Exceptional Or Consistent?

[Mozenrath]

If you were a wrestler, would you want to be a wrestler who is a good hand, always good for a solid match and almost never disappointing, but you only rarely pull out a match of the night? Not to say it never happens, but it's just usually not in the cards for you.

Or, would you prefer to be someone who often turns out mediocre matches or occasional outright duds, but you also will have matches that make people say, "Holy shit, that was fantastic!", always enough to have people loathe to write you off, but enough to where people wonder if you're living up to your potential.

I do want to clarify, this does not take injuries/safety into account. Assume for both that you and your opponents have the same amount of harm come your way, it is not the way in which you'd be lacking in either option.

[Triangle Lancer]

My personality makes me the latter: I'm a solid hand that you can put anywhere on the card, but isn't going to steal the heat from the main match.

[Captain Stud Muffin (BLM)]

I think you rather have that potential of amazing then just consistently good at least if you want to reach a higher tier. Being consistently good keeps you a job tho. Dolph Ziggler can wrestle until he is 50 because he does not f** up and wrestles a relatively safe style.

[carp (SPC, Itoh Respect Army)]

I actually have a hard time thinking of wrestlers who fit into either role, when I try to imagine these things. For the first one... Teddy Hart, maybe? And for the latter, Chavo Guerrero?

I'd definitely rather be a Chavo than a Teddy. Especially because a well-booked story can make a competent-but-average match super exciting, but a bad match can really wreck a well-booked story.

[cassonova]

Honestly, I feel consistency is a good skill to have. If you don't have bad matches and can work with anyone, you have a job for life, and a good paying job longer than you would normally.

[Mozenrath]

May 16, 2021 12:29:35 GMT -5 Captain Stud Muffin (BLM) said:

I think you rather have that potential of amazing then just consistently good at least if you want to reach a higher tier. Being consistently good keeps you a job tho. Dolph Ziggler can wrestle until he is 50 because he does not f** up and wrestles a relatively safe style.

Certainly, though some people have probably ridden a standout performance for a while due to people wanting lightning to strike again.

[Starshine]

Consistent > unreliable, as a rule.

But if you're some exceptionally unique and charismatic talent, the latter is probably better, because you don't need to rely on your in-ring consistency to sell yourself on.

[Captain Stud Muffin (BLM)]

May 16, 2021 19:29:03 GMT -5 Mozenrath said:

May 16, 2021 12:29:35 GMT -5 Captain Stud Muffin (BLM) said:

I think you rather have that potential of amazing then just consistently good at least if you want to reach a higher tier. Being consistently good keeps you a job tho. Dolph Ziggler can wrestle until he is 50 because he does not f** up and wrestles a relatively safe style.

Certainly, though some people have probably ridden a standout performance for a while due to people wanting lightning to strike again.

That was my opinion of EC3 for a long time 

He's a decent wrestler but not a great one. He was never as good as that hot streak he had when he got to TNA and became champ and never really reached anywhere near that streak again until he got released and changed his gimmick to the "narrative gimmick"

[Mozenrath]

May 17, 2021 1:56:34 GMT -5 Captain Stud Muffin (BLM) said:

May 16, 2021 19:29:03 GMT -5 Mozenrath said:

Certainly, though some people have probably ridden a standout performance for a while due to people wanting lightning to strike again.

That was my opinion of EC3 for a long time 

He's a decent wrestler but not a great one. He was never as good as that hot streak he had when he got to TNA and became champ and never really reached anywhere near that streak again until he got released and changed his gimmick to the "narrative gimmick"

I cut him some slack since WWE didn't remotely try to even let him get any momentum, but yeah, he definitely peaked.

[sportatorium]

Isn’t excellence rooted in consistency? What are we terming as excellent? I think Randy Orton is an excellent wrestler and that is born from his consistency. WALTER is another one- he’s incredibly consistent (and excellent) and when he has a match like he did with Ciampa this year when he was completely generous & did a ton of selling, that comes from consistency allowing you to take something to the next level.

[Allie Kitsune]

May 17, 2021 13:31:33 GMT -5 sportatorium said:

Isn’t excellence rooted in consistency? What are we terming as excellent? I think Randy Orton is an excellent wrestler and that is born from his consistency. WALTER is another one- he’s incredibly consistent (and excellent) and when he has a match like he did with Ciampa this year when he was completely generous & did a ton of selling, that comes from consistency allowing you to take something to the next level.

I think Randy is more the prime example of the first (though mostly of his own choosing) : usually just alright, but when he's fully invested he can be so good (good enough that if he could be Peak Randy 100% of the time, he'd be in the argument for best to ever do it).

[thecrusherwi]

If I were a wrestler, I'd rather be the exceptional but inconsistent person. If you're a solid hand, you often will be stuck in the Christian or Bobby Eaton role where you're mostly a midcarder that is used to get other people over. You might do some main event stuff for a while here and there, but no one will ever build the company around you.

The Ultimate Warrior had like three amazing matches and hundreds of terrible ones. But he had a good look and hit it out of the park on the biggest nights of his career. So he became a millionaire in a few years of wrestling, became a crossover star, and basically never had to do anything he didn't want to for the rest of his career/life.

[Viking Hall]

As others have said, I think it depends whether you're a flawed genius who people accept just isn't going to turn it on every night but accept that because the highs are so high, or the guy that most people aren't really bothered about but can have a really good match under the right circumstances.

[A Platypus Rave]

May 17, 2021 13:31:33 GMT -5 sportatorium said:

Isn’t excellence rooted in consistency? What are we terming as excellent? I think Randy Orton is an excellent wrestler and that is born from his consistency.

I'd say Orton is one of the least consistent wrestlers in the business... 9 out of 10 times he's lazy unmotivated and doesn't care and leads to pretty damn boring matches. feuds and segments.

When he's on and gives a damn he's pretty damn good... but those moments tend to be few and far between

[Deleted]

I'd rather be consistent and never put on a dud, than be mostly "meh" but occasionally great.

[Hypnosis]

May 18, 2021 14:05:31 GMT -5 @wvguitar said:

I'd rather be consistent and never put on a dud, than be mostly "meh" but occasionally great.

Right, a promoter can't wait a whole year to expect the lazy wrestler to suddenly have a great match because that's a long time to wait.

[fw91]

I feel like this question is a big push/canceling out.