Does A Wrestler Need To Be Explained To Be Good?

["Sweet & Sour" ImSoFudginGreat]

Probably worded that title badly.

Something I see on Twitter, Reddit, and here sometimes is a situation where “BLANK will be appearing on SHOW” and then there are fans who are excited, fans who don’t like BLANK and then there are the fans who say “who is this? Why should I care?” and it’s a sentiment that always baffles me. When I came back to wrestling in 2016 it was for Takeover: Toronto, and the main event was SamoanJoe vs Shinsuke Nakamura. I was never a NJPW guy back in the day (I was all in on NOAH) so I had no idea who Nakamura was. But, I never once thought “I have no idea who this guy is so I’m not watching the main event” or something like that. I just watched the show.

So, does a wrestler need to be explained? If a company feels like they’re a big deal or something to promote, shouldn’t we trust their judgement and if they suck we can express our disappointment from there?

[David-Arquette was in WCW 2000]

I didn't know who Jericho was when he debuted in the Fed, or when The Radicals jumped over either. I mean, I'd heard of them but had not seen any matches or really anything other than mentions in PWI magazine.

I took them all at face value with the information that was provided from commentary. I didn't have internet access or to tapes of their matches so I just had to wait and see if I liked them.

But I did watch to see what they were all about. Incidentally, Jericho had a lengthy build and when his name popped on the titantron the crowd went mental. I assumed he was a big deal but he came across like a clown, and honestly his first few months in the fed were shit. So I thought he was shit. It wasn't until early 2000 that I 'got' his character and then invested in his matches and feuds.

The Radicals just showed up one night, no build or anything, so there was little expectation. However, they did make an impact in both the mid and upper card scenes throughout those first few months and so came across as big deals.

I think really, you can know these guys, or not have a clue. They can be hyped and built up, or make a surprise debut. Their entire history can be explained through commentary or vignettes.. at the end of the day expectations are rarely met, and I think it's better to judge a wrestler's performance and body of work on a 'per promotion' basis.

For the people who tune out when they don't know someone, that's the time they should be watching, because their enjoyment, or lack of enjoyment towards a new wrestler becomes all the more organic and natural. Not based on fairly revisionist history used to hype them up.

Edit: I hope this makes sense/helps answer your question. I had the kids jumping over me and acting like idiots while writing lol

[Mid-Carder]

Not "good" per se but for me, yes. I'm an adult with a full-time job and wrestling is a way for me to switch off, I don't want to have to do homework just to follow what's going on. Even a minimal video package would help for new debutees. 

["Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay]

This is an issue I criticise AEW for because it causes issues with understanding the story for me.

Indie spot shows or even smaller indies, yeah I mean the wrestler is likely more well known than the promotions are so the whole selling point is less their own storyline progression and more 'look at this hot talent we booked.' They also likely don't have a TV show on which to progress stories or promote talent. It isn't really the same thing.

People mock WWE for surprise appearances being accompanied by a recitation of their Wikipedia page, but like when Nakamura debuted and they said he was a former IWGP champion, they also said that was a title Brock had held before. If you are a WWE only viewer, that is useful context for the level of talent we are talking about at least.

This can cause small problems - like in the Moxley/Nagata match in AEW, if I remember rightly they spent the whole match teasing Nagata's lariat finisher, but I didn't even know his finish was a lariat so the spot lacked significance, and if I remember rightly he never even landed it. This isn't really that big a deal, just meant I was really 'meh' on the match.

Alternatively, if someone shows up on the basis of 'this person is hot on the indies' and then the match isn't anything to write home about - I was underwhelmed by Moxley/Jeff Cobb, I saw nothing in Jay White that made him remarkable compared to anyone else who actually worked in AEW - it can erode your trust in these matches turning out to be good. It can also undermine a wrestler on their debut - Darby Allin in the first Cody match appeared to just give himself a sick back bump for no f***ing reason because I had never seen anyone do a Coffin Drop before. That match was a star making performance in a bunch of other ways so it didn't really matter, but it totally lost me for a while.

It's not often that it causes a significant issue in the booking, but it can take me out of things and the industry is so stacked these days that if I have shown up to see some talents that I am already fans of, I need a good reason to care enough about a debuting wrestler taking TV time away from workers I literally pay a subscription to AEW every month in order to see.

The reason it aggravates me so much is that AEW do this a lot, and there are countless ways that they can avoid this issue.

1. A surprise debut and immediate match or promo doesn't have the same issue as 'next week, STEVE INDIE GUY will debut!' because my opinion gets immediately formed by the promo or match performance rather than having to wait to find out why I should give a shit.

2. AEW themselves have demonstrated that it takes literally seconds to avoid this scenario. I already knew who Nick Gage was before AEW booked him, but MJF hyped him up insanely in the space of about three lines of promo. To drive this home even further, Dalton Castle told me exactly who he was in under ten seconds during the video package just before his match with Gresham. That promo could have aired on Rampage or Dynamite or immediately after the match announcement and actually given me inclination to tune in to see the match rather than gamble on an unknown quantity.

It really isn't a huge deal in the grand scheme of things, especially in AEW, which has much bigger problems (and I am a huge fan of the AEW product, I have bought every pay per view and subscribed the whole time I could afford it). But it is aggravating, and I have limited time to dedicate to the shows I watch, let alone researching them. It is a promoter's job to convince me it is worth my time to watch your show, not my job to justify my interest in a talent you haven't explained.

The nearest equivalent I can think of is event comic books that leave important information in the tie-in issues. By all means, put in references and Easter eggs (like in the Punk/MJF feud which was amazing but I hear even better if you had seen the Punk/Raven feud, which I haven't), but understanding why a wrestler is here or what their character is seems pretty f***ing basic for storytelling unless being mysterious is the selling point.

[cassonova]

Yes with an asterisk. Every good story needs to provide a narrative and a purpose for a character. Depending on the notoriety of the character, the less proper explanation you may need. If you bring out the Undertaker, there's a good chance that you know who he is and what he does. However, if Teddy Wrestlesgood comes out, we might need some explanation as to who and why, especially if they are being thrust into a prominent story.

Both WWE and AEW have had issues with this, just throwing someone out there and going "OMG it's Some Bodie!". Sometimes commentary can cover this, but oftentimes it will take a promo or video package. Rule of thumb says that if you are announcing a match with a debut, you should have a package ready. Run in can be trickier, but there are ways around that.

And sure, you can YouTube or Google. But why should you have to just to enjoy a story? I don't have to Google a sitcom premise unless I jumped in mid-season.

[oxbaker]

“OMG it’s Dusty Trunks!” doesn’t do much for me. Now I know his name, but tell me something about him.

It can be a vignette, an interview, commentary … but tell me why I should care.

[Clash, Never a Meter Maid]

If a company has big plans for a wrestler, promo time and vignettes are extremely important. Talented stars can overcome a middling or underdeveloped debut, but they need a lifeline.

With the Danhausen thing, until he’s healthy he really is in dire need of *something* beyond “look, here’s the weird funny spooky man who curses you”. He’s not dead in the water, but I’d have found at least some promo time to give him for just a little context.

It’s best for a booker not to assume their audience is all hardcore or inside baseball enough to recognize every rising star off the bat. Think also about those who’ve never watched wrestling in their lives and wean them in.

[Jacy Derangement Syndrome]

I mean it depends. For every wrestler whose deal you can sorta just Get watching them wrestle (Samoa Joe for example) there's a Karrion Kross who dear god I've read 5 paragraphs and I still don't get it

[Dr. Bolty, Disaster Enby]

I've got this argument against introductory vignettes, and I don't like it, it's far from ironclad, but I can't get it out of my head when having this discussion:

A lot of viewers are going to be joining in midstream anyway, and introductory vignettes only benefit the viewers who happened to be there to see them. In a way, it's the dedicated fans who are watching every week that are most burned by just throwing someone new out there without explaining them, when wrestling, by its nature, is kind of constantly in progress.

That said - being alienating to the people watching every week is kind of a really bad thing, especially in today's television environment.

Danhausen is an especially weird case, because his gimmick especially excels in introductory vignettes. His ROH introduction video is an absolute must-watch, and there's not really a reason not to at least edit out the promo on Brian Johnson to air on AEW TV sometime, given they own the footage, and there'd be no shame in redoing it for a new audience and a new context.

And some wrestlers are better off just showing up and showing their deal. I don't think anyone watches Dalton Castle walk out to the ring with a half-dozen near-naked young men acting as props for him while he shows off his peacock cape before wrestling a technical clinic and walks away not getting what his deal is. To compare and contrast: someone watching an average Maki Itoh entrance and match will probably glean everything they need to know for the moment, but will still be missing some vital things (I don't think she comes across the same if you don't know some of the angstier parts of her backstory, specifically).

But then you've got wrestlers who really are something special, but there's no way to indicate that without a lot of care in getting it across. If Triple H didn't have the most extra entrances in wrestling history, how would he look to someone who had never seen him before? I suspect that Randy Orton would look like nothing if he just showed up out of the blue without an angle. We've seen that Jay White, a main event talent by skill and history, just kind of looks like another dude if you drop him in with no story and no stakes, because he's kind of low key in his style and doesn't jump out as unique or interesting unless he's actually applying those skills in a context. Hell, Steve Austin demonstrably looked like nothing when he was just thrown out with no promo time and no actual gimmick. But, conversely - would introductory vignettes do anything more for these wrestlers? What would said vignettes even be getting across? Probably the best approach is to give them an angle immediately so their skills can be shown off, and that's an introduction as well, but it's not the same thing as giving each of them a movie trailer.

So. Basically. Depends on the wrestler? But any wrestler will need some approach that actively demonstrates what makes them worthwhile, and that approach should be followed through and not just used for a vignette or two that not everyone will see anyway.

[Deleted]

For me, yes.

If I have no idea who this person is, I don't know if they are a face or heel, what their style is, etc.

And yes, when a match is advertised as So and So vs Someone I've Never Heard Of, it does in fact make me lose interest.

Pro wrestling is simple:

-Who are they?

-Why are they fighting?

-Why should I care?

If the promotion doesn't give you these three simple answers, their booking sucks.

[oxbaker]

Apr 19, 2022 13:45:26 GMT -5 Dr. Bolty, Disaster Enby said:

I've got this argument against introductory vignettes, and I don't like it, it's far from ironclad, but I can't get it out of my head when having this discussion:

A lot of viewers are going to be joining in midstream anyway, and introductory vignettes only benefit the viewers who happened to be there to see them. In a way, it's the dedicated fans who are watching every week that are most burned by just throwing someone new out there without explaining them, when wrestling, by its nature, is kind of constantly in progress.

That said - being alienating to the people watching every week is kind of a really bad thing, especially in today's television environment.

Danhausen is an especially weird case, because his gimmick especially excels in introductory vignettes. His ROH introduction video is an absolute must-watch, and there's not really a reason not to at least edit out the promo on Brian Johnson to air on AEW TV sometime, given they own the footage, and there'd be no shame in redoing it for a new audience and a new context.

And some wrestlers are better off just showing up and showing their deal. I don't think anyone watches Dalton Castle walk out to the ring with a half-dozen near-naked young men acting as props for him while he shows off his peacock cape before wrestling a technical clinic and walks away not getting what his deal is. To compare and contrast: someone watching an average Maki Itoh entrance and match will probably glean everything they need to know for the moment, but will still be missing some vital things (I don't think she comes across the same if you don't know some of the angstier parts of her backstory, specifically).

But then you've got wrestlers who really are something special, but there's no way to indicate that without a lot of care in getting it across. If Triple H didn't have the most extra entrances in wrestling history, how would he look to someone who had never seen him before? I suspect that Randy Orton would look like nothing if he just showed up out of the blue without an angle. We've seen that Jay White, a main event talent by skill and history, just kind of looks like another dude if you drop him in with no story and no stakes, because he's kind of low key in his style and doesn't jump out as unique or interesting unless he's actually applying those skills in a context. Hell, Steve Austin demonstrably looked like nothing when he was just thrown out with no promo time and no actual gimmick. But, conversely - would introductory vignettes do anything more for these wrestlers? What would said vignettes even be getting across? Probably the best approach is to give them an angle immediately so their skills can be shown off, and that's an introduction as well, but it's not the same thing as giving each of them a movie trailer.

So. Basically. Depends on the wrestler? But any wrestler will need some approach that actively demonstrates what makes them worthwhile, and that approach should be followed through and not just used for a vignette or two that not everyone will see anyway.

Right and there are lots of ways to accomplish this. I’m not a ‘pro-vignette’ guy (or anti) but I want some context. But you have to find some way to accentuate what you’re trying to get across.

Some gimmicks/wrestlers explain themselves. I can see the Road Warriors walk in and I know they’re badasses and powerhouses. Sandman walks in with a cig in his mouth and bangs a beer can open on his head and, yeah, I get it.

Hand the Rock a mic and whatever he says I realize (and he’ll tell me haha) that he’s a charisma machine and an electric entertainer — but please, hand him the mic. If Zack Sabre Jr shows up, let him tie someone up like a pretzel and I can see in 30 seconds that he’s a technical guy who ties people up like pretzels and thus a different and unique challenge.

Danhausen, since he’s a topic of discussion in this realm lately, doesn’t tell me what he is if he shows up and points. And it’s *so easy* to just put a camera on him, tell him he has 60 seconds and he can fill in the blanks. Just ‘who are you and why are you cursing Hook?’ Bingo, mission accomplished. Now either I’ll like him or I won’t, but I’ll understand and therefore I may care.

Or commentary can do a lot in just a few words. ‘Japanese death match legend’ pretty much explains it. The KO-Sami feud in WWE gained context from Kevin showing old pictures from the road and how they’d been around the world together and this guy has always been his best friend … ‘but now he’s turned on me.’ OK, now I have context.

Everything about presenting someone, especially a new someone, should start with ‘let’s make sure people understand the story and the characters.’ How you get there doesn’t matter.

[Mozenrath]

Apr 19, 2022 13:18:04 GMT -5 Jacy Derangement Syndrome said:

I mean it depends. For every wrestler whose deal you can sorta just Get watching them wrestle (Samoa Joe for example) there's a Karrion Kross who dear god I've read 5 paragraphs and I still don't get it

Right, like it does help that someone like Samoa Joe has been playing the same character for like 20 years, and still there isn't really a lot to him past "tough guy with a sarcastic edge." Not an insult, just, there's not really any lore to learn other than "Joe's gonna kill you."

[HMARK Center]

Totally depends on the wrestler and booking; there are some gimmicks that only really click if you show it "living" outside of a match setting (see: Ted DiBiase kicking people out of a public pool to demonstrate what a selfish, rich jerk he is), while other wrestlers can tell you everything you need to know just by looking at them or watching how they handle themselves in a match.

There's no hard requisite on what's "needed"; vignettes, promos, face-to-face interviews, jobber squashes, an immediate in-ring angle, a surprise debut, whatever, it all depends on who the wrestlers are, what their strengths are, what kinds of characters or gimmicks they're doing, etc.

Plus I think there's plenty of cases of someone who debuted a bit flat, but over time got to develop their motivation and character and connection with the crowd. Takes all kinds.

[Oh Cry Me a Screwball]

In the specific case of Dalton Castle, it is much easier to assume a lot of your audience knows who Castle is considering he got popular in Ring of Honor at the same time that The Elite were also at their peak in the RoH/NJPW partnership, which itself was also at its peak. Doubly so since the match was promoted as a Ring of Honor match taking place on AEW TV.

On the other hand, having the lights out deal for a debuting unknown giant didn't make any sense, just as it didn't work when a PWG tag team from last decade who couldn't wrestle in the US for years debuted at Double or Nothing 2019.

[Ronny Rayguns Is All Elite]

If I can't figure out what a Wrestler is about from watching them in the ring they're not very good at their job.

If a it's one off, "Dream Match" with an established Wrestler from a different company/country, then yes the announcers should at least give some background on them or play a short highlight reel

But if it's someone who's going to be a regularly appearing performer, have them keep showing up and tell me who they are through their actions

Edit: I see this in reference to Danhausen often.

I wasn't really familiar with him other than people on this board hyping him up and hoping he would get signed by AEW.

I still cracked up the first time he appeared from under the ring during that Adam Cole(?) Match, cause he's a funny looking guy doing funny shit.

For a guy who's biggest selling point is being a charismatic/hilarious oddball, to me it's funnier if they don't Explain it.

If you've watched him on Dynamite, didn't know anything about him and didn't find him amusing, would you suddenly find him more entertaining because somebody told you he made his wrestling debut in 2013 and once held the
F.I..P Florida Heritage Championship?

[Captain Stud Muffin (BLM)]

Promo time and vignettes are still important

[Allie Kitsune]

I mean, I think the biggest example is always going to be The Butcher & The Blade, where they just show up and commentary is just saying their names over and over again, but nothing about where they came from.

[Deleted]

IMO it all depends on a few things most notably what is your creative direction? TV or Sports? this is and will always be the big differentiating factor for me.

If you wanna lean more sports then you can get away with minimal info on said wrestler and let their abilities carve out their personality and identity for the audience.

You wanna lean toward being a TV show then I expect info and backstory about who they are , why they are they here in whatever company , what is the motivation it needs to be a constant flow of info because this is suppose to be a character that should always be evolving and changing in some way whether it be due to the people or the enviroment around them.

Like let me use Thunder Rosa as an example.

In AEW she is a great in ring talent fantastic with a great real life story.

But as an overall character her as Kobra Moon absoloutley blows her as simply Thunder Rosa out of the water....who has historical lore which ties into modern day with ongoing characters , she has a larger overall motivation and is more than just a woman who showed up to wrestle.

But I expect to know more about Kobra Moon and keep learning about her because that is the character where as Thunder Rosa is just the person.

[oxbaker]

Imagine Mr Perfect without the vignettes.

Just saying ‘he’s Curt Hennig, his father was a wrestler and he’s very technically precise’ … yawn.

But give him some arrogance and show he can back it up in any arena — bowling a 300 game, hitting a hole-in-one with every golf shot, making every shot in basketball, etc. — and now you’ve got an all-time character who will never be forgotten.

This isn’t rocket science.

[Ronny Rayguns Is All Elite]

A lot of people seem to take "explain" to be synonymous with Promo time

Yes giving someone promo time (or getting them a mouthpiece to do their talking) is gonna be crucial to getting someone over long term

I don't think the WWF ever gave an explanation for the Ultimate Warrior, but they gave him lots of time to do promos (which probably DID need to be explained, but he still managed to connect with the crowd anyway)