Being over means more than anything else.

[Dynamite Kid]

I said this in another thread a while back but I feel like it warrants its own thread.

Being over, to a wrestler, should be the most important thing. More important than anything else.

Well, except being safe in the ring. Safety is paramount.

But if a wrestler is safe, no matter how terrible a wrestler they are, if they are over then that is the most important thing.

It doesn't matter how brilliant a wrestler you are, or how much the IWC loves you, it's about how over you are with the fans.

This is why Batista started to grow on me, because he was always over with the fans even though I didn't think much of hiw work.

This is why Hulk Hogan is an all-time great. This is why Khali was made world champion and put in a feud with Taker. Because they were OVER.

And nothing other than safety matters more than being over.

Discuss.

[Boomaga]

Khali was set up for a feud with Taker before he ever appeared on television. Your argument is faulty.

[Dynamite Kid]

The examples don't matter to my point.

Being over is more important than anything. Doesn't matter how good you are on the mic or in the ring or how much people in the back like you, if you're not over, you don't matter.

[angryfan]

Being over is a product of a lot of things, though. There has to be something in what the individual does that makes fans react, but what can kill being over often has nothing to do with the individual. You used Batista as an example, so try this on for size. Have him do what he does, same mannerisms, same look, same moves. However, have him jerking the curtain (no support from creative) and have the announcers ignore him while he's out there.

He won't be over anymore, because the casual fans will consider him not worth their time.

Lots of guys got over in the old WCW, did well for themselves and always got reactions. However, when they showed up in Vince's world, they get the "you're a nobody" treatment from creative and the announce team, which resulted in the fans not caring about them.

Being over may be vital, but if the company doesn't put effort into the individual, then they will never last. Translation, if Vince (the ultimate shot caller) doesn't want you to be over, if he says "you're just a midcarder", then that's how you will be presented, and eventually, that's how you will be perceived.

[Deleted]

Fulfilling the role management wants you to fill is more important if you want to keep your job.

I could be an enhancement guy or a lower tier guy, like Primo or Evan Bourne, sent out to help get someone like the Miz or Ted Dibiase Jr. over with the fans but if I focus on trying to get myself over, I won't be doing my job correctly. Instead of worrying about getting myself over, I should worry about getting the Miz over because, in the long run, getting people like him over would generate more money for the company, which in turn profits me. If I can show management that I can fulfill the role they want me to, I have a better chance of staying employed, earning more money, and be given opportunities for advancement.

If management wants you to get someone over, that's the most important thing. If management wants you to help put over a new wrestler by being their tag team partner, help make a the Money in the Bank match exciting, sell well for Kane, or wrestle Triple H in a 25 minute classic, then that's what's most important.

Sometimes being over is the most important thing; sometimes it isn't. In a shoot interview, Steve Corino said that he was told to help get D.H. Smith over; he was trying to get heat in the match and that was considered to be less important to management.

Everyone has a role to play. Being over is incredibly important IF you want to be a main eventer, if management wants you to be a main eventer. Sometimes, though, trying to get over conflicts with what they want out of you.

[Tapout]

Mar 18, 2010 9:07:54 GMT -5 Dynamite Kid said:

Being over means more than anything else.

And you're...just now figuring this out?

[Bubble Lead]

Mar 18, 2010 9:28:05 GMT -5 angryfan said:

Being over is a product of a lot of things, though. There has to be something in what the individual does that makes fans react, but what can kill being over often has nothing to do with the individual. You used Batista as an example, so try this on for size. Have him do what he does, same mannerisms, same look, same moves. However, have him jerking the curtain (no support from creative) and have the announcers ignore him while he's out there.

He won't be over anymore, because the casual fans will consider him not worth their time.

Lots of guys got over in the old WCW, did well for themselves and always got reactions. However, when they showed up in Vince's world, they get the "you're a nobody" treatment from creative and the announce team, which resulted in the fans not caring about them.

Being over may be vital, but if the company doesn't put effort into the individual, then they will never last. Translation, if Vince (the ultimate shot caller) doesn't want you to be over, if he says "you're just a midcarder", then that's how you will be presented, and eventually, that's how you will be perceived.

Plenty of guys over the past ten years have been hugely over with the crowd but not benefitted much from that.

Overness is very important, but WWE tends to overlook or even depush people who are over if WWE officials dont see any long term worth in them. I agree that overness is the most important thing...yet WWE doesn't value that over all things. Look at all the people they push for months with no crowd reaction, until they finally give up.

[Jason]

Then why is Drew McIntyre being pushed to the moon?

[Throwback]

I agree with this. It makes me think of the great WM 3 argument. While some will say that Savage/Steamboat was the best match on the card. Not to take anything away from them, the 2 did put on a wrestling clinic that night. But I'm sorry, 93,000 fans didn't show up to watch Savage/Steamboat. They showed up to watch Hogan/Andre.

[SAJ Forth]

Mar 18, 2010 9:28:05 GMT -5 angryfan said:

Being over is a product of a lot of things, though. There has to be something in what the individual does that makes fans react, but what can kill being over often has nothing to do with the individual. You used Batista as an example, so try this on for size. Have him do what he does, same mannerisms, same look, same moves. However, have him jerking the curtain (no support from creative) and have the announcers ignore him while he's out there.

He won't be over anymore, because the casual fans will consider him not worth their time.

Lots of guys got over in the old WCW, did well for themselves and always got reactions. However, when they showed up in Vince's world, they get the "you're a nobody" treatment from creative and the announce team, which resulted in the fans not caring about them.

Being over may be vital, but if the company doesn't put effort into the individual, then they will never last. Translation, if Vince (the ultimate shot caller) doesn't want you to be over, if he says "you're just a midcarder", then that's how you will be presented, and eventually, that's how you will be perceived.

I do agree with this statement.

[wwerules60]

I don't care how over someone is, if they're not entertaining then I don't want to see them. Being over is the most important thing for the company but not for me, the fan.

[HMARK Center]

I don't think that anyone would argue that the ultimate goal of any angle, match, feud, character, move, or ANYTHING in wrestling is to simply be "over". Hell, you can be a jobber, but at least if you get your worked punches over to the audience, you're doing the right thing.

Here's the problem, though: there are different ways to get over, and those different ways can keep you over for varying lengths of time.

Consider the Road Dogg. Jesse James/Brian Armstrong is one of the better talkers to come down the pike in wrestling over the past decade-plus. However, when working a match, he's always been a little bit limited. His overness suffered when the match he wrestled started to get old to the audience. Now, if he changed to a manager/mouthpiece, where his main job was to talk, he could get back over, but it's clearly not the same.

You can be the most over thing in a company one year, and by the next year be getting crickets as a reaction, even if you haven't changed all that much. Watch a Raw from 1998 and listen to the reactions X-Pac gets...then realize that "X-Pac Heat" was a term coined by the time 2000 rolled around.

[Brother Coyote]

Al Snow was almost perpetually over and never really capitalized.

[Deleted]

Mar 18, 2010 22:59:24 GMT -5 Brother Coyote said:

Al Snow was almost perpetually over and never really capitalized.

So were Scotty 2 Hotty and Koko B. Ware

[fw91]

Matt Hardy says hi

[Deleted]

Being over should mean the most, but it doesn't. WWE's shown time and time again, from refusing to turn Cena heel or scale him back in 2005 and 2006 to the current push of McIntyre, that if they want to push somebody they don't give a damn what the audience thinks of it.

[rnrk supports BLM]

Mar 18, 2010 23:05:56 GMT -5 fw91 said:

Matt Hardy says hi

Matt Hardy still appears on TV practically every week, sometimes wins, gets promo time and actual angles and the occasional PPV match, and has t-shirts and other merchandise marketed around him, all in spite of the fact that he's pudgy, balding, and has horrible fashion sense.

Matt Hardy has nothing going for him other than that he is over. If anything, Matt is proof positive of how far you can go by being over even while lacking everything else that WWE expects of their talent.

[Bubble Lead]

Mar 18, 2010 23:31:49 GMT -5 rnrk supports BLM said:

Mar 18, 2010 23:05:56 GMT -5 fw91 said:

Matt Hardy says hi

Matt Hardy still appears on TV practically every week, sometimes wins, gets promo time and actual angles and the occasional PPV match, and has t-shirts and other merchandise marketed around him, all in spite of the fact that he's pudgy, balding, and has horrible fashion sense.

Matt Hardy has nothing going for him other than that he is over. If anything, Matt is proof positive of how far you can go by being over even while lacking everything else that WWE expects of their talent.

I am not a Matt Hardy fan, but saying a wrestler has nothing going for him besides being over is like saying a businessman has nothing going for him besides his bank account.

In short, it really makes no sense.

[American Dragon]

Mar 18, 2010 23:31:49 GMT -5 rnrk supports BLM said:

Matt Hardy has nothing going for him other than that he is over.

Isn't that the entire objective of wrestling?

[Deleted]

Mar 19, 2010 5:27:26 GMT -5 American Dragon said:

Mar 18, 2010 23:31:49 GMT -5 rnrk supports BLM said:

Matt Hardy has nothing going for him other than that he is over.

Isn't that the entire goal of wrestling? To become over?

But that flies in the face of booking. Not everyone is going to be over nor will everyone be at the same level of overness (I guess that's a word). Someone has to open the show, someone has to fill the slower parts. There's a reason that the diva matches tend to be held off until near the end of Wrestlemania: if you give the fans too much at once, too many long, exciting matches, they'll be drained. Triple H/Orton at Wrestlemania 25 illustrated that perfectly: the fans were too drained after Undertaker/HBK to react to the match strongly, as strongly as would be expected for that feud.

The overall show is more important than the overness of one or two wrestlers.