What is good wrestling?

[goodhelmet]

W2DBT...

 

If I made a list of my own personal top workers of all time, Lawler might not crack my top 1,000. These types of debates come down to style bias. But my larger point here is that I don't think Lawler was ever considered an all time great bell to bell worker universally by the masses. I don't like Jumbo either, but he was, so I get his inclusion and accept that im the outlier. There was probably a time when the consensus was that Jumbo was the best in the world. I'd rather jump into moving traffic than watch Dory Funk Jr, but again, put him in a poll like that and I dont bat an eye. So this isn't just a Lawler thing for me.

 

 

 

Johnny Sorrow...

 

Y'know, being a great worker has nothing to do with moves or mat work or "scientific" wrestling.

 

 

Ok, so what makes a great wrestler? Discuss.

[Matt D]

I think the crux of this is the word "Workrate."

 

Giving W2DBT the benefit of the doubt would say that he means something different with the word "worker" than a lot of us do with the word "wrestler." I'm fairly certain most of us use the words interchangeably. Not to put words in his mouth, but my guess is that he does not.

 

I think we need to make sure we're all talking about the same thing before moving forward.

[goodhelmet]

Ok. Matt, you are not known as a man of few words. Elaborate on what workrate means to you.

[Matt D]

Again, I don't want to put words into anyone's mouth.

 

My idea of workrate is tied to 1999. When I think workrate I think SAT/Red vs Quiet Storm and Brian XL. I think go-go-go. Lots of motion. Working hard. Lots of action. Lots of stiffness and headdrops and hard hitting. Suplexes. Movez. Kickouts at two. Working hard and maybe working smart, maybe not. Fan chants. Fighting spirit. Kip ups which might be called Nip ups. Chopfests. Dives. Cardio. I think Angle vs Benoit from 03. I think Escalating finisher trading. Dynamite Kid vs Tiger Mask. Big bumping. Unprotected chair shots. Stiff kicks. Working hard. That move where you put your leg on the guy's head and flipover to hit a suplex. Working hard. Hot ending stretches. Power Bombs. Sabu vs Cactus Jack. Elaborate chain wrestling followed by a hesitation while the crowd claps. Great execution. High spots. Complicated moves that involve cooperation. Unnecessary rotations. Lightning Kid vs Jerry Lynn. Superkick reversals off the top rope. Working hard.

 

You know.

 

Workrate. It's not just one thing, but it's maybe less than three dozen?

[goodhelmet]

That may be the greatest stream of consciousness post I have ever read.

[Blazer]

Again, I don't want to put words into anyone's mouth.

 

My idea of workrate is tied to 1999. When I think workrate I think SAT/Red vs Quiet Storm and Brian XL. I think go-go-go. Lots of motion. Working hard. Lots of action. Lots of stiffness and headdrops and hard hitting. Suplexes. Movez. Kickouts at two. Working hard and maybe working smart, maybe not. Fan chants. Fighting spirit. Kip ups which might be called Nip ups. Chopfests. Dives. Cardio. I think Angle vs Benoit from 03. I think Escalating finisher trading. Dynamite Kid vs Tiger Mask. Big bumping. Unprotected chair shots. Stiff kicks. Working hard. That move where you put your leg on the guy's head and flipover to hit a suplex. Working hard. Hot ending stretches. Power Bombs. Sabu vs Cactus Jack. Elaborate chain wrestling followed by a hesitation while the crowd claps. Great execution. High spots. Complicated moves that involve cooperation. Unnecessary rotations. Lightning Kid vs Jerry Lynn. Superkick reversals off the top rope. Working hard.

 

You know.

 

Workrate. It's not just one thing, but it's maybe less than three dozen?

 

What makes good wrestling? What makes a good wrestler?

 

Give me a good psychological match in the ring before all else. I don't need non-stop action from bell to bell. A lot of what people considered "hard work" in 1999 was nothing more than a demolition derby without any real meaning or psychology to it. Now, that doesn't mean everything described above qualifies as that. I've seen some of the Dynamite/Tiger Mask stuff from the early 80s, and it is fantastic. But, on the whole, a great story can be told without mind numbing non-stop "workrate". Restholds can be used, the pace can be slowed down, as long as it is going somewhere. I just watched the Rude/Steamboat Beach Blast match from 1992 (30 minute Iron Man). What a great STORY. Rude goes up early 3 falls to 1. Steamboat has to battle his ass off to come back and tie it 3-3 with about nine minutes left. Rude has Steamboat down and almost gets the pin with minutes left, but Steamboat gets the pin out of nowhere with 30 seconds left to go up 4-3. Rude then valiantly tries to pin Steamboat with several near falls, Steamboat trying to hang on. That match was a GREAT STORY. Nothing to do with big bumps, high spots, intense work...just two cats knowing what they need to do and where they were going. Give me that any day of the week. It could be Lawler. It could 123 Kid. It could be fucking Jumbo, Bock or even Brad Rheingans (that one's for Sorrow and Will, LOL). Tell me a good story. Draw me in. Take my mind off the shit that goes on in everyday life. That's what makes good wrestling for me.

[W2BTD]

Again, I don't want to put words into anyone's mouth.

 

My idea of workrate is tied to 1999. When I think workrate I think SAT/Red vs Quiet Storm and Brian XL. I think go-go-go. Lots of motion. Working hard. Lots of action. Lots of stiffness and headdrops and hard hitting. Suplexes. Movez. Kickouts at two. Working hard and maybe working smart, maybe not. Fan chants. Fighting spirit. Kip ups which might be called Nip ups. Chopfests. Dives. Cardio. I think Angle vs Benoit from 03. I think Escalating finisher trading. Dynamite Kid vs Tiger Mask. Big bumping. Unprotected chair shots. Stiff kicks. Working hard. That move where you put your leg on the guy's head and flipover to hit a suplex. Working hard. Hot ending stretches. Power Bombs. Sabu vs Cactus Jack. Elaborate chain wrestling followed by a hesitation while the crowd claps. Great execution. High spots. Complicated moves that involve cooperation. Unnecessary rotations. Lightning Kid vs Jerry Lynn. Superkick reversals off the top rope. Working hard.

 

You know.

 

Workrate. It's not just one thing, but it's maybe less than three dozen?

 

LOVE this post.

 

Anyway, I think good "wrestling" can be a lot of things. It's no secret I love modern New Japan. It's pretty much an in ring style & booking style that ticks every box of what I want in my wrestling. But I also love Dragon Gate. I like a lot of things about WWE. I even find things to like about TNA. For years my guilty pleasure was Osaka Pro and the cheesy comedy shit they do, and these days my guilt watch is DTU, which is a bunch of 18-year old spot monkey's doing a bad ECW act.

 

Now, if we are talking workrate, like the original thread this spun off of was discussing? Matt D nailed it. Workrate can be a million different things. Generally the wrestling I enjoy involves a high workrate, is action heavy, and contains excitement. Nothing fires me up like a well timed fighting spirit spot from an underdog, or a one count kickout from a guy using up the last of his adrenaline. I love when wrestlers convey a shit ton of heart, which is probably why I have a soft spot for anything involving New Japan young lions screaming like they're dying when stuck in a simple crab hold, and why I thought the divisive Dolph Ziggler promo two weeks ago was one of the best things I've ever seen.

 

I think hot angles equal great wrestling, which is the one area that I think Memphis probably laps every other territory. My problem with Memphis is the style bell to bell.

[Dylan Waco]

This has potential to be a great thread.

 

I have said before that the most important aspect of working to me is selling, but I sometimes think that is a poor way to talk about the bigger way I view wrestling. Part of this is just that "selling" is an easy thing to point to that I think is fundamental, but selling in and of itself is really meaningless. The key to me is that a match has some sort of heat section and some degree of build.

 

There are exceptions to this. Despite my rep in some quarters as a guy who hates on spotty guys, I enjoy a good spotfest. But I almost never think spotfests are great matches, and I generally think matches should have a sense of escalation to them, but escalation that is more about the response of the spots, than the spots themselves. That is where selling is critical to me. Selling is essential to establishing momentum in a match. It is what makes moves have their value, but it is also what determines if a match has a story or not (generally speaking). It is what makes hope spots, comebacks and cut off spots interesting. It is what distinguishes "stretch runs" that I find to be dramatic, from "stretch runs" that are all about the runs themselves and are essentially only concerned with collecting near falls for the sake of near falls. A match does not have to have body part selling to fit any of these themes, just something resembling a heat section, or some effort by someone to convey vulnerability in a meaningful way.

 

Action and workrate are not "bad things" to me, but I generally find the most boring style in wrestling to be the spot running Davey Richardsish style where everything is about execution and doing stuff and nothing has any real significance.

[ohtani's jacket]

I think the answer is fluid. What I think is good wrestling now is not what I thought was good wrestling 10 or 15 years ago. It's not just that my tastes have changed, but my attitudes as well. I honesty think mood plays a huge part in perception. I don't really believe in any fixed tenants since in my current mood I'm likely to reject them. I find the vast majority of wrestling boring. Good wrestling is whatever jumps out at you.

[Guest TheGreatPuma]

Great wrestling is what grabs you personally and engages you. After that, it's what grabs and engages the audience.

 

I love all sorts of wrestling and dislike some. I tend to have similar emotions/thoughts to W2BTD's when it comes to wrestling.

 

Speaking of which, I was watching the Naito/Ishii The New Beginning match and I saw Naitio pull out an excellent dragon suplex in a gruelling match. That move which is one of fav all time wrestling moves right there made me enjoy Naito more than some wrestlers entire careers. The athleticism, the flexibility, the effort and the believability of the move for me engage me in the match. It tells me so much about Naito. Than seeing Ishii kick out of such a high end move after getting dropped on his head with his legs over his neck shows me the fighting spirit of both wrestlers which is what wrestling at its core has always been about to me. Than I'm seeing Naito hit an excellently timed flying rolling kick and ....... Throw all sorts of fighting spirit in a match that has nice construction and you got yourself some great wrestling.

Speaking of fighting spirit, I love that the term has spread outside of Japan. I remember hearing it for the first time from a commentator in a Lyger match from the early 90s and thinking to myself "Oh man, love that term, that'd be awesome if the term would spread" and it has spread in wrestling. It's also spread some from Japan to other things besides wrestling as well.

[JerryvonKramer]

Things that I like in wrestling:

 

- characters and great character work, and consistency in character work

- awesome promos

- angles that suck you in through the above

- compelling stories in the ring, preferrably that build on the above

- bumping and selling, I appreciate it when workers show vulnerability and make the other worker look good

- consistency in selling an injury

- heatedness and intensity

- blood and brutality

- structure, in particular breaking it down and analysing it

- suplexes / bombs -- but not in a vacuum, they have to be built to within the overall structure

- logical follow-up moves

- a hot crowd

 

Things I hate:

 

- spottiness for its own sake

- bad acting

- fake epicness or drama

- spots that seem overly stylised or choregraphed

- long and boring matwork spots

- workers who are selfish / don't sell as much as they should for opponents

- a smart-ass indie crowd

 

There may be one or two other things that have escaped my mind but that sums it up for me I think.

[Loss]

Apologies in advance because parts of this will feel like a big Lawler troll but I think it addresses the bigger question.

 

I think there has to be something in common with wrestling you like that others don't and wrestling that others like that you don't. There has to be some objective universal truth here that ties those things together. That's not to say that style preferences and personal tastes aren't factors in these discussions, but to me, you get into that after you find a common baseline. I don't know what that common baseline is, and I'm not even sure that if we all found a way to agree on what it is that we would be right. But it has to exist. So for my purposes, I'm going to try not to focus just on what I enjoy in my wrestling, but more what I think good wrestling is. I don't believe that there aren't common elements in all wrestling that receives praise from anyone. I also believe it's possible to not like good wrestling, just like it's possible to enjoy bad wrestling.

 

And that brings up an interesting point to start. I would disagree with anyone who said that the only wrestling that has redeeming value is good wrestling. I think Hulk Hogan versus Andre the Giant at Wrestlemania III is a horrible wrestling match, and while I have no qualms about throwing my criticisms of that match at the posters of this board, I'm not going to tell 78,000-93,173 (depending on which wrestling god you pray to) fans that were in attendance that they didn't enjoy what they saw or that they were wrong to like it. They clearly did. I don't think it's a good wrestling match. I'm not alone in thinking that. But there were elements there that were good -- it felt important, we knew who the performers were and what they were about, the big spots the fans wanted were delivered, the finish was right and the visuals of the staredown, the bodyslam and Hogan crossing his heart after getting the win are iconic wrestling visuals. Contrast that with something like Jushin Liger & Brian Pillman versus Nikita Koloff & Ricky Steamboat the Great American Bash in 1992. I think it is a very good wrestling match, and while I have no qualms about posting my praise of that match at this board, I'm not going to tell all the people in the live audience that didn't get into it that they liked what they saw. They clearly didn't. I think it was a good wrestling match. I'm not alone in thinking that. But there were elements there that were bad -- it didn't feel important, it wasn't clear what we were supposed to think of either team, anticipated spots were not delivered in the way expected, I'm not sure the finish was right and there isn't a single visual from that match burned into my head.

 

Still, when I ranked my top 100 matches of 1992, the Bash match made the scoreboard. When I get around to doing the same for 1987, I can guarantee you that Hogan vs Andre won't. And some may say that if that's how I watch wrestling, I'm not doing it right. And they might be correct. I know the Bash undercard tag works for me and the Wrestlemania main event does not. But in the end, both have elements of what I perceive as good wrestling and both have elements of what I perceive as bad wrestling. Neither is without value.

 

So that out of the way, here is what I see as good wrestling.

 

Something is at stake other than pride. We've talked about the booking infrastructure that surrounds wrestling matches before. Good wrestling leaves no fat on the bone; everything in that universe has a purpose. Ted DiBiase kicking a basketball away from a kid may be an entertaining skit, but it isn't devised solely to be an entertaining skit. Maybe Vince Russo or Kevin Dunn don't see any purpose to it beyond that, but they don't see the big picture if so. Wrestling devised solely for jollies is bad wrestling. The idea is that you see Ted DiBiase, you think he's an asshole, and if the WWF is in your town, you might plunk down a few dollars to see someone kick his ass. Maybe you're even more inclined to show up if the guy he's facing happens to be your favorite wrestler. You cheer loudly when someone punches him in the face and you boo him out of the building when momentum swings in his direction. Perhaps you'll go to the show and get exactly what you want, or perhaps the time isn't right, and DiBiase will leave the building with the upper hand. Eventually, he will get his comeuppance but the time hasn't arrived for this to happen yet. Good wrestling knows the difference.

 

Of course some of the feeling that the outcome matters is a product of booking. Throw a championship in the mix, particularly one where wrestlers have fought some hard battles over many years -- even decades -- and the stakes seem a little higher. Throw some collateral in the mix, like maybe a wrestler's hair or career or valet, and winning or losing has tangible benefits or consequences. Sometimes, none of those factors is present at all and it's entirely up to the wrestlers in the ring to generate that feeling that something is at stake, and they are starting completely from scratch. No championships have been purchased No dead corpses have been raped. No sneak attacks have taken place. In fact, it's even possible that no harsh words have been exchanged. But in the end, while it's interesting to discuss how they got there, all that matters is that they did.

 

Yoshiko Tamura and Toshie Uematsu, two wrestlers I had never even seen in a match before, convinced me in their GAEA match on July 19, 1997 that the WCW Women's Cruiserweight Title was the most prestigious title in wrestling, and that to lose the match would be a huge detriment to their careers. It was of paramount importance to each of them that they win that fucking match, no matter what it took! The match takes a physical toll and limbs stop working as they should, and they start turning on their own bodies and screaming at their legs to stop not working. Pretty intense stuff. They produced what I think is one of the best matches of all time because of that approach, and life isn't fair -- they had to work overtime to draw me in because I was watching "cold". But they did it by the end of the match.

 

That doesn't make a well-hyped world title match between hated opponents that headlines Wrestlemania and delivers in the ring any less great. It just makes the GAEA match a little more impressive. Maybe they both got to the same end point, but in one case, the promotional force of the company helped them out, while in another case, the wrestlers had to get there on their own. Either way, they both got there, and both deserve praise. So who wins and who loses has to matter. Maybe I'm the type of viewer that just wants good matches and it doesn't matter to me so much. But it sure as hell needs to matter to the wrestlers in the ring, and in the same way Tamura and Uematsu had to work cold with me, good wrestlers may have to overcome careless announcers and bad booking to help us remember what really matters when a well-meaning but sometimes misguided promotional machine is backing the match. We need to believe that the wrestlers will either benefit or suffer consequences based on the match result. And if the booking isn't making that blatantly obvious, then the match in the ring has to find that hook and exploit it.

 

It resembles an athletic competition. I think this is one that can be taken to extremes in either directions. "Wrestling is a story" sometimes downplays the athletic component of wrestling to a point that it's laughable and "Wrestling is about action" downplays heat, emotion, logic and psychology to its detriment as well. In reality, both aspects are important and if done right, can make a match better. I don't think good wrestling needs to be athletically impressive as much as it needs to be athletically viable. It should feel like a sport, and maybe one at times with some dynamic personalities where rules are exploited and broken, people run their mouths and wear silly outfits and personal grudges are settled through the medium. What I mean by that is not that I need to see 100% Pure Sports Build or innovative offense, but rather that I need to see wrestlers grab and work holds. I need to see them execute moves. I can see wrestlers do low-range stuff almost entirely and enjoy it, or I can see wrestlers do high-end stuff almost entirely and hate it. I need wrestlers to keep things moving. Sure I can watch wrestlers work a headlock for 10 minutes -- if they are actually working it, attempting counters and stuff. If they are just sitting on the mat, clock me out.

 

Wrestling also shouldn't feel like barfighting, even in a match billed as a street fight. The reason? Because barfights don't happen in wrestling rings, and you don't end a barfight by getting a pinfall. It's still wrestling, no matter the gimmick attached to the match or the presentation of it. It should feel like something that requires training that not just anyone off the street can do. The best brawls have wrestlers instinctively reverting back to their wrestling repertoire when all else fails. I don't need everyone to be Volk Han or El Dandy, but even working a headlock is appreciated. Remind me that you're an athlete. Remind me that you've been trained. Remind me that you're not just some schmuck in the audience who thinks he's a tough guy. Show me that you have some skill.

 

It features both hard work and smart work. Jerry Lawler grabbing the house mic and cutting promos to avoid locking up is smart work in terms of getting the crowd hot, but it's also cheap heat, it's lazy and it's boring to watch. Davey Richards doing that ridiculous gif suplex thing is athletically difficult and requires a great deal of effort, but is also a stupid spot. I'm not interested in the Todd Morton gym matches of total cheap heat and stalling at this stage of my fandom, nor am I interested in total Dragon Gate spotfests at this stage of my fandom. Both go to opposite extremes. Give me something that tries to do both.

 

I have a lot (a whole lot!) more to say, but I am exhausted and will return to this later.

[Matt D]

So I kind of understand what workrate is, right? It's a tool like anything else. It's a style. It can be exciting as hell in small doses. It's not my thing anymore, but I pay attention and try to listen to people and remember how I used to feel. I never want to come into an argument from a place of ignorance or closed-mindedness for what others are thinking.

 

I was tempted to make a flowchart. I really was. If I was at work I would have. I don't quite have the tech here.

 

Basically, it's like this.

 

Does the match tell a story?

|

Is the story good/interesting/compelling?

|

Is the story well executed and consistently told throughout the match?

 

If you've made it through these three steps, I'm probably going to like your match. If you make it through two, I'll probably like it but be a little frustrated. If you make it through one, I'll probably be very curious to see what went wrong and try to figure out what the hell they were thinking. The story being good/compelling is actually important. I think people tend to disregard that one with me because I do lean towards extremes.

 

Once you hit the third step, a lot of other factors come into it if I'm starting to compare matches against each other. Also, as a caveat, this is just "Good Wrestlng" to me. You can have exciting wrestling or fun wrestling, or a "guilty pleasure." It's not that I can't enjoy things I don't think are good wrestling. I just don't think that they're good pro wrestling.

 

As it pertains to working hard vs working smart, OBVIOUSLY both together are best. I, in general, give a lot more credence to working smart over working hard because athleticism isn't nearly as impressive to me as using your brain to accomplish a goal.

[tim]

The recent changes in WWE style like we see in the Shield tags had gotten me thinking about what "workrate" means lately, because I just intuitively would call those sorts of matches "workrate-style WWE matches." I don't think it just means working hard, a lot of styles work hard that I wouldn't call "workate" styles. Nor does it just mean having a wide variety of moves performed necessarily. Anyway, I don't know how helpful it is and may be pretty idiosyncratic, but I came up with this definition that I like:

A tendencies toward backloaded matches; that is, much more emphasis is put on the last third or so of the match than in trying to create a consistently compelling whole. This isn't to say the first two thirds or so of the match isn't good, but in the style they often won't be too impressive -- in short, when the match is over, you won't be thinking about the cool stuff they did in the beginning or middle of the match, you're meant to be thinking about how awesome the end was. So the extended home stretch is of great importance, and it's about more than hitting a lot of moves: just as important, it's about a lot of counters to moves. A lot of the drama and excitement is built off quick counters to signature moves and those signature moves being paid off later. "Innovation" is an aspect but again it's not so much inovation as using NEW offense, but finding new ways to work that offense into intricate sequences of counters and offense.

 

If this definition has any value, it' moreso for the state of workrate style today than maybe it was in the early 2000s indies. The styles I have in mind with this definition are primarily current New Japan main events and the kind of WWE matches Bryan, the Shield, etc. have been putting on lately, because I think there are a lot of similarities between them (though I perfer the latter). I don't watch it but I would assume this definition works for the bigger ROH matches as well.

[Ryan Faulconer]

It was always my understanding that workrate didn't define particular style of match. What defines a match is the style of workrate. There can be slow workrate and fast workrate. Good or great or your favourite matches can have low workrate but still get the right story over and impress the fans watching. Every match is a workrate match. Every match has psychology too but there is good/smart psychology and/or bad/dumb psychology that confuses us.

 

The term "spotfest" seems redundant and misused a lot as well. Every match is a spotfest. Well - I guess Nash vs Hogan from January 1999 isn't a spotfest but that is only because it contains only one or two spots. A highspotfest seems like a better description of what people mean in that context.

 

Nevertheless...that probably belongs more in an earlier thread on the board that was defining wrestling buzzwords.

 

Defining good wrestling on a message board like this means nothing without examples of a board member's individual tastes. In a more specialized forum like DVDVR's lucha section (before the restart) or the year-by-year discussions on this forum probably do more to explain someone's definition of what a good match is for them.

[Graham Crackers]

Selling is the glue that holds matches together but there are so many ways that selling can work. I like subtle/realistic selling but wrestling is kitsch and a certain amount of overacting in the right setting can be really fun. In a lot of ways the selling has to match the presentation. To give an example, Fuerza Guerrera can bump and sell like a buffoon when things aren't going his way because he presents himself as someone who is haunted by his own galaxy sized hubris. On the other hand, Fujiwara in a UWF match will subtly sell that he has been caught in a hold by glancing to see how far from the ropes he is. That's without getting into when it is/isn't appropriate to no-sell offense.

 

I usually dislike when a wrestling match just looks like a series of moves. I know wrestling is worked and I don't think fiction has to resemble reality but I need to be able to suspend a certain amount of disbelief. I've never been in or seen a fight where the two competitors took turns picking each other up and throwing each other around. That's why a certain amount of grappling and/or striking need to happen between those moves. There need to be shifts in momentum as well to make sure it doesn't just look like two wrestlers taking turns on offense. That also makes it easier to build a compelling narrative.

 

I tend to think that timing is very important as well but that may be something that separates the great from the good rather than the good from the bad. I'm thinking of babyface comebacks or other momentum shifts happening at the right times to maximize the crowd reaction.

[Tim Cooke]

Work rate is one of those Scott Keith inventions that he used to mean "no rest holds (even submissions) and lots of moves."

 

It was aimed at guys like Nash and Hogan during the Monday Night Wars.

 

In his definition, Dragon Gate has the best work rate ever. Regardless of the apathy that the viewer (and live crowd) often feel after the seventh driver variation near fall.

[Nighthawk]

My POV of what makes good wrestling is simple: I abhor laziness, in whatever form it is. Not telling a cohesive story, and just relying on bombs and highspots because you think that's what works, is laziness on the near end. Stalling, cheap heat tactics and cutting a promo on the microphone, is laziness on the far end. That goes for the work too. I enjoy what i enjoy (British World of Sport, Motor City Machine Guns tags, junior heavyweight wrestling) when it's done right. You can work holds on the mat to a time-limit draw, and it can be just as compelling and enthralling as a balls-to-the-wall 45-minute tag match with lots of spots, lots of false tags, and 2 separate FIP spots. The key is that I should, as a viewer, never be able to notice a rest hold as a rest hold.

 

That's my view of it anyway.

[ohtani's jacket]

I like storytelling in wrestling as much as the next guy, but I think people go overboard with it. A real story gets rewritten a dozen times until it's any good. Wrestling is closer to improv than writing, and while it borrows story elements, the art of selling has more to do with acting than storytelling. I look at it as performance art rather than a storytelling medium. There's a narrative to most matches because they build from a beginning to an end, but they don't have the depth of a comic book and there's almost no lasting consequences or irreversible change. Ironically enough, when companies try to add depth like WWE it's often labelled as contrived or self-conscious. It's a medium that works best off the cuff unlike true storytelling which requires an inordinate amount of thought.

 

Another thing, it really does help if you're technically good. I like Lawler, though the Lawler I watch is dependent on his opponent rather than wanting to watch Lawler vs. anybody, but I could never rate him over guys who can work the mat. That's not fathomable.

[KrisZ]

I think it's fair to say that a match doesn't have to be good but it can still be good wrestling if you know what I mean.

 

I always point to Jimmy Valiant who was never really a good worker but I always watching enjoy him in the ring which makes it good wrestling in a way.

[Steenalized]

I like storytelling in wrestling as much as the next guy, but I think people go overboard with it. A real story gets rewritten a dozen times until it's any good. Wrestling is closer to improv than writing, and while it borrows story elements, the art of selling has more to do with acting than storytelling. I look at it as performance art rather than a storytelling medium. There's a narrative to most matches because they build from a beginning to an end, but they don't have the depth of a comic book and there's almost no lasting consequences or irreversible change. Ironically enough, when companies try to add depth like WWE it's often labelled as contrived or self-conscious. It's a medium that works best off the cuff unlike true storytelling which requires an inordinate amount of thought.

 

Another thing, it really does help if you're technically good. I like Lawler, though the Lawler I watch is dependent on his opponent rather than wanting to watch Lawler vs. anybody, but I could never rate him over guys who can work the mat. That's not fathomable.

I have a few problems with this. Wrestling definitely has a lot in common with improv, particularly when wrestlers call the action in the ring. But they also lay things out before hand, which improv does not have save for the start. You can call it a performance aren't and I don't think that's an incorrect way to look at it, I just prefer to avoid the term because of pretensions attached to it. Your post would make more sense if wrestling were just a series of singular matches with no context across shows, feuds, and so on. That isn't how it goes. Two wrestlers might have little deeper meaning to their match and might wing it out there to fill time. More often, they have a goal in mind. To get someone over. To make someone look dangerous. To tell whatever story it is they want to tell. That can be in one match or across multiple matches with each building on the last. The stories don't start and end the second a bell rings. The promos and vignettes tie in or at least should tie in. Poorly booked wrestling might have no lasting consequences, but that's true of any poorly made story. You don't have to use the WWE forced-epicness or the Chikara story arc style of depth to make wrestling mean more than two guys in a ring fighting each other.

 

As for the last part, are you saying that someone who is a technical wrestler automatically rates higher than someone who is not, even if that person is a great brawler?

[Johnny Sorrow]

Good Pro Wrestling makes money. Bad Pro Wrestling loses money. To be brutally honest, that's all there is to it, despite ourselves.

[goodhelmet]

That isn't what the spirit of this thread is about at all. Plenty of money losers (including the Lawler-Funk feud from 1981 and Flair-Steamboat from 1989) have been artistically awesome but financial shit.

[W2BTD]

Good Pro Wrestling makes money. Bad Pro Wrestling loses money. To be brutally honest, that's all there is to it, despite ourselves.

 

Nonsense. We're talking aesthetics here.

 

I follow the business end of wrestling, but in all honestly for the most part I couldn't care less how much money the promoter makes/loses beyond wanting companies I like to stay in business.

[ohtani's jacket]

 

I like storytelling in wrestling as much as the next guy, but I think people go overboard with it. A real story gets rewritten a dozen times until it's any good. Wrestling is closer to improv than writing, and while it borrows story elements, the art of selling has more to do with acting than storytelling. I look at it as performance art rather than a storytelling medium. There's a narrative to most matches because they build from a beginning to an end, but they don't have the depth of a comic book and there's almost no lasting consequences or irreversible change. Ironically enough, when companies try to add depth like WWE it's often labelled as contrived or self-conscious. It's a medium that works best off the cuff unlike true storytelling which requires an inordinate amount of thought.

 

Another thing, it really does help if you're technically good. I like Lawler, though the Lawler I watch is dependent on his opponent rather than wanting to watch Lawler vs. anybody, but I could never rate him over guys who can work the mat. That's not fathomable.

I have a few problems with this. Wrestling definitely has a lot in common with improv, particularly when wrestlers call the action in the ring. But they also lay things out before hand, which improv does not have save for the start. You can call it a performance aren't and I don't think that's an incorrect way to look at it, I just prefer to avoid the term because of pretensions attached to it. Your post would make more sense if wrestling were just a series of singular matches with no context across shows, feuds, and so on. That isn't how it goes. Two wrestlers might have little deeper meaning to their match and might wing it out there to fill time. More often, they have a goal in mind. To get someone over. To make someone look dangerous. To tell whatever story it is they want to tell. That can be in one match or across multiple matches with each building on the last. The stories don't start and end the second a bell rings. The promos and vignettes tie in or at least should tie in. Poorly booked wrestling might have no lasting consequences, but that's true of any poorly made story. You don't have to use the WWE forced-epicness or the Chikara story arc style of depth to make wrestling mean more than two guys in a ring fighting each other.

 

As for the last part, are you saying that someone who is a technical wrestler automatically rates higher than someone who is not, even if that person is a great brawler?

 

 

I think most wrestling is wrestling for the sake of wrestling. There's nothing particularly episodic about the World of Sport, lucha or 80s Joshi I've been watching lately even when there are feuds. I get what you're saying about the set-up and pay-off between angles, promos and matches, but for the most part I think that's an ideal which is rarely achieved. The vast majority of wrestling is filmed houseshows. I agree that calling it improv isn't completely analogous, but I still think the greater skill in wrestling is selling/acting than storytelling since most wrestlers go through the same routines when it comes to match build.

 

Yes, a mat worker will always rate higher for me than a brawler. I think the actual skill of wrestling is both admirable and important.