Joined
·
919 Posts
Quick thread, I am wondering how you guys would rate The Rock based on his in-ring work and skill.
I have stated his work is below average but some disagree.
I have stated his work is below average but some disagree.
The Rock, rate his in-ring performance
1 - 20 of 107 Posts
Joined
·
741 Posts
I would say that his technical ability was around a three, which I voted for, but he was a born entertainer. He, like Hogan, made a simple move a trademark. His over-the-top selling was often hilarious, but that was all part of the entertainment, in my opinion. People rave about technical skills, but at the end of the day, wrestling is about entertainment, and the Rock always delivered.
Joined
·
5,341 Posts
I say his ring work is a 3. That rating is very generous; aside from his finishers, all Rock pretty much ever did was punch. That's it. That was his move. But, just like Hogan before him (and after him 
), he was so naturally charismatic and such a great storyteller in the ring that he made up for his lack of wrestling skill with a presence that made you care.
), he was so naturally charismatic and such a great storyteller in the ring that he made up for his lack of wrestling skill with a presence that made you care.
Joined
·
4,312 Posts
I would say a 4.5. You have to work his style and his style was the best because he got more crowd reaction week after week in his matches than anyone else in his generation. He had 4 stars matches basically from the end of his IC title run to when he retired. No one really had anywhere close to such a high performance ratio except for Chris Benoit and Eddie Guerrero. All of that "punch" stuff is the same argument anyone can use when speaking on Shawn Michaels, HHH, Steve Austin, Hulk Hogan, Sting, or anyone else halfway significant. True greatness is being in peril and the fans buying it every fucking week to the point of worship chants. More imporantly...by the time he hit it big, no one outworked him on the other side of the ring. Not even Benoit and Eddie..hell, Eddie botched in their match in 2002 and I'll Benoit/Rock at Fully Loaded 00 against the most loved and overrated matches of the WWE today(Cena/HHH, Michaels/Taker I-II, Orton/Cena, Cena/Batista, any of that Morrison garbage).
Joined
·
26,780 Posts
Technically he went toe to toe with big time technical wrestlers (Benoit, Angle) so I give him a 4.
Joined
·
7,973 Posts
It depends on what you prefer as a fan. I easily voted five because despite the fact that he may not have the best technical skills, every match that he has is entertaining. He does the little things that matter in matches to make them entertaining and memorable which is all that matters in the wrestling business. It doesn't matter how many holds or submissions you know if your matches draw crickets from the crowd.
Brian Danielson is supposed to be arguably the greatest wrestler today. That doesn't mean that his matches would be more entertaining than The Rocks just because Danielson has better technical skill.
Brian Danielson is supposed to be arguably the greatest wrestler today. That doesn't mean that his matches would be more entertaining than The Rocks just because Danielson has better technical skill.
Joined
·
26,780 Posts
He always made a match interesting to watch whenever you heard "IF YA SMELLLLLLLLLLLL" it just gave everyone goosebumps.
Joined
·
10,592 Posts
Quite frankly, that's all everybody did in The Attitude Era. 00I say his ring work is a 3. That rating is very generous; aside from his finishers, all Rock pretty much ever did was punch. That's it. That was his move. But, just like Hogan before him (and after him
Joined
·
9,205 Posts
he wasn't as good a wrestler as say benoit or angle but he performed very well by my definition of the word, meaning he showed great in ring awareness and psychology, could tell a story in the ring, and entertained the fans even if he didn't have fancy submissions or suplexes in his repertoire. i'll give him a 4.
Joined
·
2,673 Posts
I'd rate him a 4. He was good.
I honestly don't know what criteria some people use. They'll rate people like The Rock average. What do you rate truly average wrestlers then? They'll rate average wrestlers crap. What do you rate truly crap wrestlers like Khali then? Do they not exist on your scale?
The Rock was a solid pro-wrestler. His matches often never called on him to go outside of his moveset. But when the occasion called for it, he'd deliver in spades. His Iron Man with Triple H, his matches with Jericho, his bouts with Hogan, Austin and many others showcased he was able to put on a variety of matches with his one style. He had what is considered most important in wrestling, storytelling. While he may not be a 5 (something like an Eddie Guerrero would truly merit), he was a good pro-wrestler and had many memorable matches, both with and without gimmicks.
He's far better than Edge, and that's someone many on these boards consider a good wrestler.
I honestly don't know what criteria some people use. They'll rate people like The Rock average. What do you rate truly average wrestlers then? They'll rate average wrestlers crap. What do you rate truly crap wrestlers like Khali then? Do they not exist on your scale?
The Rock was a solid pro-wrestler. His matches often never called on him to go outside of his moveset. But when the occasion called for it, he'd deliver in spades. His Iron Man with Triple H, his matches with Jericho, his bouts with Hogan, Austin and many others showcased he was able to put on a variety of matches with his one style. He had what is considered most important in wrestling, storytelling. While he may not be a 5 (something like an Eddie Guerrero would truly merit), he was a good pro-wrestler and had many memorable matches, both with and without gimmicks.
He's far better than Edge, and that's someone many on these boards consider a good wrestler.
Joined
·
37,907 Posts
Edge is mediocre at best, especially as a babyface.
I just don't like The Rock's overselling and general fact the way he worked exposed wrestling as being a completely fake production. I personally prefer a more realistic approach to structuring matches, but that doesn't mean I don't think the guy had his merits as well. Really enjoyed his stuff when he was with the right opponent.
I just don't like The Rock's overselling and general fact the way he worked exposed wrestling as being a completely fake production. I personally prefer a more realistic approach to structuring matches, but that doesn't mean I don't think the guy had his merits as well. Really enjoyed his stuff when he was with the right opponent.
Joined
·
9,773 Posts
well then your definition of the word is wrong. I'm sorry, just because you're a fan of someone doesn't make them great at everything, im a huge miz fan but i wouldn't argue that hes good in the ring, as hes a fucking disgrace when in the ring.
also to the guy above mcQueen, saying that only people like Eddie deserve 5, then putting the rock at 4, is insane! he was pretty freaking bad in the ring, sure he had charisma, but thats completely different than Wrestling
Joined
·
2,634 Posts
Great Athlete, the Guy stays 6'5, greater Entertainer. With a good Opponent could create a Classic. The Fans were always so into his Matches, he did not that much, but he didn't have to and that's not important. Great Storytelling, kinda a overseller but great Wrestler. Technicly not really a Benoit but he didn't need to be, he was electryfing, just his presence.
Joined
·
806 Posts
I voted 5. Maybe it's because my 12-year-old self was susceptible to hype, but he was the most electrifying man in sports entertainment. But viz. all he ever did was punch, what about the Samoan drop, the DDT or the suplex?
1 - 20 of 107 Posts
Join the discussion
