[GWE] Taking nights off

[Grimmas]

There is a lot of talk about since this person took nights off, they won't get my vote.

 

Do you, personally, penalize someone for that? Is a peak or how they work when motivated less important than how they are on each and every show?

[Loss]

It's probably not wise to work every match every night like it's a pay-per-view main event, but I see it as an endearing flaw when the attempt is made all the same. If someone is able to do it and still keep longevity and stay fresh, more power to them because they have done something quite difficult. I'd rather watch someone shoot for the moon and occasionally fail than watch someone successfully cross a much lower hurdle pretty much every time out, but I also acknowledge that's a matter of personal tastes.

 

There is something to be said for guys who may not have tons of great matches, but rarely have bad ones. But the guys who shoot for great matches every time out and succeed far more than they fail have done something really special.

[shoe]

It won't keep me from voting for them. Though if they had an all time great rep as a worker taking nights off does hurt them in the grand scheme of things. So someone like Bret's ppv output is top 10 material. His houseshow run is full of so so performances.

[Steenalized]

I don't take it too seriously, I'd put peak performance over consistent all-out effort. All else considered, it's a tie breaker, but I don't fault guys for going easy on spot shows.

[Yo-Yo's Roomie]

It's a matter of degrees. If someone is dogging it on the regular, then that'll hurt him/her. I won't hold the occasional phone-in against someone though.

[NintendoLogic]

If you're great when you want to be, you're great.

[Matt D]

I kind of like to see HOW a wrestler half asses stuff. If they take shortcuts or just lock in a chinlock. If so, how do they do it. You get the idea. I don't have to go in depth. Do you get the sense that they can be lazy and still be effective, etc?

[Graham Crackers]

Some guys are also really good at those house show matches where they take less bumps or rely on schtick. Other guys look like they're falling asleep out there. The severity of this kind of thing varies.

[WingedEagle]

If you're great when you want to be, you're great.

 

Agreed. And if you wanted to be great more often than not, or at least when it counted, that's fine in my book. Separately, as far as off nights go, are we talking about someone's rep for taking it easy on non-taped house shows, or a substantial record of going easy on non-TV/PPV? If its about rep, that seems to fall in with the reasons we can't really rate Jim Londos, Strangler Lewis or anyone else lacking footage.

[El-P]

If you're great when you want to be, you're great.

 

What about Keiji Mutoh and Don Muraco then ? Muraco especially, who's the greatest laziest wrestler ever. I'd be hard pressed to put him on the same level as some not so "great" but way more consistent workers.

[W2BTD]

Anybody who has seen enough WWF house show footage from the 80's knows that the entire company took nights off, and who could blame them? Double shots, the rare triple shots, double shots in different time zones in some cases, etc.

 

Butch Reed, Greg Valentine, Don Muraco, Dino Bravo, all instantly jump out as guys who dogged it badly on WWF tours. If you watch Reed when he first jumped to WCW, he's still working WWF house show style and sticks out like a sore thumb.

 

These people were tired.

[Grimmas]

Anybody who has seen enough WWF house show footage from the 80's knows that the entire company took nights off, and who could blame them? Double shots, the rare triple shots, double shots in different time zones in some cases, etc.

 

Butch Reed, Greg Valentine, Don Muraco, Dino Bravo, all instantly jump out as guys who dogged it badly on WWF tours. If you watch Reed when he first jumped to WCW, he's still working WWF house show style and sticks out like a sore thumb.

 

These people were tired.

Joe just defended Muraco and now I apologize for anything I might have said that offended you or was rude.

[TRMD]

I was looking in the Brody thread and a discussion was brought up that when he sells offense, it's usually a good match. The problem is, 95% of the time he doesn't "try" to sell, so it usually sucks.

 

So, shouldn't he be considered someone who took most nights off, but when he tried, he was actually pretty good?

[concrete1992]

I think it should be, or at least it'll be for me, a more situational thing.I'm not going to watch every match and while it'd be nice if a wrestler busted his hump every night if it means their career had an extra few years of good stuff then it makes perfect sense. But say, the wrestler took off nights and they had like a rather short career with only a few years of actually darn good stuff then that just isn't going to fly. Now also going with the whole "situational" thing. I'm okay with wrestlers dogging it on house shows for most the time. I would not be okay with them dogging it on TV shows most of the time. If they are dogging it a sizable chunk of the time even against not great opposition on bigger shows? Yeah, that hurts a good chunk to me.