What is the importance of mic work when assessing someone?

[JerryvonKramer]

Why are we ignoring promo work? Unless I missed it, wasn't the purpose of this thread to discuss who is better, not who is better in-ring or who structures matches in a way that makes the most sense? Having a general debate about "who is better" and not factoring in promo work is a waste of time.

Better longterm draw: check. Better talker: CHECKASAURUS REX, and this is very important and hasn't been mentioned enough and the Bret supporters have absolutely no defense against it.

Sure, but as long as we're talking about shit that has nothing to do with in-ring ability, Bret has fewer failed marriages.

Is it more important than their number of successful marriages?

 

If not why? If so, why?

 

Everyone knows that it's my cast iron belief that the non-in-ring aspects of a particular worker are as important as their matches. We've had this argument before, but I'd like to have it out again. In my world, being involved in a feud that had a fantastic build with great promos is almost worth as much as being involved in a great match. For example, when thinking about DiBiase's career I'd give that DiBiase-Jake feud the same weighting as I'd give the DiBiase-Duggan multi-gimmick match (by itself). The fact that the latter ALSO had a great feud going into it puts it over the top, the former didn't have a stellar blow off so that puts a cap on its overall greatness, but I don't discount that chapter in either Jake's career or DiBiase's career because of it.

 

I understand there are people on this board -- like SLL, like Nintendologic and a whole bunch of others -- who de facto dismiss such episodes. What is the reason for doing this? A lot of blow offs don't make sense without the surrounding material, or at least they are strongly enhanced by it.

 

My argument has always been that promos, angles, skits and so on are part of the GRAMMAR of pro-wrestling. Yes, the match is always important, of course it is, that's where everything is leading to but it's only one part of a bigger picture. It's like taking a book and saying that we're only going to judge it on the final few chapters, or judging a film by only the ending. This is complicated by the fact that there ARE matches without builds. And, sometimes, there are angles and things that don't lead to matches. But the general point remains: why discard the first 3/4 of something you are looking at?

 

Here is another point: in the actual industry of pro-wrestling, great talkers are likely to have longer careers than guys who can work but not talk. When PROMOTERS are assessing a particular worker, they take their mic work into account. They take a whole host of others things too: their look, their schtik, their ability to connect with the crowd. But so-called 'smart' fans are so smart they think they just ignore that. What is the rationale for ignoring that?

 

I know that this is a particular axe that I keep on grinding, but I strongly believe that the view that considers only in-ring ability and "great matches" is poorer than the one that takes promos or total package into account. In this thread I want to chart where posters of this forum lie on this issue AND WHY.

 

Ideally, by the end of it I will have a table of people with their various positions. I have also made a poll so we can see what the majority and minority views are on this. I suspect I'm in the minority but we'll see.

[Loss]

Mic work is very important when debating mic work.

 

In-ring ability is very important when debating in-ring ability.

 

I don't think very many people would say that the ability to speak effectively isn't important in wrestling. It's just that the default scope of every argument is ring work unless otherwise specified.

[Matt D]

It depends on what sort of argument we're having, really.

 

A GOAT argument is different than a WON HOF argument.

 

A "Who is better" argument can be different than a "Wrestler of the Year" argument.

 

I think that a comparative view of what a wrestler DOES in every match he has is more important than how many Great Matches he has. So that's a difference of opinion of how to judge purely in-ring stuff.

 

You're arguing that we shouldn't be judging purely in-ring stuff as the main point of conversation on the board to begin with when I think a lot of us are most interested in that.

 

You see why it's tough to get traction here?

[Loss]

I'll put it this way: GOAT workers and GOAT wrestlers are going to be two different lists. Hogan is #1 on one of them for me. Flair is #1 on one of them for me. There's nothing wrong with debating the all-around performing ability of a wrestler, as long as it's clear that's what we're doing, and everyone is on the same page on that.

[JerryvonKramer]

I am thinking mainly of the Bret vs. Flair "Who is better" thread.

 

It seems to me that when answering that question, there are people who think that mic work is about as important as a guy's real-life love life. I think that position is untenable.

 

I accept that the "GOAT in-ring worker" conversation is only going to look at in-ring work.

[Loss]

I don't think that was Nintendo Logic's point. It was more that he thought we were debating the ringwork of Flair and Bret. I did too, and we were the loudest people in that thread, so it was one area where we agreed. If you want to debate where Flair and Bret rank as all around performers compared to each other, that's fine, but it does annoy me when people bring mic work into a conversation when the conversation solely about ringwork is well under way, because it seems like a distraction.

 

It's not to say that promo skills aren't important. I just like defining the scope of the debate early on, then sticking to it. As an all around performer (carrying yourself as a top guy, cutting promos, being true to your character, working angles in a way that make them stand out, getting people excited to see upcoming matches), Bret has his positives, but I think most would agree that Flair blows him away.

[JerryvonKramer]

Right, I don't think this was made entirely clear by Will's opening post in that thread. So what's happening in the posts I quoted up top there, is that Crossface and Jingus are having a different conversation from the one Nintendologic is having. Ok, fine.

 

Do you think though, Loss, that these things are entirely divisible? They have a big impact on each other. For example, a very effective promo can do a lot of work in prepping a crowd to behave in a certain way. Everyone agrees, I think, that a dead crowd hurts a match. A particular crowd will also affect the way a guy will work a match -- a good worker will REACT to the crowd, the BEST workers will be good enough to control it.

 

I'll give you an example of when a crowd hurt someone's performance: The Fantastics vs. Steve Williams and Kevin Sullivan from Starrcade 88. In that match, the crowd were booing The Fantastics pretty much the whole way through and it was easily the worst performance by Bobby Fulton that we'd seen and even Rogers wasn't as good as he usually was. The crowd being so down on them that night surely contributed.

 

If you accept that the premise that the crowd is always a factor in how we judge matches, then it follows that the factors that dictate the crowd are ALSO factors we need to take into account.

 

Jumbo vs. Tenryu is half the match if no one in the crowd understands the story and the history. Take that same match and put them in front of a crowd at the Royal Albert Hall who don't know who either guy is. Are you still going to say that the things outside of the ring don't matter?

 

So for all of those reasons, Loss, I don't subscribe to the dualistic thought that mic work and in-ring work are always two different conversations and that one is not relevant to the other. It's a dialectical relationship.

 

Let me put this another way: take Jim Cornette out of the Midnight Express. What are we left with?

[MJH]

Pretty much what Loss said, though I use "wrestler" and "worker" interchangeably and would have a "wrestler/worker" list versus an "overall performer" list... (or something like that anyway).

 

Too many problems arise for me if I were to include mic-work. For a start it obviously rules out Japanese and Mexican guys, as people always mention. Secondly, bringing this back to the Flair/Bret thing, even if Bret could've cut a promo like Flair, like a Roddy Piper, it wouldn't have fit his character at all. I love his little interview before the SummerSlam match with Owen. Is it a great promo in the sense of "Hard Times" or something? No, but it works perfectly for his character, and for the feud, and you can't ask for more than that.

 

Besides, someone who has a problem with how Flair wrestled is likely to have a similar problem with his promos as well. He was never at a loss for words ("stuff to do"), full of character, always with the end-goal in mind... but didn't always make a great amount of line-by-line sense (especially with a promo as cerebral as Arn beside him) and was always that bit liable, especially as he got older, to be too OTT if not characaturish.

[Cross Face Chicken Wing]

I'm the one that brought up mic work in the Bret vs. Flair thread. Perhaps I haven't been hanging around wrestling boards long enough to realize that there is an unwritten rule stating that all "Who is better" arguments center on in-ring work and nothing else. That doesn't make any sense to me, but I guess that's the rule.

 

If you want to talk about who is a better in-ring worker, then title the thread "who is a better in-ring worker." If you want to talk about who structures a match better, then title the thread "who structures a match better." If you want to talk about who is more repetitive, then title the thread "who is more repetitive." If you want to talk about who is better, then that should include everything already I already mentioned, plus mic work and other stuff. At least that's the way it should be. Not factoring in mic work into a "who is better" wrestling discussion is like not factoring defensive ability into a "who is better" discussion about two baseball players. Doesn't make any sense.

 

Anyway, I'm picking nits now. Back to Jerry's original question: the obvious answer is all of the above. You'd like to not hold it against a guy if he's thrown into a bunch of bad angles, but the great ones can turn chicken shit into chicken soup if they're good on the mic and can work.

[Loss]

Oh, I didn't mean you should have known or anything like that. (Jingus should, considering how long he has been around, but I'll leave him alone. ) It was more that I thought we were having a very specific discussion. Not that you can't add whatever you want to the thread. My intent was more to explain the norms of discussion on wrestling message boards, not to say that this is even the right way or the preferred way.

 

I think when looking at a wrestler as a total package, it is absolutely something that should be considered. But we don't often do that. Maybe we should. But we don't. And I think the main reason is something MJH touched on - we talk about wrestling globally, and it's not fair to consider it in every conversation since it's not something important in every culture. Maybe there are universal "outside the ring" things that can be considered, but the bell-to-bell time is the one thing wrestling all over the world has in common. That's why it is referenced the most.

[Matt D]

I feel like we've been going all out the last month or two as is.

 

I think we look at things pretty deeply in depth. There's room to look at more, granted.

 

And yeah, it's definitely a normative thing. If we're all talking about one thing, you can introduce another element, certainly, but in doing so, realize that you're introducing another branch of conversation.

[Cross Face Chicken Wing]

I feel like we've been going all out the last month or two as is.

 

I think we look at things pretty deeply in depth. There's room to look at more, granted.

 

And yeah, it's definitely a normative thing. If we're all talking about one thing, you can introduce another element, certainly, but in doing so, realize that you're introducing another branch of conversation.

We do look at things in-depth. Way in-depth. I now know that who is better discussions typically concern in-ring work and not other factors. By introducing other factors, we are drilling another hole, instead of drilling deeper into the hole that is already drilled. I see the point you guys are making.

 

That said, I do think mic work needs to be incorporated into the Bret/Flair discussion, even if it might not make sense in who is better type of discussions between other wrestlers. To me, the persona and character that Flair built through his mic work is a huge part of who he is. It's how most people recognize and appreciate Flair. My non-wrestling fan friends and co-workers are always quoting Ric Flair or refering back to his promos.

 

There's another factor. When engaged in these types of discussions, I try to take the temperature of the casual fan or ex-wrestling watcher when forming an objective opinion on who is "better." There I go driling another hole again...

[Matt D]

We could go on for pages about how much crowd response matters, for instance.

[El-P]

We could go on for pages about how much crowd response matters, for instance.

Most probably. And bad crowds. And good crowds.

[MJH]

We could go on for pages about how much crowd response matters, for instance.

Most probably. And bad crowds. And good crowds.

 

Yet you rarely hear people bring up the acoustics of the building or the quality of the sound equipment, hmm...

[Matt D]

For instance, I was really impressed in the WWF Rock 'n' Roll Express debut in 1993 how loud a Rock and Roll chant Gibson seemed to be leading the crowd in because it was in Portland, ME, which as far as I know, isn't exactly RnR territory.

 

Now, at the same time, I think it was taped for All American so it was one of the first matches of the night, before the crowd got tired from 2 jobbertastic syndi tapings. BUT I'm only going off Graham's site for match order on the card. For all I know they taped All American between the Superstars tapings really.

 

Etc.

[Cross Face Chicken Wing]

We could go on for pages about how much crowd response matters, for instance.

Sounds like another good topic for a thread. I could give two shits about the crowd. If they're too stupid to recognize and appreciate good wrestling, the hell with 'em.

[Dylan Waco]

A bad crowd can't make me hate a match, but a good crowd can make a decent match good, a good match great and a great match tremendous.

 

Most of my thoughts on this have already been covered in the thread, though I would note that "Who Was Better?" discussions involving anything other than work should focus less on interviews than drawing power.

[anarchistxx]

I think mic work is very important in many respects. I love good feuds, good storylines - nothing enhances a match more than a really awesome buildup and a hot crowd, and much of that is down to the mic work. Austin/Rock, Canadian Stampede, Flair/Dusty, none of that is half as exciting if it isn't for the feuding that preceded it.

 

Mic work by itself isn't completely essential. Sometimes you get workers with exceptional charisma or a strong aura, even though they might not be particularly strong on the mic - Vader comes to mind, or even Randy Orton (obviously not in the same league as Vader, but someone who gets by with his look and presence rather than any particular skills on the mic). Good writing can also make a feud special, but that still often relies on at least someone involved being able to cut a promo.

 

I'd rank someone a lot higher on a list if they cut great promos, to answer the original question. I'd much rather watch Dusty Rhodes cut a promo than work a match, most of my love for him comes from his work on the stick. The truly great workers should be able to do both, of course, which is why a lot of people regard Flair as the greatest ever.

[El-P]

A bad crowd can't make me hate a match, but a good crowd can make a decent match good, a good match great and a great match tremendous.

Yeah pretty much. A bad crowd makes me hates a crowd though (and it works in both sense, a crowd going crazy for a shit match annoys the hell out of me). That being said, a match that grabs a bad crowd and turn them around is one of the most fun stuff that can happen in the context of a wrestling show.

[Matt D]

A bad crowd can't make me hate a match, but a good crowd can make a decent match good, a good match great and a great match tremendous.

This is pretty much how I feel too for what it's worth. BUT there are people to whom it matters more.

[JerryvonKramer]

People seem to be talking about the crowd as if they are in some way autonomous from the performers in the ring, they aren't. They are PRIMED by the guys in the ring beforehand through promos, angles, vignettes and so on.

 

The massive reactions The Rock used to get during matches are more to do with his amazing promo skills than they way he drops an elbow.

 

Bobby Eaton is only going to get booed or cheered because of stuff that Jim Cornette has said and done.

 

When it comes to crowd reactions, work is only one part of the picture, and I'd warrant less of a part than the other elements (although a GREAT match can turn a lethargic crowd around, this happens, for example, during Flair vs. Garvin at Starrcade 87 -- the crowd are way down Garvin at the start but the match is so good, they pop pretty well for both him and Flair in the final third).

 

I fundamentally disagree with the idea that you can separate these elements out -- the work, the crowd, the promo skills and so on. They are all part of the picture working towards a certain end, you can't take pieces away.

 

And just because we can't speak Japanese, does not mean those elements aren't there in Japan, because they are there. You only need to watch a single Riki Choshu match to tell you that.

 

I'm not saying that we always need to talk about total package, I'm just saying that I think it is naive and even foolish to discount the impact non-wrestling elements have on how any given match is received. The crowd experiences a match as a punctuation point in a wider narrative. Context is king.

 

One reason that so many internet fans default to workrate is because of convention, they've been conditioned to think in a certain way through decades of smarkdom. Another reason is because it's much easier just to watch a single match than months of build. But look how many people picked the Memphis set as their favourite 80s set BECAUSE of the extras. Contrast the experience of watching matches on the Yearbooks with the experience of watching random matches on youtube. There is no comparison.

[Badlittlekitten]

The default position of GOAT and 'Who Is Better' type discussion seems to be in ring work only, which is the reason I don't get involved. If the voting in this thread included a "Total package (in ring, mic work plus look, other intangibles such as X Factor)" option that dropped 'drawing power' then that'll be closer to the way I would like to see wrestlers discussed. I guess what I'm saying is that I would enjoy reading a favourite of all time thread more at this point as opposed to another greatest of all time thread. Nothing wrong with the latter and I've discovered a lot of great things through this site as a result, but it gets to a point where all the lists look the same.

 

Including mic work when assessing Japanese or Mexican guys is of course problematic but it shouldn't stop them ol' intangibles being included. Plus you can get a grasp of a character through their mannerisms, facials etc.

[Loss]

Bobby Eaton is only going to get booed or cheered because of stuff that Jim Cornette has said and done.

Not even remotely the case. Bobby Eaton gets a reaction because he is a charismatic in-ring heel. Cornette helped him by giving him the opportunity to work some memorable programs. But he was not a passive part of what got the MX over by any means. Cornette's job was to heat up the issue before the match. Eaton's job was to keep them hooked during the match. He did that quite well.

 

People seem to be talking about the crowd as if they are in some way autonomous from the performers in the ring, they aren't. They are PRIMED by the guys in the ring beforehand through promos, angles, vignettes and so on.

Ideally, yes. But all crowds are not created equal. Crowds are sometimes predisposed to act a certain way, be it because of cultural differences, because they don't get wrestling very often, or because they get wrestling too often. Arrowhead Pond in Anaheim and Nassau Coliseum are two arenas notorious for not reacting to much of anything, even when the wrestlers are working hard.

 

Even WCW crowds differed from WWF crowds. In WCW, you could be a complete no-name with no star potential, but if you had a good match, you'd get a reaction. WWF crowds historically pop for entrance music and finisher teases, and tune out for everything else. Northeast crowds are more smarky than Southern crowds. Even in Japan, there is a difference between Budokan and Korauken. Neither is quite like the crowd that turns up at the Sumo Hall.

 

Just getting a big reaction doesn't impress me much. Hogan got a big reaction because of his charisma, but Hogan also got a big reaction because he was pushed so hard. Without the push, the reaction may not have been there. What impresses me more than *getting* a reaction is *earning* a reaction.

 

Send a wrestler into hostile territory who can keep a crowd involved and he's done something impressive. The crowd starts off uninterested because they aren't into the feud. They are eventually won over by the work in the ring. I've seen the opposite happen too. Fans are really excited about seeing a match, but the wrestlers lay an egg after it starts and completely lose them when they had a great opportunity.

 

There is a difference between Hulk Hogan getting a Hulk-sized reaction because he's Hulk Hogan, and Rey Misterio debuting in the Northeast with people laughing at him because he was so short, and having the building solidly on his side within minutes. That's the art. That's the performance factor.

 

So yes, I agree that predispositions are a part of crowds. But where a crowd starts isn't where they're always going to end. Wrestlers can make the best of a bad situation and cause a cynical, burned out or apathetic audience to be on the edge of their seats if they're doing their jobs right. We've seen it time and time again. It's what makes wrestling awesome.

 

I fundamentally disagree with the idea that you can separate these elements out -- the work, the crowd, the promo skills and so on. They are all part of the picture working towards a certain end, you can't take pieces away.

 

And just because we can't speak Japanese, does not mean those elements aren't there in Japan, because they are there. You only need to watch a single Riki Choshu match to tell you that.

I'm with you except for the promo. I think the more important metric, if you want to assign one, is the ability to get over, and to sell people on what they're seeing. That's a universal standard that can be applied anywhere. Everyone we praise and argue about is capable of doing this in their own special way.

 

The promo isn't an end destination. The promo is a tool to get to the end destination, which is to get a wrestler over, get a match over, get a concept over, get a feud over, get hatred over ... whatever the case may be. If you want to praise DiBiase, praise DiBiase for his ability to do all of those things, with the promo being one of the ways he did those things. Riki Choshu isn't going to cut promos, but Riki Choshu can get the same or better results than DiBiase with tricks that he has up his sleeve.

 

This happens even in the U.S. The Undertaker didn't get over for his promo skills. Andre didn't get over for his promo skills. Jeff Hardy didn't get over on his promo skills. It played a significant part in getting the Road Warriors over. Sting could barely get out a sentence, but he seemed excited. Bret Hart wasn't flashy, but he was sincere. Promo skills aren't a good global category in which to rank wrestlers. But I'm not sure they're a particularly good regional category either.

 

The promo itself is not a commodity. A WM headlined by a Steve Austin promo would do a disappointing buyrate. This has long been a flaw of the WWF. Not so much the focus on the promo, but the focus on the attraction. The WWF has always been booked to get over the people behind the scenes more than the people on camera. Never has that been more true than in the past decade, but it's always been true. Writers write to get the value of writers over, and to downplay the value of wrestlers. The worst thing that can happen in the WWF is for fans to laugh at a locker room vignette. Suddenly, the WWF has decided that their wrestlers are disposable, and that the reason people watch is to laugh at locker room vignettes. So it starts getting force fed and ceases to be funny very quickly. In the late 90s, people sat through a lot of shit to watch Steve Austin and The Rock. The WWF takeaway was that the shit was a draw. They started calling themselves an action-adventure series. The shit was never the draw. The wrestlers were the draw.

 

I used Austin as an example instead of Rock because Rock's promos became an attraction on their own. Rock, Flair in the mid 80s and Lawler in Memphis are really the only people I can think of, where their words are part of the fabric of the show. When I picture mid 80s wrestling on TBS in my head, I see Ric Flair in a suit in a studio, with the World Championship Wrestling logo behind him, wearing sunglasses while Tony Schiavone holds the mic. I see an ugly mustard-colored curtain in the background with Lawler and Lance Russell doing the same when I picture Memphis wrestling. I picture the Rock looking up and holding a microphone in front of an arena when I picture the Attitude era. It's unfair to hold everyone to that standard. Sometimes, an interview just needs to get the job done. Sometimes, all it needs to do is not actively detract from what the promotion is trying to sell us. Sometimes, you just need to get the idea that the wrestler believes what he's saying. Not everyone needs to be Rock, Flair or Lawler. Not everyone can be.

 

That's not to say character work isn't important. Character work is a part of in-ring work. Bobby Eaton is not in his own world. Bobby Eaton gouges eyes, cuts off the ring, beats up guys on the floor behind the referee's back, creates opening for Cornette to use the racket. He sneaks in whatever he can sneak in. Bobby Eaton's mantra was to combine his considerable skill with his lack of scruples. Announcers at the time sold that as every heel's gimmick to a degree. It really was Bobby Eaton's gimmick. He combined amazing wrestling moves with textbook heel tactics. He's one of the best examples ever of that. He could have easily been babyfaced just by being so good in the ring. Watch the crowd reaction at Halloween Havoc. They start to cheer his highspots, so he does something to heel himself again. Compare that to your Kurt Angle types that wrestle the exact same way in the ring whether they are heel or babyface. Compare that to Scott Hall and Kevin Nash shitting on other tag teams by working as babyfaces while being part of the hot heel act in the promotion. That's not a difference of physical ability. That's a mental difference. Bobby Eaton understands wrestling fans better than Hall, Nash or Angle, because when it's time to get in the ring, he can get the exact reaction he wants every time, even if the crowd isn't willing to hand it over to him. Those guys can't do that.

[El-P]

Ideally, yes. But all crowds are not created equal. Crowds are sometimes predisposed to act a certain way, be it because of cultural differences, because they don't get wrestling very often, or because they get wrestling too often. Arrowhead Pond in Anaheim and Nassau Coliseum are two arenas notorious for not reacting to much of anything, even when the wrestlers are working hard.

 

Even WCW crowds differed from WWF crowds. In WCW, you could be a complete no-name with no star potential, but if you had a good match, you'd get a reaction. WWF crowds historically pop for entrance music and finisher teases, and tune out for everything else. Northeast crowds are more smarky than Southern crowds. Even in Japan, there is a difference between Budokan and Korauken. Neither is quite like the crowd that turns up at the Sumo Hall.

 

Just getting a big reaction doesn't impress me much. Hogan got a big reaction because of his charisma, but Hogan also got a big reaction because he was pushed so hard. Without the push, the reaction may not have been there. What impresses me more than *getting* a reaction is *earning* a reaction.

 

Send a wrestler into hostile territory who can keep a crowd involved and he's done something impressive. The crowd starts off uninterested because they aren't into the feud. They are eventually won over the work in the ring. I've seen the opposite happen too. Fans are really excited about seeing a match, but the wrestlers lay an egg after it starts and completely lose them when they had a great opportunity.

 

There is a difference between Hulk Hogan getting a Hulk-sized reaction because he's Hulk Hogan, and Rey Misterio debuting in the Northeast with people laughing at him because he was so short, and having the building solidly on his side within minutes. That's the art. That's the performance factor.

 

So yes, I agree that predispositions are a part of crowds. But where a crowd starts isn't where they're always going to end. Wrestlers can make the best of a bad situation and cause a cynical, burned out or apathetic audience to be on the edge of their seats if they're doing their jobs right. We've seen it time and time again. It's what makes wrestling awesome.

Very well put, totally agree. (I'm so lazy)