Wrestling Forum banner

1 - 20 of 39 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
You find it on various forums across the web. You can read about it anywhere you go. People preaching about what
makes a good wrestler and what doesn't. You see words like- 'work rate', 'psychology', 'technical' and so on all over the place throw around with much real weight behind. The thing is most people on the internet have no true understanding of what really makes a good wrestler.

You see, it's not about the amount of pitch perfect german suplexes a guy can do, or working the leg. It's not about being able to 'psychologically' pace a match. It's not even about being the safest wrestler. What makes a good wrestler is simply being able to get the most out of a crowd. To get the crowd/viewers invested in what you are performing.

I laugh when I see internet smarks go on constantly about how, "Jeff Hardy is a horrible 'wrestler', cause he doesn't work the leg." Jeff Hardy in reality is one of the better wrestlers, simply due to the fact that he can get a crowd emotionally invested in him. It's not because he jumps off tall things, it's not cause he's extreme. It's because he is able to emotionally communicate with the audience.

Michaels wasn't one of the greatest wrestlers ever because he technically dismantled his opponent by systematically working him down. Benoit wasn't one because he had an intense 'work rate'. They were all among the best because they were able to get the crowd into the match. That's the most important thing. I don't understand the hate on the other forms of wrestling other than technical. I mean the only reason it's there is to sound "smart" or different.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,254 Posts
You make a few good points, but to make an audience get emotionally invested in your work, you need to win them over with your skills. Bret Hart won fans over with his technical skills, Shawn Michaels won the crowd over with his charisma and Jeff Hardy won people over, well, but jumping off tall things and having a look that the crowd liked.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
15,929 Posts
Story telling. That's it.
 

·
The Dynasty
Joined
·
473 Posts
Yeah, this is a smart post. Explains why Sandman was over. The dude couldn't wrestle worth shit but was super over in the ECW days.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
326 Posts
because you have guys who still don't get that it's a work and a business. you have guys who will shit on Hulk Hogan and his matches and totally ignore the FACT that the crowd is going ape shit for him. Hogan is one of the greatest WORKERS of all time. here's a guy that was 6'7 300 pounds, yet he could convince the people that guys much smaller than him were on the verge of killing him. That's the art of being a good worker. being 6 ft 200 pounds and being able to perform a moonsault doesn't.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
326 Posts
Bam. Don't give a shit how many millions Warrior made. Doesn't make his matches entertaining.
not entertaining to you, but to Vince, the WWF, and all the paying customers that cheered and painted their faces they are what counted more. the WWE wills ALWAYS be the promotion that pushes the guy that makes the most money period. it's also the reason the WWF was and always will be the number 1 company. people who prefer "workrate" or whatever can have ROH
 

·
Inappropriately tinkly music.
Joined
·
7,024 Posts
not entertaining to you, but to Vince, the WWF, and all the paying customers that cheered and painted their faces they are what counted more. the WWE wills ALWAYS be the promotion that pushes the guy that makes the most money period. it's also the reason the WWF was and always will be the number 1 company. people who prefer "workrate" or whatever can have ROH
Absolutely. Doesn't mean I have any misconceptions about what a "good" wrestler is. Thread title should be "good" wrestler =/= "good" business investment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,803 Posts
exactly. id actually replace the word wrestler with performer, but i know what you mean. and in that regard...cena is up there too. love him or hate him, you care about him and you either want to see him make a comeback or you want to see him get his ass kicked. whether you're a heel or a face, your job as a performer is to get a reaction out of people. if you do it well, they sky is the limit for you. if you get loud reactions, yet, the crowd is kind of dull when you're in the ring...you're gonna be stuck in the same place forever.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,374 Posts
Good and bad is in the eye of the beholder. One person says Lance Storm is boring as hell, someone on the next site might call him one of the best technical wrestlers of his generation, which is why they love him. In the end its all biased anyways. I love wrestlers for different reasons. I like Bret Hart for his technical skills, Taker since I was a kid cuz of his gimmick, Warrior for his energy in the ring, Savage for several different reasons, and guys like Austin and Rock cuz of their charisma and promos. Its all here and there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,807 Posts
So you think Chris Benoit would have the crowd in the palm of his hand if he wasn't so intense and perfect at executing the moves? If Benoit had the skill set of say... Hulk Hogan? He'd be a nobody. Hulk Hogan had character and charisma - that's why people cared about his matches. Benoit didn't have that luxury. Everyone gets over on different factors - some their workrate, some their moveset and some just sheer charisma.

If Hardy wasn't jumping off those ladders as a young un, he'd be a nobody too. I'm not saying that's a bad thing - they were a young exciting tag team who took chances - the crowd loved it - heck I loved it - but that's why the crowd were invested in Jeff.

Yes, pacing matches is as important a part of ring psychology as anything else and is maybe overlooked by so called smarks - but that doesn't mean that the other factors aren't important.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
Thank you for the input. But you have missed my point. I wasn't trying to claim that Benoit and such weren't popular because of their work rate. I didn't mean that. What I was trying to convey was that they were great wrestlers because they were able to connect with their audience, one way or another. They were able to make people care about what they were doing.
 

·
Sheriff of Piltover
Joined
·
2,880 Posts
You find it on various forums across the web. You can read about it anywhere you go. People preaching about what
makes a good wrestler and what doesn't. You see words like- 'work rate', 'psychology', 'technical' and so on all over the place throw around with much real weight behind. The thing is most people on the internet have no true understanding of what really makes a good wrestler.

You see, it's not about the amount of pitch perfect german suplexes a guy can do, or working the leg. It's not about being able to 'psychologically' pace a match. It's not even about being the safest wrestler. What makes a good wrestler is simply being able to get the most out of a crowd. To get the crowd/viewers invested in what you are performing.

I laugh when I see internet smarks go on constantly about how, "Jeff Hardy is a horrible 'wrestler', cause he doesn't work the leg." Jeff Hardy in reality is one of the better wrestlers, simply due to the fact that he can get a crowd emotionally invested in him. It's not because he jumps off tall things, it's not cause he's extreme. It's because he is able to emotionally communicate with the audience.

Michaels wasn't one of the greatest wrestlers ever because he technically dismantled his opponent by systematically working him down. Benoit wasn't one because he had an intense 'work rate'. They were all among the best because they were able to get the crowd into the match. That's the most important thing. I don't understand the hate on the other forms of wrestling other than technical. I mean the only reason it's there is to sound "smart" or different.
I think you are confused between the word "Wrestler" and "Entertainer".

Yes, Jeff Hardy is over with the crowd and he entertains the masses. No, he is not a great wrestler.

By this logic (which I agree with you on to an extent) Bubba Ray Dudley is one of the greatest wrestlers ever, because his "Psychology" in the ring is like no other, same goes for Christian.

What truly makes somebody great, is if they are over with the crowd (bad or good) and put on great matches.
 

·
Old School
Joined
·
4,783 Posts
Jeff Hardy wasn't a good wrestler, he was a good worker. If you're talking wrestling ability than you think of Angle, Benoit, and Flair. If you're talking about being able to work a crowd than yeah, Hardy can fall into that category because of his daredevil style, but he's nowhere near Hogan, Rock, Austin, or Savage level.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,078 Posts
Wrestling is 100% communication. It doesn't matter if you can wrestle as long as you can make the audience think you are. How you look physically to the audience, how you work the match with your opponent, how you sell your moves and your opponents, it's all communication.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
I just have one question.. What's the main point of wrestling? I always thought it was entertaining your audience. The main point of any wrestler is to be able to engage the crowd. Now you have many wrestlers that are considered to be some of the best "technical' wrestlers on the planet, but they are not able to truly engage a crowd. Now you have others that just punch and brawl but have the crowd at the palm of the hands. Why is that? Because they know how to excite the crowd and entertain the audience. That is what separates a Lance Storm from a Chris Benoit, both are technical masterminds, but in many cases the latter only knows how to convey that talent and engage the crowd.

That's what makes a good wrestler. Also I exceptionally disagree with the idea that a worker, a wrestler, and an entertainer in the ring are different. They are one in the same thing. In the end all three have a single goal. That goal is to entertain the crowd.
 

·
Anti-Hero
Joined
·
9,798 Posts
OP is correct in that a wrestlers ability to connect with the audience is paramount.

There are a lot of 'smart' fans here who are fully aware of this. That doesn't mean that we won't examine a wrestler's workrate, psychology or technical ability when deciding who we choose to cheer for, as well as the charisma/it factor.
 
1 - 20 of 39 Posts
Top