Ted DiBiase: brawler or technician

[jpchicago23]

I can agree with your second statement but still dont agree that a technical wrestler must have an assortment of moves. So would Kanyon be considered a technical wrestler? That's more of an offensive wrestler to me. But to each his own i was just using Shawn as a reference not that i think he's a world beater myself and i was honestly just thinking of guys that could wrestle and had strikes as a finish.

[Frankensteiner]

This is an aside, but how the fuck are we talking about Shawn Michaels as a technical wrestler? Even the best version of Shawn had a notably limited repertoire.

Where would we classify Shawn if not as a technical wrestler? Granted, the WWF always had a pretty loose definition of technical wrestling, but I can't really see him slotted into any other categories.

 

As an aside, what exactly are the separate wrestler groups? I can think of the following:

 

Technician

Brawler

High Flyer (included under technician?)

Power Wrestler (included under brawler?)

Monster

[Matt D]

I think we need to define what the hell we're talking about a little bit better.

[JerryvonKramer]

Of course, VON KRAMER is making a mostly WWF argument, so I imagine it's moot.

I'm not basing it entirely on WWF, if you listen to Bill Watts or Jim Ross on commentary in MidSouth they constantly put over the idea of DiBiase as a technician.

 

Any video game DiBiase has ever appeared in, any magazine article, any shoot interview would list him as a "technician".

 

I accept he has no technical masterpieces -- maybe if he'd been in JCP he'd have some, but he doesn't. And that his best matches are mostly brawls.

 

But I can't think of a single other case where the kayfabe presentation of a worker AS WELL as the view of him within the industry is so at odds with the revisionist view.

 

Although I agree that everyone needs to define their terms a bit first before we can even have this conversation.

[Dylan Waco]

Technical wrestler is largely a meaningless term. It's a gimmick term that really means nothing. Dibiase's gimmick at one point or another was technical wrestler and as Jerry noted he had a submission finish (in the WWF) so that was that.

 

If Tech means "guy who uses lots of suplexes, backbreakers well, has a basic understanding of holds and has a submission finish" it could be applied to Sheamus, Sgt. Slaughter, Terry Gordy, Greg Valentine and even Roddy Piper. But they never worked a "technical" gimmick so they aren't remembered that way.

[NintendoLogic]

A term being misused doesn't make the term meaningless.

 

Also, since when is Randy Savage a technical wrestler?

[Dylan Waco]

A term being misused doesn't make the term meaningless.

 

Also, since when is Randy Savage a technical wrestler?

Since people called him a technical wrestler which is something I have seen affixed to him at various times for years.

 

You could argue that it is a "misused" term in his case. I would argue that it's meaningless because of the fact that it's applied to a ton of different sorts of wrestlers.

[KrisZ]

Ted's whole technical deal was pretty much fluffed up by Sam Muchnick and that crew because they were building him for a NWA title run.

[Matt D]

Which goes back to needing to look at his relatively early babyface work, right?

 

Of which we don't have a ton of?

[PeteF3]

I guess I see Sheamus, Sarge, and Gordy as "power wrestlers." At some point suplexes and backbreakers went from being finishers to being "regular" moves and thus the technician/power-wrestler divide got blurrier. I don't think having a submission finish in and of itself is de facto proof of a technical wrestler. Sheamus' big thing is kicking people's heads off more than the Cloverleaf. Gordy was about picking you up and throwing you down again as much as it was the Asian Spike. Sarge at least had the kayfabe Marine training but was still about knocking people around than taking it to the mat.

 

Valentine? I don't see any issue calling him a "technician" at all. Not only did he have the figure 4 but MOST of his matches were about methodically setting the opponent up for it, Anderson-style. That's an indication of a true technical wrestler. Piper doesn't even come close--his background (kayfabe, at least) was boxing and he was all about how he grew up as a guy literally fighting his way up from the streets. That more than counteracts the fact that he had a sleeper--and earlier, a swinging neckbreaker--as a finisher.

 

Savage and Shawn are high-fliers--hit and run guys. I can't think of either guy using a submission at all outside of maybe slapping the figure four onto Ric Flair.

 

DiBiase's "technician" status is probably a triumph of hype and marketing and gimmickry over actual ability, but I guess he passes the Potter Stewart "know it when I see it" test with me. On top of just having big moves, "smoothness" is an indication of technical ability in a pro wrestling sense and DiBiase certainly had that. He had a sweet powerslam that looked like he was leveraging his opponent over than doing a Steve Williams/Davey Boy-style show of strength, and he still had a submission finish pre-MDM (the figure four--the "official" finisher which still applies even if most name opponents were finished by a glove to the head).

[Matt D]

I know I see limbwork or matwork as the key to the word

[goodhelmet]

Which goes back to needing to look at his relatively early babyface work, right?

 

Of which we don't have a ton of?

I freely admit Dibiase might have been the best technical wrestler in the world from 1975-81. From 1982-1994, he never gave any indication he was a super technical mat expert.

[ohtani's jacket]

Dibiase worked as a technical wrestler in the WWF. They were forever putting over his execution on the commentary (textbook suplex, vertical suplex and a beauty, Jess, and so on and so forth.) He was supposed to be a guy who had the skill and wrestling acumen to back up all of his cash and bravado. The definition of a technical wrestler was pretty clear at the time. It was supposed to be a guy who was a strategist and who knew his way around the ring. Someone who would work to a plan and was ring savvy. I don't think it was strictly defined as someone who could work holds as post-Backlund you didn't get a lot of that in the WWF. It was sold as someone who in a kayfabe sense could "work" (i.e. wrestle) even if that simply meant executing moves well.

[JerryvonKramer]

With Greg Valentine, I think a term like "mat grappler" might be applied. It is clear that Greg Valentine and Ted DiBiase are two different types of worker. Greg's pace was slow and methodical and a lot of his stuff was down on the mat. A lot of Dean Malenko's stuff was on the mat too. But it's clear he was more of a "scientific" worker than a Greg Valentine. Knowledge of certain holds and targeting certain bodyparts as part of a gameplan was part and parcel of what Malenko was doing. So we can say Malenko was a "mat technician".

 

So there are two mat-based workers and I've called one a "grappler" and one a "technician". Neither of them are really brawlers. I don't know if those categorisations work for more than these two examples though. I'll think of some other predominantly mat-based wrestlers: Dory Funk Jr ... "mat technician", Billy Robinson ... "mat technician". I don't know how useful "grappler" and "technican" are as distinctions here, but I think we might be able to agree that mat-based workers -- workers who do a lot of submission holds and matwork -- are a specific class of wrestler.

 

Let me name some people now: Rick Rude, Bret Hart, Paul Orndorff, Arn Anderson, Tully Blanchard, Ted DiBiase.

 

Are any of these predominantly "mat-based" wrestlers? Do they spend the majority of their matches like a Dory Funk Jr. or a Billy Robinson down on the mat in various submission holds? The answer is no. Rude might sit in a chinlock or Arn might work on a specific body part, but for the most part these are all guys who keep things going. I wouldn't call any of these guys "mat-based".

 

I'm saying one category of worker is "mat-based" as a type that is distinct from "technician".

 

Let me throw out some more terms:

 

Brawler

Technician

High-flyer

Power wrestler

Monster / Giant

 

Who are some undisputed brawlers?

 

Stan Hansen, Bruiser Brody, Jim Duggan, Roddy Piper, Ronnie Garvin

 

Who are some undisputed technicians?

 

Chris Benoit maybe? Bret Hart certainly. What about Ricky Steamboat? Yes? Flair? Harley Race? Nick Bockwinkel? Rick Martel? Curt Hennig?

 

High-flyers?

 

Rey Mysterio, Dynamite Kid, Jushin Liger

 

Power wrestlers?

 

Hulk Hogan, Lex Luger, The Barbarian, Ron Simmons, The Road Warriors

 

If we're saying Ted DiBiase isn't fitting neatly into one of those boxes how are we classifying Rude, Orndorff, Arn and Tully?

 

Tully had some of the greatest brawls and downright fucking fights of the 1980s, would anyone in the world say he was a brawler? Tully had a technical style. He did a slingshot suplex. I'd argue he's a technician first and foremost. Arn was also "scientific", he targetted bodyparts.

 

Rude, Orndorff

 

Now both of these guys had bodies, both could sell well, both could do some nice high spots, both mixed some submission holds with an array of strikes.

 

Is anyone going to argue that Rude and Orndorff were brawlers? I don't think so. Were they power wrestlers? Again, they never did your standard power man spots like the Gorilla Press or the test of strength.

 

I can only conclude that from the available types that Rude and Orndorff were "technicians".

 

Let's come back to DiBiase now.

 

If "technician" is a broad enough church to take in everyone from Chris Benoit and Bret Hart to Arn and Tully to Paul Orndorff and Rick Rude, then I don't think DiBiase looks out of place at all.

 

I wonder if we aren't in need of another term though. "Regular wrestler", "grappler", "classical professional wrestler", "all-rounder" even. Seems to me that whatever that other term is, Ted would fit in there alongside Arn, Rude, Orndorff and a whole bunch of other guys that aren't really brawlers, aren't really VERY "technical" like a Bret or Benoit and aren't really mat-based like a Dory Funk Jr.

 

Feel free to dissect this mess of a post folks.

[goodhelmet]

I think OJ's explanation would suffice. Oh, and Ron Garvin twisting dudes into pretzels isn't brawling.

[JerryvonKramer]

Ronnie Garvin isn't a brawler now?

[ohtani's jacket]

I think there is some merit in your definitions, but at the same time you're presuming that Dibiase could've worked the mat in the WWF if he'd wanted to but chose not to. I don't think anyone really worked the mat seriously in the WWF from 1988 to 1991 or however long it was that Ted's push as a singles worker lasted. The guy who worked the mat most was probably Bret Hart and he was hardly a fantastic mat worker. In the eyes of the fans he was, but not by my metric. Granted, there isn't much evidence that Dibiase was a great mat worker in other territories outside of the WWF, but I would throw matwork out when it comes to the WWF. I believe there definition of technical wrestler was based on execution.

 

Rude and Orndorff are difficult cases, though. Orndorff I almost want to call an all-rounder in cricketing terms, only I'm not sure he had the all-round skills of say a Barry Windham. He was a body type first and foremost, but his in ring ability defied his body type. Rude to me was a bump and stooge guy since his offence sucked. Again, it's hard to define as he was maybe even a brawler with crappy technical skills.

[Matt D]

When we start coming up with terms like "mat grappler" I think we're veering into dangerous territory.

[ohtani's jacket]

Isn't Jerry from a lit background? If wrestling was taken seriously academically then of course you would break it down layer upon a layer upon a layer.

[Dylan Waco]

I don't think there are all that many wrestlers who fit into neat little boxes at all. Even when trying to create rough categories there are probably as many guys who are tough to define as there are guys who more or less fit within the confines of a generally descriptive term.

[ohtani's jacket]

I also think you have to take match structures into account. Dibiase worked in an era where nine times out of ten a match would start as a straight contest and would disintegrate into a brawl, and I think most of the time the matches were defined by that pattern as opposed to brawler vs. technical wrestler.

[S.L.L.]

Also also, since when does being good at one thing preclude you from being good at another thing? No one's saying DiBiase wasn't a great technician because he was a great brawler instead, they're saying he wasn't a great technician and he was a great brawler instead. If he was a great technician, he'd be acknowledged as being that and a great brawler, because he'd have proven himself to be great at both. He didn't, so he doesn't. This doesn't really seem all that complicated to me.

[Superstar Sleeze]

Personally I am more interested in looking at genres of matches (NWA touring champ, David vs. Goliath, King's Road) rather than the styles of the individual, but since this is the topic du jour, I thought I add what I noticed. From the very basics of wrestling I figure there is really only 4 types of moves:

 

-Strikes

-Throws (suplexes, piledrivers, slams)

-Holds (side headlock, wristlock, figure-4)

-Dives (Splashes, planchas etc...)

 

I feel like a technical wrestler in the purest sense would be a Volk Han/shoot-style performer. I have not watched much lucha, but from reviews and from a bit of watching the Championship matches in Lucha tend to very well-done hold/counter-hold grappling. They would be working holds and counter-holds routinely in each match and jockeying for a win by using the science of leverage. Out of the American wrestlers I have seen, Flair is the closest to perform in this style and he only would perform in this style for the first half of each of his matches. Even a Bret Hart is hardly a technical wrestler. Off-hand besides Bret/Owen I and Bret/Backlund SStars '94, what match does Bret work hold/counter-hold for any decent amount of time. Bret worked a lot of strikes and throws throughout his matches, but he worked a very spot-oriented style of wrestling (spots that when connected often told a very coherent story), but none of the less he had his spots and those spots didn't include a single leg/back heel trip into a side-mount for a top wristlock (something that I would think would be a very technical wrestler spot).

 

It seems the only qualification in America would be to have a submission finisher and a very capable wrestler. DiBiase was a very graceful wrestler and wasn't a slam bang sort of street fighter like One Man Gang or Big Bossman, which is probably why he got slapped with that label. He was supposed to be a thinking man's wrestler and it was supposed to add another layer to his villanry.

 

Is it ok if we open this up to anyone? No offense to DiBiase, but I think there are some more interesting cases such as the Four Corners of Heaven. Are the Corners considered technical wrestlers? I think they abscond that style very apparently in all their matches. Their NJPW counter-parts seem to be much more adept at the mat. Yes, King's Road is more entertaining than Strong Style in my mind. I think the 90's All Japan matches feature a stunning lack of matwork, which is pretty amazing given the clip they run at and the length of the matches. Strong Style requires the opening matwork sequences before strike/throw finishes. So in my mind Hashimoto is actually better technical wrestler than Misawa. I feel like I am both crazy and a dope for thinking this so I want to know what people think.

 

To add genres just to throw it out there:

 

-Strikes- Brawlers - Lawler, Hansen

 

- Throws - Power wrestlers - Four Corners (Strikes were a crucial component)/American Wrestlers

 

- Holds - Shoot-style/El Dandy/Ric Flair

 

- Dives - Lucha/Indy/Crusierweight

 

Hardly any artist fits neatly into any genre of music unless they innovated said genre. Every wrestler (save for some Lucha) incorporates some sort of strike. Strong Style focuses on strikes/holds, Kings Road on Strikes/Throws, NWA Touring is Strikes/Throws/Holds.

[ohtani's jacket]

It's simpler and far easier to generalise than to break down the exact way a guy worked. If someone wanted to say that Ted Dibiase was a technical wrestler who got into a lot of fights in Mid-South then I don't think that would be entirely unreasonable. After all, there were stories and angles and reasons why Ted got into a lot of fights during his time in the territory. Wrestlers are primarily remembered as being either a heel or a face. In Japan they're remembered for a lot of their signature moves, whereas States side they're remembered for their schtick. I think it's fair to say wrestlers are primarily one thing or another, a brawler or a technical wrestler, a high flyer or a big man. Some were more of the all-rounder style and a few of them shifted styles over the years, but as I said, I think it's better to generalise because wrestling is presented in a very simple way to the customer.

 

Take Jim Breaks, for example. Breaks was a high skilled technical wrestler who preferred to needle his opponent all match long with cheap shots. When he was on the receiving end, he'd throw a tantrum and demand the ref do something about it. Invariably, his matches would disintegrate into the type of all-in, forearm contest that Kent Walton so openly despised. Was he a technical wrestler? Was he a brawler? Was he both? I'd say that it was pretty obvious that he was a fantastic technical wrestler who would be unbeatable if he could only control his temper. The audience got this because it was a common archetype for just about any heel who could wrestle. Walton would beat the audience over the head with it any time one of these guys was on the small screen (in that "I'm beating you over the head with this, but it's all right because I have silky smooth delivery and I'm sitting at ringside smoking a cigarette and drinking a gin and tonic" Ken Walton kind of way.) The fun was in baiting Breaks so that he flipped out, but primarily I think he was a technican.

 

As for the All Japan guys. According to Baba, the All Japan style was primarily about absorbing as much punishment as you could handle before making a comeback. The All Japan guys worked according to their body types and characters, mainly. I think Misawa was undisputedly a technical wrestler. He was meant to have the most perfect technique and invariably it got him out of trouble. Kawada was more of a brawler. Kobashi was primarily an athlete. And Taue was supposed to be a big man like Baba or Tsuruta. Hashimoto I think more of as a stand-up fighter and a striker. I think the technical aspects of his work would probably be looked at as the weaker part of his game if you were judging it from a fighting perspective.

 

What I don't think makes sense is to say that guys who worked the mat a lot like Billy Robinson represent the technical wrestlers and that anyone who didn't work the mat as much as a Robinson can't be classified as a technical wrestler, because Robinson came up in an era where it was still considered the mark of a great wrestler to work the mat. The NWA touring champ match as we know it doesn't really exist anymore outside of perhaps lucha title matches and some indie workers maybe trying to replicate it at times. I think it makes more sense to judge things in context.

[WingedEagle]

Fantastic post. Wish I could've laid it out just like that.