"Anti-workrate"

[Luchaundead]

 

I've always thought of an easy way to look at it as workrate is judged by the amount of moves done in a set amount of time if there are a lot of moves it's high workrate if it's less then low workrate.

 

Don't agree with this at all. Not when you have guys like Jake "The Snake" Roberts and Scott Hall - both good workers, no? - preaching that it's better to have only five moves if those five moves are all massively over with the audience.

 

 

That's a silly conclusion to jump to, I didn't say low workrate makes you a bad worker in fact this entire time I've made the opposite argument. You can disagrees with opinions all you want but the idea that someone is high workrate without doing a lot of moves isn't an opinion as that's just the definition of the term also, keep in mind I didn't say different moves just moves so even if a guy like lets say AR Fox does 20 topes in a match that doesn't make him low workrate because it was only 1 move but it does make him dumb.

[Luchaundead]

 

Everyone works hard at times but guys like Hogan, Gagne, Dory Jr, Hart, Nash, Dusty, Warrior, Colon, Iron Sheik, Andre the Giant and Nash didn't make their names or what case they may or may not have for GWE based on their workrate.

Verne, Dory, Colon and Iron Sheik all had good workrate.

 

You could make an argument that everyone I listed had high workrate matches except maybe Nash but my point was more those are all guys that got to legendary status and had great matches without being high workrate.

[Goodear]

I don't know if Dory Jr being an anti-workrate guy makes any sort of sense as he seems very 'pure worker' to me with lots of mechanical work that is often critiqued for not having an emotional resonance. Granted, much like the Malenko example, some of Dory's best work is when that exterior cracks and he decides to up the ante by going after Abdullah the Butcher in Japan.

 

The Iron Sheik is a very interesting case as well as his mechanics were actually solid with his throws being a highlight. But I don't think that is what makes him a star in wrestling so much as his character stuff that pushes him into relevance. It doesn't help his workrate case that we saw him disintegrate physically over decades of time so most people remember him as the lumbering Sheik who got by on being the character more than the worker.

 

Workrate and character are separate spectrums that run parallel to each other. You can have both (Flair, Savage) or more of one than the other (Bret Hart, Hacksaw Duggan on opposite sides) and still be a success in the business. Some of us value one more than the other. It happens.

[Loss]

Dave on Wrestling Classics many moons ago:

 

 

 

People who claim workrate isn't a commonly used wrestling term within the business are so far out of touch with the business. It signifies how much effort a participant is putting into their match. It doesn't signify high spots, or signify not using rest holds, but having to do with lazy guys and hard working guys. It's not a term made up by newsletters, because I learned it from conversations with wrestlers going back 20 years ago. In the 80s, it was a term that the stallers used to laugh at because their idea of wrestling was making fans react while doing as little as possible. It was a term the harder working wrestlers used to differentiate themselves, at least as I first learned it. When the former style, for better or worse, went out of vogue as younger wrestlers came in with the idea of working hard as opposed to the old fashioned cutting corners or shortcuts, the term became more popular, and it is commonly used among pretty much everyone in wrestling today.

[Luchaundead]

Dory would probably be a poor example as I was thinking about staying in holds for long periods of time, not to say he didn't work the holds well which he did but, it feels low workrate to me even if that is a style of match I do personally enjoy a lot.

[Matt D]

That former style was pretty awesome.

[Parties]

Do you think Tenta didn't have a high workrate? Vader was probably the best super heavyweight ever, and Blackwell is also an outlier when it comes to big guys. That doesn't mean that Tenta was just a fat dude wobbling around the ring. He was working his ass off. His most high profile run was against a Hogan, who was basically the definition of anti-workrate at the time. That didn't stop Tenta from going out there and working his ass off. He could have worked an easier style, but he went out there and busted his ass every night. I'm not saying that workrate isn't an important measure, but the definition of workrate seems to be limiting to guys like Tenta who was clearly working his ass off.

 

I said this in a different Tenta thread recently (something in the Microscope), but the idea that Earthquake is working hard in that Summerslam match with Hogan - while Hogan is working some easy-does-it coasting on his gimmick? - is just wrong. I re-watched that match a month ago because I wanted to see what everyone was talking about in praising Tenta. Because I too wanted to like him. But here's the thing. Everyone else in that match - from Hogan to cornerman Big Boss Man to Jimmy Hart to 1990 musclebound Dino Bravo - everyone in that match is working like crazy to make Earthquake look good.

 

And to me he still looks like a sad, ineffective oaf who's not nearly as threatening as some make him out to be. His execution of basic moves is mediocre and at times outright weak, especially for a supposed giant. Yes, he was a big guy working a big man gimmick. But he's a big guy in the same way that Comic Book Guy is working a big man gimmick. Tenta is genuinely bad in that match, and I don't know if I can ever recall seeing Hogan work so hard to get somebody over. I say that as someone who currently loathes Hogan. It's genuinely one of his most selfless performances, as every performer in the match is sweating buckets to whip that crowd into a frenzy. They succeed: the crowd loved it. (But to be honest, I couldn't tell you from memory if the reaction is better/worse/same than most WWF PPV main events of that time, as I haven't seen many others of late: my guess is it was pretty par for the course. The '88-'89 Mega-Powers stuff I've seen recently seemed more over?)

 

This is where we get into the territory of people seeing what they want to see. Having totally different reactions to the same actions, the same footage. Earlier Matt writes:

 

He's excellent at interacting with crowds, very good at creating a mood by knowing how long to take priming an elbow drop before hitting it. So not only does the elbow drop look devastating, but it means all the more because of how he set it up. He has a very strong sense of when to give and when not to give.

 

I've watched dozens of Tenta matches, including several recently. I've never seen anything that approximates what's described above. At some point I'm happy to say "Different strokes, dude." More power to you. It's not as if anyone's wrong to see those things in Tenta. If you do, great. You sincerely win, because you get to enjoy it more than I do. But boy oh boy do I not see those things in Tenta. And that's where a lot of these "anti-workrate" appraisals to me after a while start to sound like vague, rhetorical musings about the nature of wrestling and "complexities" that go untested and unexplained.

 

Which to me isn't as compelling - let alone as inviting of conversation - as watching a match together and commenting on what's physically happening. Not some jazz philosophies about "the notes he's not playing, man", but to instead judge the wrestlers on their wrestling. But I'm sure that to some, that approach sounds all too "workrate".

[Matt D]

I'll break down some matches at some point, give you specifics, but others have done it as well and that's out there. I can't promise this before the GWE vote.

[JerryvonKramer]

Dory would probably be a poor example as I was thinking about staying in holds for long periods of time, not to say he didn't work the holds well which he did but, it feels low workrate to me even if that is a style of match I do personally enjoy a lot.

Don't want to harp on this, but if you watch Brisco vs. Dory from Florida '72 (for example), you'll see that those two work a lot of big bombs over the course of an hour. Yes, there are holds, counters and so on, but even when in a hold, someone like Jack Brisco is so animated that he's working very hard.

 

But there's also a lot of motion and bumps. Dory wasn't the biggest bumper, but he did a lot of rope running spots and suplex variations. And keeps things moving. Later in his career, he slowed down a bit, but that's the "boring Dory" that everyone hates.

 

-------

 

The reason I'm resisting the anti-workrate thesis is because I'm not sure that it holds for most fans. A lot of people hate watching Don Muraco matches from the mid-80s. Why? Because he was lazy as fuck and just sat in front face locks. His matches were boring.

 

They are boring because they lack workrate.

[JerryvonKramer]

Also, I should mention that I'm broadly with those people like Loss who have said that it's not an all or nothing proposition.

 

I think the situation is this:

 

- Meltzer and the early internet fandom privileged workrate at the expense of everything else.

 

- Fans now, the ones we see on this site, demand good storytelling AS WELL AS workrate.

 

The contention here is with the "as well as". I'm saying that just because workrate has been overrated as a metric in the past, doesn't mean that we no longer look for it. Most of us do.

 

Most people will rate Vader over Earthquake. It's because he worked harder and had better matches.

 

Most people will rate Ricky Steamboat over Don Muraco. It's because he worked harder and had better matches.

 

I realise I'm a guy who doesn't watch a lot of go go Indys shit and that many people might be coming at this from the other end of the spectrum, seeing a lot of workrate and little psychology.

 

But I do watch a lot of Vince Sr era WWF where we get the opposite extreme end of the spectrum and I'm trying to remind people what a lack of workrate actually looks like. Bottom line: most people care about it.

[Matt D]

I gave my breakdown earlier in the thread when you were all talking about Sid and no one touched that post. It's mainly a primacy issue.

[Goodear]

I think where you are losing the narrative argument thread here Parv is that people are going to pick lots of people above guys who did 'work hard' but weren't great characters like Lance Storm or Brad Armstrong (just to chose examples that will be on the opposite end of the spectrum of a Don Muraco).

 

Let's look more in depth at your 'Vader is better than Earthquake' point. Is he really better than Earthquake just because he worked harder? Or is looked at more fondly because he got the monster bad ass push where he crippled half the roster, felt no pain and feared no man? It's very hard to separate his hard work from the fact that his performances were usually on point from a character perspective as well. He did not do a whole lot that was not character appropriate and the stuff people would point as being 'off' would be contrary to working hard (moonsaults, bumping too much). One could argue that Vader really fell off because his aura got wrecked working with Flair and Hogan and he was never able to get that momentum back again. That was nothing to do with him working hard and more to do with his character not being able to withstand putting other people over,

[Loss]

Vader will be ranked above Earthquake because he had better matches. I don't care so much about how hard he worked and think that's a false paradigm. He got better results.

 

Earthquake is a summer wrestler. He brings the heat. Vader is both a summer wrestler and a winter wrestler because he can also bring the snowflakes.

 

(That was a dumb enough play on words that I had to share it.)

[Memphis Mark]

 

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

 

Who has a better arm drag than him?

 

 

Jack Brisco . Steamboat watched Big Jack on CWF, while he was in high school. Ricky took the arm drag from Big Jack.

[JerryvonKramer]

You probably won't find a bigger Brisco fan than me on here and Steamer had the better arm drag.

[Grimmas]

This myth that Vader worked harder than Earthquake, because he had better matches is baffling. How much harder could Earthquake have worked? He did everything he was supposed to do perfectly and very effective.

[Matt D]

Because frankly, why the hell not a this juncture, I'm dropping in Bill's article about workrate, the most interesting bit being the idea of a physical workrate and a mental workrate as two separate but invaluable elements (my summing up of what I saw there):

 

http://wrestlingwithwords.com/workrate/

[Loss]

This myth that Vader worked harder than Earthquake, because he had better matches is baffling. How much harder could Earthquake have worked? He did everything he was supposed to do perfectly and very effective.

 

I don't think it's an issue of working hard or not working hard enough. I think it's an issue of having better matches. Why did Vader have better matches than Earthquake? Because he was a more compelling character with more aura, more athletic ability and more options for constructing a match because of said athletic ability and aura. Earthquake was able to have perfectly acceptable matches based on ideas of how big men work that existed long before he came along. Vader, to an extent, rewrote the rules. "Big guys shouldn't play pinball because they'll be neutered" might be conventional wisdom, but Vader played pinball without being neutered because he's Vader. "Pro style won't get over in a shootstyle fed" is another piece of convention wisdom, but Vader got pro style over in a shoot style fed again, because he's Vader.

 

There's nothing wrong with John Tenta. It's just that Vader is an exceptional talent. It's not even really fair to point to Vader as how big men should work because he's the exception to so many rules that other guys with less gifts trying to do it wouldn't be able to pull it off. Vader could because he was a very special performer.

[Grimmas]

 

This myth that Vader worked harder than Earthquake, because he had better matches is baffling. How much harder could Earthquake have worked? He did everything he was supposed to do perfectly and very effective.

 

I don't think it's an issue of working hard or not working hard enough. I think it's an issue of having better matches. Why did Vader have better matches than Earthquake? Because he was a more compelling character with more aura, more athletic ability and more options for constructing a match because of said athletic ability and aura. Earthquake was able to have perfectly acceptable matches based on ideas of how big men work that existed long before he came along. Vader, to an extent, rewrote the rules. "Big guys shouldn't play pinball because they'll be neutered" might be conventional wisdom, but Vader played pinball without being neutered because he's Vader.

 

There's nothing wrong with John Tenta. It's just that Vader is an exceptional talent. It's not even really fair to point to Vader as how big men should work because he's the exception to so many rules that other guys with less gifts trying to do it wouldn't be able to pull it off. Vader could because he was a very special performer.

 

Well said.

[supremebve]

 

 

This myth that Vader worked harder than Earthquake, because he had better matches is baffling. How much harder could Earthquake have worked? He did everything he was supposed to do perfectly and very effective.

 

I don't think it's an issue of working hard or not working hard enough. I think it's an issue of having better matches. Why did Vader have better matches than Earthquake? Because he was a more compelling character with more aura, more athletic ability and more options for constructing a match because of said athletic ability and aura. Earthquake was able to have perfectly acceptable matches based on ideas of how big men work that existed long before he came along. Vader, to an extent, rewrote the rules. "Big guys shouldn't play pinball because they'll be neutered" might be conventional wisdom, but Vader played pinball without being neutered because he's Vader.

 

There's nothing wrong with John Tenta. It's just that Vader is an exceptional talent. It's not even really fair to point to Vader as how big men should work because he's the exception to so many rules that other guys with less gifts trying to do it wouldn't be able to pull it off. Vader could because he was a very special performer.

 

Well said.

 

Perfectly said, and the exact reason Tenta doesn't fit into the Anti-workrate discussion. His work shouldn't be discounted, because other people are exceptional.

[JerryvonKramer]

Because frankly, why the hell not a this juncture, I'm dropping in Bill's article about workrate, the most interesting bit being the idea of a physical workrate and a mental workrate as two separate but invaluable elements (my summing up of what I saw there):

 

http://wrestlingwithwords.com/workrate/

This lacked a clear thesis in my view. And I didn't really buy its conclusion that his brief and anecdotal exploration of a few different people's take on what workrate means that "there is no definition of workrate".

 

There is a definition of workrate. It is Meltzer's one. The other people are stretching the word to mean something else.

 

All I really got from that article was that Phil Schneider and his friends understand psychology. That's all any of it boils down to. Do you understand psychology?

 

None of this gets away from the fact that the sorts of people who will be right at up at the top end of most people's top 100s, Misawa, Kawada, Flair, Casas, pick whoever you want, are all guys who had high workrate AS WELL as other elements of pyschology and storytelling you might look for.

 

Stan Hansen worked hard too.

 

It's interesting that Earthquake has become the poster boy. Don't get me wrong, I like Tenta well enough. He was good at what he did. His matches with Hogan are underrated. Hell, Hogan himself is underrated. Scott Keith routinely gave matches involving Tenta DUD when they were probably deserved *** He underrated a lot of people. His view of what made matches good was too narrow.

 

But I am saying that it is too narrow in the other direction to dismiss the concept of workrate entirely. Working smart can get you so far. Working hard can get you so far. I have yet to see a match you could realistically give ***** to that didn't have an element of both.

 

Edit: and Tenta still caps out as "perfectly acceptable", which is what I said in the first place.

[Luchaundead]

The contention here is with the "as well as". I'm saying that just because workrate has been overrated as a metric in the past, doesn't mean that we no longer look for it.

I don't disagree with this and honestly I'm probably not the person to argue for "anti-workrate" as you seem to define it my point is more that honestly workrate is probably what I look at as the lowest metric I judge by.

[Matt D]

Ok, let's stop the thread.

 

Is anyone here, any single person, arguing that there shouldn't be some element of both in a great match?

 

Has anyone argued that at any point?

[JerryvonKramer]

The purpose of the thread was to understand what is meant by the term "anti-workrate".

 

Maybe I have drilled down enough to get that point. And if no one is arguing with that, it's a misleading phrase that we could probably do without.

[Matt D]

Fine, I will simply say that I reject the perfidious and outdated dogma of workrate primacy instead.

 

Happy?