Does the name make the talent, or the talent the name?

Discussion in 'General WWE' started by Stopspot, Sep 26, 2014.

  1. Sprouted from the debate going on in the Prince Devitt/Finn Bálor thread.

    Do you guys and girls think that the name makes the talent, or the talent the name?

    Discuss.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. IMO should be a pretty obvious answer.. talent definitely makes the name.
     
  3. You'd think this would be true eh?
     
  4. The talent makes the name, easily. Sami Zayn, Bad News Barrett, Adrian Neville, Bo Dallas, and countless others have all been burdened with sub-par names yet have been able to make the most of it.
     
  5. Both. All you need is a simple name. Yes it is required.
    Charles White would be horribly plain, but it would work.
     
  6. Let's talk Damien Sandow for a second..

    Remember when he was Aaron Stevens? How plain was that name.. his talent was there but not QUITE up to par with other talent at the time..he never became a crowd pleaser (in anyway) so they let him go/sent him back down to developmental level and he eventually became more mature and more talented both in the ring and on the mic.. several years go by... queue Damien Sandow.. another "simple name".. BOOM the overness that he garnered in comparison to the days as the Idol was overwhelming.. Two simple names but the talent was much more elevated this time around in the WWE for him thus helping him create a name for himself as Sandow instead.

    This may have made more sense in my head than it did while typing it but hey.. I tried!
     
  7. Well depending on who it is (ex. Daniel Bryan) sometimes the name makes people interested and I got nothing against Bryan its just whenever he comes down to the ring people go crazy without even watching him wrestle first.
     
  8. A suck name can sink someone, especially if it comes with a suck gimmick.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. I really think there is no definitive answer to that question. I think that it depends on the strength of both variables.

    For example, as much as WWE would like you to believe differently, Steve Austin's "Ringmaster" personality was not very different than the "Stone Cold" one. Austin's personality in most of his incarnations were similar. However, the idiotic name of "Ringmaster" showed a lack of belief by the WWF in him to be taken seriously, and made people think of the circus and not of a skilled technical wrestler. Absolutely no one cared about him even though there was little real change between him and the early "Stone Cold" gimmick. I don't think anyone doubted his talent at the time, but who could get behind someone called "Ringmaster?" Terry Taylor's "Red Rooster" was another example. I have always loved Taylor as a wrestler, but the rooster name just was idiotic.

    I was surprised when Paul Wight came to WWF and they gave him the "Big Show" name. The name makes absolutely no sense. However as dumb as it is, it never really held him back. I am not saying that the Big Show is an outstanding wrestler by any means, but I think his personality has carried him far. But the idiotic name hasn't really held him down at all.

    However, I don't think that a really bad wrestler can succeed simply because he has a good name I haven't really seen a lot of that.
     
    • Cool Cool x 1
  10. At one time, Big Show was considered a super hot commodity.
    He was young, over seven feet tall and could move. He also had a heck of a personality, so McMahon named him "The Big Show".
    It was fitting for someone who could fill an entire show. It's similar to RVD's early moniker 'the Whole f'n Show'.

    As for Ringmaster, that name didn't fit how Austin viewed himself. Steve Austin sees 'Stone Cold' and that's what he wanted on the marquee.
    Sometimes it isn't about having a great name, just don't choose a bad one. 'Hunter Hearst Helmsley' is a bad name, but Triple H is awesome.
     
  11. Oh I'm quite aware of the Big Show being a hot commodity at the time. He was a big guy and a decent wrestler, but in my mind the thing that has carried him the longest has been his personality. He is one of the few wrestlers who can easily fit into a face or heel persona without any perceptible difficulty. And although the reasoning for his name makes sense, I still consider it to be a stupid name. The whole f'n show for RVD was a description rather than a name, though. He wasn't referred to that as his name proper in matches. That's why possibly The "Big Show" Paul Wight may seem better, but for me as a stand alone name it's pretty silly. But my point was that it doesn't really matter because Big Show was interesting enough that having what I consider a dumb nickname has never been a hindrance to his career.

    My point with Ringmaster, though, is that it is a bad name. The name was bad enough that I don't believe Austin could have overcome it if he didn't get a name change. Just like Hunter Hearst Helmsley, which I agree with you, was dumb and likely held HHH back for a bit. When he was in WCW "Stunning" Steve Austin was my favorite wrestler after Ric Flair at the time. When he debuted under the idiotic "Ringmaster" name, I just knew it would kill the guy. His matches as the "Ringmaster" were fine. His personality as the Ringmaster was fine. But the name was soooooo idiotic that no matter what, it was going to hold him back.

    But that's how a name can work. Think of it this way. What effect would Paul Wight have suffered if he came into the WWF under the name "Ringmaster." Would he have been able to overcome it or would it have just been idiotic? I honestly doubt anyone could be successful with that name.

    Ed Leslie, on the other hand, was a crappy wrestler who always had crappy names. At least there was no confusion there :)
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. Every so often we get a member here who knows what he's talking about. You know what you're talking about and analyzed your point effectively.

    Your assessment of "The Big Show" being a nickname rather than his stage name is spot on. I wouldn't have made that point. Big Show was a great talent, a point Undertaker made himself. "The Whole f'n Show is INDEED a description rather than a name. You are spot on with that as well.

    Austin was a genius from the days he carried Sting as Stunning Steve Austin until the very last day he laced his boots.
    Where we part ways would be our assessment of the Ringmaster handle. I actually like the name to this very day because I am a purist. 'I' like that name.
    That name would NOT have propelled Austin to any great height which is why Vince had Austin debut with that name. He never intended Austin to be a main hand.
    HHH was smart to go ahead and run away with the "Triple H" name rather than do anything drastic.

    Finn Baylor sucks. It's a jobber name and VInce knows it, which is why he's allowed it. Devitt is a tremendously creative and 'trendy' individual who deserves better.
     
  13. I seriously messed up the quote tags so sorry if this post seems sloppy.

    "Your assessment of "The Big Show" being a nickname rather than his stage name is spot on. I wouldn't have made that point. Big Show was a great talent, a point Undertaker made himself. "The Whole f'n Show is INDEED a description rather than a name. You are spot on with that as well."

    Thanks, I appreciate it. :)

    "Austin was a genius from the days he carried Sting as Stunning Steve Austin until the very last day he laced his boots."

    Undoubtedly. I will admit I didn't realy know much about Austin until he was in the Hollywood Blondes with Brian Pillman. I was a bit of a Pillman fan at the time, but I quickly grew to prefer Austin. I started touting him as an eventual huge main eventer, to which my friends thought I was nuts. I will, however, admit that I saw Austin more like a Ric Flair career heel, not even close to what he became. Very rarely could someone be a talented technical wrestler and an A+ brawler as well.

    "Where we part ways would be our assessment of the Ringmaster handle. I actually like the name to this very day because I am a purist. 'I' like that name.
    That name would NOT have propelled Austin to any great height which is why Vince had Austin debut with that name. He never intended Austin to be a main hand."

    I think back then, moreso than now, I hated it when promotions changed a wrestler's ring name. I disliked the name "Mankind" for Foley because he would always be Cactus Jack for me.... and then I heard about "Mason the Mutilator" and Mankind seemed so much better :) I think the Ringmaster named rubbed me the wrong way because of the situation with Austin leaving WCW. After not being able to see one of my favorite wrestlers perform regularly due to being pushed to the side in WCW and I didn't have a way to watch ECW, seeing him come in with a different name was just a huge letdown. In the 1996 Royal Rumble, Vince McMahon actually refers to Austin as such: "Steve Austin, they call him the Ringmaster." It was the first time I had some hope that they were not going to bury him.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Definitely. Steve Austin had a humongous chip on his shoulder and didn't like it AT ALL.
    He had nothing to lose and everything to gain. He knew it wasn't Vince McMahon he had to convice, it was the paying public.
    McMahon likes 'brand' everybody and it makes me slightly ill. I take my hat off to the Foley's and Austin's for flipping McMahon the bird for his 'branding' practices.
     
  15. Name definitely makes the talent. Anyone who says otherwise is clearly delusional.
     
  16. Talent makes the name, but I believe if it's to bad of a name, it won't work for a wrestler. Plain names haven't really held any wrestlers back, John Cena, Daniel Bryan, Trish Stratus, Chris Benoit and other names. A basic name I believe isn't hard to work with if you have the talent and skill to work with a great character and put in time in the ring. Although if you go with a ridiculous name, I doubt the crowd will take you serious. Especially if you do something wrong once...Shockmaster.
     
    • Zing! Zing! x 1
  17. Exactly.
    Joe Smith works. Peter Paul works. Barry Bonds works. Mike Tyson works.
    These are regular 'John Doe' names. There's no need to over complicate things by choosing a profound name.
     
  18. I think it's what WWE is aiming for nowadays. I don't mind some character names if it isn't downright silly and the gimmick can work with it. For example, Undertaker, The Godfather, Val Venis, Razor Ramon, Goldberg and others. Now while Val Venis and The Godfather weren't exactly serious gimmicks, they were silly, but they worked well with their gimmicks that was suppose to be silly and it didn't hold them back. So there's also that exception.
     
    • Cool Cool x 1
  19. A guy called The Rock became one of the biggest stars ever, talent makes the name. Triple H is another weird name but the talent made it work, Hulk Hogan and Edge are other examples. Most names are terrible but seem great later on because the talent makes it seem so.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. The Rock and Edge are ace names, bro. I should name my son Rock. Hulk is a great name for my son too.
    I'm not here to argue. You obviously have your rationale and that's good enough for me.