mc74
Samurai Cop
Posts: 2,410
|
Post by mc74 on Jun 9, 2021 10:38:51 GMT -5
I get what you’re saying, and that’s where the execution and writing comes into play. Like my point is, Miz being a person who gets a lot of tv time and storylines isn’t a WWE blunder. The execution of said story is. But who would you survey? The iwc would likely participate but we are just a loud minority in the grand scheme of things. It’s not like the “droves of fans” who stopped watching WWE are jumping ship to watch a rival promotion. They aren’t watching wrestling at all. I'm not saying he is but your idea was more that people would watch The Miz over people if the story was good. WWE could probably build a good story with Okada and WALTER if the effort was put in to make them big deals because they have the money and video teams to do that. But they don't do that a lot of the time, or at least the last decade. They were doing a better job of building Nathan Jones than pretty much 95% of all NXT callups. I mean, find some fans who aren't watching and ask them why that is? Or random people on the street about pro wrestling? Like, those would be fairer ways to do a survey than just assuming those are what "casual fans" like, whoever the hell they even are. This is what it basically boils down to. WWE have already had wrestlers who could have been far bigger deals had they been built up better, but they instead opt to waste all of that potential, and it's frustrating to see. Moxley, Miro, Pac, Brodie Lee, have all looked better outside of WWE. In AEW, they felt like bigger deals because of how much better they were portrayed in storylines. That right there, should tell you something. Recently, you have guys like Aleister Black and Andrade, two guys who could have easily been stars, and yet, WWE failed to capitalize on that potential. |
|
The Ichi
Patti Mayonnaise
AGGRESSIVE Executive Janitor of the Third Floor Manager's Bathroom
Posts: 37,286 
Member is Online
|
Post by The Ichi on Jun 9, 2021 10:41:27 GMT -5
You can't push a magical button to create interesting characters. "We need to hire someone who is larger than life." Vince going around, asking people, "Sir or Madam? Are you larger than life? If so, please be the face of my company for six years." Like, do people really think that happens? Vince hasn't wanted "larger than life" for a long time. He wants easily micro-managed now. |
|
|
|
Post by eJm on Jun 9, 2021 10:45:22 GMT -5
I'm not saying he is but your idea was more that people would watch The Miz over people if the story was good. WWE could probably build a good story with Okada and WALTER if the effort was put in to make them big deals because they have the money and video teams to do that. But they don't do that a lot of the time, or at least the last decade. They were doing a better job of building Nathan Jones than pretty much 95% of all NXT callups. I mean, find some fans who aren't watching and ask them why that is? Or random people on the street about pro wrestling? Like, those would be fairer ways to do a survey than just assuming those are what "casual fans" like, whoever the hell they even are. This is what it basically boils down to. WWE have already had wrestlers who could have been far bigger deals had they been built up better, but they instead opt to waste all of that potential, and it's frustrating to see. Moxley, Miro, Pac, Brodie Lee, have all looked better outside of WWE. In AEW, they felt like bigger deals because of how much better they were portrayed in storylines. That right there, should tell you something. Recently, you have guys like Aleister Black and Andrade, two guys who could have easily been stars, and yet, WWE failed to capitalize on that potential. I don't think it needs to be an AEW/WWE thing because simply put, they used to be better at being aware of how to make people work. Like, I just watched the Brian Zane video on the Honkey Tonk Man and what blew my mind was how they tried to have him as a face to start his WWF run and having Hogan's endorsement because they were friends and such. But when that didn't work, and they realized a lifelong heel wasn't exactly going to adjust to being a face right away, they pivoted, made him a heel and paired him with Jimmy Hart. So you took a guy with something that absolutely was not working and made it work by utilizing the strengths of the performer whilst not showcasing the weaknesses. Like, look at the times where they stuck with a direction and went full force regardless on if it was actually working in the past decade and just...it just feels so weird in comparison. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2021 10:53:11 GMT -5
You can't push a magical button to create interesting characters. "We need to hire someone who is larger than life." Vince going around, asking people, "Sir or Madam? Are you larger than life? If so, please be the face of my company for six years." Like, do people really think that happens? Vince hasn't wanted "larger than life" for a long time. He wants easily micro-managed now. Right. Why take any risks now? He still has more money than he knows what to do with. |
|
mc74
Samurai Cop
Posts: 2,410
|
Post by mc74 on Jun 9, 2021 11:10:35 GMT -5
This is what it basically boils down to. WWE have already had wrestlers who could have been far bigger deals had they been built up better, but they instead opt to waste all of that potential, and it's frustrating to see. Moxley, Miro, Pac, Brodie Lee, have all looked better outside of WWE. In AEW, they felt like bigger deals because of how much better they were portrayed in storylines. That right there, should tell you something. Recently, you have guys like Aleister Black and Andrade, two guys who could have easily been stars, and yet, WWE failed to capitalize on that potential. I don't think it needs to be an AEW/WWE thing because simply put, they used to be better at being aware of how to make people work. Like, I just watched the Brian Zane video on the Honkey Tonk Man and what blew my mind was how they tried to have him as a face to start his WWF run and having Hogan's endorsement because they were friends and such. But when that didn't work, and they realized a lifelong heel wasn't exactly going to adjust to being a face right away, they pivoted, made him a heel and paired him with Jimmy Hart. So you took a guy with something that absolutely was not working and made it work by utilizing the strengths of the performer whilst not showcasing the weaknesses. Like, look at the times where they stuck with a direction and went full force regardless on if it was actually working in the past decade and just...it just feels so weird in comparison. Or like when Rock wasn't working in the beginning as a babyface, so they turned him heel and had him join the Nation of Domination. A move that would help re-invent his character and eventually catapult him into superstardom. But yeah, like you said, it feels so weird in comparison |
|
|
|
Post by sportatorium on Jun 9, 2021 11:18:35 GMT -5
The problem with analysis here is that there isn’t a true definition that exists without subjective opinion. Bret Hart could tell any story one needed him to in the ring. Staying in Backlund’s crossface and mounting multiple failed comebacks while allowing Owen to do his thing outside the ring is a perfect example of workrate for all three men for me. If the business was super hot at that moment or there was a Hogan program, I don’t think they get the opportunity to tell the same story.
|
|
Dr. Bolty, Disaster Enby
Grimlock
Blanket burrito season is back, and I never left the blankets
Posts: 12,811
Member is Online
|
Post by Dr. Bolty, Disaster Enby on Jun 9, 2021 11:23:07 GMT -5
Wrestling skill doesn't equal ratings on its own, but it is a potent tool in the service of things that do equal ratings: characterization, storytelling, actions and reactions, action with stakes and consequences.
Daniel Bryan first got over by playing the same sort of weaselly heel that could, theoretically, have been played by a mediocre wrestler (and has been, with mixed success). He stayed over because he had the wrestling and storytelling chops to do far, far more with it, and to adapt when his character went in different directions. Whatever character Bryan played in WWE, he put all of his wrestling skill into portraying it in the ring.
Steve Austin's heyday may have been after his in-ring athleticism took a massive hit, but a strong understanding of how a wrestling match works and what he could do within his limitations served him well. Same with Hulk Hogan - the fact that he could have worked more impressive and normal matches is relevant to how well he was able to pull off his cartoonish, simplified version of big match psychology.
There's also a reason why, out of Koslov, Umaga, and the Boogeyman - three acts from the 00's with awful 80's throwback gimmicks - the one who remained a top tier threat for as long as he stuck around was Umaga, the workhorse. Gotta wonder if the Boogeyman gimmick could have gone a lot further if it were in the hands of somebody who really knew how to build a match around it; Koslov's Ivan Drago pastiche certainly went further when the vastly more agile and skilled Rusev got pushed with it.
|
|
Feyrhausen
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,223
Member is Online
|
Post by Feyrhausen on Jun 9, 2021 11:30:25 GMT -5
You can't push a magical button to create interesting characters. "We need to hire someone who is larger than life." Vince going around, asking people, "Sir or Madam? Are you larger than life? If so, please be the face of my company for six years." Like, do people really think that happens? Vince hasn't wanted "larger than life" for a long time. He wants easily micro-managed now. Larger than life means people outside wrestling notice and make offers. So now no one is larger than the company and everyone can easily be replaced. Just cogs in a machine. |
|
RKTaker
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 16,306
|
Post by RKTaker on Jun 9, 2021 22:45:17 GMT -5
I don't think it's "workrate doesnt equal ratings" it's that the booking is so bad nobody cares. you could have all the wacky insane characters you want if booking is shit nobody's gonna watch. also a lot of these "indie darlings" who have been signed/called up to WWE just either have no character or are boring look at Apollo Crews when he debuted he was just "happy smiley babyface" Bayley debuted and was "happy smiley baby face". then you'd have a good Character like Aleister Black and Bray Wyatt but nobody cares because they would constantly lose
|
|
Sam Punk
Hank Scorpio
Own Nothing, Be Happy
Posts: 6,304
|
Post by Sam Punk on Jun 10, 2021 0:52:36 GMT -5
All of them. To me, workrate is putting on a realistic match that gets the crowd invested in the outcome. It's not just about being a great athlete and pulling off all sorts of crazy moves. Hogan, for one, was a great worker. He knew how to sell/work the crowd/etc. He didn't do a move just to do a move. I'll even say Hogan was a better worker than someone like Seth Rollins.
|
|
|
|
Post by This Player Hating Mothman on Jun 10, 2021 1:46:51 GMT -5
You can't push a magical button to create interesting characters. "We need to hire someone who is larger than life." Vince going around, asking people, "Sir or Madam? Are you larger than life? If so, please be the face of my company for six years." Like, do people really think that happens? Vince hasn't wanted "larger than life" for a long time. He wants easily micro-managed now. As far as WWE not getting people who are 'larger than life' and all that, Jon Moxley has way more superstar aura to him than Dean Ambrose ever did. And he was a main eventer in WWE. I can't think of any clearer case example than that. |
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave on Jun 10, 2021 2:10:52 GMT -5
Vince hasn't wanted "larger than life" for a long time. He wants easily micro-managed now. Right. Why take any risks now? He still has more money than he knows what to do with. Hell he's making more money NOW than he ever was. |
|
|
|
Post by kingoftheindies on Jun 10, 2021 6:44:19 GMT -5
Vince hasn't wanted "larger than life" for a long time. He wants easily micro-managed now. As far as WWE not getting people who are 'larger than life' and all that, Jon Moxley has way more superstar aura to him than Dean Ambrose ever did. And he was a main eventer in WWE. I can't think of any clearer case example than that. Mox even mentioned this, and Jericho backed him up, that if Vince finds out you have comedic timing in his mind you can make comedy work, and a lot of what Vince finds funny is sophomoric humor (to be nice). Hell just to contrast that Mox said how cool Dusty thought he was and wanted him to be a James Dean type character. But once you become a face champ Vince also tends to change what got you over. Diesel went from a cool badass to a month later wearing a Chistmas Hat singing Christmas Carols at Titan Tower. John Cena went from having more of an edge as a rapper to being a discount Rock with his promos. Hell even Sheamus when he turned face back in the day went from a rugged badass to trying to crack jokes like Cena. |
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Jun 10, 2021 7:37:53 GMT -5
As far as WWE not getting people who are 'larger than life' and all that, Jon Moxley has way more superstar aura to him than Dean Ambrose ever did. And he was a main eventer in WWE. I can't think of any clearer case example than that. Mox even mentioned this, and Jericho backed him up, that if Vince finds out you have comedic timing in his mind you can make comedy work, and a lot of what Vince finds funny is sophomoric humor (to be nice). Hell just to contrast that Mox said how cool Dusty thought he was and wanted him to be a James Dean type character. But once you become a face champ Vince also tends to change what got you over. Diesel went from a cool badass to a month later wearing a Chistmas Hat singing Christmas Carols at Titan Tower. John Cena went from having more of an edge as a rapper to being a discount Rock with his promos. Hell even Sheamus when he turned face back in the day went from a rugged badass to trying to crack jokes like Cena. It's been said before, but Vince seemingly wants every one of his top faces to be the Rock: "poet warriors" who are always the funniest guy in the room but who also seemingly act like bullies a lot (Rock's natural heel charisma probably being a part of that). Ironically, he also wants none of his guys to be the Rock, since Johnson was able to parlay his wrestling stardom into an acting career that meant he didn't need Vince anymore. On the main topic, I think there's sometimes a question of what fully constitutes a "five star worker"; it's highly subjective obviously, as tastes are always going to vary and even ring psychology completely varies across different cultures (e.g. selling a body part isn't really a big deal in Mexico, where wrestling has aspects of it that treated a bit more like dance), so a one-size-fits-all definition isn't possible. Still, I'd say that where a guy like Hogan fell short on that scale was that at least after awhile, he was basically going to give you what he gave you: usually the same formula on repeat when it came to his match layouts, especially once he entered his babyface champion "monster heel of the month" feuds. Hogan did this exceptionally well, don't get me wrong, but he also could only give you so much: there was a reason why he never appeared on weekly TV except to cut some promos, and instead had +90% of his live appearances reserved for pay per view or Saturday Night's Main Event, and it was because more than that would risk his act going stale way too quickly, which is pretty much what happened to him in WCW when he was suddenly showing up a lot more and working more weekly live appearances on Saturday Night and then on Nitro. In other words, when Hogan was on, he was on, but you couldn't ask Hogan to do like you could with, to use him again, Bret Hart: with Bret you could ask him to face any opponent of any style, ask him to work multiple weeks on TV in a row, and he'd make sure that his act didn't get stale in the process. I think it's fair to say that's a component of trying to piece together what we mean when we use some of these phrases. To put it more simply: you don't need exceptionally high "workrate" to get over or be a draw, but having it is a major key for many wrestlers ensuring their careers as draws have longevity, since part of the ability to work is the ability to adapt and evolve your style over time to keep things fresh. In his heyday Hogan didn't have to worry about that given the kind of schedule top names worked in the WWF during the 80s and early 90s, but once he was more exposed on WCW television it necessitated the change to Hollywood. |
|
nisidhe
Hank Scorpio
O Superman....O judge....O Mom and Dad....
Posts: 5,720 
|
Post by nisidhe on Jun 10, 2021 7:44:27 GMT -5
As far as WWE not getting people who are 'larger than life' and all that, Jon Moxley has way more superstar aura to him than Dean Ambrose ever did. And he was a main eventer in WWE. I can't think of any clearer case example than that. Mox even mentioned this, and Jericho backed him up, that if Vince finds out you have comedic timing in his mind you can make comedy work, and a lot of what Vince finds funny is sophomoric humor (to be nice). Hell just to contrast that Mox said how cool Dusty thought he was and wanted him to be a James Dean type character. But once you become a face champ Vince also tends to change what got you over. Diesel went from a cool badass to a month later wearing a Chistmas Hat singing Christmas Carols at Titan Tower. John Cena went from having more of an edge as a rapper to being a discount Rock with his promos. Hell even Sheamus when he turned face back in the day went from a rugged badass to trying to crack jokes like Cena. He's probably looking for a jacked-up George Carlin, then. Waitaminit...I've got it! An actual stand-up comedian gimmick - guy with a notebook and golf pencil always in hand cutting promos based on the contents of the notebook. Yes....  |
|
|
|
Post by RadcapRadsley on Jun 10, 2021 7:44:37 GMT -5
I agree with the OP. I really think the the casual audience prefers to watch WWE style programming over the well critically acclaimed promotions. I think people are more interested in watching someone like The Miz over someone like an Okada or WALTER. My stance is WWE’s thought processes on who to push strongly can be rationalized and understood once we put biases away. BUT, their execution, booking, and writing has been boring and subpar for quite some time. Miz looks like a regular guy,as good as he is on the mic if someone was flipping the channels unfamiliar with wrestling they would probably be surprised he is a top star since he is not one of the biggest guys,most athletic or not a "pretty boy". Walter on the other hand workrate aside looks like a throwback star and pop's off the screen. You could kayfabe book him as Harley Race or Vader's long lost son. The dude looks like he wants to hurt people |
|
|
|
Post by Can you afford to pay me, Gah on Jun 10, 2021 8:24:42 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. Look at WWE today where ratings is as low as they where around the time Bret and Shawn where on top. Reigns and Lashley where not indy darlings but they are the top champions and what are they? Big strong larger than life looking wrestlers. They are on top and get what the ratings are and it wasn't much better when Brock was champion or Drew for that matter. The bigger issue is how the WWE presents there product. They simply DON'T listen to who the fans really responding too. Daniel Bryan a few years ago could have been a mega draw. Injuries prevented it, but he was the most over talent we saw in years since Cena and Batista's prime years. Braun was another guy who had that going for him do was getting really over after destorying Reigns one night and winning the big Royal Rumble and the WWE did the stupid move to turn him heel and than back face and get squashed by Brock. The problem is the WWE doesn't go with the hot hand anymore but the hand they think they can tell us who we should cheer for. Thats the difference from everyone you named and todays wrestling. The biggest names got over because the fans drew into them. those work rated guys you have to remember what the general business was like at those times. Hogan wasn't drawing like he was either in 92. |
|
|
|
Post by Pgarodactyl on Jun 10, 2021 8:57:40 GMT -5
I don't think the conversation here is the "workrate era vs ratings" as it was laid out.
I think the bigger conversations speaks to WWE's approach of trying to book the company itself as *THE* attraction. It's been said in recent years that Vince doesn't want to build *STARS* because *STARS* can always leave him high and dry. He'd rather book *WWE* as the thing people come to see, with moving parts that can be switched out and in on a whim. That approach is increasingly evident the further along we go given how few real attractions WWE actually have. Sometimes talent are able to transcend that by sheer power of will (or a heaping tablespoon of luck). But even during this time when talent get over on their own, they're inevitably sabotaged because they DARED do it when creative didn't have it in the cards for them.
It's not that "workrate doesn't equal ratings". It's the company's approach that has assaulted ratings.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toilet Paper Roll on Jun 10, 2021 13:45:08 GMT -5
Bruno, Rock and until he was injured Austin could put on a great match in the ring.
And to be fair Cena might have more 4+ star PPV matches than anybody in history
|
|
|
|
Post by Can you afford to pay me, Gah on Jun 10, 2021 13:57:25 GMT -5
To add to this. Bret and Shawn situation was NOT there fault. They where both in a no win situation to draw numbers the same levels and Hogan did in the late 80s to 91. Business feel because WWE and wrestling where under fire with the Steroids' when Bret was moved to the top. The trials put the WWE in a hard spot financially. The big names where gone and WWE had to create new stars, that something that doesn't happen over night. When Shawn was on top in 96. HOW could he go against the NWO concept? It wouldn't never matter who the WWE had on top of the company on the roster but when your going against the NWO, your screwed. The only way HBK could have done it had Hall and Nash stayed and WCW couldn't launch the NWO angle.
|
|
