Tuesday, August 19, 2014

Would Michelle McCool Have Benefited From Being Pushed As A Top-Tier Periphery Diva?

I did this kind of thing for Mickie James a few weeks ago. What kind of top-tier periphery diva could she have been? Let me do this for Michelle McCool this time. Why bother? She did not have the overness to deserve such an amazing push. She has not shown the charisma that would make you believe she could be a great character in the periphery. Let's say you are a writer in the WWE and Vince McMahon comes up to you and demands you come up with an idea to finally get this woman over. Title reigns are not enough. Handing her history is not working. It will take some real creative interest to get her over, not just hyping her up as something great, which is essentially overrating her.

Look at how they are pushing Brie Bella now. That is almost exactly how I would have had Michelle McCool pushed in the periphery. Almost. Brie Bella's current push is obviously an extension of her relationship with Daniel Bryan. Michelle McCool was obviously in a relationship with The Undertaker back when she was around. But I am not saying they had to have acknowledged that and paired her with him. Might hurt Taker's gimmick, even if they tried to give McCool a similar gimmick. And it may not be believable. Brie Bella is a face working against heel authority figures. That is the kind of push McCool should have. How do you get her in that situation in the periphery? Put her in a kayfabe romance with a main-eventer or have her form some kind of friendship with a main-eventer. When that guy is being tormented by the heel authority figures, McCool would be at his side to get a rub and look good by standing by him.

Why a face and not a heel? I don't think she can play a great heel. Many fans might say she was an awesome heel during her LayCool days. Is that because of the kind of performer she was? Or because of how hard she was pushed and what the writers were having her do? Michelle McCool and Layla tried, but they could not garner a consistent, great reaction from the fans. They should not try to get this woman booed. Try to get the fans to like her. Try to get the fans to cheer what she is doing. You see Brie Bella standing up to both Stephanie McMahon and her husband. She's knocking around Triple H. Her own sister turns on her, which she will overcome. She is doing things that will get the fans connected to her. A lot of critics have pointed out that Brie Bella does not have a great acting ability or mic skills. In this situation, it does not matter. She is not getting over because of her own abilities as a performer, but by how they are pushing her. Imagine if Michelle McCool feuded against Vickie Guerrero back then. How about John Laurinaitis? How about Triple H and Stephanie? How about Vince McMahon, himself? Depends on how long McCool would have stayed around and what was going on at the time. To put it simply, I think it would have been better for them to try to make her look like a hero doing things that would get her cheered than a heel pushed hard and still not getting good heat. If they are getting some measure of success by doing this with Brie Bella, it would have been great to try this with McCool.

Women pushed as top-tier periphery divas hardly ever seem to fail to connect with the fans. They are being pushed in a unique manner, being pushed hard, and getting to do things on a consistent basis that fans are going to love seeing. You have had centerpieces flop in recent years, mostly because of injuries and failure to connect with the fans. Being sexy and glamorous is not enough to get over anymore. But women pushed as top-tier periphery divas go beyond that. That is why you have a better success rate with those kind of pushes.

Let me make a football analogy. In football, a lot of the best plays the coaches draw up are the ones designed to confuse the other team. A little bit of trickery can fool a defense and lead to a big play. Just for the sake of the discussion, let's say that the end around typically leads to a gain of at least 20 yards 80% of the time. All you need to know is that the end around is a football play that involves some trickery to try to throw off the defense. It doesn't matter which teams are doing it or which players are doing it, it has this great success rate. Now, is that necessarily because the players doing it are just so awesome? Or is it because the way the play is designed leads to this great success? As I have laid out the situation, if it seems any players can have this level of success with the play, it really is in the actual play, not necessarily the performer. All you have to do is not be horrible or be up against some defensive players that are too good.

Being pushed as a top-tier periphery diva is like making that football play that seems to work almost all the time. The way the WWE has been acting in recent years, you might think crazy gimmicks are also a recipe for success. How about Alicia Fox? Not surprisingly, she's depushed. I have not seen anyone talk about her in a while. She was doing things that were getting people talking about her. Perfect example of why the manner you are being pushed is more important than a gimmick. After completely dropping Alicia, her momentum is all gone. Back to talking about top-tier periphery divas. Because they are pushed with so much creative interest and hype, working alongside top stars, and doing things the fans love seeing, it isn't hard to believe that they will gain A-level overness. Is it because they are necessarily amazing performers? Or is it in how they are being pushed? When you are being pushed like that, you don't have to be amazing. The manner you are being pushed is amazing. And that is what is ultimately getting some of these women over. They are being put in a unique position and being allowed to do unique things. Michelle McCool might have benefited from this.

Let me make one more point with that football analogy. With the situation I invented with the end around being so successful, just because essentially any idiot can look great doing, that does not mean they are great players. It just means the play is great. So what does define who the great players are? How well can these guys do with plays not likely to succeed? How well can they do with busted plays? How well can they do when it looks like they will get nothing? Can they take average plays and be amazing with that? If you can only succeed with plays with a high success rate, you probably are not an amazing player. But if you can still succeed in those situations I just brought up, that is when you are showing your own worth.

I am not going to say too much about tying what I just said back to pro wrestling. Let me just say, if Michelle McCool had gotten A-level overness off of being pushed as a top-tier periphery diva, it probably would not have been because she is so amazing. But the WWE wanted this woman to be a star. If I had to come up with an idea to make her a star, I just gave you the type of push I think would have worked.

No comments:

Post a Comment