"Anti-workrate"

[ohtani's jacket]

I like Malenko in short TV matches like Sat Night or The Pro, not so much in longer singles matches, but I respect the talent and skill it takes to wrestle like that more than a limited guy using his tools to tell stories in the ring. Earthquake's not a great example since he had a fair bit of skill to begin with, but I don't believe for a second that Earthquake told great stories in the ring. Earthquake was a guy doing his thing like most other workers. He worked to a standard that most workers should attain and generally do. All of the things you could possibly praise Earthquake for, such as this who my character is, this is how I'm going to portray it in the ring, these are the moves I'm going to do, this is the way I'm going to move, seem like basic pro-wrestling to me. If he knew how to work a good little match on top of that, great, but it's not that smart to me. I mean compare him to Vader. I'm not even that big a Vader fan, but I think most people would gravitate toward him over Tenta if they really had to make a choice. Malenko had structural issues just as many workers do (even great ones), but I don't think his skill should be downplayed. I know not everyone goes in for matwork, but I mostly wanted to post because I think it's wrong to say that everyone has moved away from workrate. Skill level is still the most important determining factor for me when judging a worker.

[Jimmy Redman]

Yeah let me say again, I'm speaking purely hypothetically about Earthquake, I have no real judgment on him since I may have seen him wrestle once or twice in my life. I just take issue with the idea that a small athletic guy is inherently better than a big fat guy because moves. You can take another guy as an example, Vader or Mark Henry or whoever, guys that I know are capable of having awesome matches.

[JerryvonKramer]

I also wanted to comment on this:

 

you can't just throw around "ring general" like you do. I'd argue that Earthquake is a ring general since he knows how much to give and when to give it, for instance and thus he can make babyface comebacks mean all the more, etc. You apparently wouldn't.

We live in a society in which words and phrases have accepted meanings, repeated through usage. I didn't make up the phrase "ring general". It comes from wrestlers' own lingo.

 

If you told Bill Watts that Earthquake was a ring general, he'd laugh in your face. Steve Austin would too and probably tell you that you don't understand what one is.

 

I am not intending to be snarky or insulting when I say that, just that it is the truth.

 

The terms we have aren't just made up, they have an accepted meaning. I'm using the one that has been used for decades. You are using one you've made up. So really I don't see why I can't "throw it around".

[Dylan Waco]

Define ring general

[JerryvonKramer]

It's basically someone who can go in there with any opponent and get the best out of them. They control the tempo, the crowd and timing. They call the spots. Etc.

 

It's Ric Flair. It's DiBiase in Mid-South. It's Lawler in Memphis. It's Tully. It's Arn. It's Bock. It's Kawada. It's Terry Funk. All those guys were ring generals.

 

Earthquake wasn't. He might have known how to get himself over and maximise his assets in a match, but that doesn't in itself make him a ring general. He didn't have the tools to be one.

[Luchaundead]

I have heard people say they can't give a lower rating on a match because the wrestlers were working hard, this is the concept that makes me feel like I agree more with the "Anti-workrate" philosophy. Saying that someone works really hard means they deserve more credit as a wrestler is a dangerous way to think because you could end up in a situation where you're voting Zach Gowen the greatest wrestler ever because it takes more work for him than others to be competent in ring.

[The Man in Blak]

It's basically someone who can go in there with any opponent and get the best out of them. They control the tempo, the crowd and timing. They call the spots. Etc.

 

It's Ric Flair. It's DiBiase in Mid-South. It's Lawler in Memphis. It's Tully. It's Arn. It's Bock. It's Kawada. It's Terry Funk. All those guys were ring generals.

 

Earthquake wasn't. He might have known how to get himself over and maximise his assets in a match, but that doesn't in itself make him a ring general. He didn't have the tools to be one.

What are the tools to be a ring general, though? What are we using to determine and assign that status onto a worker?

 

Do we use testimonies from other workers? Chris Jericho called Triple H a ring general once.

 

Is it solid matches with mediocre talent? What do we have to measure that ring general's influence vs. an inconsistent talent having one of their better matches?

[Loss]

When I rate a match, I'm more concerned with the finished product (how good or bad the match was) than the ingredients (how hard those involved were working). It's possible for a match to contain an admirable effort and still not be a good match.

[Johnny Sorrow]

[JerryvonKramer]

 

It's basically someone who can go in there with any opponent and get the best out of them. They control the tempo, the crowd and timing. They call the spots. Etc.

 

It's Ric Flair. It's DiBiase in Mid-South. It's Lawler in Memphis. It's Tully. It's Arn. It's Bock. It's Kawada. It's Terry Funk. All those guys were ring generals.

 

Earthquake wasn't. He might have known how to get himself over and maximise his assets in a match, but that doesn't in itself make him a ring general. He didn't have the tools to be one.

What are the tools to be a ring general, though? What are we using to determine and assign that status onto a worker?

 

Do we use testimonies from other workers? Chris Jericho called Triple H a ring general once.

 

Is it solid matches with mediocre talent? What do we have to measure that ring general's influence vs. an inconsistent talent having one of their better matches?

 

 

Triple H was a ring general, just not a very good one. He was still entrusted with that role.

 

The tools of a good ring general will almost certainly include the ability to bump and sell and make others look good. Earthquake couldn't go in there and pinball for an opponent, he didn't have the tools to do that. Triple H theoretically did have those tools, but didn't always put them to the best effect.

 

You can have ring generals at different levels of ability. I mean Johnny Rodz was a ring general too -- what Austin would call a "carpenter".

[dawho5]

Not sure about this whole debate. Is it really about workrate or anti-workrate anymore? I've seen "workrate" matches I absolutely love. I've also seen "anti-workrate" matches I love (probably a little more). I tend to worry more about what is happening and why than whether or not a guy is busting out a ton of moves or keeping things moving at a brisk pace. Sometimes a match needs a slower pace. That's not to say I haven't gotten bored when wrestlers sit in rest holds for the first 2/3rds of a match. I can also say that I've seen guys throwing stuff out at a million miles an hour and found other stuff to do while that match wrapped up. It's all up to the workers in the ring to make the match they are having work. Maybe I just don't get it, but I don't see the need for extremes in either direction. And if you are somebody who likes one end of the spectrum or the other, I don't see a problem with that. There's enough wrestling out there to cover everybody's tastes.

[Grimmas]

I think someone whose best match caps at *** 1/2 and is always good and never has a bad match is better than someone who does a lot of awful stuff has a lot of awful matches cut can sometimes pull out a **** 1/2 match.

[Goodear]

I think where I deviate from the workrate crowd is that I feel as though they sometimes take a myopic view of wrestling in a very Lance Storm-ian kind of way that ignores that there are more than one way to have a good match and tell a good story. Too often, people get caught up in the 'what' is being done instead of the 'why'. So-and-so did a moonsault off a cage! So-and-so tapped a vein and bleed all over the place! What is missing from that discussion is a look towards a narrative that makes those decisions make sense. Sabu does moonsaults off things because his character will kill himself in order to destroy you. It puts motivation behind his moves that say, Cody Rhodes doing a moonsault off a cage doesn't. Its that sort of character-driven narrative structure that makes Meng no selling moves work more than a Davey Richards or Young Buck doing the same thing. One is an invincible 290 pound wrecking machine and the other is a sub 200 pound guy who is intense. It also allows us to deviate from the formula where good matches have to have a bunch of moves or high spots when it may be more appropriate for Ric Flair to try and murder Terry Funk because he put a plastic bag over his head. It is no longer time for Ric to beg off or get thrown off the top or try to set up a small package. It's time for Ric to punch a Texan in the mouth.

 

With this sense of direction behind us, it allows us to re-characterize good matches from being matches devoid of context to be performances informed by the characters and stories involved. Dean Malenko can be the man of 1,000 holds who doesn't show a lot of emotion most of the time until Chris Jericho pushes him too far and it is time for revenge. Earthquake can squash Hercules on the way to face Hulk Hogan in the main event. Effective in context is the new 'good'.

[Benbeeach]

I like that in 2016 Dean Malenko is getting some kind of reverse just due. Also intentional or not it's good Tenta was used because he isn't exactly the slam dunk loser the way a typhoon or . . . 1990 Nikolai Volkoff or something would be. (Unless someone want's to make that argument. I'd listen)

Also I think Steamboat did have a cap. I don't think offensively Steamboat ever rose above "good" Was perfectly fine, effective offense for the 80s, if not a tad bit uninspiring. Conservative.
Which makes it sound like a MOVEZ argument for the sake of moves, when it isn't. (Well kind of) Steamboat was obviously effective at all the things he did, and executed and performed all his moves at the right times in the right ways for maximum affect and effect of the crowd. But I can't think of a Misawa or someone of his ilk and think Steamboat was quite THERE. Close, but even Ricky had his limits, self imposed or what have you. Maybe he really could have done anything in the ring he wanted to, maybe it's best he didn't.

[JerryvonKramer]

Final Conflict

2/15/87 Maple Leaf

Wrestlemania III

3/8/86 Boston

Holy Trinity

Clash 17

Superbrawl III

Beach Blash 92

 

Steamboat had a cap?

 

Apart from Flair what other US workers from that time frame have 10 matches of that quality to their name? Legimately at least 7 all-time performances there, and 3 others that arguably are too.

 

Also:

 

* 16 Elbow drops

* The best arm drag anyone has ever seen

* Some of the hardest chops a man can throw

 

Although his key asset was selling, it's not fair to say that Steamer's offense was never better than "good".

[Benbeeach]

Although his key asset was selling, it's not fair to say that Steamer's offense was never better than "good".

Was it great? I agree with all the rest.

[GOTNW]

I like Steamboat but what's so special about his chops and armdrags?

[JerryvonKramer]

I like Steamboat but what's so special about his chops and armdrags?

 

Who has a better arm drag than him?

[GOTNW]

Can we include Armdrag variations? Pretty much all Armdrags look the same to me but my gut reaction to that would be about 250 luchadores.

[JerryvonKramer]

No. Pretty much every lucha guy I've ever seen does a floaty arm drag. Don't nail it deep, crisp and awesome like Steamer does.

[Benbeeach]

Can we include Armdrag variations? Pretty much all Armdrags look the same to me but my gut reaction to that would be about 250 luchadores.

 

Give or take.

[JerryvonKramer]

I'm leaving this convo now before my eyes roll so much that they actually end up falling out of my head.

[Benbeeach]

If I were to make the case for Misawa's offense as all time great, I'd certainly have to include the elbows, but that wouldn't be it. Even if that were it, I could probably still make the case.

Not sure I can buy Steamboats otherworldly arm drags as some kind of catalyst for which to make the same case.
The Rock threw nice arm drags.

[GOTNW]

I like the way Steamboat uses moves to control matches a lot more than I do the aesthetics of their execution. Not that there's anything wrong with them but it's really not what I associate with him.

[Benbeeach]

I like the way Steamboat uses moves to control matches a lot more than I do the aesthetics of their execution. Not that there's anything wrong with them but it's really not what I associate with him.

Agreed as momentum shift. Cut off, shine move, the way Ricky used it could be masterful. It's not the sistine chapel of wrestling aesthetics or creativity however. The guys with the all time body slams, side headlocks, and fireman's carries deserve their just due too I'd reckon.

 

Again, I can meet in the middle and say most of the stuff Steamboat did do, looked great (although I wouldn't shed one tear if I never see another overhand karate chop again for the rest of my life) and his offense was perfectly fine for the time and logical. I really liked his Flair Formula press slam.