In-ring ability vs Charisma and Historical Importance

[AndreasL]

First of all sorry for my english, I'm Italian. 

In italian wrestling forums most of the users consider the historical importance and the charisma the two only criteria to judge the greatness of a wrestler. They do not give much importance to in-ring skills. In 2008 we had a tournament to choose the greatest wrestler of all time, and the winner was Hulk Hogan. Even for judging matches the criteria were historical importance, build-up and atmosphere. In the tournament we have done the same year to choose the greatest match, the final ranking was:

1) Hulk Hogan vs Ultimate Warrior Wrestlemania VI

2) Bret Hart vs Stone Cold Wrestlemania XIII

3) Hulk Hogan vs André the Giant Wrestlemania III.

I always criticize this vision of pro-wrestling because I think that the best pro wrestler is... the best-pro wrestler! And the best match is the best match to watch, not the most important. So two years ago I organized another tournament for the best wrestler, trying to correct the most prevalent opinions. This time ranking was:

1) Lou Thesz

2) Ric Flair

3) Jumbo Tsuruta

I do not think that Thesz is the greatest wrestler ever, but this ranking is in my opinion closer to the truth. Hovewer, many users continued to think that historical importance was the only really important thing, and as a result El Santo was chosen as the greatest mexican wrestler ever (even if everyone who vote him never watched one of his matches).   

So, what's your thoughts about this two different ways to consider pro-wrestling? 

[dawho5]

I don't think you can limit it to just those ways singly.  Take your example of Bret vs. Stone Cold.  It had a great build and is extremely important historically, but it is also considered a great match in terms of the ring work.  Taking both views, the ring work only reinforced the story being told in the build.  To me that actually takes great in-ring wrestling and enhances it.  So in effect, when you combine the two ways of looking at it you get more of the whole.

You also have to take into account that ring work is far more subjective than how important a wrestler or match is historically.  Again in the instance of Bret/SCSA there could be many fans who disagree that the work was as good as the build.  

[Loss]

I think it's about the composite takeaway. It's always bugged me that we treat the idea of charisma and personality or in-ring ability as a binary, like you can have one but not both. Any arguments that one doesn't matter -- in either direction -- seem short-sighted. Wrestlers can get over for different reasons.

That said, it's actually refreshing that you've been part of a community that looks at wrestling through that lens because so few do now.

[AndreasL]

I agree with you, in fact my idea in the 2016 tournament was a reaction to the extremism of the other vision. 

For example, I have read your list of the greatest wrestlers ever and I was surprised about the fact that Inoki was 132° and Rikidozan 347°. In my community everyone considers they the greatest japanese wrestlers because they are the most important and most famous (even if Baba and Misawa are very close). 

Also I agreed with the absence of El Santo and Blue Demon, because there are very few matches of this two that we can watch today. In italian forum everyone vote for this two even If no one watched one of their matches! 

[fxnj]

Focusing solely on entertainment value of a wrestler's matches seems as extreme a position as focusing solely on the drawing ability and historical significance. Ideally, you'd want to strike some sort of balance between all those factors like the WON HOF strives to do. I don't think it's right to penalize highly regarded older performers for not having a lot of full matches available as such a thing is largely a matter of luck and doesn't say anything about their actual worth as a performer.

[sek69]

Historically, the people in wrestling who were the biggest draws and made the most money also were the most charismatic. Like Loss said, it's not like it's an either or deal where you can only be one or the other, but those who have charisma and lack the in ring ability tend to have more success than those that have the ability and lack charisma. 

I think a part of it is cases like Hulk Hogan and the Rock, who pretty much lapped the competition in their eras in terms of charisma it created a sense of "well no one can compare to *that* so why bother". One thing I always seem to notice when watching old territory stuff on either the Network or Youtube is how much more charisma I see in mid or lower card guys. Part of it might be it stands out more because it's not something common in today's overscripted WWE style, but it shows how important making a connection (or at least trying to) was in the days where your income was based on the size of the house. Everyone had a vested interest in getting an ass in every seat. 

[KawadaSmile]

Welcome, Andreas. This is actually a real nice discussion topic, even moreso considering that for a while, we managed to have certain wrestlers who absolutely dominate both categories you've mentioned - Daniel Bryan being the most shining example.

I think that connection to the crowd is the #1 skill one could have, and that usually leads us to a bigger historical importance, on a broader sense. Of course, one could be charismatic AND have great in-ring skills, but I doubt that DB would get to that Wrestlemania 30 moment based on in-ring skills alone. In fact, I believe that his amazing underdog story had less to do with him being a superb technical wrestler, and more with the connection he had established with the crowd.

Bryan and Miz just had a match yesterday that probably is the perfect mix of modern in-ring work and heavy story-telling, paired with an actual significant historical importance. Loss adressed this in his amazing review of the match of how it referenced old-school feuds and key moments in the business. It might be too early to say, but I believe that this feud will be remembered in 20 years as something huge, much like Bret/Austin or Hogan/Andre.

[AndreasL]

8 hours ago, KawadaSmile said:

Welcome, Andreas. This is actually a real nice discussion topic, even moreso considering that for a while, we managed to have certain wrestlers who absolutely dominate both categories you've mentioned - Daniel Bryan being the most shining example.

I think that connection to the crowd is the #1 skill one could have, and that usually leads us to a bigger historical importance, on a broader sense. Of course, one could be charismatic AND have great in-ring skills, but I doubt that DB would get to that Wrestlemania 30 moment based on in-ring skills alone. In fact, I believe that his amazing underdog story had less to do with him being a superb technical wrestler, and more with the connection he had established with the crowd.

Bryan and Miz just had a match yesterday that probably is the perfect mix of modern in-ring work and heavy story-telling, paired with an actual significant historical importance. Loss adressed this in his amazing review of the match of how it referenced old-school feuds and key moments in the business. It might be too early to say, but I believe that this feud will be remembered in 20 years as something huge, much like Bret/Austin or Hogan/Andre.

Yeah I know that, also Ric Flair is a perfect example of a wrestler who dominates both categories, in fact in the final rankings of 2008 tournament he was placed 2°, behind Hogan. 

I do not agree with the fact that connection to crowd is the best skill, I think that things like Lucha Underground, backyard wrestling or empty-arena matches demonstrate the opposite. 

I can not explain very well, but for me in-ring work and storytelling are the same thing. I did not mean to say that in-ring ability is tecnichal ability, don't think that technical ability is really important. In-ring ability for me is all in the psychology of the matches. In this sense, also I don't think that we can measure charisma by counting the number of fans, because publicity is very important for a wrestler to become famous and important. So, for me wrestlers like Misawa and Kobashi are more charismatic than Hulk Hogan, even if the last was more famous. 

[sek69]

I would agree with your last sentence. Different kinds of charisma for sure, but I would say Misawa and Kobashi kind of underrated in that aspect. The famous story of Baba changing the finish for Misawa to go over (I believe it was) Jumbo based on the buzz he was getting from the crowd speaks to that. It still sends chills down my spine to watch back to his big matches and the crowd chanting MI-SA-WA while his music played. 

[dawho5]

Yeah, there are all kinds of charisma and it is going to take the right kind of charisma to get over with crowds in different places.  Somebody like Misawa would not have gotten over in the U.S. near as well.  Then of course you have guys like Hogan or the Rock who just exude whatever it is you need to get over anywhere.  And in truth Hogan was a far better worker than we think.  He just chose to do the bare minimum he needed to.  Which is more of a 70s and earlier way of approaching wrestling.

[LibSuperstar]

You guys are nailing it. Interestingly I was thinking about this topic after an acquaintance shared a quote from Shelton Benjamin. He relayed that his work w/ Thea Vidale was remembered more than his great matches which fell in line w/ my conclusion that for some in-ring alone doesn't connect w/ the crowd. But then some get over strictly b/c of their ringwork.