It would still have some appeal but not to the same extent.I loved the wrestlers with great gimmicks,Pallo,Street,Starr, Kendo,Kellett,Billy Two Rivers and so many more. It added so much to the entertainment value.Would it have been the box office it was in the sixties without them?I don't think so.Your opinions please.
top of page
bottom of page
In a word, 'no'. Without the gimmicks - the showmanship, the flamboyant gear, the characters, the posturing, the goading of the audience, etc. - professional wrestling would have much, much less appeal. Yes, you can have an impressive, less glitzy, technical match in among the rest, and the true fans do enjoy it, but it only works as part of an overall package in which the more entertaining wrestlers and matches take centre stage.
You can see it in other sports. When naughty Harvey Smith packed in show jumping, they took that sport off tv. Snooker has struggled since Hurricane Higgins and Jimmy White were in their prime, though they do have a borderline baddie these days to keep it alive. Boxers have been trying to emulate Cassius Clay's hype, lifted from Gorgeous George, with their trash talking ever since .... and have had very limited success.
Wrestling was several steps ahead with its constant supply of many and varied gimmicks.
All a question of balance.When the balance became wrong it proved almost fatal
Wrestling would never have done what it did without an Entertainment side to it. The showmanship was ready made for tv when it came.
No it wouldn't have an appeal. Yes we would tolerate a technical match on the bill but truth is we were all there to see the colour, glamour, costumes and the baddies get their come uppance.