How THe Wrestling World Works and "The Guy"

[Zardnaar]

This is a spin off from the Attitude Era thread and how it is over rated. I got into an interesting conversation with Phenom about how The Undertaker is not "The Guy".

"The Guy" is just an expression about who is your top wrestler in the promotion where the major storyline revolves around usually in conjunction with the heavy weight title. "The Guy" also doesn't have to be the champ but if they do not have the belt the storyline revolves around their quest to get the belt. For example see Austin in 1998/99 with him chasing after the belt when he doesn't have it.

Other people can of course win the belt but they tend to have short title reigns unless there is a major story around it. If you go back far enough the promotion was entirely centred around "The Guy" and title reigns were very long and/or The Guy would have a lot of them. Heels were often transitional champions so top babyfaces did not have to wrestle each other and usually they had a short reign as well. To this day Bruno Sammartino has had the longest combined reigns and Hogan is next on the list with over 2000 days as WWF champion.

At its most basic wrestling has been good vs bad and heel vs heel or baby vs baby matches were rare. The face of the company would usually be the biggest draw of the company and also be expected to do things like media interviews, and latter on sell merchandise or represent the company in ads, media events, charity events etc. Also note things like that were not restricted to "The Guy" as Sable was in Playboy and Mankind starred in ads for Ravioli but it was The Rock who went around and did the Hollywood thing and before him Hogan.

Another term would be Franchise Player.

10 Wrestlers Who Could Have Been Franchise Players For WWE

My argument for example was that The Undertaker was not "the guy" because his gimmick mostly prevented it. With normal media having him or characters like Mankind of Kane do that would come across as silly. Over the last 30+ years there have only been a handful of "The Guy" and it is who VInce has chosen to be front and centre of the WWF/E. The major storylines revolve around them and they often have multiple title runs. The Undertaker for example has won the belt 4 times but most of his reigns were short and only had one run in his first 7 or 8 years in the WWE.

So who were "the guys" that VInce chose. Since 1984 or so.

Hogan
Bret Hart
Shawn Michael's
Steve Austin
The Rock
John Cena

Sometimes you do not have a clear cut "the guy". This might be for several reasons often it is a transitional phase or something did not work out. There are at least 3 high profile failures that Vince has picked to be "The Guy". They were pushed to the top and 2/3 of them came crashing down rather rapidly. They were.

1. The Ultimate Warrior. Hogan literally handed him the belt at Wrestlemania and he was Vinces pick to take the company forward in the early 90's. ANd then he blackmailed Vince in 1991, got fired, got brought back then let go again and then got brought back again etc. By the early 90's Hulkamania was getting a bit stale and Hogan as "The Guy trickled on to 1993 although his star power started to fade in 1992/93 as people got sick of his gimmick. Note that in 1991 Flair went to the WWF and got a major push right out the gate and you saw the rise of Bret Hart and Shawn Michales as individual competitors.

2. Lex Luger. Lex Luger was a heel who got repackaged as Captain America in 1993 and he was over for a while with the fans but he lacked the X factor probably due to his mic skills. He had the body and the look but not really the in ring or mic skills to back it up. He also liked his steroids. 1993 was also the year the steroid scandal broke and by 1994 he was a mid carder and gone by 1995 to WCW. Vince chose Bret Hart as "the guy"

3. Roman Reigns. He has the look, he can wrestle but got pushed to hard and it did not end well I suppose. I do not mind the guy as I am mostly neutral but I did not watch WWE either in 2014 or 15. He is better than Luger for example in the ring.

Right now I would argue WWE doesn't have a top "The Guy" Cena is part time and right now heels have all the major individual titles (Universal Champion, World Heavyweight, Womens Champion) although Becky Lynch has the Smackdown title (the B title on the B show). AJ Styles might be the closet thing even though he is a heel IDK.

Also note that even if you are not "The Guy" you can still have a great career and make best wrestler of all times lists as politics and being in the right place at the right time and your gimmick can influence who "The Guy is". Sting and Undertaker for example are great wrestlers but their gimmicks basically exclude them from being "The Guy" as they are to cartoon like if they had to do a lot of media interviews or represent the company outside of a wrestling capacity.

Other promotions also had their top guys/top Draws. In the NWA for example it was Flair, WCW had Flair/Hogan and later the NWO and Goldberg. Note Sting was also one of their major attractions but he was not the "top guy" in the late 90's (or after 1994) although at times he was more popular. IN the 80's Macho Man was very popular and was a contender to being the top guy but Hogan was still it.

 

[Indy]

Completely agree. Roman Reigns isn't necessarily a ''failed project'', I'd say, but he's not the franchise player and the man that it's revolving around. He never really was ''the guy'', he was just always positioned as the man who'd beat the dominant heel like Lesnar or the chickenshit heel like Rollins. When push came to shove, that never could happen because of a real lack of crowd support. Only ''franchise player'' moment he's really had was beating Triple H at WrestleMania, I'd say. Talking about Rollins, however, I think many underestimate the lad as far as him getting a huge push. Maybe it's because it all happened slowly and felt so natural with him as a heel, whilst Reigns never got that heel run, went straight into being a babyface, thus it felt ''forced'' according to some people because he ''stole'' Daniel Bryan's spot when in reality, he needed more build-up. If he never had his match with Lesnar, Bryan won the Rumble and Reigns got pushed hard after SummerSlam, things would look really different for him. Ever since Rollins' face turn and even kinda when he was a heel, he's been the franchise player and the guy, in my opinion.

 

[Zardnaar]

Completely agree. Roman Reigns isn't necessarily a ''failed project'', I'd say, but he's not the franchise player and the man that it's revolving around. He never really was ''the guy'', he was just always positioned as the man who'd beat the dominant heel like Lesnar or the chickenshit heel like Rollins. When push came to shove, that never could happen because of a real lack of crowd support. Only ''franchise player'' moment he's really had was beating Triple H at WrestleMania, I'd say. Talking about Rollins, however, I think many underestimate the lad as far as him getting a huge push. Maybe it's because it all happened slowly and felt so natural with him as a heel, whilst Reigns never got that heel run, went straight into being a babyface, thus it felt ''forced'' according to some people because he ''stole'' Daniel Bryan's spot when in reality, he needed more build-up. If he never had his match with Lesnar, Bryan won the Rumble and Reigns got pushed hard after SummerSlam, things would look really different for him. Ever since Rollins' face turn and even kinda when he was a heel, he's been the franchise player and the guy, in my opinion.

I think Rollins is a good contender but he is not quite there yet. Reigns could still get there with anheel turn then a face turn later if he improves his mic work. If people want to boo someone turn them heel. And vice versa if people start yto love your heels a face turn is usually coming up, once again see Austin between 1996 KotR and Wrestlemania with Bret.

Reigns is not fatally compromised. I have enjoyed several of his matches and he can work. I am leanig towards slightly positive even and Cena has done some great matches this year and put people over as well. Once again I have not had to put up with 10 years of Cena though.

I like a lot of the current crop of of the roster, the storylines and booking though..

1016 has been better than 2014/15?

IN hindsight not having Bryan as "The Guy" was a good thing. I have seen some clips of him and yeah he was massively over and could have been "the guy".

 

[Indy]

I think Rollins is a good contender but he is not quite there yet. Reigns could still get there with anheel turn then a face turn later if he improves his mic work. If people want to boo someone turn them heel. And vice versa if people start yto love your heels a face turn is usually coming up, once again see Austin between 1996 KotR and Wrestlemania with Bret.

Rollins is getting there. He needs a defining moment as a babyface to cement himself as the top guy, and I think that'll certainly come in due time. Possibly him beating HHH at WrestleMania. Also, yeah, I agree. That's how wrestling's worked for so long that it's almost stupid to change that. However, like with Cena and even Reigns, why would you stop marketing them like superheroes to the little kids that buy their merch? They're a business, and I think they were scared that the hardcore fans wouldn't buy Reigns merch if he turned because they had a legit hatred for the guy (which some really do tbf), and together with that, lil' Jimmy and Johnny aren't gonna buy Reigns t-shirts either anymore. That means his merch sales would go down drastically. Now, a lot of heels don't have great merch sales anyways, but it'd be a problem if Reigns, one of the biggest pushed stars of the last 10 years, wouldn't have a market to pander to. They've invested too much in him to let that happen.

Reigns is not fatally compromised. I have enjoyed several of his matches and he can work. I am leanig towards slightly positive even and Cena has done some great matches this year and put people over as well. Once again I have not had to put up with 10 years of Cena though.

I like a lot of the current crop of of the roster, the storylines and booking though..

Oh yeah, Reigns is really good. There's a reason he's in the position he's in. WWE sees, or at least saw, something in him and there's a reason to that. Everyone has an opinion about him, nobody's indifferent. Same was and is with Cena. If Reigns had the mic skills that Cena had when he got the push, I don't think there'd be anyone that could really point out any flaws in his game. Cena is the perfect WWE wrestler; I don't think he was that good in '05 when he won the championship as a wrestler, but he developed a lot and he understands what to do to get a crowd involved and how to do it better than anyone, besides maybe Hogan.

The talent is full of wrestlers when it needs workers, and I love wrestling but in order for WWE to have good business, it needs crazy characters that sell a lot of merchandise. A Stone Cold, a Hogan, a Savage, people that can get over BIG with their characters and I think there's a real lack of that nowadays. I think people care too much to steal the show in matches to think of how far a character can bring you.

IN hindsight not having Bryan as "The Guy" was a good thing. I have seen some clips of him and yeah he was massively over and could have been "the guy".

Certainly. He shouldn't have been the guy anyways imo, but he'd be a great underdog character to face Lesnar at WM 31. I think a lot more people would've been interested in that, and that could still cause Rollins to win the title which could've built into Bryan/Rollins which would be another strong match to fully put over Rollins and that could transition Bryan into an upper midcard role winning the IC title at Money in the Bank or whatever, seeing as he'd probably still wrestle if he didn't have that concussion against Sheamus.

 

[Stopspot]

Yeah. "the guy" is the man or woman (depending on the promotion) that the product revolves around. The focus point as such.
Hogan in the 80s, Michaels, Austin or Bret at various points in the 90s.

WWE is interesting now since they don't have a clear cut guy after John hangs up the boots. We know who they want it to be, but he's not there yet.
Granted some promotions can make it work with multiple "the guy" at the same time. All Japan in the 90s had the four pillars. Four top stars at the same time. Granted Misawa was the guy of the guys. But Kawada, Kobashi or Taue could be slotted in without there being any big dips in the business. But managing something like that is real hard.

As for the Undertaker. He was never the guy. But he was the heart and sould of the company instead. Another focal point. Taker was a near ever present entity for almost 3 decades and was the undisputed leader in the locker room. That's not shabby either.

 

[Zardnaar]

Yeah. "the guy" is the man or woman (depending on the promotion) that the product revolves around. The focus point as such.
Hogan in the 80s, Michaels, Austin or Bret at various points in the 90s.

WWE is interesting now since they don't have a clear cut guy after John hangs up the boots. We know who they want it to be, but he's not there yet.
Granted some promotions can make it work with multiple "the guy" at the same time. All Japan in the 90s had the four pillars. Four top stars at the same time. Granted Misawa was the guy of the guys. But Kawada, Kobashi or Taue could be slotted in without there being any big dips in the business. But managing something like that is real hard.

As for the Undertaker. He was never the guy. But he was the heart and sould of the company instead. Another focal point. Taker was a near ever present entity for almost 3 decades and was the undisputed leader in the locker room. That's not shabby either.

Yeah Taker is great in other ways. You can also have multiple guys when its not clear cut which one of them is the biggest. Bret/Shawn and the early NWO in WCW pre Goldberg.

And every now and then you have a phase when its not clear cut or one is on the way out and the new one is rising like late 97 or now.