HIGHLY underrated on the Internet. Cena outworked and does outwork everyone to keep his top spot. All the guys close to his level of drawing power are either retired, part-timers or dead and that's partly because he put his nose to the grindstone and never looked up.
Solid post.

I think part of the reason WWE is failing in creating these characters is that they fail to realize that society itself has a big part to play in the direction of the company. By appealing to something extremely popular or talked about(in the 80s and early 90s, it was patriotism, what with the Gulf War and tensions with the Middle East, in the late 90s it was crash TV), they can harness a giant audience. Now, they do whatever they feel like, or focus on the wrong things, like reality TV.

What's hot enough right now that can be used to angle the product or character creation/development to bring in those new or lost viewers? Right now, they seem to be coasting on nostalgia, since they have a bunch of part timers selling their biggest shows. And nostalgia/retro is very popular. Its in fashion to play video games on the Nintendo, listen to and collect vinyl records, like old bands (seriously, 13 year olds are listening to the Beatles because its hip...I wasn't listening to the Beatles at that age)...I swear to god, one of my friends buys storage lockers like on Storage Wars to collect antiques and resell them because of how popular that's suddenly become. Old school is current. The only other thing I can think of is this nerd movement. Shows like Big Bang Theory that glorify nerds are huge successes, so many people wear those stupid 'nerd' glasses, its cool to love comics and video games, San Diego Comic Con has somehow become even a BIGGER success, superhero movies are dominating at the box office...liking these things was really kinda frowned upon years back, but now its popular. If the WWE could gravitate towards that market to capitalize on its popularity, its setting up a potential boom period.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,280 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 redneck 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 redneck, he changed his style to have lots of brawling, punching, kicking and stomping. It worked wonders because who would expect to see a redneck 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?
You just described Randy Orton.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
730 Posts
Stone Cold would have surpassed Shawn Michaels no matter what.Wade Keller had remarked during the 1998 RTWM,he hadn't seen a wrestler as popular as Stone Cold since Hulk Hogan himself.

Unlike Brock,Cena's rise to the top was natural.Half the crowd may boo Cena but he still draws the most ratings.He sells PPVs and is the biggest merchandise draw.Cena has the most fans.That's why he is still on the top.
Cena was pushed because Vince liked his look. Quit pretending like you know the business from the other side and actually sit in Vince's meetings.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,280 Posts
The main thing is having charisma. Speaking as objectively as possible, that's the most important thing. It's an intangible that supersedes everything else and makes people watch and react you regardless of your actual skill level (unless you somehow suck sooooo much that it negates all the charisma, but we're talking there's no redeeming skill or part of you at all).

That being said, what would I look for in a top guy? Well, let me put it like this, take someone with the charisma of The Rock, the character of Damien Sandow/Bray Wyatt, the mic work of Mick Foley, the presence of The Undertaker, the badass-ness of Brock Lesnar, and the in-ring ability of Daniel Bryan all combined into one... and I'd think everyone would be happy with that.
You just described Randy Orton.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,180 Posts
Solid post.

I think part of the reason WWE is failing in creating these characters is that they fail to realize that society itself has a big part to play in the direction of the company. By appealing to something extremely popular or talked about(in the 80s and early 90s, it was patriotism, what with the Gulf War and tensions with the Middle East, in the late 90s it was crash TV), they can harness a giant audience. Now, they do whatever they feel like, or focus on the wrong things, like reality TV.

What's hot enough right now that can be used to angle the product or character creation/development to bring in those new or lost viewers? Right now, they seem to be coasting on nostalgia, since they have a bunch of part timers selling their biggest shows. And nostalgia/retro is very popular. Its in fashion to play video games on the Nintendo, listen to and collect vinyl records, like old bands (seriously, 13 year olds are listening to the Beatles because its hip...I wasn't listening to the Beatles at that age)...I swear to god, one of my friends buys storage lockers like on Storage Wars to collect antiques and resell them because of how popular that's suddenly become. Old school is current. The only other thing I can think of is this nerd movement. Shows like Big Bang Theory that glorify nerds are huge successes, so many people wear those stupid 'nerd' glasses, its cool to love comics and video games, San Diego Comic Con has somehow become even a BIGGER success, superhero movies are dominating at the box office...liking these things was really kinda frowned upon years back, but now its popular. If the WWE could gravitate towards that market to capitalize on its popularity, its setting up a potential boom period.
The closest guy to that image is currently Daniel Bryan. Hehe, did you do that on purpose?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,426 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
The closest guy to that image is currently Daniel Bryan. Hehe, did you do that on purpose?
Huh? No he isn't...right now the only people with something resembling the nerd movement character are AJ (sadly) and Punk, since he's all into the comics, hipster stuff and whatnot.

Bryan isn't a reflection of the times, nor is he a character that is capitalizing on a trend. And neither his character or the direction of the company are being directed to appeal to those interested in said trends. That's why there's no new viewers. He's also not nostalgic in any way.

Right now, Bryan doesn't have the character, personality or look to be THE top guy. But I'm not turning this into a hate or mark wars thread.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,180 Posts
Huh? No he isn't...right now the only people with something resembling the nerd movement character are AJ (sadly) and Punk, since he's all into the comics, hipster stuff and whatnot.

Bryan isn't a reflection of the times, nor is he a character that is capitalizing on a trend. And neither his character or the direction of the company are being directed to appeal to those interested in said trends. That's why there's no new viewers. He's also not nostalgic in any way.

Right now, Bryan doesn't have the character, personality or look to be THE top guy. But I'm not turning this into a hate or mark wars thread.
Speaking as a citizen of Chicago who spends much of his outdoor time among the pseudo-nerdy, new age hippy, yuppy, Hipster denizens of the city (not because I'm one of them, because the nicest parts of the city are OVERRUN by them), I'm saying that Daniel Bryan, having a strong beard, being vegan and shopping at farmers markets, having a quirky appearance/way of speaking and wearing tight fitting pale blue t-shirts he pretty closely embodies the Brooklyn/Chicago hipster you described. He may not be into comics, but his character is certainly more heroic than Punk's. Fundamentally, he and Punk are pretty close. But Punk is more of a Wicker Park hipster while Bryan might be more of a Brooklynite. But Punk has a little too much....well, punk, in his image.

For the record, I don't think Bryan can be THE guy wither. Not for long at least.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
The only TWO TRUE elements needed to be a THE man

CHARISMA|Is a must. No ifs, ands or buts about it. If you don't have that, you have NOTHING.

LOOK|Is another must. In order for people to TAKE you seriously, you must first LOOK serious. WWE must feel comfortable putting your likeness on any & all of their product. Can't do that if you look like you work at the local Wal Mart *cough* Punk *cough*

^ That's pretty much it(pun not intended, but watevs) because as weird as it may seem, WRESTLING ability isn't a requirement. Never was. The Rock is the biggest star in pro wrestling HISTORY, yet, he was NOTHING more than your typical WWE punch & kick wrestler. What made him "Great"? Look at those two bold words, above.​
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,216 Posts
I just like Bryan because he's the everyday guy. You can chill, have a conversation with him and he's easy going and laid back. He's very relatable, screw that larger than life crap. A real person is much better, because it means that you too can achieve what he's doing with hard work..Seeing a small guy succeed makes the small guys in the world think they have a chance. Seeing a big ripped guy like Cena and Hogan makes you think that you have to look like them to achieve success, which is far fetched, but looking at Bryan succeed you smile because you too can do that and look like him.
 
1 - 20 of 66 Posts
Top