Wrestling Forum banner

1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,180 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
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?
:talk
 

·
Team Narcisse
Joined
·
7,940 Posts
Chain wrestling bores me to tears unless you have two guys in the ring together that are great at it. I will use Benoit as an example. His matches bored me unless he was in the ring with someone like Angle or Bret, then I enjoyed his matches.

I greatly enjoy a complex moveset full of unique power moves like early Scott Steiner and Brock Lesnar, but you can't have a great 30 minute match with these moves alone.

In my top 50 matches Ric Flair is probably in more of them than anyone else despite his limited moveset, but he made every move matter. Great crowd involvement. A Ric Flair oversell flop had more impact than almost anything I see in today's product and his promo ability gave true meaning to a match. This is huge for me. If I am not invested in the outcome, then the greatest in ring performance ever does have the same meaning

I think Shawn is the best all around ring performer ever, yet he is not the best at any single aspect of wrestling. There are many better high flyers and technical wrestlers, but no one that has ever taken a piece of everything and combined it into one's own style as well as he did.

Selling is huge as well and doesn't get near the credit as technical wrestling. It has to at least look real to me. I would rather see slight overselling than poor selling.

Great in ring performers know how to tell a story with their in ring performance just like they do on the mic. Great heels know that they are supposed to act cowardly and cheat while not overdoing it and know how to use their surroundings to enhance the match. There was a great post in the HIAC thread that was talking about how Shawn and Taker used the cell and truly made it part of the match.
 

·
Celestial Messiah
Joined
·
33,587 Posts
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
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,180 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
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
This is my problem with Indy wrestling especially.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,893 Posts
Can they tell a story, do it well and do it consistently? Because fuck all else matters.

Dusty Rhodes, for example, couldn't do an ounce of flippy shit. His chain wrestling was average at best. Dusty was a straight up brawler. But he told some of the finest stories ever seen in a ring in the history of this business. That's what makes an all-time great. That's why certain net heroes, like AJ Styles or Evan Bourne, will never amount to more than a skidmark in this business.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
853 Posts
I think it's a little too simplistic to say "he entertains me." WHY are you entertained? Do you only find WWE-style wrestling entertaining, or only technical wrestlers, or only "serious" wrestling entertaining, etc. I don't think it's a science in writing down what makes a wrestler great. There are several individual attributes that you can use to "grade" wrestlers, and any one of them - properly executed - can make a wrestler great. Placing emphasis on one attribute over another is usually a matter of personal taste.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
853 Posts
This is my problem with Indy wrestling especially.
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.

I'm sure some here are put off by boisterous, arrogant fans. It's a shame really. I feel like if you watched a random 2005 ROH show without any expectations, or at least took the product for what it was and gave it a chance, you would probably walk away entertained. I'm not saying all indy wrestling is great or even good, but there was a time (2004ish-2009) where I thought it better delivered on what it was selling, but it's not nearly as good at the moment.
 

·
I'll take you down the only road I've ever been do
The Icon That Can Still Go
Joined
·
53,089 Posts
Being 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.
 

·
Raevolution is a Mystery
Joined
·
23,791 Posts
I don't really have some kind of system of scaling it. If I enjoy most of their matches, I'll be more likely to talk strongly about their in ring work. If I'm entertained by them, then I consider them good.

Some guys obviously excel in certain aspects, but that doesn't necessarily make them better than someone with less skill that knows how to use it better.
 

·
Celestial Messiah
Joined
·
33,587 Posts
Being 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.
terry funk disagrees with your last part

so does jerry lawler
 

·
Raevolution is a Mystery
Joined
·
23,791 Posts
I don't really mind sloppiness.

I lose it on this forum when I see someone talk down on a match because of a couple sloppy looking spots. I find it ridiculous.
 

·
Celestial Messiah
Joined
·
33,587 Posts
it is

its a fight, its not fucking ballet. sometimes shit goes wrong. and sometimes sloppiness adds to the grittiness of the brawl

half the reason i detest angle vs benoit so much is because it doesnt look as much like a wrestling match as does a recital of swan lake
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,648 Posts
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?
:talk
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.

Guys like Bryan & Punk, these little "vanilla midgets" get the current WWE crowd more invested in their matches then any other wrestler on the roster does. But oh yeah their not 6'6 & ripped with muscles so they suck. I swear the guys who love size are closet ****'s, but I digress.

Nash, Warrior, Hogan - these "limited" guys were very entertaining & great to watch. Great matches, so no - it doesn't matter how you do it, as long as you do it well. But to say one is better then the other is retarded & ignorant. Shit's 2 sides to the same coin, either way it's money. People can prefer a "style", but that's all it is. Different styles is what makes it fun & interesting, it's like that with every sport. Some people play the spread, some people play the power I - it is what it is.
 

·
Employee Of The Month At Dale's Dead Bug
Joined
·
4,725 Posts
Storytelling and entertainment factor. Don't care for all that technical shit. I want to be entertained. Also, hitting multiple big spots doesn't count if they don't add to the story.
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Top