oh, and if i hear one more person who has NEVER BEEN A PROFESSIONAL WRESTLER FOR WWE OR WCW talk about 'drawing', im gonna flip out
how do you tell if a wrestler is 'good'? (long post)
just a warning.....this is a long-winded and opinion-oriented post. however, it is a serious question, but im sure im going to get hate for it, so thats just a warning. my favorite replies are ones saying how 'boring' posts were.... well.... this ones long, so just dont read it if youre that type of guy (or girl).
maybe this should go in the venting section, but it is a serious question that ive had for a few years now, mostly based off the annoying, pompous marks who write the columns and news articles that i read to stay abreast of whats happening behind the scenes in the wrestling world.
so i started watching wrestling as a kid back around late 92/93 and pretty much ate it up and loved everyone and everything about it. looking back, there were guys i liked who were, by anyones opinion, bad wrestlers. my 2nd favorite wrestler was the giant gonzalez. what can i say? i was like 6 years old and the dude was a complete monster, nothing like anything i'd ever seen. now, i realize his wrestling ability was non-existant, but back then i couldnt get enough just based on his look/heel persona (loved heels since day 1).
on the flipside, there seem to be guys that no one denies as being legendary. my #1 favorite wrestler since day 1 was hbk (although, post-hiatus hbk wasnt as entertaining), who seemed to have it all (look, charisma, in ring ability).
basically, i like whoever entertains me, but it seems like these days, the 'good' wrestlers are the short, small, cookie-cutter guys with short hair that can move around, while the big, dominant guys are the 'bad' wrestlers. what does it take to be considered 'good'? to me, it SURE AS HELL doesnt mean entertaining to watch perform or very entertaining with regard to their character/angles.
obviously big guys like khali and big show suck bc they literally walk out, punch some people, then either win or lose the match by doing a terrible move (although show was really that bad back in the 90's, but hes way too fat now to move around much). but why the hate for guys like ryback and mason ryan? as ive said in another thread, at least they do more than just punch and kick and make it look like what theyre doing is actually painful and that theyre actually beating the crap out of the other guy.
now it seems that smaller guys are the only ones that are considered good. i just dont see it. obviously one can make up for lacking size by excelling at putting on an entertaining match (see hbk), but what defines 'entertaining' these days? i think of it as being on the edge of your seat the whole time, and actually having an interest in who wins (last match that really did that for me was brock v. cena or hhh v. undertaer HIAC). whats so great about daniel bryan? sure, his catch phrase is catchy, but why does everyone mark out over him? his matches are ok, i guess, but hes just a technical wrestler. not a power wrestler, not a high flyer. same with christian, rhodes, miz, adr, orton, sheamus (well, i guess hes a 'power' guy, but his moves suck), swagger, ziggler (although hes got a great look and i LOVE the way he sells, so i enjoy his matches), sandow, santino, etc, etc, etc, etc.
whats so special about guys like bryan, miz, christian, etc? their matches ARENT exciting to the casual fan (ill get to that later), their looks arent that great, and at best, theyve got somewhat entertaining mic skills.
ive heard SOOO many people talk about how much triple h sucks and only got to where he is based off his influence. WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??? triple h was entertaining as hell in the late 90's and still is today. he was an INCREDIBLE heel in the late 90's/early 00's and had people truly HATE him, and he could always bring the house down in an entertaining match where he just goes all out as the 'ruthless, cerebral assassin' (although, admittedly, it was often times as result of guys like foley allowing him to beat the ever living shit out of them).
people tout christian as 'the best wrestler in wwe'. why? he's skinny, has a boring move set, isnt extraoridinary on the mic, doesnt have the ability to get people TRULY interested in his character or direction.... hes just a midcarder... same with bryan.
everyone wants to get bent out of shape about kevin nash's comments, but in a way theyre true. almost every single person im friends with was a wrestling fan growing up during the 90's/very early 2000's. you know how many still are besides me? 2.... and you know how many find the current product truly interesting in more than just 1 angle or 2? ZERO. why do current episodes of raw do a fraction of what they used to when now they have 'real wrestlers' and not a bunch of 'roid heads' and 'hardcore idiots'?
every time i try to get my friends who USED to watch to watch again, they just ask 'who are these skinny, boring guys? this sucks'. not saying youve gotta be huge to be entertaining, but why is it that so many people would opt out of watching cm punk v. daniel bryan live to 'watch your old dvd with test v. shane mcmahon' or something? neither test, nor shane, would be considered 'good wrestlers' by today's fan's standards, would they?
i remember saying the best 'pure wrestling' match ever was RVD v. jerry lynn at LD '99. now people scoff at that, and if its not ROH or something, they dont wanna hear it. why do the 'casual' fans say that mick foley getting thrown off HIAC is more entertaining to watch than whatever your 2 favorite current wwe wrestlers are?
so what makes a good wrestler? i always thought it was a combination (in not particular order) of look, charisma, character, and in-ring ability (having move sets with more than 3 moves NOT including submissions). now it seems like a wrestler 'sucks' if he cant perform a good headlock, or have his match move at a snails pace. so what is it these days? did these fans watch wrestling throughout the 90's and just now voice their opinions more bc of the rise of social media, or is this a new thing? everyone wants to hate on tna, but their matches are 10x more entertaining to watch (in my opinion) than wwe (sans matches including hogan, flair, sting, etc)
it seems like everyone wants to be like jim f'n cornette these days and complain about how this wrestler or that wrestler cant 'wrestle', but then speak highly of some mid-carder, that isnt interesting, with a boring move set. on that note, has jim cornette ever liked ANYTHING that he didnt have a part of? (thats a whole different rant.....)......so, to a mark, what EXACTLY makes one a 'great wrestler'? and are they still a 'great wrestler' if they 'sell out' and spend years in wwe? is it bc of the new fans? what am i missing in making a determination of what a 'good wrestler' is? is it only wrestling when there are headlocks and submissions? why when a guys moveset consists of sidewalk slam, spinebuster, powerbomb, gorilla press, etc, does he suck, yet when a guy punches, kicks, does a ddt, a powerslam, and a bunch of made-up submissions hes 'a really great wrestler'?
am i just jaded and wanting to relive the 'glory days' or the 90's, or has the landscape really changed? imo, there are 5 or less FULL TIME guys in wwe that are entertaining, and therefore, not enough people to have entertaining matches.
maybe this should go in the venting section, but it is a serious question that ive had for a few years now, mostly based off the annoying, pompous marks who write the columns and news articles that i read to stay abreast of whats happening behind the scenes in the wrestling world.
so i started watching wrestling as a kid back around late 92/93 and pretty much ate it up and loved everyone and everything about it. looking back, there were guys i liked who were, by anyones opinion, bad wrestlers. my 2nd favorite wrestler was the giant gonzalez. what can i say? i was like 6 years old and the dude was a complete monster, nothing like anything i'd ever seen. now, i realize his wrestling ability was non-existant, but back then i couldnt get enough just based on his look/heel persona (loved heels since day 1).
on the flipside, there seem to be guys that no one denies as being legendary. my #1 favorite wrestler since day 1 was hbk (although, post-hiatus hbk wasnt as entertaining), who seemed to have it all (look, charisma, in ring ability).
basically, i like whoever entertains me, but it seems like these days, the 'good' wrestlers are the short, small, cookie-cutter guys with short hair that can move around, while the big, dominant guys are the 'bad' wrestlers. what does it take to be considered 'good'? to me, it SURE AS HELL doesnt mean entertaining to watch perform or very entertaining with regard to their character/angles.
obviously big guys like khali and big show suck bc they literally walk out, punch some people, then either win or lose the match by doing a terrible move (although show was really that bad back in the 90's, but hes way too fat now to move around much). but why the hate for guys like ryback and mason ryan? as ive said in another thread, at least they do more than just punch and kick and make it look like what theyre doing is actually painful and that theyre actually beating the crap out of the other guy.
now it seems that smaller guys are the only ones that are considered good. i just dont see it. obviously one can make up for lacking size by excelling at putting on an entertaining match (see hbk), but what defines 'entertaining' these days? i think of it as being on the edge of your seat the whole time, and actually having an interest in who wins (last match that really did that for me was brock v. cena or hhh v. undertaer HIAC). whats so great about daniel bryan? sure, his catch phrase is catchy, but why does everyone mark out over him? his matches are ok, i guess, but hes just a technical wrestler. not a power wrestler, not a high flyer. same with christian, rhodes, miz, adr, orton, sheamus (well, i guess hes a 'power' guy, but his moves suck), swagger, ziggler (although hes got a great look and i LOVE the way he sells, so i enjoy his matches), sandow, santino, etc, etc, etc, etc.
whats so special about guys like bryan, miz, christian, etc? their matches ARENT exciting to the casual fan (ill get to that later), their looks arent that great, and at best, theyve got somewhat entertaining mic skills.
ive heard SOOO many people talk about how much triple h sucks and only got to where he is based off his influence. WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??? triple h was entertaining as hell in the late 90's and still is today. he was an INCREDIBLE heel in the late 90's/early 00's and had people truly HATE him, and he could always bring the house down in an entertaining match where he just goes all out as the 'ruthless, cerebral assassin' (although, admittedly, it was often times as result of guys like foley allowing him to beat the ever living shit out of them).
people tout christian as 'the best wrestler in wwe'. why? he's skinny, has a boring move set, isnt extraoridinary on the mic, doesnt have the ability to get people TRULY interested in his character or direction.... hes just a midcarder... same with bryan.
everyone wants to get bent out of shape about kevin nash's comments, but in a way theyre true. almost every single person im friends with was a wrestling fan growing up during the 90's/very early 2000's. you know how many still are besides me? 2.... and you know how many find the current product truly interesting in more than just 1 angle or 2? ZERO. why do current episodes of raw do a fraction of what they used to when now they have 'real wrestlers' and not a bunch of 'roid heads' and 'hardcore idiots'?
every time i try to get my friends who USED to watch to watch again, they just ask 'who are these skinny, boring guys? this sucks'. not saying youve gotta be huge to be entertaining, but why is it that so many people would opt out of watching cm punk v. daniel bryan live to 'watch your old dvd with test v. shane mcmahon' or something? neither test, nor shane, would be considered 'good wrestlers' by today's fan's standards, would they?
i remember saying the best 'pure wrestling' match ever was RVD v. jerry lynn at LD '99. now people scoff at that, and if its not ROH or something, they dont wanna hear it. why do the 'casual' fans say that mick foley getting thrown off HIAC is more entertaining to watch than whatever your 2 favorite current wwe wrestlers are?
so what makes a good wrestler? i always thought it was a combination (in not particular order) of look, charisma, character, and in-ring ability (having move sets with more than 3 moves NOT including submissions). now it seems like a wrestler 'sucks' if he cant perform a good headlock, or have his match move at a snails pace. so what is it these days? did these fans watch wrestling throughout the 90's and just now voice their opinions more bc of the rise of social media, or is this a new thing? everyone wants to hate on tna, but their matches are 10x more entertaining to watch (in my opinion) than wwe (sans matches including hogan, flair, sting, etc)
it seems like everyone wants to be like jim f'n cornette these days and complain about how this wrestler or that wrestler cant 'wrestle', but then speak highly of some mid-carder, that isnt interesting, with a boring move set. on that note, has jim cornette ever liked ANYTHING that he didnt have a part of? (thats a whole different rant.....)......so, to a mark, what EXACTLY makes one a 'great wrestler'? and are they still a 'great wrestler' if they 'sell out' and spend years in wwe? is it bc of the new fans? what am i missing in making a determination of what a 'good wrestler' is? is it only wrestling when there are headlocks and submissions? why when a guys moveset consists of sidewalk slam, spinebuster, powerbomb, gorilla press, etc, does he suck, yet when a guy punches, kicks, does a ddt, a powerslam, and a bunch of made-up submissions hes 'a really great wrestler'?
am i just jaded and wanting to relive the 'glory days' or the 90's, or has the landscape really changed? imo, there are 5 or less FULL TIME guys in wwe that are entertaining, and therefore, not enough people to have entertaining matches.
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
From a purely technical standpoint, a good wrestler has a wide variety of signature moves, often with some of them being quite synonymous with the performer. They have to be able to smoothly transition into their moves, and they have to be smoothly executed, making it clear to the viewer that this wrestler knows his techniques inside and out, a force to be reckoned with.
A good wrestler needs a high level of intensity, a guy who gives off an impression that he's got a freaking purpose to fulfill in his matches, that he's there to prove a point over and over again.
Also, ring psychology and pacing is very important, being able to work the crowd for maximum interest is crucial. A boring wrestler is not a good wrestler, he's just a guy who's memorized a bunch of moves.
A good wrestler needs a high level of intensity, a guy who gives off an impression that he's got a freaking purpose to fulfill in his matches, that he's there to prove a point over and over again.
Also, ring psychology and pacing is very important, being able to work the crowd for maximum interest is crucial. A boring wrestler is not a good wrestler, he's just a guy who's memorized a bunch of moves.
just a warning.....this is a long-winded and opinion-oriented post. however, it is a serious question, but im sure im going to get hate for it, so thats just a warning. my favorite replies are ones saying how 'boring' posts were.... well.... this ones long, so just dont read it if youre that type of guy (or girl).
maybe this should go in the venting section, but it is a serious question that ive had for a few years now, mostly based off the annoying, pompous marks who write the columns and news articles that i read to stay abreast of whats happening behind the scenes in the wrestling world.
so i started watching wrestling as a kid back around late 92/93 and pretty much ate it up and loved everyone and everything about it. looking back, there were guys i liked who were, by anyones opinion, bad wrestlers. my 2nd favorite wrestler was the giant gonzalez. what can i say? i was like 6 years old and the dude was a complete monster, nothing like anything i'd ever seen. now, i realize his wrestling ability was non-existant, but back then i couldnt get enough just based on his look/heel persona (loved heels since day 1).
on the flipside, there seem to be guys that no one denies as being legendary. my #1 favorite wrestler since day 1 was hbk (although, post-hiatus hbk wasnt as entertaining), who seemed to have it all (look, charisma, in ring ability).
basically, i like whoever entertains me, but it seems like these days, the 'good' wrestlers are the short, small, cookie-cutter guys with short hair that can move around, while the big, dominant guys are the 'bad' wrestlers. what does it take to be considered 'good'? to me, it SURE AS HELL doesnt mean entertaining to watch perform or very entertaining with regard to their character/angles.
obviously big guys like khali and big show suck bc they literally walk out, punch some people, then either win or lose the match by doing a terrible move (although show was really that bad back in the 90's, but hes way too fat now to move around much). but why the hate for guys like ryback and mason ryan? as ive said in another thread, at least they do more than just punch and kick and make it look like what theyre doing is actually painful and that theyre actually beating the crap out of the other guy.
now it seems that smaller guys are the only ones that are considered good. i just dont see it. obviously one can make up for lacking size by excelling at putting on an entertaining match (see hbk), but what defines 'entertaining' these days? i think of it as being on the edge of your seat the whole time, and actually having an interest in who wins (last match that really did that for me was brock v. cena or hhh v. undertaer HIAC). whats so great about daniel bryan? sure, his catch phrase is catchy, but why does everyone mark out over him? his matches are ok, i guess, but hes just a technical wrestler. not a power wrestler, not a high flyer. same with christian, rhodes, miz, adr, orton, sheamus (well, i guess hes a 'power' guy, but his moves suck), swagger, ziggler (although hes got a great look and i LOVE the way he sells, so i enjoy his matches), sandow, santino, etc, etc, etc, etc.
whats so special about guys like bryan, miz, christian, etc? their matches ARENT exciting to the casual fan (ill get to that later), their looks arent that great, and at best, theyve got somewhat entertaining mic skills.
ive heard SOOO many people talk about how much triple h sucks and only got to where he is based off his influence. WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??? triple h was entertaining as hell in the late 90's and still is today. he was an INCREDIBLE heel in the late 90's/early 00's and had people truly HATE him, and he could always bring the house down in an entertaining match where he just goes all out as the 'ruthless, cerebral assassin' (although, admittedly, it was often times as result of guys like foley allowing him to beat the ever living shit out of them).
people tout christian as 'the best wrestler in wwe'. why? he's skinny, has a boring move set, isnt extraoridinary on the mic, doesnt have the ability to get people TRULY interested in his character or direction.... hes just a midcarder... same with bryan.
everyone wants to get bent out of shape about kevin nash's comments, but in a way theyre true. almost every single person im friends with was a wrestling fan growing up during the 90's/very early 2000's. you know how many still are besides me? 2.... and you know how many find the current product truly interesting in more than just 1 angle or 2? ZERO. why do current episodes of raw do a fraction of what they used to when now they have 'real wrestlers' and not a bunch of 'roid heads' and 'hardcore idiots'?
every time i try to get my friends who USED to watch to watch again, they just ask 'who are these skinny, boring guys? this sucks'. not saying youve gotta be huge to be entertaining, but why is it that so many people would opt out of watching cm punk v. daniel bryan live to 'watch your old dvd with test v. shane mcmahon' or something? neither test, nor shane, would be considered 'good wrestlers' by today's fan's standards, would they?
i remember saying the best 'pure wrestling' match ever was RVD v. jerry lynn at LD '99. now people scoff at that, and if its not ROH or something, they dont wanna hear it. why do the 'casual' fans say that mick foley getting thrown off HIAC is more entertaining to watch than whatever your 2 favorite current wwe wrestlers are?
so what makes a good wrestler? i always thought it was a combination (in not particular order) of look, charisma, character, and in-ring ability (having move sets with more than 3 moves NOT including submissions). now it seems like a wrestler 'sucks' if he cant perform a good headlock, or have his match move at a snails pace. so what is it these days? did these fans watch wrestling throughout the 90's and just now voice their opinions more bc of the rise of social media, or is this a new thing? everyone wants to hate on tna, but their matches are 10x more entertaining to watch (in my opinion) than wwe (sans matches including hogan, flair, sting, etc)
it seems like everyone wants to be like jim f'n cornette these days and complain about how this wrestler or that wrestler cant 'wrestle', but then speak highly of some mid-carder, that isnt interesting, with a boring move set. on that note, has jim cornette ever liked ANYTHING that he didnt have a part of? (thats a whole different rant.....)......so, to a mark, what EXACTLY makes one a 'great wrestler'? and are they still a 'great wrestler' if they 'sell out' and spend years in wwe? is it bc of the new fans? what am i missing in making a determination of what a 'good wrestler' is? is it only wrestling when there are headlocks and submissions? why when a guys moveset consists of sidewalk slam, spinebuster, powerbomb, gorilla press, etc, does he suck, yet when a guy punches, kicks, does a ddt, a powerslam, and a bunch of made-up submissions hes 'a really great wrestler'?
am i just jaded and wanting to relive the 'glory days' or the 90's, or has the landscape really changed? imo, there are 5 or less FULL TIME guys in wwe that are entertaining, and therefore, not enough people to have entertaining matches.
As a kid, i started watching WCW first and then WWE AE. My POV is purely based on how my taste has evolved. Initially, as a kid, everyone would like somebody they want to be when they grow up. There is no rationale or Kayfabe to a kid. So as a kid, good looking huge guys are preferred, huge not in height but say like John Cena who has huge arms and an excellent physique. Once you mature into teens, you start to look in the view that which guy can I become more easily and realistically if I put in some work, say CM Punk, good attitude but not in an excellent peak physical condition. Once you cross your teens and are in reach of say 26-27, you start to look at a guy who you can be without putting much effort, say Christian wearing a loose Tee would look like the guy next door and hence such guys are preferred, attitude takes a back seat. Here height comes in, for you tend to prefer the guy who is around your size meaning you are not willing to put in the physical effort to emulate your hero and hence you pick your hero around your size. Going forth, I guess, I will again move back to guys without being influenced by whether I can be like him and then the guys who do well in the ring would start to matter more than what they look like or how big they are.
The level of maturity blurs the age border for each of the stage, say a guy can prefer in ring abilities at 18 if he is matured enough to jump stages but that would be the general flow. My younger brother is following the pattern now and is a fanatic of John Cena and always talks more about how big his arms are flexing his own than his fighting ability or charisma.
I guess that is how things work.
yeah, but some people (including me) are in their mid to lates 20's and still prefer the big guys. i think thats what the casual fan looks for, unless theyre doing something to really WOW the casual fan (mick foley, etc).
regarding signature moves, my beef with the 'good wrestlers' of todays era in wwe, is that many of them only have a few signature moves, and theyre all kind of stupid (ie, christian, orton, etc). for me personally, id rather see a high flying spot or an intense move than one that is just 'unique' (ortons ddt, christians jump over rope and slap), but it seems like those aren't 'good wrestling' in the eyes of marks and people like jim cornette. i always thought you were a 'good wrestler' when you did a lot of submissions and headlocks, but one of cena's trademark moves now is the headlock move he does, and people still say he 'cant wrestle'.
regarding signature moves, my beef with the 'good wrestlers' of todays era in wwe, is that many of them only have a few signature moves, and theyre all kind of stupid (ie, christian, orton, etc). for me personally, id rather see a high flying spot or an intense move than one that is just 'unique' (ortons ddt, christians jump over rope and slap), but it seems like those aren't 'good wrestling' in the eyes of marks and people like jim cornette. i always thought you were a 'good wrestler' when you did a lot of submissions and headlocks, but one of cena's trademark moves now is the headlock move he does, and people still say he 'cant wrestle'.
Well, I started watching in 1999 as a four year old. It was one of the episodes before St. Valentine's Day Massacre. Anyways, I always hung around my older brother Emery because I thought he was the coolest person ever. So, one Monday night I saw him watching some big guys pucnching each other and I asked him(more like begged at whimpered) if I could watch along. When I watched I saw The Rock for the very first time & I was instantly hooked to everything he said. I even hated Foley for spending his money. I never saw anyone with such grace and style like The Rock and that's when I realised where my brother got all his insults and his eyebrow raising from. So, after this I wanted to watch more and more. But, because I was so young, my dad and my grandmother didn't want me to watch. My dad didn't want me to watch because it was a lil advanced for my age but he would always tell me about the Golden Age of wrestling as he's been a fan since about 82. My grandmother thought that pro wrestling or "wrasslin" as she called it when she wanted to mock it, was for people with nothing to do. Basically, if it wasn't educational to her, it wasn't worth watching. Though, I used to poke fun at her for making fun of wrestling while she was an avid fan of soap operas and would act like a "mark" whenever something dramatic happened.
So, my brother and sometimes my sister would(they were twins like me so we connected better as siblings)would sneak me out of my room and let me watch with them. My dad hardly got to watch much because he worked offshore and was only home a week or two per month. As I watched more, I became I huge fan of Triple H, The Rock, & Kane. Which was funny because Triple H and Rock feuded so much from 99-00. Now as a 4-5 year old in 99(hit 5 in Sept.)I didn't pay much attention to matches. I wanted to see The Rock cut those promos and raise that eyebrow(I had a crush on him and still do), Triple H just act like a jerk to people(I thouht it was halirious and I actually thought that he was bitten by that snake), and I liked Kane because he kind of represented who I was as a 4-5 year old. I didn't blow things up or wear a mask but I always felt like I was in the shadow of my sister Crystal like Kane was in Taker's shadow. I didn't really speak much because I was painfully shy and just felt like an oddball. Plus, I liked burning my toys on the stove or in the microwave(caugt a lot of ass whippings for it).
Ok so fast forward to present day soon to be 18 me & I've vastly changed from that 4-5 year old fan in 99. When I think of a good wrestler, I think of someone who can entertain me. I won't call out someone who is a bad wrestler unless it's obvious& watching their matches seem like torture(Khali, Ryan,Big Show). Even if a wrestler isn't a good talker, there are other areas that they can entertain me in. I don't care for Bryan while he's on the mic but damn do I love to see him wrestle a match. Some great talkers have never interested me one bit. Ex: Punk. I will admit that I've never found him interesting until his whole summer of Punk thing. I knew that he was good if not great but I never really cared for him. You don't need to work a 15 min+ match with a bunch of technical moves for it to be a good match. For me it all depends on how you use those techinal moves and when you do them. Just pulling off a random monkey flip or doing a bucnh of arm drags(do the wrestlers still use these? I haven't really watched a match in three months)does make a match any better. It only makes it look like some tryout match. A match has to flow together and it has to connect with the crowd. I don't care it at one point both wrestlers spend 10 minutes gassed of "knocked out". If they can get the crowd into it and me as a fan into, they've performed a good match. To be honest, I just cannot get into indy matches. I just can't. I would honestly rather watch an old school ECW match with Sabu and Sandman beating the crap outta each other and damn near breaking their necks then watch an indy match. But, that's just me.
So, my brother and sometimes my sister would(they were twins like me so we connected better as siblings)would sneak me out of my room and let me watch with them. My dad hardly got to watch much because he worked offshore and was only home a week or two per month. As I watched more, I became I huge fan of Triple H, The Rock, & Kane. Which was funny because Triple H and Rock feuded so much from 99-00. Now as a 4-5 year old in 99(hit 5 in Sept.)I didn't pay much attention to matches. I wanted to see The Rock cut those promos and raise that eyebrow(I had a crush on him and still do), Triple H just act like a jerk to people(I thouht it was halirious and I actually thought that he was bitten by that snake), and I liked Kane because he kind of represented who I was as a 4-5 year old. I didn't blow things up or wear a mask but I always felt like I was in the shadow of my sister Crystal like Kane was in Taker's shadow. I didn't really speak much because I was painfully shy and just felt like an oddball. Plus, I liked burning my toys on the stove or in the microwave(caugt a lot of ass whippings for it).
Ok so fast forward to present day soon to be 18 me & I've vastly changed from that 4-5 year old fan in 99. When I think of a good wrestler, I think of someone who can entertain me. I won't call out someone who is a bad wrestler unless it's obvious& watching their matches seem like torture(Khali, Ryan,Big Show). Even if a wrestler isn't a good talker, there are other areas that they can entertain me in. I don't care for Bryan while he's on the mic but damn do I love to see him wrestle a match. Some great talkers have never interested me one bit. Ex: Punk. I will admit that I've never found him interesting until his whole summer of Punk thing. I knew that he was good if not great but I never really cared for him. You don't need to work a 15 min+ match with a bunch of technical moves for it to be a good match. For me it all depends on how you use those techinal moves and when you do them. Just pulling off a random monkey flip or doing a bucnh of arm drags(do the wrestlers still use these? I haven't really watched a match in three months)does make a match any better. It only makes it look like some tryout match. A match has to flow together and it has to connect with the crowd. I don't care it at one point both wrestlers spend 10 minutes gassed of "knocked out". If they can get the crowd into it and me as a fan into, they've performed a good match. To be honest, I just cannot get into indy matches. I just can't. I would honestly rather watch an old school ECW match with Sabu and Sandman beating the crap outta each other and damn near breaking their necks then watch an indy match. But, that's just me.
Sorry, I just have to say this:
If you are going to write a crazy long post, you should really use capitalization.
Maybe it's just me, but I can't read something that long without it.
Quick posts to get your point across, I don't mind at all but this was pretty annoying to read all the way through and I honestly just skimmed through most of it.
Anyways, I don't really know how to answer this to be honest. I consider Dolph Ziggler, Jericho, CM Punk, Daniel Bryan to be good. I think they are good because their matches always seem to flow and they aren't slow and boring. I hate wrestlers who will do a move then walk around or stand there or something. (Big show...)
If you are going to write a crazy long post, you should really use capitalization.
Maybe it's just me, but I can't read something that long without it.
Quick posts to get your point across, I don't mind at all but this was pretty annoying to read all the way through and I honestly just skimmed through most of it.
Anyways, I don't really know how to answer this to be honest. I consider Dolph Ziggler, Jericho, CM Punk, Daniel Bryan to be good. I think they are good because their matches always seem to flow and they aren't slow and boring. I hate wrestlers who will do a move then walk around or stand there or something. (Big show...)
capitalization takes too much time, haha.
i agree about the flow, but it seems these days that slow-paced/submission laced matches are the 'good' matches, where those with huge spots or high flyers are just 'stuntmen' or 'garbage wrestlers'.
i also agree with the previous poster regarding old school hardcore matches, but im a big hardcore guy myself, so. i dont know, maybe my gripe with todays wwe guys is that their personalities or gimmicks just arent interesting enough. now its more of an 'im so great, im better than ::insert face wrestler here::'.... theres not as much incentive to keep up with the matches if i dont care about the angle.
id say the best match ive seen in a LONG time was triple h v. undertaker in HIAC. they captivated me and kept me on the edge of my seat, and after the superkick AND pedigree, i seriously thought undertaker was going to lose. i was actually emotionally invested in that match, which i think makes all the difference. in my opinion, those guys are two of the greatest ever, and its a treat when they still compete, but others would say thats stupid. theres strong hate for triple h on the internet, but i think hes entertaining in the ring, sells well, takes bumps well, can carry the pace, has a GREAT look, is entertaining on the mic (more so in the 90s-00s, but still), and can cut a great promo. to me hes the total package, but on the internet everyone is like 'hhh sucks and wouldnt be where he is now without the kliq, stephanie, etc' and i just dont understand how i can have such a completely different view from so many 'insiders' and 'smarks'. like, what do they see thats so bad that i dont see?
i agree about the flow, but it seems these days that slow-paced/submission laced matches are the 'good' matches, where those with huge spots or high flyers are just 'stuntmen' or 'garbage wrestlers'.
i also agree with the previous poster regarding old school hardcore matches, but im a big hardcore guy myself, so. i dont know, maybe my gripe with todays wwe guys is that their personalities or gimmicks just arent interesting enough. now its more of an 'im so great, im better than ::insert face wrestler here::'.... theres not as much incentive to keep up with the matches if i dont care about the angle.
id say the best match ive seen in a LONG time was triple h v. undertaker in HIAC. they captivated me and kept me on the edge of my seat, and after the superkick AND pedigree, i seriously thought undertaker was going to lose. i was actually emotionally invested in that match, which i think makes all the difference. in my opinion, those guys are two of the greatest ever, and its a treat when they still compete, but others would say thats stupid. theres strong hate for triple h on the internet, but i think hes entertaining in the ring, sells well, takes bumps well, can carry the pace, has a GREAT look, is entertaining on the mic (more so in the 90s-00s, but still), and can cut a great promo. to me hes the total package, but on the internet everyone is like 'hhh sucks and wouldnt be where he is now without the kliq, stephanie, etc' and i just dont understand how i can have such a completely different view from so many 'insiders' and 'smarks'. like, what do they see thats so bad that i dont see?
I personally like wrestlers who mix it up and use different moves. It makes matches more unpredictable and interesting. It doesn't really matter how many moves you know really. Just have to mix things up and keep people on the edge.
For me if a wrestler can evolve characters while keeping popularity its a huge quality, as is being able to 'comeback' from a poor angle to re-invent themself as well as being able to return from long-term injury yet pick up where they left off as if they'd never been away.
The biggest skill a wrestler can have is being able to get fans emotionally invested continuously for long periods of their career whether its as a Babyface or a Heel; originality of moveset only helps to individualize a wrestler so I guess over time that 'originality' becomes as predictable as another regular moveset of a wrestler - only difference there is fan preference to a wrestling style.
The biggest skill a wrestler can have is being able to get fans emotionally invested continuously for long periods of their career whether its as a Babyface or a Heel; originality of moveset only helps to individualize a wrestler so I guess over time that 'originality' becomes as predictable as another regular moveset of a wrestler - only difference there is fan preference to a wrestling style.
The execution of moves doesnt really bother me that much. If Cena cant do an STFU or clumsily does monkey flips its not a big issue. What is a big issue is psychology. The Rock gets a bad reputation in ring but he had a great move set. He could perform them quickly albeit not the greatest execution (overhead belly to belly or sharpshooter). He also has the ability to taunt the crowd and for me that one little stare into the audience can be more effective than doing a move.
I admit you kind of lost me when you said Bryan matches aren't exciting to the casual fan. One glance at the crowd would tell you otherwise.
I've never wrestled professionally. Just amateur. But I wanna see u flip out. Sooooo. Diesel was a terrible draw. There! I give u permission to flip!!!oh, and if i hear one more person who has NEVER BEEN A PROFESSIONAL WRESTLER FOR WWE OR WCW talk about 'drawing', im gonna flip out
Haha, this was a thread that I created 3 years ago upon creating my account (I thought bumping old threads was a no-no?).
Anyway, I just remember not understanding why people said "this guy is good" and "this guy sucks." I had never frequented the IWC before, and, as a casual fan, I was shocked to see what guys the IWC loved and what guys the IWC hated. I couldn't, for the life of me, figure out why certain guys (mostly midcarders) were getting so much praise while others were getting so much hate (mostly ME guys).
I'm honestly not trying to be sarcastic when I say this, but after 3 years, I sort of get it now. The IWC (which I'm obviously a part of now - I know people here like to get all worked up when someone on the internet uses the term "IWC") tends to love the smaller more mid/low card guys, while hating the bigger (regardless of where they are on the card) guys, and tend to stop liking a guy once he gets a big push.
I created this thread out of sheer curiosity as I was completely lost as to how people were hyping Christian and Orton as "the best workers in the business" when I started frequenting this forum/reading about wrestling on the internet. I was like, "what?! Christian?!", then started seeing it over and over, and realized that despite having watched wrestling for 20 years, I didn't understand how people (smarks) determined what makes a wrestler "good" or "bad." Of course there were the obvious ones, like Great Khali being bad, but I'm speaking more generally.
Anyway, like I said, I've got a decent grasp on it now... Though, there still seems to be a lot of hypocrisy as guys are constantly getting praised until they get the push, then start getting hate.
Edit: and yes, I still hate the "draw" argument. It's so pointless and stupid. Why do any of US (people who are completely and totally unaffected by drawing) care about whether or not someone draws? As long as they're interesting and/or put on great matches, who cares?!
Anyway, I just remember not understanding why people said "this guy is good" and "this guy sucks." I had never frequented the IWC before, and, as a casual fan, I was shocked to see what guys the IWC loved and what guys the IWC hated. I couldn't, for the life of me, figure out why certain guys (mostly midcarders) were getting so much praise while others were getting so much hate (mostly ME guys).
I'm honestly not trying to be sarcastic when I say this, but after 3 years, I sort of get it now. The IWC (which I'm obviously a part of now - I know people here like to get all worked up when someone on the internet uses the term "IWC") tends to love the smaller more mid/low card guys, while hating the bigger (regardless of where they are on the card) guys, and tend to stop liking a guy once he gets a big push.
I created this thread out of sheer curiosity as I was completely lost as to how people were hyping Christian and Orton as "the best workers in the business" when I started frequenting this forum/reading about wrestling on the internet. I was like, "what?! Christian?!", then started seeing it over and over, and realized that despite having watched wrestling for 20 years, I didn't understand how people (smarks) determined what makes a wrestler "good" or "bad." Of course there were the obvious ones, like Great Khali being bad, but I'm speaking more generally.
Anyway, like I said, I've got a decent grasp on it now... Though, there still seems to be a lot of hypocrisy as guys are constantly getting praised until they get the push, then start getting hate.
Edit: and yes, I still hate the "draw" argument. It's so pointless and stupid. Why do any of US (people who are completely and totally unaffected by drawing) care about whether or not someone draws? As long as they're interesting and/or put on great matches, who cares?!
I can tell you. You're comparing back to when you were a kid for starters so you don't have a version of the 90s where you were an adult or where you knew the opinions of adult wrestling fans. You're talking like in the 90s people didn't care so much about a guy's ability to have great matches but you don't know what the early 90s equivalent of this community or any wrestling community would think.
You're also looking at the overall trend of who's popular and then saying this is what everyone likes or thinks. Well you exist and you don't think the same as "everyone" so obviously it isn't everyone, problem is other people do the same and don't include your opinion because it's in the minority. You talk about hate for Ryback when lots of people love Ryback it's just that he's not the mOST popular.
Ask yourself who eelse would be the most popular. If not the great wrestlers like Bryan Punk Cesaro Owens Rollins then who? We don't have alternatives like Hogan or The Rock who have enough charisma that they could do one move and still be adored.
You completely lose me when you get to talking about Bryan though because this is some bullshit:
"whats so great about daniel bryan? sure, his catch phrase is catchy, but why does everyone mark out over him? his matches are ok, i guess, but hes just a technical wrestler. not a power wrestler, not a high flyer"
As long as you ask why "everyone" thinks this or that then you'll never get to the truth. You might think it's semantics but it's your view of the situation so if that understanding is exaggerated or distorted then nothing else will be accurate.
His matches are ok you guess. Well other people think they're amazing which explains why they mark out for him, they love exciting awesome entertaining fights. What's bullshit is "but hes just a technical wrestler". This is just not true at all. Dean Malenko was just a technical wrestler. WWE babyface Daniel Bryan is NOT just a technical wrestler and not by a long shot. Next thing that was just false is this:
"whats so special about guys like bryan, miz, christian, etc? their matches ARENT exciting to the casual fan (ill get to that later)"
You never did get to that later and I wish you did because I don't know if I should say you're lying or you didn't have the volume up during any of 2013 or you were in a coma or what. It was the casual fans (the people you find in every single arena, the kids the parents the grandparents EVERYONE) who embraced Bryan during 2013 in his Team Hell No years not during the comedy stuff but later on during the "I'm NOT THE WEAK LINK" parts where he was a house of fire during those tag matches and six man tags against The Shield.
You type that Daniel Bryan's matches "ARENT exciting to the casual fan" and when you do you lose all credibility. You said earlier that they're "ok, i guess" and that seems to be the problem, most people love his matches but you don't and so you say the casual fan doesn't when who do you think it was blowing the roof off arena after arena after arena in summer 2013? Either that was casuals and non casuals together or every arena in the United States was filled with nothing but smart marks.
Last thing is that people who have different tastes are still out there. Speak to fans at a live event or ask different people here instead of looking at the overall trends. We're mostly adults who have been watching for decades though so it shouldn't surprise you that most of us like the wrestlers who put on the exciting matches that you for whatever reason don't enjoy as much.
Okay that was stupid long lol
You're also looking at the overall trend of who's popular and then saying this is what everyone likes or thinks. Well you exist and you don't think the same as "everyone" so obviously it isn't everyone, problem is other people do the same and don't include your opinion because it's in the minority. You talk about hate for Ryback when lots of people love Ryback it's just that he's not the mOST popular.
Ask yourself who eelse would be the most popular. If not the great wrestlers like Bryan Punk Cesaro Owens Rollins then who? We don't have alternatives like Hogan or The Rock who have enough charisma that they could do one move and still be adored.
You completely lose me when you get to talking about Bryan though because this is some bullshit:
"whats so great about daniel bryan? sure, his catch phrase is catchy, but why does everyone mark out over him? his matches are ok, i guess, but hes just a technical wrestler. not a power wrestler, not a high flyer"
As long as you ask why "everyone" thinks this or that then you'll never get to the truth. You might think it's semantics but it's your view of the situation so if that understanding is exaggerated or distorted then nothing else will be accurate.
His matches are ok you guess. Well other people think they're amazing which explains why they mark out for him, they love exciting awesome entertaining fights. What's bullshit is "but hes just a technical wrestler". This is just not true at all. Dean Malenko was just a technical wrestler. WWE babyface Daniel Bryan is NOT just a technical wrestler and not by a long shot. Next thing that was just false is this:
"whats so special about guys like bryan, miz, christian, etc? their matches ARENT exciting to the casual fan (ill get to that later)"
You never did get to that later and I wish you did because I don't know if I should say you're lying or you didn't have the volume up during any of 2013 or you were in a coma or what. It was the casual fans (the people you find in every single arena, the kids the parents the grandparents EVERYONE) who embraced Bryan during 2013 in his Team Hell No years not during the comedy stuff but later on during the "I'm NOT THE WEAK LINK" parts where he was a house of fire during those tag matches and six man tags against The Shield.
You type that Daniel Bryan's matches "ARENT exciting to the casual fan" and when you do you lose all credibility. You said earlier that they're "ok, i guess" and that seems to be the problem, most people love his matches but you don't and so you say the casual fan doesn't when who do you think it was blowing the roof off arena after arena after arena in summer 2013? Either that was casuals and non casuals together or every arena in the United States was filled with nothing but smart marks.
Last thing is that people who have different tastes are still out there. Speak to fans at a live event or ask different people here instead of looking at the overall trends. We're mostly adults who have been watching for decades though so it shouldn't surprise you that most of us like the wrestlers who put on the exciting matches that you for whatever reason don't enjoy as much.
Okay that was stupid long lol
@KD2837 ^^^ Too long to quote, but,
1. I don't think the casual fans were really into Bryan that much when I made my post back in 2012. It wasn't until a year or so later that he really picked up steam with those fans.
2. Like I said in my last post, that post was created 3 years ago when I made my first venture into the IWC. There were all these guys being hyped and "put over" that I just didn't understand. I got so many negs from that original post over THE MIZ. The 2012 Miz. The worst WWE champion I've ever personally seen with the dumbest, blandest, most generic gimmick of being "awesome."
But yeah, like I said, after being here for a few years, I've got a better grasp on it. It was just very strange joining the IWC because all of the opinions were new to me.... and my use of "everyone" was obviously just a generalization. I guess it would have been more accurate to say, "more people than not", but you know.
Edit: I also think it's worth noting that I had taken a hiatus until early 2010, so times had changed vastly with regard to the fans and what people like.
1. I don't think the casual fans were really into Bryan that much when I made my post back in 2012. It wasn't until a year or so later that he really picked up steam with those fans.
2. Like I said in my last post, that post was created 3 years ago when I made my first venture into the IWC. There were all these guys being hyped and "put over" that I just didn't understand. I got so many negs from that original post over THE MIZ. The 2012 Miz. The worst WWE champion I've ever personally seen with the dumbest, blandest, most generic gimmick of being "awesome."
But yeah, like I said, after being here for a few years, I've got a better grasp on it. It was just very strange joining the IWC because all of the opinions were new to me.... and my use of "everyone" was obviously just a generalization. I guess it would have been more accurate to say, "more people than not", but you know.
Edit: I also think it's worth noting that I had taken a hiatus until early 2010, so times had changed vastly with regard to the fans and what people like.
A lot of the big roided guys with male model looks are very one dimensional....They can tell only one type of story which is I am big , I get angry and I destroy people. Of course there are exceptions but they would have clicked with the audience because they would have displayed some kind of vulnerability and believable quality that the audience can relate too. Just like vanilla midgets, there are vanilla big guys too (Brakkus, Mason Ryan, Tom Magee, Kurrgan, Ron Reis, Zeus, Khali, Gonzalez, Ahmed Johnson, and so many others). Your size can draw fans in initially but to keep them there you need talent. Most here like big guys who have actual talent rather than wrestlers with no talent other than looking like a male bodybuilder.
The IWC is constantly trying to come to a consensus around this question, which is why there's so much frustration and so many competing factions within the IWC.
Like any art form, the only "objective" reason to call something 'bad' is it clearly fails what it is meant to do.
Wrestling, like any television program, is meant to tell stories. To that end, the "good wrestlers" are the guys who are best at telling stories.
That's really what separates pro wrestling from actual sports. Whereas with real sports, stories sometimes arise out of competition but are always arbitrary; with wrestling, the competition is driven by stories and drama.
Therefore, like I said, the best wrestlers are the best story tellers
Now the general IWC consensus is different. The general consensus is dictated by the fact that most of the IWC are basically horny, adrenaline fueled teenage boys who aren't at the stage where they can appreciate the finer points of storytelling.
So they adore the guys who deliver the best looking instances of mindless action. They love pointless blockbuster moves. They love matches that go 50/50 where none of the action is connected to a coherent plot. Or if it is, it's generic or uninteresting or redundant.
They just want shit that looks cool.
It's an issue of maturity. Most of these guys will hopefully grow out of it and come to appreciate the finer points of storytelling. The overvaluing of MOVEZ, as far as I'm concerned, is the easiest way to separate a kid smark from a more critical and intelligent viewer.
The "genre" of a match shouldn't be as important to the discussion as everyone is making it. It's about whether there's a story there. The WHAT, not necessarily the HOW.
EDIT: What I mean with the last paragraph is that this shouldn't be "big buys vs small guys". The difference between good and bad is the difference between guys who tell stories and the typical IWC darling who is a glorified move tester.
Like any art form, the only "objective" reason to call something 'bad' is it clearly fails what it is meant to do.
Wrestling, like any television program, is meant to tell stories. To that end, the "good wrestlers" are the guys who are best at telling stories.
That's really what separates pro wrestling from actual sports. Whereas with real sports, stories sometimes arise out of competition but are always arbitrary; with wrestling, the competition is driven by stories and drama.
Therefore, like I said, the best wrestlers are the best story tellers
Now the general IWC consensus is different. The general consensus is dictated by the fact that most of the IWC are basically horny, adrenaline fueled teenage boys who aren't at the stage where they can appreciate the finer points of storytelling.
So they adore the guys who deliver the best looking instances of mindless action. They love pointless blockbuster moves. They love matches that go 50/50 where none of the action is connected to a coherent plot. Or if it is, it's generic or uninteresting or redundant.
They just want shit that looks cool.
It's an issue of maturity. Most of these guys will hopefully grow out of it and come to appreciate the finer points of storytelling. The overvaluing of MOVEZ, as far as I'm concerned, is the easiest way to separate a kid smark from a more critical and intelligent viewer.
The "genre" of a match shouldn't be as important to the discussion as everyone is making it. It's about whether there's a story there. The WHAT, not necessarily the HOW.
EDIT: What I mean with the last paragraph is that this shouldn't be "big buys vs small guys". The difference between good and bad is the difference between guys who tell stories and the typical IWC darling who is a glorified move tester.
Also, when the Miz was WWE Champion, his gimmick wasn't being "awesome". His gimmick was that he was one of the most infuriating type of modern person: the condescending, entitled yuppie who thinks he's had hardships but is really just a bitch.
That's why the Miz drew such heat as champion, because most of us deal with his character daily whether in college or at work. And we all hate that guy who's like that.
His promos were good too, they conveyed the character well and got heat. I don't know what more OP is asking for. He was actually a helluva lot better than the current champion. He just booked into some dogshit feud with a fucking commentator.
That's why the Miz drew such heat as champion, because most of us deal with his character daily whether in college or at work. And we all hate that guy who's like that.
His promos were good too, they conveyed the character well and got heat. I don't know what more OP is asking for. He was actually a helluva lot better than the current champion. He just booked into some dogshit feud with a fucking commentator.
Hey all I have to say is WHAT? 2012? Sorry but I didn't realize it was a post from 3 years ago! WTF why was that even replied to? Someone's been at least 12 feet under doing some big time grave digging to pull this one out.@KD2837 ^^^ Too long to quote, but,
1. I don't think the casual fans were really into Bryan that much when I made my post back in 2012. It wasn't until a year or so later that he really picked up steam with those fans.
2. Like I said in my last post, that post was created 3 years ago when I made my first venture into the IWC. There were all these guys being hyped and "put over" that I just didn't understand. I got so many negs from that original post over THE MIZ. The 2012 Miz. The worst WWE champion I've ever personally seen with the dumbest, blandest, most generic gimmick of being "awesome."
But yeah, like I said, after being here for a few years, I've got a better grasp on it. It was just very strange joining the IWC because all of the opinions were new to me.... and my use of "everyone" was obviously just a generalization. I guess it would have been more accurate to say, "more people than not", but you know.
Edit: I also think it's worth noting that I had taken a hiatus until early 2010, so times had changed vastly with regard to the fans and what people like.
It's funny though because yeah in 2012 Bryan was gaining fans but his matches were not whipping the whole audience into a frenzy like they did a year later when he was wrestling as a gutsy babyface. I don't have anything really to say so sorry again for posting a reply and going through why you were wrong when you weren't even wrong when you said it!
I wondered why you were talking about Christian but I didn't think for a min that it might be a 3 year old post!
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Wrestling Forum
A forum community dedicated to all Wrestling enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about WWE, AEW, Ring of Honor, Impact and all forms of professional and amateur wrestling.
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Top Contributors this Month
View All
Catalanotto
747 Replies
BLISSED & LYNCHED
590 Replies
Hotdiggity11
586 Replies
Recommended Communities
