Some people change their names to sound more flashy or marketable.
For example actor Tom Cruise's real name is Thomas Mapother, IV, while singer Bob Dylan was given the birth name Robert Zimmerman. News broadcasters have to alter their original names for security reasons.
Every once and a while someone is given a great birth name and a destiny to fulfill it. So what is in a name? Does a well crafted name full of character and built for nicknames guarantee success?
Probably not, but it doesn't hurt I guess.
Take, for instance, football quarterback legends Joe Montana, Joe Namath, and Peyton Manning. These names just ooze an American football sound.
Montana, Namath, and Manning have all had success because of their play obviously, but "Montana to Rice" or "Young to Rice" just rolls off the tongue better than, say, "Brown to Rice."
They have what I call "name intimidation."
I've always thought Joe Namath's name sounded like a baseball player's name, but a strong sports name nonetheless.
Now you have New England quarterback Tom Brady to wide receiver Randy Moss. "Brady to Moss" is much better sounding than, say, "Matt Shuab to Jacoby Jones."
Bottom line, great players who have great names sell tickets and are more recognizable than mediocre players with mediocre names.
I hope I don't offend anyone, but when the 49ers drafted quarterback Alex Smith I thought to myself: "Bust!"
His name just does not carry the star power or intimidation factor that a Peyton Manning or Joe Montana does.
I possibly look into things too much, but on Saturday I'll be watching the NFL Draft and listening for those strong football, money-making names.
Comments (5) Add a comment »
from 23 days ago
Ivahn, I think you bring up an interesting question that works to our sensitivities as an audience rather than the athletes themselves. Does it take a flashy name for fans to remember somebody? Can't we just remember them for what they do?
I mean sports are a form of entertainment, and as you pointed out entertainers change their names all of the time for marketing reasons. I definitely think that certain names sound like they belong in certain professions. Does that mean athletes, like other entertainers, should start changing their names to sound more interesting, and thus become more memorable? Or should they just stick with the names they were given and leave the marketability portion of it up to their talent? Personally, I would lean to the latter; things ususally work out for a reason.
from 21 days ago
I know Babe Ruth was not his real name it was George Herman Ruth and Tiger Woods real name is Eldrick T Woods anyways I'm glad you enjoyed the article thank you for the feedback
from 23 days ago
I think that a name that "oozes NFL out of them" is developed, not acquired at birth. If there was a Joe Namath at your school, would you think he would be a superstar in the NFL?
from 21 days ago
Hey Andrew I agree 100% with your point about development being the key to success I just think it's weird that superstar athletes often have a good sounding name to go along with their talent, just having a little fun thanks for the comment
from 2 days ago
Intriguing thought. But if you had said to me "Brett Favre" over 15 years ago, I would have thought he might have been a hockey player but not a quarterback. And Jim Kelly had a pretty basic name. In other words, I don't really buy your premise, but it is humourous and interesting.
Write a new comment