What is "Workrate"?

[Malcolm]

I'm still not entirely sure what "workrate" is.

I can only think of some negative IWC stereotype of some guy doing a bunch of flips.

Is it someone who can sell moves and has a good moveset or is it someone who can put on a good match? But what if my idea of a good match isn't the same as everyone else's? What if I can't tell what good workrate is if it punched me in the face and care more about mic work? What if I'm everything wrong with wrestling fans?

[mcmahonfan85]

Apr 14, 2014 23:04:30 GMT -5 Malcolm said:

But what if my idea of a good match isn't the same as everyone else's?

then you mock and ridicule them for being wrong, because everyone is supposed to like and hate the same things, and if they don't then they are wrong and should be stoned to death in the town square for daring to like something you don't agree with (even though it has no impact on you enjoying the type of wrestling you like)

["Cane Dewey" Johnson]

The baseline is Rosa Mendes, who botched standing still.

If you know how not to do that, you're on the way to having some kind of workrate. How much or how little is entirely up to you.

[rnrk supports BLM]

Apr 14, 2014 23:04:30 GMT -5 Malcolm said:

I'm still not entirely sure what "workrate" is.

The people who harp on it aren't either.

[MolotovMocktail]

Whether you're a technical wrestler, brawler, or high flyer, it pretty much means the ability to go out and have entertaining matches that make the crowd emotionally invest and say, "That was an incredible match."

[Woo]

Yeah it's fairly simple. If you are capable of putting on great matches that most people like. Daniel Bryan is a good worker. Giant Gonzalez is not.

[salsashark]

I always saw work rate as a combination of things: one's ability to do a variety of moves -- you're not doing punch/kick/punch the whole time with four obligatory signature moves and a finisher -- and to adapt them to different scenarios in a way that tells a match well. Bret Hart is the no. 1 example of great work rate because he could do all kinds of pins/reversals/etc. and work tons of types of matches convincingly: bloody brawls, technical wrestling style matches, bouncing off a faster opponent well (like Hakushi or 123 Kid), etc. I'd also say the more creative you are with your set-ups (such as DDP or Orton being able to do all kinds of cutters), that ups the work rate. But I just made this up. I don't know what the definition really is.

[Deleted]

I'm going to be literal and say judging from what the word is, it literally means the speed and consistency a wrestler can have a match before they have to slow down the pace and/or apply "rest holds."

Literally, the rate at which a wrestler works a match.

[The Ichi]

I only ever see it used in a mocking fashion these days, i.e. "Well geez, I'm sorry he doesn't have enough workrate for your liking!". Never once have I seen it used seriously.

However, I always took it to mean the same as work ethic. Meaning Cena has it by the assload.

[angryfan]

To me, it's simply the question, "When wrestler X has a match, does everyone involved come out of it looking better than they did going in, and did wrestler X protect his opponent from injury?". To me, that's all I consider. Guy can work a match where he and his opponent wind up looking good, and everyone leaves the match without an actual injury.

[Deleted]

Apr 15, 2014 13:55:24 GMT -5 @keijikage said:

I'm going to be literal and say judging from what the word is, it literally means the speed and consistency a wrestler can have a match before they have to slow down the pace and/or apply "rest holds."

Literally, the rate at which a wrestler works a match.

This is how I remember the term being used back in my early days of the internet wrestling fandom (03/04). Over time it's morphed to "Whether you're good or not."

[Dr. Bolty, Disaster Enby]

Apr 16, 2014 0:50:21 GMT -5 @rrnew said:

Apr 15, 2014 13:55:24 GMT -5 @keijikage said:

I'm going to be literal and say judging from what the word is, it literally means the speed and consistency a wrestler can have a match before they have to slow down the pace and/or apply "rest holds."

Literally, the rate at which a wrestler works a match.

This is how I remember the term being used back in my early days of the internet wrestling fandom (03/04). Over time it's morphed to "Whether you're good or not."

Yeah, the term is a relic of a style of wrestling that was largely built around holds and reversals. Once wrestling became more about a combination of strikes, power moves, chain grapples, and high flying blended together, the term lost coherence.

[Glitch]

It's that term that will get somebody angry when you use at their favorite guy, and they will retaliate by calling your guy a spot monkey. In fact, I always saw the word "spot fest" as a comeback to people saying "workrate."
"Oh, my guy doesn't do enough in the ring? Well your guy does too much!!!"

[Medicinal Thunder Liger]

[saintpat]

Not to be confused with "workratez," which is code for "Japanese guy."

[mcmahonfan85]

Apr 16, 2014 12:32:54 GMT -5 saintpat said:

Not to be confused with "workratez," which is code for "Japanese guy."

Japanese guy, Mexican guy, European guy, indy guy...

basically anyone that got fan following without the aid of WWE

[RowdyRobbyPiper]

RSPW defines it as the ratio between action and inaction (I.e. rest holds).

[thesunbeast]

I define workrate as the rate of work, and I'm not trying to be funny.

I think we have to find what "work" is within the business in order to, obviously, understand workrate.

Based off of everything I have heard and read, and what people have said, all in all, I'd define "work" in the business of pro wrestling/sports entertainment, to be the act of creating levels out of something to spread the energy farther. You can work a match, you can work a promo, you can work a bodypart, you can work a hold, ect. the whole entire business is a work. You can do too much work, you can do too little work, and you can do good work and bad work. You can be a strong worker but not a good worker, and you can be a light worker but be a good worker, ect. It's one thing to know how to work (even when another doesn't), but it's a different thing to know what to work. Someone who knows how to create a perfect portrait may not be successful to a client who wants landscape. He's a strong artist (skillful) but not a good artist (knowing how to be the right kind of artist in a situation for success)

So I defined "work" as the ability to create levels out of something to spread the energy farther. A strong worker is someone who knows how to do this. A good worker is someone who knows what kinds of this could be done, how much, and why.

Let me elaborate on my definition. You hear people say that wrestler A "worked the leg". Now, if someone is going to put you in the figure-4 leglock, if you're going to submit to the hold, then you're just going to submit to the hold. You don't really need to pound on someone's leg for 10 minutes and then put them in the hold to submit them. It's not like you would put them in the hold and it was too weak for them to submit, but then when you pound on their leg for 10 minutes, and then put them in the hold, now all of a sudden that particular hold is strong enough for a submission when all others weren't.

So, why do the veterans do it? Why has a lot of the greatest matches in history incorporated this? It
s because the whole point of it is to build to the audience what it is that you're going to try to do. You are creating levels out of this idea of a dramatic moment in a figure-4 leglock. You start with an idea of this dramatic moment, and the worker works this moment. He creates levels out of it. It's like when someone hands you an orange, the worker looks at the orange, and he cuts out mabe 25% of it, and he takes that 25% and he chops that up into pieces, and creates a trail leading up to the rest of the orange. So when someone is presented with/exposed to a big dramatic moment, the worker is thinking "how do I create levels out of this". With the "work the leg" example, the energy was spread through levels, in this example, the levels were moves to the leg, and the energy was anticipation.

Workrate is the amount of work you do. Strong workrate is simply doing a whole lot of work (which could be good or bad). This applies to matches, spots, moves, body parts, and promos. A solid worker is someone who spreads the energy through levels constructively. An unsolid worker is someone who spreads the energy through levels unconstructively. You can be a strong, but unsolid worker.

Alot of high spots in a match CAN be alot of solid workrate, but it can also be alot of unsolid workrate. The whole point of having a high spot is to create a jump in the timeline. It doesn't have to be a high flying move (like the name implies), a twist or turn in the storyline in the middle of a match is a high spot. Hogan vs Mcmahon at WM19 had Roddy Piper come down and hit Hogan in the head with a pipe. That was an even bigger high spot than Vince doing the legdrop to Hogan off of a ladder and through a table. Unsolid workrate though, would be something like: work the leg, do a flying head scissors, work the leg. That person worked the anticipation, but they screwed it all up because they didn't work the psychology, and so overall it was unsound work, even if it was work.

In a promo, A person might say: "when we're in the ring, and you look into my eyes, then you'll know, it's over!". But, a worker (someone seeking to spread the energy through levels) might say something like: "I was cruising the rough these halls and I saw the stares! In there eyes were the messages of the future, and throughout my history, whenever I saw my reflection in a grim and dim manner, I had something to worry about after. And throughout my history, whenever someone spoke at that moment, the reflection went away, and something grim happened. But today, for the first time, when they spoke, the reflection stayed, and when they didn't speak, there was no reflection at all, but most of all, the reflection that was there, no longer was me, it was you! I carry that reflection with me right now! And when we meet in the ring, and you look into my eyes, you will then see, it's over!" They create levels out of the desired dramatic moment, and spread the energy throughout.


In my opinion, Bret Hart is a great worker. Bret Hart and Owen Hart had their match for WM10 completely laid out, it was all set and ready to go. The match they had laid out had a great story, but as great as the story was, Bret eventually nixed it, and they started all over again and created a new one. It was a great story, but it was the WRONG story. If you tell a great story to the wrong audience that doesn't care about that type of story in the first place, then you may be a strong worker (willing to work alot for the maximum benefit of that type of work) but not a good worker (knowing what type of work to do in the first place).


I think too many people believe more stuff = better match. I disagree, as I believe that there can be too much stuff in one match, having complete overkill, and thus, you can have a bad match with lots of stuff. I think from the little that I have seen from CZW, that a lot of CZW matches would fit into this category. Doing a piledriver off of a balcony and through a table, both getting up, walking to the ring, and trading flying head-scissors is bad, but is lots of stuff. I don't define workrate as lots of stuff, and I certainly don't think that, even if workrate was lots of stuff, then this definition of having lots of workrate still won't lead to a great match IMO.

Not that I'm trying to be too much like WWE, but for now I'm going to refrain from using the word "wrestler", only because I don't think it's smart to use an arbitrary world like that when analyzing something and giving the wrong connotation. I'll use the word "performer", not in opposition to wrestling, but rather including it, but using the term "performer" as a larger umbrella term. I'd say that Daniel Bryan is a great performer. In 2010, In my opinion he was a great wrestler but a good, not great, character. In my opinion, overall, he was an A+ wrestler, a B+ character, and thus overall, he was an A performer, but not an A+ performer. Once he grew the hair and beard, did the Team Hell-No angle, the anger management, Dr Shelby, hug-it-out, the "YES!", and the "NO!", he became a great character. So because he obviously never let anything replace his wrestling skill, he's now an A+ wrestler, and an A+ character, making him an A+ performer. It would be as if Bob Backlund became the crazy Mr. Bob Backlund character while in the middle of his prime, and finding a way to stay babyface. But regardless, I think Daniel Bryan has always been a great worker and has always had great workrate.

So I believe that a person can be either a sound/unsound, strong/weak/, good/bad worker, and they are all different things, and a person can be either a good/bad wrestler, good/bad/ character, and good/bad performer, and they all could include varying types of workrate.

[Banecat]

Apr 16, 2014 5:55:18 GMT -5 Medicinal Thunder Liger said:

He totally no-sold a superplex, minus 10 workrates.

[Bad Moon]

I once read it defined as the rate of time spent working in a match to the overall amount of time the match runs, with the idea being that the less time is spent stalling (trash-talking, taunting, playing to the crowd, resting etc.) the better the match ends up.