If they entertain be in the ring, they're good. If they don't they're bad. Same goes with mic skills.
This is my problem with Indy wrestling especially.storytelling ability, effort and just being entertaining
its a lost art to be honest. kids today think its about flips, moonsaults, finishers, 'mat wrestling' and crowd reaction
i mean sure i suppose they may play a part, but unless properly incorporated within the context and flow of the match, youre just wasting everyone's time
I think that misses the point of indy wrestling. For one, we're usually talking about guys with limited experience in the business. Two, these guys that are hungry, and trying to make a name for themselves to be put in a position like the WWE. They're trying to show the outer limits of what they do physically. They're also playing the hand their dealt in showing off in the ring, because production value and attire/entrance budgets are tight. For another, they're catering to the fans who show up, and building a product that differentiates them from other promotions. The easiest way to do that is wrestle using another style, and trying to reach fans who are dissatisfied/hardcore fans/casuals to show you another way wrestling can be done. It gives fans a different take on wrestling, and evolves the industry in another way.This is my problem with Indy wrestling especially.
terry funk disagrees with your last partBeing able to tell a good story in the ring and keeping the crowd engaged throughout the match. Have to be at least decent at selling (especially if you're a babyface) and have an entertaining control segment. After all that, it's crispness. You don't have to perform every move picture perfect, but you can't be too sloppy, either. That's pretty much it for me.
Everything goes into account, yeah Hogan can have a great match with his limited moves. But it's funny when people diss the "no talent Indy hacks who can only chain wrestle & have no charisma." All these dissers of the "wrestlers" need to sit back & watch any of the matches between Misawa, Kobashi & Kawada - Wow LOOK AT THAT!? Guys who have in ring skills & can have the crowd in the palm of their hands, I didn't know that was possible. Just because the retarded American audience doesn't appreciate the art of wrestling, doesn't mean your wrong if you do.You hear it all the time on here. "This guy can work" or "This guy can't". The way most actual wrestlers see it, we're all just talking out of our asses. What does it really mean when you say someone is a good wrestler or not?
Self explanatory thread title. Do you Trust in Meltzer? Do you have a complex set of criteria that breaks down a guy by his work rate, stamina, complexity of moveset etc.? Or do you judge by overall match quality?
I for one, judge by overall match quality. No matter how proficient in chain wrestling you are or how many holds you know, if your matches don't deliver then I can't think you're a good wrestler (looking at you Wade Barrett). Based on my criteria, guys like Jeff Hardy, John Cena and Batista are more valuable in-ring talents than guys like William Regal, or Lance Storm or whichever else Man of 1,000 Rest Holds/Suplexes you have.
But that's just the way I see it. How do you decide whether or not someone can wrestle?