Shining a Spotlight 10.22.09: The Sure Thing
Posted by Michael Weyer on 10.22.2009
A look at how the search for "the sure thing" in wrestling can often be futile.
Not sure how many MMA fans read the wrestling side of the website but sure they can appreciate how I kick things off. The big deal of this season of The Ultimate Fighter has been Kimbo Slice being given a chance to join UFC. Slice, for the uninitiated, made his name through a series on online videos fighting on the streets. He seemed to have the stuff and looked damn tough through it all so Elite XC made him their big star. That lasted approximately a minute and a half into his well-publicized prime-time debut when he was beaten soundly. Elite XC paid the price for that, soon going out of business (okay, you can't blame that all on Kimbo but putting their hopes of the company on him didn't help). Now, Kimbo's gotten another shot but his first match was another devastating loss and it doesn't look like he'll go much further.
It got me to thinking on the supposed "sure things" that flop. It happens all the time in wrestling, the guys promoters pin a lot on but never end up achieving the fame hoped for. The reasons are varied but even for those who know, it's unlikely it can be avoided. It looks to be one of those things that repeats all the time but that adds to the uncertainty of the business.
Finding the Sure Thing
Wrestling is a mix of both sports and entertainment and both those fields have had more than their share of "sure thing syndrome." You can fill an entire book with all the countless times pro sports teams have put out million dollar contracts to seemingly sure to be star athletes only to see them fall flat on their faces. Often, you'll have these guys not even making the real team but stuck in the minors all their lives.
It's the same in movies and TV, actors and actresses seen as the next big thing but never achieve that fame. A great example is Gretchen Mol who in 1998 was on the cover of Vanity Fair with the line "Hollywood's next star." No one's really heard a lot from her since, have they? Every year Entertainment Weekly gives a "Must List" issue that highlights what they think will be big deals but don't work out. It all shows how even the best promotion and planning can't make up for lack of actual talent.
Wrestling is a bit different as a lot of promoters are able to smooth over the problems of their workers in various ways. But it's tricky to find the right guys and make it all work out. Sure, some guys have good potential early on but potential isn't everything. It's more than just ring ability or charisma to become a wrestling star, it's a combination the fans can get into. So often, the ability to become a star lies in more than just a man's own talent. A lot of guys clearly have what it takes although others take a while for their lack of ability to show through.
First Judgments
Every rookie in the business is pretty raw starting out so it's hard to tell where they can go just off there. As their DVDs show, Batista and John Cena weren't anything special starting out, no signs of the star potential they would later show. Rocky Maivia was a baby face folks couldn't stand into high-flying, no signs of the awesome performer he would become. Even Mick Foley was just a preliminary bum once who wasn't showing the wild style he'd become known as. It's almost impossible to tell how far a guy will go when they start out.
There are rare cases. Steve Austin, according to anyone who saw him starting out, was always going to be a star, he just had an amazing charisma you knew would carry him to the top. HHH is another guy you could tell would be big while it took a while for Shawn Michaels to take off as a top singles guy. There was also Magnum T.A., who just oozed out star power as he rose in the ranks. Indeed, if it wasn't for that car accident cutting his career short, Magnum would be known today as one of the all-time great stars. Sting's another fine example as he was filled with so much charisma and talent as he started out, it was impossible for him not to go far.
The thing is that wrestling promoters (and I'm not just talking WWE here) go for appearances more than actual ability. It's how wrestling has worked for generations as it's always been about presentation. Paul Heyman understood that when he did ECW, always accenting the positive parts of his performers but ignoring the negative ones. So often, guys will be signed on depending on their looks with the promoters figuring they'll just make up the talent stuff as they go. Paul Wight was a choice as WCW was struck by his height and size and signed him up right away to limited training. True, he'd go on to success as a fair wrestler but that tactic of signing on looks doesn't always work (see El Gigante). Yes, loads of guys are able to rise and improve and become major stars but you can't judge by those first impressions alone.
The Starting Point
It's been a trend to bash Lex Luger as one of the worst workers ever but the guy did have some potential if you watch his early stuff. The problem was that Luger was rushed way too early by promoters wanting to take advantage of his physique and didn't make him train properly. This not only led to him being raw in the ring but also contributed to his infamous ego. He's hardly the only one of course, there are lots of guys who get picked just for looks and not their real talent. As noted, Paul Wight was hired because of his size and WCW didn't really care about him being all that good in the ring. While it seems to have increased in the last few years, this was always a danger for wrestling, to push guys too hard out of the gate.
Again, that's not really new. You can fill a phone book with the names of all the first round draft picks in every major sport that never came close to fulfilling their potential. Now it is a bit different for those legitimate sports since it's one thing to be the star of your high school or college and something else altogether to succeed in the big leagues. Of course, the contract situations often don't help either. When you grow up middle-class or poor like a lot of these guys do and you suddenly find yourself being given millions right off the bat, it can change your perspective on really giving it all on the field. Wrestling has hit that problem too as Vince learned when he gave that massive ten-year deal to Mark Henry and it took years to come close to being slightly worth it. I don't think I need to get into WCW's contract issues here. TNA hasn't been that guilty of it with rookies but then again TNA hasn't seemed that interested in developing new talent.
Training has improved a bit in the last few years thanks to WWE's farm system with OVW and then Florida. But as I said before, wrestling still goes more for appearance than actual talent, a factor they share with Hollywood. So often there we'll get folks chosen for looks ( just look at most reality television) and often pushed hard. That goes all the way back to the studio system of the 1930's where actresses were given starring roles they didn't deserve because of their "connections" to studio bosses. Politics play their part in wrestling as well but even good political players and family connections can't overcome fan apathy. Indeed, sometimes those connections can hurt. Erik Watts had some potential but the insistence of his father (head of WCW at the time) to push him hard before he was ready pretty much wrecked his career before it started. That's not always the case with families of course (the Harts come to mind) but it reminds you how hard it is to figure out who can make it and who can't. Especially when there's that one factor no one can anticipate…
The Luck Factor
So much of the time, actors and athletes rely on lucky stuff to get their big breaks. If Drew Bledsoe hadn't taken a bad hit in week two of the 2001 NFL season, Tom Brady wouldn't have gotten the chance to show his stuff and become a star. If Hilary Swank hadn't gotten fired from 90210 in 1998, she wouldn't have been able to audition for Boys Don't Cry which won her the Oscar. Wrestling is just like that, so often guys getting their breaks in unlikely ways due to freak stuff. One of the biggest examples is that if HHH hadn't taken the fall for the "MSG Curtain Call," we would never have gotten Austin 3:16 which would ultimately allow WWF to take things to the top.
With rookies, it takes something unexpected to often give them the big break. Cena had skills but was rather bland with audiences, no character to get behind. But his fateful decision to dress as Vanilla Ice for a Halloween party led to him finding what he needed to become a huge star. HHH was already on the rise but it took Michaels being knocked out with his back injury for him to really show his star quality as leader of DX. It's the one thing that no one can count on, how a sudden twist of fate or a match better than expected can give rise to a young star and allow him to blossom. It's one of the many things all these "fantasy bookers" will ignore, that there are always things you can never expect that can change the entire game. It works both ways, of course as these "sure thing" rookies can suffer a bad injury or some other problem that can slow their momentum (see Ken Kennedy's multiple injuries/suspensions) and spoil plans majorly. It's that factor of uncertainty that makes the entire concept of a "sure thing" laughable but promoters will still insist on going for it again and again.
Summation
Everyone wants the sure thing, the star who can be money in the bank right off the bat with no trouble. So often, they'll ignore that such a thing almost never really exists. You can't judge a guy just by his looks alone or how well he does in a low-key setting because when he's thrust on the big stage, that's going to change him. That's not counting how one match or a twist of fate can give a guy a big break or set him back majorly. There will always be guys who show incredible promise but you can't automatically pin sure stardom on them as a lot of them just won't make it. On the flip side, you've got guys who may not seem much at first but eventually blossom into huge names. There's no such thing as "the sure thing" as wrestling has always been a business where the unexpected happens despite all the planning. And that's why we still watch, to see that uncertainty come alive and give us some great entertainment.
Next week examines a book on a forgotten legend of the business. For now, the spotlight is off.
Good article, but you could have also mentioned the so called "sure things" that got pushed to the moon way too early. Thus, the accomplished just about everything in the first five years of their careers or so, and once they accomplish the ultimate, they end up coasting for the rest of their caeers. I'm thinking of Luger and Goldberg being prime examples. The other option is people who get everything they wanted, and then leave, showing perhaps their heart was never in the business, such as Lesner, or Warrior who was in and out and in and out of the wrestling business.
And you're right. There is no "sure thing." There was a time when someone like Curt Hennig would have been the "perfect" choice to put on top of the company, particularly once it was clear that Hogan was on his way down, if not out. But Flair's entry into the company, combined with Hennig's 1991 back injury derailed any such plans, and Bret Hart would up getting the big post-Hogan push.
Posted By: Michael L (Guest) on October 22, 2009 at 04:10 PM
other circumstances that changed wrestling history:
-ahmed johnson was in the nation of domination. he was injured and a replacement was needed. rocky maivia was chosen for that spot.
-the infamous red rooster/mr.perfect options.
-randy orton's failed face run opened the door for batista.
-jeff hardy's suspension right before wm24 was cm punk's gain.
Posted By: jd (Guest) on October 22, 2009 at 05:53 PM
The best article on here in months. Kudos to you sir.
Posted By: thraitan (Guest) on October 22, 2009 at 06:31 PM
I thought Scott Putski was a sure thing, of course I was 9 at the time
Posted By: Viper Fontaine (Guest) on October 22, 2009 at 07:00 PM
Another problem is when promoters overestimate the staying power of a particular gimmick or storyline especially comedy ones. They figure something that was hilarious one week will still be hilarious months after everybody got tired of the joke. See TNA's Daffney as Sarah Palin or WWE's Hornwoggle versus Chavo feud.
Posted By: Guest#6871 (Guest) on October 22, 2009 at 08:02 PM
what gets to me are the "sure things" who fail but that doesnt stop the promoters from pushing them again and again. as if, WE are the ones who dont get it. it is not the wrestler's fault he or she isnt over. it is ours.
see billy gunn in the wwe, glacier, alex wright/berlyn, greg gagne, shelton benjamin, horace hogan.
Posted By: rey (Guest) on October 22, 2009 at 08:04 PM
Taker and Kennedy getting injured in 2007, leading edge to win MITB and cashing it in on Taker. That created arguably one of the greatest rivalries in prof wrestling. And cemented Edge as the ultimate opportunist for life. bank on it
Posted By: Heel (Guest) on October 22, 2009 at 08:29 PM
I don't know that you can really say that is was obvious that Triple H would be big. His first title reign was nothing special and at that point he had been in the company and familiar to the audience for quite a while. Certainly his charisma is dwarfed by his contemporary the Rock.
Then he had continuous feuds with the top names of the company, which cemented his place. But I'm not sold on where he would be without those feuds (and yes, marriage). The feud with the McMahons and Test to the McMahon/Helmsley regime is what made him a star.
This isn't like Austin, where people could see from the beginning had top potential, or the Rock who was simply shoved down people's throats too soon.
Yes, Triple H's work before blowing out his quads show he deserves to be a main-eventer. But without those breaks and the pivotal Cactus Jack feud he could just as easily have been just above Matt Hardy (only less whiny and emo). Mid-card title holder, occasional and credible challenger for the world belt, a guy how could make the rising stars look good in the ring.
Posted By: Guest#3890 (Guest) on October 22, 2009 at 09:42 PM
luck and kennedy shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence
Posted By: xryprtic (Guest) on October 23, 2009 at 02:00 AM
TNA hasn't been that guilty of it with rookies but then again TNA hasn't seemed that interested in developing new talent.
That comment made this entire article laughable. Perhaps you haven't been watching the past few months, but TNA decided they were going to build stars on their own time and not YOURS.
One commenter made a great point about how we fans want to make someone a star before their ready, especially those of us on the Internet.
Posted By: Orlando (Guest) on October 23, 2009 at 04:59 PM
TNA hasn't been that guilty of it with rookies but then again TNA hasn't seemed that interested in developing new talent.
That comment made this entire article laughable. Perhaps you haven't been watching the past few months, but TNA decided they were going to build stars on their own time and not YOURS.
One commenter made a great point about how we fans want to make someone a star before their ready, especially those of us on the Internet.
Posted By: Orlando (Guest) on October 23, 2009 at 04:59 PM
Monster Heels=Sure thing.
dominant heel champions=sure thing.
Slow baby face pushes for top stars/chase for the title=sure thing.
superstar stables=sure thing.
hardcore match as a blow off=sure thing.
^honestly all these things are guarenteed to draw heat.
Posted By: MacDollarz. (Guest) on October 24, 2009 at 02:54 AM
it took hhh sticking it to steph to rise to the me. he woulda been upper midcard at best without her
Posted By: ;sor (Guest) on November 18, 2009 at 06:06 PM