|
Post by celtics543 on Jun 9, 2021 6:08:19 GMT -5
I was reading through the indie wrestler thread and something dawned on me that it felt like only a couple people in that thread were saying. Workrate doesn't equal ratings. At least not workrate alone. Stories and characters are more important.
We have basically 70 years of history with the WWWF/WWF/WWE now to point to and we can look at the low points and the high points to see what draws and what doesn't. So if we look back at who were the biggest draws in the history of the company we have:
Bruno Hogan Austin Rock Cena
Those were the guys who basically carried the company during its hottest periods. Which one of those guys is the 5 star worker? It didn't matter because as long as they could wrestle a decent match they had the charisma, the character, and the storyline to keep people entertained. I was listening to the Bill Simmons podcast yesterday and he had his son on for a few minutes to talk about the Logan Paul/Floyd Mayweather fight. His son is a teenager and basically said he was interested in the fight because he knew both "characters" and knew their back story so it made it interesting to watch. When pro wrestling is at its best they have backstories and characters that you care about and that is what drives the buys and puts eyeballs on the screen.
Who were the top guys when business was down?
Bob Backlund Bret Hart Shawn Michaels Indie Darlings of today
Workrate is fine but if you don't have the charisma, storylines, and character to keep people entertained then it's not going to work. Those guys were all huge stars and I personally enjoyed them but it's easy to understand why casual viewers tuned out. If you're a teenage guy, which group would you rather hang out with? Which group would you want to be like when you grew up? The average sized guys in the second group? Backlund the all American boy, Bret the serious guy, Shawn the male stripper, or the average sized, average looking indie guys of today? Or would you rather grow up to be a real life action figure like Bruno, Hogan, Rock, or Cena? What about a guy like Steve Austin?
I think WWE has moved in the wrong direction. They've put too much emphasis on the hardcore internet crowd. They've tried too hard to make it a "real" sport where Dave Meltzer rates things as 5 stars.
You can see it in historical companies, WWF beat the NWA in large part because Hogan was a bigger draw than Flair. Hardcore fans love Flair but Hogan was a much much larger draw nationally and internationally. Flair could wrestle a 5 star match but Hogan could draw 93,000 people to the Silverdome.
Larger point here, WWE should get back to storylines that drive interest. The wrestling part isn't going to be the huge draw. If it was then we'd still have hour long broadways and chain wrestling. It doesn't have to be Attitude Era over the top but they need to push storylines that branch off into actual interesting and exciting directions.
|
|
|
Post by Jedi-El of Tomorrow on Jun 9, 2021 6:34:18 GMT -5
Are you basing workrate on strictly technical stuff? Because I think workrate has to include the ability to connect with the crowd, storytelling, and psychology. And those top draws had that in spades.
Hogan wasn't a great technical wrestler, but there's maybe a handful at the very most, that are in his category of storytelling, psychology and ability to have the crowd invested in the match.
But, yeah, it's characters that sell. Why should I care about this wrestler? Dexter Lumis has the most basic offense ever, but fans get into his matches, thanks to his character.
|
|
thehottag
Don Corleone
We're here for one reason only: fame, fortune, & the World Wrestling Federation Tag Team Champions!
Posts: 1,668
|
Post by thehottag on Jun 9, 2021 6:38:56 GMT -5
I don't see why it has to be either/or though. Jericho, HBK & Angle were tremendous in-ring workers & were hugely charismatic. If anything, WWE has fallen back on in-ring work because they have forgotten how to create compelling storylines.
|
|
|
Post by EvenBaldobombHasAJob on Jun 9, 2021 6:57:36 GMT -5
Wherein someone suggests Hogan, Bruno and Steve Austin weren't good workers...
|
|
|
Post by kingoftheindies on Jun 9, 2021 6:57:50 GMT -5
I think overall the point is true for WWE programming. This isn't meant as an insult or talking down but in WWE title matches are based around stories the WWE wants to tell. So you may have good wrestlers who put on good matches, but the matches are irrelevant to the big picture.
|
|
|
Post by eJm on Jun 9, 2021 7:01:27 GMT -5
I don't see why it has to be either/or though. Jericho, HBK & Angle were tremendous in-ring workers & were hugely charismatic. If anything, WWE has fallen back on in-ring work because they have forgotten how to create compelling storylines.This is the big thing. This idea that it's the talent's fault or that they're not trying to give themselves a character when Tommy End goes on long Twitch streams talking about what socks he'd wear depending on the circumstances. Like, that sounds dumb and there's more to it than just that because dude wanted to do something substantial. You can't tell me you can't have most of the roster feel more important than they are, it's insane to me that it's the logic some people have. The fact is, and we've talked about this before, this company's going to make money regardless of if they have 60-minute broadways every week or 2 minute matches with DQ finishes so in their minds, they don't need to put that much effort into it. When USA is paying you billions, Peacock's paying you billions and Fox seems happy with how things are going on Fridays, why would you? Wherein someone suggests Hogan, Bruno and Steve Austin weren't good workers... Hell, by the true definition of workrate, Hogan is one of the better examples of it. He sold so much, there were matches where he was literally crying to get you to invest in him and want him to come back and when he comes back, he had the crowd in the palm of his hand. Like, there was a period of time when it was pedestrian and not as compelling but if we're talking about a good worker, Hogan is that guy.
|
|
msc
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,444
|
Post by msc on Jun 9, 2021 7:04:52 GMT -5
This all comes down to storylines, and writing, and thus Vince and crew.
When the storylines are exciting or engaging, the Mean Street Posse vs Gerry Brisco and Pat Patterson blows ratings records.
When they aren't, even The Rock v Daniel Bryan with special guest ref Abraham Lincoln doesn't draw.
Look at AEW, who are an in-ring focused programme, but retain an audience because they get folk invested in their storylines.
|
|
|
Post by This Player Hating Mothman on Jun 9, 2021 7:07:10 GMT -5
I think we get this thread more often per year than this board even has people who think the be-all end-all of wrestling is storyless good-match-in-a-vacuum. Although the idea that WWE's problem has been over-investment in trying to please hardcore internet fans is good for a hearty feel-it-in-your-belly laugh.
|
|
|
Post by celtics543 on Jun 9, 2021 7:32:24 GMT -5
To clear this up, by workrate I mean technical skill. Being a great worker to me is completely different. Example being a guy like Benoit had incredible workrate but was an average worker because of his other shortcomings.
We need more background, more story, more intrigue with characters. I agree it's mostly the creative team or Vince's fault.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Jun 9, 2021 7:36:22 GMT -5
We're talking about this in the other thread on WWE hiring more "indie people", but "workrate" is a word that gets thrown around a lot without really putting forward what it's referring to.
Like, are we saying it's just pure athleticism and ability to properly execute moves beyond simple stuff like stomps and punches? Are we saying it involves the ability to work the crowd through character beats and match psychology? Is it when a wrestler is able to combine both, using their physical, athletic ability to better tell those stories? Without really establishing what it means, we can't really define its impact on a show.
I said in the other thread that there's basically no one who would argue that Bret Hart lacked "workrate", but at the same time Bret rarely did anything too extraordinary in terms of sheer athleticism in the ring, outside of some ahead of their time for the US spots like suicide dives now and then in the early 90s. Yes, he "excellently executed" every move he did, and he had the ability to wrestle 60+ minutes, but it's not like most of his offense was that complex or complicated, he usually built everything around the punches, elbow drop, Russian leg sweep, Sharpshooter, etc. So if we use Bret as the example, then how are we really using the term?
I can see criticizing someone as "lacking workrate" if their physical/athletic shortcomings inhibit their ability to put on compelling matches. Like, Ultimate Warrior was capable of being involved in some good matches, but by and large his lack of cardio endurance and often sloppy execution often made it kind of tough to rely on him for too much, which is likely a large part of why his shelf life as a top draw wound up being a bit limited. But again, would we say that about Hulk Hogan? The guy had some limitations in there, for sure, but he also knew how to work with what he had and apply it to telling a story effectively, so how do we apply the term with him?
End of the day, I've always said that WWE's problem compared with other promotions these days is that they do way, way too much "Wrestling for wrestling's sake"; matches with no story behind them, no character development, no larger narrative goals in mind, and no real consequences to what happens in the ring or to the outcome of the matches. When that's how you're booking, no amount of athleticism will make your show too compelling, but that's far from the fault of the wrestlers on the roster and much more on the bookers/writers of the show. This contrasts with, let's say, a ROH show, where even a seemingly random matchup on a given live show or TV episode often carries "this can get so-and-so ranked in one of the title divisions!" implications, or shows like NWA where they'll mention winners making more money than losers, or even a show like AEW Dark that has a lot of obvious match outcomes and enhancement talent matches yet can still feel worthwhile because they're designed around showcasing characters/personalities or getting people up in the (admittedly unscientific) rankings.
It's not to say that WWE matches have no stakes 100% of the time, but they've kind of lost the benefit of the doubt when it comes to some of their TV matches even leading to something interesting. I heard about the Ricochet/Humberto match this week, and while it at least had the purpose of "determining a challenger for Sheamus and the US belt", I'm kind of hard pressed to blame anyone who saw that outcome, shrugged, and figured "that was pointless", because even if this leads to something like a 3-way match for the belt there's just not really a feeling like anyone's character will be impacted by any of those match outcomes. If WWE invested more energy in allowing stories to be told in the ring, then there wouldn't seem to be so many pointless matches, since what happens in the ring would impact and shape what would then happen outside of it, whereas a lot of WWE feels like "nothing that happens in or out of the ring has any effect on anything else that happens here, now just sit on your hands and wait to mark out until someone hits a finisher you recognize, you dummies."
|
|
|
Post by eJm on Jun 9, 2021 7:40:00 GMT -5
To clear this up, by workrate I mean technical skill. Being a great worker to me is completely different. Example being a guy like Benoit had incredible workrate but was an average worker because of his other shortcomings. We need more background, more story, more intrigue with characters. I agree it's mostly the creative team or Vince's fault. workrate The in-ring performance level a wrestler puts into their matches, judged by a combination of skill and effort. A wrestler considered talented in the ring has a "high workrate".This is the Wikipedia definition of Workrate. Note that it doesn't definie technical wrestling as a single factor rather putting it to several factors and how well you do them. So by the definition of the word, Hulk Hogan and Bret Hart are great examples of workrate despite the many differences between the two.
|
|
Pushed to the Moon
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Tony Schiavone in Disguise
Working myself into a shoot
Posts: 15,819
|
Post by Pushed to the Moon on Jun 9, 2021 7:41:11 GMT -5
If you're a teenage guy, which group would you rather hang out with? Which group would you want to be like when you grew up? The average sized guys in the second group? Backlund the all American boy, Bret the serious guy, Shawn the male stripper, or the average sized, average looking indie guys of today? Or would you rather grow up to be a real life action figure like Bruno, Hogan, Rock, or Cena? What about a guy like Steve Austin? I can tell you right now that when I was younger I 1000% wanted to be Shawn Michaels. (And deep down still do). And surely nobody disagrees with this anyway.
|
|
Bo Rida
Fry's dog Seymour
Pulled one over on everyone. Got away with it, this time.
Posts: 23,526
|
Post by Bo Rida on Jun 9, 2021 7:43:59 GMT -5
Content is the main thing now. Hours of content to fill schedules and stream.
Hogan might have drawn more at the time but Flair Vs Steamboat is more likely to be watched again years later. It made a fortune but nobody is going to pay to watch Mayweather Vs Logan Paul again. There's also more importance placed on non-English speaking markets so more reliance on the in-ring product makes sense in that regard too.
Of course there's a balance though. You need both to some degree.
|
|
|
Post by MrElijah on Jun 9, 2021 7:47:58 GMT -5
Wherein someone suggests Hogan, Bruno and Steve Austin weren't good workers... Austin held his own against Benoit, Steamboat, The Harts, HBK, Bobby Eaton, Barry Windham, Muta, Arn Anderson, Ric Flair & Kurt Angle. Dude busted his ass and has some legitimate classic matches up and down the card.
|
|
|
Post by celtics543 on Jun 9, 2021 7:53:53 GMT -5
If you're a teenage guy, which group would you rather hang out with? Which group would you want to be like when you grew up? The average sized guys in the second group? Backlund the all American boy, Bret the serious guy, Shawn the male stripper, or the average sized, average looking indie guys of today? Or would you rather grow up to be a real life action figure like Bruno, Hogan, Rock, or Cena? What about a guy like Steve Austin? I can tell you right now that when I was younger I 1000% wanted to be Shawn Michaels. (And deep down still do). Right but that's why you're one of the more hardcore fans. I too thought it would be cool to be Shawn Michaels. Most casual fans who drive ratings though didn't. There's a reason he was booed and drew lower ratings. Everyone wants to be Steve Austin, that's a broad appeal. Not everyone wants to be a pretty boy male stripper. Until DX, which caused ratings to go up, Shawn wasn't considered main stream "cool". Joel Embiid busted out a crotch chop the other day during an NBA playoff game and then gave credit to Shawn and HHH on Twitter. He wasn't stripping out of his warmups though or bowing in the manner of a blueblood. It's all about oozing "cool" for casual fans.
|
|
FinalGwen
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Particularly fond of muffins.
Posts: 16,429
|
Post by FinalGwen on Jun 9, 2021 7:56:01 GMT -5
So... Are we going to pretend that Diesel was a huge workrate guy, and that's why business was down when he was champ?
|
|
|
Post by eJm on Jun 9, 2021 7:58:01 GMT -5
So... Are we going to pretend that Diesel was a huge workrate guy, and that's why business was down when he was champ? I mean, he did sell out Madison Square Garden with more than the actual attendance of Madison Square Garden so I guess checkmate to us?
|
|
thehottag
Don Corleone
We're here for one reason only: fame, fortune, & the World Wrestling Federation Tag Team Champions!
Posts: 1,668
|
Post by thehottag on Jun 9, 2021 8:12:48 GMT -5
When USA is paying you billions, Peacock's paying you billions and Fox seems happy with how things are going on Fridays, why would you? I know you posed this as a rhetorical question, but in all honesty, it's because it's a poor business model. You may get more money from a TV deal or a Saudi Prince, but if you keep whittling away your core paying audience, you're only ever a stroke of a pen away from going under.
|
|
|
Post by Jedi-El of Tomorrow on Jun 9, 2021 8:14:41 GMT -5
So... Are we going to pretend that Diesel was a huge workrate guy, and that's why business was down when he was champ? WWE stripped him of everything that made him popular, he started to get back to what made him popular after Survivor Series 1995. Then he went to WCW, became Big Sexy and was a big draw. Also, before being destroyed by injuries, Nash was quite a good big man worker. He and Bret had some incredible matches. He had good matches with Hall, HBK, and Taker. You could say that those matches were all his opponents, but to have those good of matches with Bret that he did, that shows when motivated and not wrecked by injuries, he was a good big man.
|
|
|
Post by eJm on Jun 9, 2021 8:17:00 GMT -5
When USA is paying you billions, Peacock's paying you billions and Fox seems happy with how things are going on Fridays, why would you? I know you posed this as a rhetorical question, but in all honesty, it's because it's a poor business model. You may get more money from a TV deal or a Saudi Prince, but if you keep whittling away your core paying audience, you're only ever a stroke of a pen away from going under. Oh, no disagreement there and WWE aren't the first company to go this route (nor will they be the last), it's just the likely position they have. If Raw is still the No 1 show USA has, and likely will be until the channel gets its act together on making actual good originals, what's the logic of rocking the boat on that when there's no reason to think they won't negotiate a new TV deal?
|
|