Learning to break kayfabe
Join Date: Sep 2016
What defines a good performer?
I ask this because really it feels like so many people discredit guys like Goldberg, Strowman, Hogan for being limited unrounded wrestlers when it was never necessary for them to be.
Take Hogan for example. Put Hogan into todays day and age, he'd die faster than Jinder's impending push(foreshadowing) but for his time, he was incredible. There was a reason people loved him as he was the perfect wrestler for his era. The skills he had were perfect for what that era needed. So why is Hogan discredited so much for being a poor in ring worker when he never needed to be a good in ring worker to succeed? Its like Einstein's quote "if you judge a fish a by its ability to climb a tree it would forever live its life believing itself to be stupid". Whats the difference than current wrestling fans judging a past wrestler heavily on a criteria that was more or less irrelevent for that time?
For a far more recent example, take Goldberg. In WCW, he was brilliant. He might've been limited as in ring worker and a promo but again he never needed to be. So why do fans judge him for his lack of abilities that he never needed to get over in the first place? It makes no sense but if you ask the average internet fan, he'll tell you that Goldberg is a horrible performer whos a miracle of marketing. You need something to try and market in the first place, you can't try and market crap.
Basically, it boils down to this. Why do so many wrestling fans rate wrestlers on their overall ability instead of the ones that matters? Its like discrediting a silent badass wrestler for his promo work.
It isn't just a harmless thing as well. Fans grow attached to wrestlers who they think have talented but so many other limited workers have talent too. There just not as well rounded. Going back to Goldberg, from a casual fan's perspective or even or storytelling perspective, there was nothing wrong with his return. It was just fan's obsessions with only cheering for guys that are normally considered talented not realizing guys like Goldberg are talented in their own way.
And this brings me to Strowman. I guess we can agree that most of us like Strowman. But he has been protected by booking heavily and by being put against the greatest heel of all time, Roman Reigns. Most of us would not say he is overall a very talented wrestler. I guarantee once this guy gets pushed over smark favourites he is gonna get wrecked by so many fans for being an untalented big guy whos only there because he is big. Not realizing that being big and imposing is its own skill and talent.
So um rant over. I just wanted to challenge the perceptions of some fans who love to rate a wrestler on his overall ability instead of the skills that do matter relating to his character. I just think that if you're playing a silent monster character, then how big and imposing you are should be consideres as more important than in ring skill or promo ability. On the other side, an underdog character should not be discredited because he has an ordinary look(cough Sami Zayn cough)