|
Post by skskillz on Dec 31, 2006 10:27:55 GMT -5
I was surfing YouTube recently and found two interesting things. One was a Kevin Nash "shoot" interview, and the other was Flair on Off the Record. When watching those clips, two things stuck out at me. In the Nash shoot, I think he was asked who does he feel is the best worker, and Nash's response was "Hogan 1, and Rock 2". He claimed in a sport where winning and losing is determined by a writer, and there's no statistical criteria to distinguish between workers, that the guy who is the best worker should be the guy who made the most money. Hence, Hogan at 1 and Rock at 2 (he later grouped Rock and Austin together).
In the Flair interview, he was asked who is the greatest of all-time between Hogan and himself, and Flair said Hogan. His reasoning? "Because he drew more money than me". Flair then goes on to bash Bret Hart endlessly. Why? Because Bret didn't draw any money (according to Ric).
Many consider Flair to be the best "wrestler" ever, while Nash at the very least was big enough to main event for two seperate companies. The point is, both of them quickly pointed out that drawing money was the most important criteria when evaluating a wrestler's career. Guys like Bret and Shawn look towards workrate because that's really all they have/had. The guys who actually drew money realize the significance of it.
So why do most of you care so much about workrate when the wrestlers themselves base the business on drawing money? I can understand caring about workrate if you find it entertaining, but some of you base legacies on it. Hogan is bashed because "he has no talent" (which is completely subjective, by the way) yet his matches (Andre, Warrior, Savage, Rock, etc) are still talked about today and they all drew HUGE numbers. People here CRAVE for the Attitude Era to come back, yet fail to realize that the Attitude Era had 2 minute matches on TV that always ended in DQ, and focused almost entirely on promos and character development (like they should). Just like the '80's. Yes, the two most SUCCESSFUL periods in wrestling, two periods that people are dying to re-live, didn't focus on wrestling but moreso on the over-the-top characters in wrestling. So why all the fuss about workrate or how a wrestler "works"? Does it really drive the business? No. Has workrate by itself drawn money? No. Flair wouldn't be Flair without having Flair charisma. Austin drew more money after his ring work got limited due to a botched piledriver than he ever did when he was a great worker. The list goes on.
I'm the anti-smark on this board. I don't care about workrate, that's why I stick up for Hogan, Warrior, Goldberg, Andre, etc, who people don't want to give the proper credit to. I don't pretend to be an expert on the business, but I do know that the whole point to the wrestling business is to draw money. Why are people here so reluctant to accept that? Why are people here so quick to bash those who made money, but praise those who didn't based on a criteria that even RIC FLAIR doesn't use (and Flair is the poster child for workrate to some people)? I find that completely mind boggling.
Just my rant for the day.
|
|
|
Post by MGH on Dec 31, 2006 10:33:57 GMT -5
Just for the reason you said, it entertains me to see good wrestling matches. It was different when I was younger, but as years go by your tastes change. Even before I became fully entrenched in the internet wrestling era here, I was starting to care less about gimmick and more about good matches. You'll never hear me say Hogan isn't arguably the most important wrestler of all time, nor that he wasn't insanely successful. You WILL hear me say that I think he blows because he only had a handful of matches that I would ever want to see again.
It wasn't like I suddenly programmed myself to believe that if you can't wrestle I dont like you, it's just that it's what I want to see when I watch wrestling. It's why I'll gladly toss out 20 bucks for a 3 hour ROH show and pocket my 40 whenever one of those Sundays a month for WWE comes around.
|
|
Libertine
Unicron
Cerebral Caustic
Posts: 3,082
|
Post by Libertine on Dec 31, 2006 10:35:41 GMT -5
Fans can't really root for the biggest moneymakers because it's not the matter closest to our hearts. If Bret Hart, for example, drew say 50% of the money Hogan did, so what? I'm not concerned with the financial aspects of the company, but would rather see fluid, unpredictable and exciting matches.
|
|
|
Post by angryfan on Dec 31, 2006 10:35:57 GMT -5
I can only speak for myself, but the whole notion of "those that drew money vs those that didn't" is a load of crap.
Reason? Simple, if not for the guys on the undercard, who never got the pushes of guys like Hogan, than there NEVER would have been a Hogan, or a Flair for that matter.
I bash Hogan because, to me, it seems like he's forgotten that.
|
|
|
Post by Bram wants to 'urt you on Dec 31, 2006 10:37:04 GMT -5
Personally, I watch wrestling to be entertained. There are three ways that the shows can entertain me; good storylines or feuds, good use of the mic by the wrestlers and what they can do in the ring. (in no particular order). At the moment, the E is short of good storylines, and has precious few wrestlers who can cut a killer promo, either pre recorded or live. So all that leaves is what they bring when they actually get down and wrestle. The point of the business is to draw money, and you draw money by sending people away satisfied that they have seen a good show. If you can't present an interesting story or have someone use the mic to make you love or hate them, then all there is left to go on is the work they do in the ring. That's just my take on things anyways
|
|
STMP
Hank Scorpio
Wild and Only 50
Posts: 5,569
|
Post by STMP on Dec 31, 2006 10:51:40 GMT -5
Workrate to me is simply bothering in the ring. Trying to wrestle a good match. A bad wrestler, could have great workrate because he is working his ass of in the ring but simply doesn't have it to wrestle a good match.
I see Mark Henry as a good example of that, he is hard worker he's just not made to be a wrestler. And I see Jeff Hardy as someone with terrible workrate at times when he doesn't even bother to execute a move right.
And right there is why it's important. Do you want to see a product by someone who doesn't really bother? That's not entertaining. It's not entertaining to see Jeff Hardy completely miss a dropkick and no sell a bump that should have hurt like crazy.
To get over, you NEED workrate. But when you are over and have the fans in the palm of your hand, you can pretty much give them the same match over and over again. Because they know they will see that and they want to see that. Every Hogan fan wants to see him Hulk up. And me as a huge Muta mark, wants to see the Green mist every time.
The whole drawing money thing is complete bullshit. If only for the simple reason Hogan hasn't always drawn. He made a lot of money, but when he left for WCW he didn't drew as he did in the 80's for the WWF. It took the nWo to once again make WCW popular. And even then they weren't making big money, they were just beating the WWF. It took the Attitude-era, led by Austin vs McMahon to really make some huge money. And during that era WCW was losing the ratingswar and not making more money then the WWF. While they had Flair and Hogan the two biggest draws ever.
So what does that mean? Austin > Flair and Hogan put together? No, it simply meant WWE had the overal better and more entertaining show.
|
|
|
Post by skskillz on Dec 31, 2006 10:54:47 GMT -5
Fans can't really root for the biggest moneymakers because it's not the matter closest to our hearts. If Bret Hart, for example, drew say 50% of the money Hogan did, so what? I'm not concerned with the financial aspects of the company, but would rather see fluid, unpredictable and exciting matches. And that's fine. Like I said, if you find Bret (or someone like him) entertaining, then there's nothing wrong with that. I'll give an example to illustrate my point: Create a poll on this forum. "Who deserves to be in the Hall of Fame more: Ultimate Warrior or Owen Hart?" Who wins that poll? Owen and probably by a landslide. I don't doubt that some found Owen more entertaining, but what did Hart EVER do in the business that was as significant as what Warrior did from 1988-1992? That's more to my point, that people are looking at workrate over money drawn when looking back on wrestlers' careers and evaluating who deserves to get pushed (John Cena would be a modern day example). Flair, according to the OTR interview, praised himself more for selling out arenas against Race, Funk, Bruiser, etc, over the match quality in each of those matches/feuds. If that's the criteria Ric Flair uses, then I find it odd that people here wouldn't follow suit. Flair is probably one of the few examples of a great worker drawing money at least over the last two decades (guys like Hogan, Piper, Andre, Rock, Austin after the piledriver, etc, were not the greatest workers ever).
|
|
|
Post by Lenny: Smooth like Keith Stone on Dec 31, 2006 10:55:51 GMT -5
There are plenty of people on this forum who are NOT obsessed with workrate. Every time you see someone say "Hail Snitsky"... every time a wrestler botches a move and folks continue to love that wrestler's matches.... every time someone praises the Boogeyman... etc.
|
|
STMP
Hank Scorpio
Wild and Only 50
Posts: 5,569
|
Post by STMP on Dec 31, 2006 11:08:42 GMT -5
Fans can't really root for the biggest moneymakers because it's not the matter closest to our hearts. If Bret Hart, for example, drew say 50% of the money Hogan did, so what? I'm not concerned with the financial aspects of the company, but would rather see fluid, unpredictable and exciting matches. And that's fine. Like I said, if you find Bret (or someone like him) entertaining, then there's nothing wrong with that. I'll give an example to illustrate my point: Create a poll on this forum. "Who deserves to be in the Hall of Fame more: Ultimate Warrior or Owen Hart?" Who wins that poll? Owen and probably by a landslide. I don't doubt that some found Owen more entertaining, but what did Hart EVER do in the business that was as significant as what Warrior did from 1988-1992? That's more to my point, that people are looking at workrate over money drawn when looking back on wrestlers' careers and evaluating who deserves to get pushed (John Cena would be a modern day example). Flair, according to the OTR interview, praised himself more for selling out arenas against Race, Funk, Bruiser, etc, over the match quality in each of those matches/feuds. If that's the criteria Ric Flair uses, then I find it odd that people here wouldn't follow suit. Flair is probably one of the few examples of a great worker drawing money at least over the last two decades (guys like Hogan, Piper, Andre, Rock, Austin after the piledriver, etc, were not the greatest workers ever). When people vote for Owen they vote for him because they enjoyed his work. They can still watch some of the stuff he did and enjoy it. With Warrior it's different. Because most of what he did was based around hyping matches and selling out arena's. It's very short term. Hogan vs Andre is the best example. It's the biggest match ever, biggest draw ever. But when you look back on it. Do you feel that? Do you enjoy the match? It's a very bad match, completely sold on hype. If you were there you'll never forget it. But looking back on it, is almost painfull. That is the difference. Good wrestling matches can last a lifetime. Matches sold on hype can't.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew is Good on Dec 31, 2006 11:29:29 GMT -5
There are definitely a lot of people who are anti-smark, there was even a group of anti-smarks awhile back captained by a very good looking, handsome, rugged in a way, individual. Well, actually it was captained by a bum, but who cares.
Anyway, if I could quote Raven, usually the favourites of the fans who like wrestling aren't everyone else's favourites. Those fans believe they have a critical eye for talent, even though people on the internet have the least valuable opinion when it comes to wrestling, because most people will choose guys who they like, not who could potentially draw. So the average joe who likes John Cena because he's a good guy and he has some morals is gonna have a more valuable opinion then the guy who doesn't like Cena because his wrestling ability isn't up to par. It's not about that most of the time. But that's for drawing and such.
Workrate has always confused me, mostly because the term contradicts itself. Working isn't how much action you do. Working is making the crowd believe what you're doing. Randy Orton is someone I give as a great example of this. He is a brilliant worker. When it comes to the traditional term of workrate, he's not very good, but as a worker, he's tremendous, because he's very believable, and very smooth in the ring.
When I do watch wrestling, I think one reason I don't become jaded from it is I don't expect everyone to wrestle a certain way. I love great wrestling. If people want to call it workrate, fine. I just call it wrestling. Chris Benoit, Finlay, Shawn Michaels are some of the best. In ROH which I've been watching recently, Joe, Danielson, Daniels and others are great. But when I watch Kane wrestle, I don't expect strong technical wrestling. When John Cena wrestles, I don't expect technical wrestling, I think that's where their hate comes in. People only tend to like just the good, smooth technical wrestling, and if it's not that, it's bad. And it's their opinion, but it makes fans become so easily jaded. I love the power wrestlers. I love the comedy, the drama, and everything about wrestling, where as the wrestling or the "workrate" is just one of my particular favourite parts, and I don't expect a guy who's 6'6 and 300 pounds to do something that a guy who's 5'11 and 230 pounds can do. And I feel that a lot of people do expect that.
|
|
|
Post by skskillz on Dec 31, 2006 11:44:39 GMT -5
When people vote for Owen they vote for him because they enjoyed his work. They can still watch some of the stuff he did and enjoy it. With Warrior it's different. Because most of what he did was based around hyping matches and selling out arena's. It's very short term. Hogan vs Andre is the best example. It's the biggest match ever, biggest draw ever. But when you look back on it. Do you feel that? Do you enjoy the match? It's a very bad match, completely sold on hype. If you were there you'll never forget it. But looking back on it, is almost painfull. That is the difference. Good wrestling matches can last a lifetime. Matches sold on hype can't. I see your point, but opinions will always differ. I still watch Hogan/Andre and enjoy it. Just like I still watch Bret/Owen and enjoy it. The difference is, enjoyment is purely subjective. No one is going to remember Bret/Owen more than Hogan/Andre mainly because one of those matches had so much excitement, hype, build-up, money, etc, that it dwarfed the other. If you were a promoter, would you rather promote Hogan/Andre as your main event or Bret/Owen? If you were a promoter, would you rather push Ultimate Warrior (1988-1992) or Owen Hart (his prime years)? I don't know, I just find it odd that some seem to evaluate wrestling as if it's a legitimate sport, when it more closely resembles the movie industry than it does baseball or football. I see it more like Nash does. In a business where winning and losing is decided by a promoter and there are no statistical criteria to evaluate a performer's job, then it really comes down to how much money they were able to generate to the business. Will Smith draws more money in the box office than (insert more "talented" actor). Smith should be remembered more highly because of that. To respond to angryfan's reply, mid-carders can draw money too. That's how Savage and Warrior (for example) moved up in the card.
|
|
STMP
Hank Scorpio
Wild and Only 50
Posts: 5,569
|
Post by STMP on Dec 31, 2006 12:04:19 GMT -5
When people vote for Owen they vote for him because they enjoyed his work. They can still watch some of the stuff he did and enjoy it. With Warrior it's different. Because most of what he did was based around hyping matches and selling out arena's. It's very short term. Hogan vs Andre is the best example. It's the biggest match ever, biggest draw ever. But when you look back on it. Do you feel that? Do you enjoy the match? It's a very bad match, completely sold on hype. If you were there you'll never forget it. But looking back on it, is almost painfull. That is the difference. Good wrestling matches can last a lifetime. Matches sold on hype can't. I see your point, but opinions will always differ. I still watch Hogan/Andre and enjoy it. Just like I still watch Bret/Owen and enjoy it. The difference is, enjoyment is purely subjective. No one is going to remember Bret/Owen more than Hogan/Andre mainly because one of those matches had so much excitement, hype, build-up, money, etc, that it dwarfed the other. If you were a promoter, would you rather promote Hogan/Andre as your main event or Bret/Owen? If you were a promoter, would you rather push Ultimate Warrior (1988-1992) or Owen Hart (his prime years)? I don't know, I just find it odd that some seem to evaluate wrestling as if it's a legitimate sport, when it more closely resembles the movie industry than it does baseball or football. I see it more like Nash does. In a business where winning and losing is decided by a promoter and there are no statistical criteria to evaluate a performer's job, then it really comes down to how much money they were able to generate to the business. Will Smith draws more money in the box office than (insert more "talented" actor). Smith should be remembered more highly because of that. To respond to angryfan's reply, mid-carders can draw money too. That's how Savage and Warrior (for example) moved up in the card. Exactely it's like movies. And this is where I have a different opinion. Take the movie SAW for example. Very low budget movie, not that many big stars in it. But it was a huge hit. Now lets take a Micheal Bay movie. Everyone knows he sucks as a director. But he does make fun popcorn movies. Based on his name alone people will watch a Micheal Bay movie. However, SAW meant more to people since the popularity came from mouth to mouth advertising. People were talking about it and that is how it became a very popular movie. With Micheal Bay movies people just go there because the trailer looked so awesome and Armageddon was 'cool'. But at the end, it's often a let down, or at least not the best movie you've ever seen. And at times Micheal Bay movies are the kind of movies that are only fun on the big screen. So with this in mind. You can compare the good wrestler and the popular wrestler. Everyone knows the popular wrestler, but it's the good wrestler who has people talking about him and creating interest. However and this the subject everyone always talks about. It's the popular wrestler that people want to see live, because live is the coolest. So of course he makes more money. But it's not always the wrestler people will remember and talk about. Because from WM3, what is the match people still talk about and enjoy? Steamboat vs Savage.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2006 15:34:49 GMT -5
I hate talking about the "workrate" of wrestlers. As a wrestling FAN I'll never feel comfortable critiquing a wrestler on his workrate and when I first got my hands on the internet and started talking about wrestling that's basically all I did, I was the typical Triple H hating, workrate obsessed smark, I realize now that I have too much respect for anyone who steps into the ring to even so much as pretend that I know any better than they do about workrate or any of that. It just doesn't feel right.
|
|
mo
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
"Here are the young men, the weight on their shoulders..."
Posts: 16,661
Member is Online
|
Post by mo on Dec 31, 2006 15:36:12 GMT -5
I don't so really so much, the word itself kinda gets on my nerves
|
|
|
Post by leemir on Dec 31, 2006 15:40:15 GMT -5
I'm a fan of good Wrestlers not good draws, if the good Wrestler is also a draw, good for him, good for the biz.
|
|
|
Post by Just "Dan" is Fine, Thank You on Dec 31, 2006 15:47:19 GMT -5
Why is "work" important? Because this is their JOB. I assume most if not all members of the forum have jobs. We all work hard. We would rather see someone who works the hardest succeed.
|
|
|
Post by leemir on Dec 31, 2006 15:48:31 GMT -5
There are definitely a lot of people who are anti-smark, there was even a group of anti-smarks awhile back captained by a very good looking, handsome, rugged in a way, individual. Well, actually it was captained by a bum, but who cares. Anyway, if I could quote Raven, usually the favourites of the fans who like wrestling aren't everyone else's favourites. Those fans believe they have a critical eye for talent, even though people on the internet have the least valuable opinion when it comes to wrestling, because most people will choose guys who they like, not who could potentially draw. So the average joe who likes John Cena because he's a good guy and he has some morals is gonna have a more valuable opinion then the guy who doesn't like Cena because his wrestling ability isn't up to par. It's not about that most of the time. But that's for drawing and such. Workrate has always confused me, mostly because the term contradicts itself. Working isn't how much action you do. Working is making the crowd believe what you're doing. Randy Orton is someone I give as a great example of this. He is a brilliant worker. When it comes to the traditional term of workrate, he's not very good, but as a worker, he's tremendous, because he's very believable, and very smooth in the ring. When I do watch wrestling, I think one reason I don't become jaded from it is I don't expect everyone to wrestle a certain way. I love great wrestling. If people want to call it workrate, fine. I just call it wrestling. Chris Benoit, Finlay, Shawn Michaels are some of the best. In ROH which I've been watching recently, Joe, Danielson, Daniels and others are great. But when I watch Kane wrestle, I don't expect strong technical wrestling. When John Cena wrestles, I don't expect technical wrestling, I think that's where their hate comes in. People only tend to like just the good, smooth technical wrestling, and if it's not that, it's bad. And it's their opinion, but it makes fans become so easily jaded. I love the power wrestlers. I love the comedy, the drama, and everything about wrestling, where as the wrestling or the "workrate" is just one of my particular favourite parts, and I don't expect a guy who's 6'6 and 300 pounds to do something that a guy who's 5'11 and 230 pounds can do. And I feel that a lot of people do expect that. I agree with everything he said there but just because I actually know this doesn't mean I'm going to change my opinion even if we internet fans have the least valuable opinion. WWE will always have the Benoits, the Finlays & some great technical matches, they're always going to try to appeal to the "smart" fans too. even if it's just a minority.
|
|
|
Post by ReliXIV on Jan 1, 2007 19:51:08 GMT -5
Why is work important? Because this is their JOB. I assume most if not all members of the forum have jobs. We all work hard. We would rather see someone who works the hardest succeed. Different wrestlers have different jobs in the company. If a wrestler in the opening match had the same concerns as the wrestlers in the main event, then there would be a serious problem with the business. Mid-card wrestlers earn their keep by working hard inside the ring, from bell to bell. Main eventers earn their worth by working hard outside the ring, and staying healthy enough to make their commitments in the next town tomorrow, then on TV the next week, and finally on PPV the next month. In order to accomplish this feat, they have to ease up on their workrate, so they do not make a simple error during a high-risk move. Besides, the wrestlers that the company wants to have can be different than the wrestlers that the fans want to have. The company is far more objective; more drawing power is more desirable. Similar to what the author of this post said initially, what the fans want is so incredibly subjective that it barely worth debating because there is no right or wrong reason to love one wrestler over another.
|
|
|
Post by kickassforumguyme on Jan 1, 2007 21:16:29 GMT -5
I want to see Khali Vs Norman Smiley in a hardcore match and I want to see Khali Brain chop right through a football helmet.
|
|
HRH The KING
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS
Posts: 15,079
|
Post by HRH The KING on Jan 1, 2007 21:26:15 GMT -5
Because aside from all the skits, sketches, Divas etc...it all comes down to wrestling, and if a dude can't work a decent match, he's doomed.
|
|