Why do you care so much about workrate?

[amsiraK]

skskillz said:

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.

As fans, we're lucky. We can distance ourselves from the money-making aspect of it and enjoy the content as it's presented. Of course THEY care about who raises the most money - it's THEIR livelihood. In the world they live in, they have to point to money-making as the sign of success. Because we're not making our livings with them, we don't have that perspective.

And I don't know that we so much concentrate on "workrate" as much as whether or not a match is fun/enjoyable to watch. I, for one, could give a crap what moves get used as long as the match is good.

Of course, if the E would make use of exit polls or focus groups and see for themselves how the fans think, maybe their definition of "success" would be different.

[Boomaga]

I don't care how much money Vince McMahon makes. I care about being entertained, and good matches entertain me. That's why workrate is important to me.

[CMPunkyBrewster]

" HEY EVERYBODY! I HAD A GREAT TIME! THE WRESTLING SUCKED, AND I WASN'T THE SLIGHTEST BIT ENTERTAINED, BUT DAMN THAT COMPANY DREW A WHOLE LOTTA MONEY THAT THEY AREN'T GONNA SHARE WITH ME! WATCHING TERRIBLE PRODUCT BUT KNOWING THAT THEY MADE ALOT OF MONEY IS GREAT!"


i don't think the sentence above has ever, or will ever, be said. that's why fans care about workrate. if you can't work the best, then you should be the best in other areas. there are too many guys getting huge pushes that aren't good in any area except the area of being huge. hogan was not the greatest worker, but he was great at entertaining and building drama. but who can honestly say that bobby lashley, a current world champ, is good at either one?

[HMARK Center]

brianzane said:

Here's my two cents on things:

There is a difference between a "good workrate" and "knowing how to work." "Workrate," to me, is a word that got made up by Meltzer and the gang to make them sound important. That word was never used by veterans of the olden days, and in the locker rooms I'm in, I rarely, if ever, hear it there. "Workrate" is a smark word that makes them sound like they know what they're talking about, and it makes a wrestler's level of ability seem tangible, like it can be measured like lines on a cup. If you consider someone to have a "good workrate" because they can tell a good story, use good psychology, can make it seem like they're really fighting for their lives, and can sell really well, don't say he's "got great workrate," say that he knows how to work, because it's more accurate. Someone doesn't have "great workrate" just because he can flip and do these awesome moves that are banned in WWE for being deemed to unsafe to do on an every-night basis (and if they're not...God forbid...a HOSS!). You need to be able to tell a story. That's all pro wrestling is, and all it ever has been, and all it ever will be. It's great when guys like Angle and Lance Storm and all those guys who can wrestle real well come around to add an air of legitimacy to it, and if you had nothing but those guys filling up TV time, it would be great at first, then it would get old real damn fast. In wrestling, it's all about the money. Nothing more, nothing less.

I agree, but I wouldn't look at "workrate" as some derogatory word. It's just a quicker way of saying "knows how to work/he's a good worker/etc."

[Galluchadore]

the whole drawing money argument to me is something i really don't get. By saying the wrestler who drew the most money is the best to me as a life long wrestling fan is like telling someone who is a big music fan with thousands of Cds "Britney Spears and the Backstreet boys are the greatest singers of all time because they sold the most records and made the most money". I am sure going to a concert by one of those pop stars will be filled with tons of pyro, video monitors, and a "larger then life" presentation. As i fan i really could care less about that i want some substance in the form of wrestling and good storylines which are much more uncommon. Wrestling is like every other form of entertainment where stuff that draws is often the worst stuff in the eyes of the "hardcore" fans. Whether its movies (good example with Michael Bay, or Music like the backstreet boys etc.

I think the audience as a whole is a lot smarter and want a degree of work rate. Theres a reason why John Cena and Batista do not get the same reaction of a Rock or an Austin. The audience realizes that they aren't that good in the ring. Now i am not expecting every single guy to be on the level of chris benoit by I think we all have expectations for our top stars. Some one like the rock or austin I could look at say "hes not the best guy in the ring. but hes funny, he can make me care about him, and with the right guy he can deliver" you don't get that today and i think thats why theres a lot people out there so quick to point things out about them. Also the wwe has to realize that their are many fans out that do care about the quality of the match and who is involved. I won't spend my money on a show that I think will be boring.


As a good business shouldn't the WWE want my money and try to draw me into their crowds? i am not a business major but i think thats a better way to go instead of insulting every fan who disagrees with their product and direction. I couldn't imagine any other business doing that saying "what do you know Mr.Consumer what you want won't draw us money therefore we will ignore and insult you"

[Shy Guy]

cant people just enjoy whats entertains them instead of worrying about whos holding down who and whos doing do?

[#Classic Hi-Definition X]

Listen to her. She speaks the truth.

[Kevin Hamilton]

So you're sayin the intelligent chick has a point?

[skskillz]

I used the word "workrate" because it's a lot quicker than saying "technical wrestling between two guys with no character or charisma". Replace technical wrestling with high spots where it applies. It's probably a generalization, but you get what I mean.

I see a lot of people talking up Lance Storm and Shelton Benjamin and Charlie Haas, etc, etc, etc, and then the same people bashing Hogan, Warrior, Goldberg, etc, and that's really what got me to make this thread. It's the view that "talented wrestlers" should be pushed or will be remembered more than "non-talented wrestlers" who drew money and were/are extremely popular that really doesn't add up to me. This is not a sport. It's an entertainment genre. Everything is determined by popularity and money.

I guess if we agree that characters and storylines are above everything else, then there's not much to argue.

[STMP]

After Hmark's post I'd assume that the discussion would be a lot clearer now.

After my points about 'moneymaking' I'd guess people would be wondering why Hogan and Flair put together (in WCW) still weren't able to outsell Austin (in the WWF) who wasn't nearly as popular as Hogan was in the 80's.

How does that work? Hogan simply stopped drawing as much as he used too. Does that make him a bad wrestler? It does if you use the 'making money'-argument. That whole argument is complete bullshit. But because Hogan was carrying a very entertaining product in a time when everyone was open to the product Vince McMahon was delivering, some people call him the best ever. And the same happened with Austin. There was a very strong undercard in those big era's, there was an obvious gameplan, there was overal quality with very good angles and just plain stupid stuff. But in the end the overal quality was good enough for the audience to keep watching.

Yet everyone goes 'ooohh but Hogan drew money, so he is the best ever'. Bullshit. That's the stuff Hogan will tell you. Looking at how much someone draws doesn't make sense. It is something that is very important for a promoter. If a promoter has a chance to book Hogan or Benoit, he will pick Hogan because he knows Hogan is a bigger name and will therefore draw more.

In the end, the promoter is happy and the fans who got to see Hogan in person and meet him are happy. But does that matter to us? We, the audience who weren't there and are perhaps watching it on tape and see Hogan do the same stuff as usual.

Making money is only important to the wrestlers and bookers. For the bookers to book the biggest draw and for wrestlers to become the biggest draw so they can make more money. But why should we as fans have anything to do with that?

Should we watch a movie just because we know that Ben Affleck earns a lot of money? And in that case, how should we deal with someone like Halle Berry, who was a huge moviestar and is now making shittymovies that don't make any money at all. Should she return the oscar they gave her? "I'm sorry to inform you miss Berry, but you're last movie made no profit so we would like to get that Oscar back"

We are fans, we are not wrestlers. So we are indeed allowed to talk about workrate. Because it is not a word that wrestlers use, it is a word that fans use. And we are fans, we are viewers, we are consumers. And we need to act like that. Instead of stupid sheep that don't feel like we can be critical because those wrestlers know the best.

No, I have seen Bret Hart wrestle and because of that I can say that Warrior sucks and is a terrible wrestler. I don't need to be in the ring to know that. And then people say 'yeah, but Warrior was a big draw'. What the f***?! Why should I care about that. I'm not going to book him and it's not 1991 anymore. So why bring that up?

If the wrestlers among themselves say 'well, that Warrior sure knew how to draw'. Let them, if it is their goal to make a shitload of money, all the power to them. But should I be a fan of a wrestler who makes a lot of money? Should I respect a wrestler because he sold a lot of t-shirts? No, of course not. Not as a wrestlingfan. Perhaps if I was a professional t-shirt seller, then hell yeah I'd be marking for The Rock. But as a viewer who wants to be entertained I don't give a shit about that.

And it all comes down to this. People have different tastes. Some like brawling and others like technical wrestling and others like lucha libre etc. But as a fan, I want to see a wrestler do what he is best at. And people say 'well, Big Show is too big to wrestle a technical match, so don't expect him to'. Well, I don't expect that from him, I expect him to brawl, but he isn't that good in brawling either. I've seen some great brawls, stuff that impressed me and was just punch, kick, headlock, punch, clothesline.

As a fan you should demand quality and saying 'that guy is big, so he is allowed to botch, no sell and forget to tell a story' is cheating yourself out of a good product.

[Loki]

I think we can talk about "workrate" as long as we keep it into the realm of personal preferences and tastes.

For smart fans (and smarts) "workrate" may be a short way to express their favourite form of wrestling, that I guess can be something like: "the ability of telling a story in the ring using a good variety of technical and/or high-flying moves, executed in a proper way".

And there's nothing wrong with that.

Others prefer to put emphasis on storytelling done with charisma and personality rather than with the number/flashiness of moves... e.g. People's Elbow > 450 corkscrew shooting star press off a ladder through a flaming table.

There's no right or wrong in such argument.

It's just we'd avoid stop pretending our OWN idea of workrate is the right one and if WWE was run according to our "workrate" it'd be a Boom Era in a matter of days.

A show with only Technical Masterpieces involving Generic Mat Wizard #1 and Bland Chain Wrestler #2 and High Flying Frenzy with Generic Spot Monkey #6 and Skinny Indy Guy #9 would be boring as hell.

Likewise a show revolving around Charismatic No-Talent vs Dime-a-Dozen Hoss #534 with crapload of promos and short uninspiring brawls would be equally awful.

We need "Hogan and Rock" but we need "Benoit and Hart" too. And the undercard need both Haas and Dino Bravo...

[Deleted]

I care about workrate because I'm entertained by wrestling over showmanship.

Granted the wrestling is showmanship of its own, but I'd prefer watching interesting and/or flashy moves over seeing gestures to the crowd.

[thesunbeast]

angryfan said:

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.

Actually, it's the opposite. If it wasn't for Hogan or flair, all those extra, casual fans wouldn't have had the opportunity to see some of the great wrestlers on the mid-card.


And the wrestler that makes the most money, is the best "worker". "Work", has a totally different meaning, many different meanings, than what is universally excepted. There are many kinds of "work".

[thesunbeast]

giovanni said:

After Hmark's post I'd assume that the discussion would be a lot clearer now.

After my points about 'moneymaking' I'd guess people would be wondering why Hogan and Flair put together (in WCW) still weren't able to outsell Austin (in the WWF) who wasn't nearly as popular as Hogan was in the 80's.

How does that work? Hogan simply stopped drawing as much as he used too. Does that make him a bad wrestler? It does if you use the 'making money'-argument. That whole argument is complete bullcrap. But because Hogan was carrying a very entertaining product in a time when everyone was open to the product Vince McMahon was delivering, some people call him the best ever. And the same happened with Austin. There was a very strong undercard in those big era's, there was an obvious gameplan, there was overal quality with very good angles and just plain stupid stuff. But in the end the overal quality was good enough for the audience to keep watching.

Yet everyone goes 'ooohh but Hogan drew money, so he is the best ever'. Bullcrap. That's the stuff Hogan will tell you. Looking at how much someone draws doesn't make sense. It is something that is very important for a promoter. If a promoter has a chance to book Hogan or Benoit, he will pick Hogan because he knows Hogan is a bigger name and will therefore draw more.

In the end, the promoter is happy and the fans who got to see Hogan in person and meet him are happy. But does that matter to us? We, the audience who weren't there and are perhaps watching it on tape and see Hogan do the same stuff as usual.

Making money is only important to the wrestlers and bookers. For the bookers to book the biggest draw and for wrestlers to become the biggest draw so they can make more money. But why should we as fans have anything to do with that?

Should we watch a movie just because we know that Ben Affleck earns a lot of money? And in that case, how should we deal with someone like Halle Berry, who was a huge moviestar and is now making craptymovies that don't make any money at all. Should she return the oscar they gave her? "I'm sorry to inform you miss Berry, but you're last movie made no profit so we would like to get that Oscar back"

We are fans, we are not wrestlers. So we are indeed allowed to talk about workrate. Because it is not a word that wrestlers use, it is a word that fans use. And we are fans, we are viewers, we are consumers. And we need to act like that. Instead of stupid sheep that don't feel like we can be critical because those wrestlers know the best.

No, I have seen Bret Hart wrestle and because of that I can say that Warrior sucks and is a terrible wrestler. I don't need to be in the ring to know that. And then people say 'yeah, but Warrior was a big draw'. What the hug?! Why should I care about that. I'm not going to book him and it's not 1991 anymore. So why bring that up?

If the wrestlers among themselves say 'well, that Warrior sure knew how to draw'. Let them, if it is their goal to make a crapload of money, all the power to them. But should I be a fan of a wrestler who makes a lot of money? Should I respect a wrestler because he sold a lot of t-shirts? No, of course not. Not as a wrestlingfan. Perhaps if I was a professional t-shirt seller, then hell yeah I'd be marking for The Rock. But as a viewer who wants to be entertained I don't give a crap about that.

And it all comes down to this. People have different tastes. Some like brawling and others like technical wrestling and others like lucha libre etc. But as a fan, I want to see a wrestler do what he is best at. And people say 'well, Big Show is too big to wrestle a technical match, so don't expect him to'. Well, I don't expect that from him, I expect him to brawl, but he isn't that good in brawling either. I've seen some great brawls, stuff that impressed me and was just punch, kick, headlock, punch, clothesline.

As a fan you should demand quality and saying 'that guy is big, so he is allowed to botch, no sell and forget to tell a story' is cheating yourself out of a good product.

Some people just don't have the proper appreciation for what it is that these guys actually do.

the argument that the biggest money-maker is the best does indeed hold merit, because what it is that most don't realize, is that all the things that they do, say, in the ring, is about drawing people. In pro wrestling, the worst wrestler can be the greatest pro wrestler ever, because it's not wrestling. When Undertaker first made his debut in 1990, he had buttloads of technical wrestling skill, but he used 3 moves and choking for his entire matches, because it fit his charactor better than if he did all the moves, so his charactor was a worse wrestler, but was actually better. You CANNOT judge a wrestler's real-life skill based on what you see them do in the ring.

[Tea & Crumpets]

andrewisgood said:

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.

You make some excellent points. Wrestlnig is about entertainment and selling it to the fans, not just good wrestlnig. And if the average fan is more entertained by promos, catchphrases and the same match every night than by technical masterpieces, then that's what will make the money and be more successful. But you can't compare money drawn to ring ability in terms of 'who was better'. You can say 'who was more entertaining' or 'who was mroe successful'. Unless by better you mean the overall better package. But even then a guy like Hogan, who's hugely charismatic uhbt has no ring ability, only has a few aspects of the total pakcage, just like say, AJ Styles, who has tons of ability yet no real charisma or promo skill. Being better should be judged on the complete package, not just money made or just charisma or just ring skills. And there's different types of rign skills too, not just pure technical wrestling.

There's technical/mat wrestling, catch-as-catch-can wrestling, brawling, hardcore/garbage wrestling, power wrestling, strong style/puroresu wrestling, big man/strong wrestling, and spot-based/ highflying wrestling. And all of those styles can entertain me when done right, except garbage wrestling.

But may I just repeat a quote of yours:

andrewisgood said:

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.

Interesting truth is, Bam Bam Bigelow and Vader were both around 6'6" and 300-400 pounds, yet they could wrestle like cruiserweights when they wanted to. ;D

[Just "Dan" is Fine, Thank You]

relixiv said:

dmargul said:

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.

I will concede to everything you said there. But I will say that our arguments fit well. When I say I want a hard-worker to succeed, that's like your mid-carder working a strong match in order to break into the level where they can stay healthy, as you put it.

But of course, you don't want to see someone who didn't do their job well to get a promotion. Those picked to be main eventers aren't sloppy, lazy workers.

[Shiori C: WC Blue Moon Poster]

Well, y'know, I love Roddy Piper, and can't understand why Finlay and Helms are so popular on the Internet. And that's not because Piper was a great wrestler (hell, he was hardly a good one), but because he had the ring presence, passion, unpredictability and intensity to make me give a crap about what he was doing in the ring. Finlay and Helms, as solid as they both are in the wrestling department, don't really make me feel like their matches are essential viewing.

I think this is the main thing: if wrestlers aren't entertaining me, if I can't get into their stories or their matches, then I'm not going to give a rat's ass whether they're fantastic workers or whether they're crappy ones. That's why Boogeyman gets pops and Rob Conway, well, y'know.

[MichaelRBoh]

i'd rather see a good match then a bad match but it really doesn't matter. what matters is they interview good, have a cool gimmick and put on a decent match or look cool. or in the case of a diva look really hot. any one of those is 100 percent cow approved.

[American Nightmare]

workrate is kinda pointless. Think about it, oldschool matches had very few moves, mostly basics like headlock takeovers and armdrags. Maybe, there would be a big spot like a flying crossbody. And those matches were great. Not because what they did inside the ring, but what they made the people feel outside the ring. Psycology is way more important than workrate.

But i will agree, i find Goldberg and Warrior style matches to be boring as hell.

[iamthegamewjwf]

blindgunfighter said:

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.

I dont think their point is that they are better because they made more money. The point is that they made more money for a reason...because the fans like them better than anyone else. Its all a matter of opinion, but thats where the money factors in to this argument.