I don't think workrate is that subjective

[taylorandborland]

Put it like this: we all know wrestling is fake. But it's almost universally agreed that the best matches maintain a level of realism with just a bit of showmanship. There are wrestlers who can do that well, and wrestlers who can't do that very well. So why can't that just be the benchmark for good and bad workers?

[Mozenrath]

Well, it's one benchmark. But if we're going by that, someone who botches a lot wouldn't be considered sloppy, since in real life, fights are usually sloppy as hell.

I don't think workrate is always going to have the same definition. People expect differently from a lucha match than they would from a Finlay match, for instance.

[Deleted]

Because that would mean Hulk Hogan,The Rock,Steve Austin,Batista and John Cena would be the best

[taylorandborland]

Oct 8, 2009 21:03:34 GMT -5 @tagteamspecialist said:

Because that would mean Hulk Hogan,The Rock,Steve Austin,Batista and John Cena would be the best

John Cena matches are realistic?

I don't care who you are, when a fat wrestler weighing a quarter-ton sits on you for a full minute, you're not gonna have it in you to breathe, let alone lift said fat-ass on your shoulders.

[Allie Kitsune]

Because trying to force someone's preferences to be "right" or "wrong" due to some sort of "fact" is BS, and trying to set a hard and fast definition to "workrate" just so it can finally, "definitively" be thrown in someone's face why they're stupid to like a certain wrestler doesn't get us anywhere.

In my eyes, it seems like all "workrate" is, is a term to make fans of certain wrestlers feel like they're superior to fans of other wrestlers.

[manstis1804]

Isn't workrate just how many moves you do outside of rest holds and random strikes? It's a really stupid thing to judge a wrestler on, some guys need to do a lot and some guys need to do a little, it all depends on the wrestler and their gimmick.

[taylorandborland]

Oct 8, 2009 21:18:25 GMT -5 Allie Kitsune said:

Because trying to force someone's preferences to be "right" or "wrong" due to some sort of "fact" is BS, and trying to set a hard and fast definition to "workrate" just so it can finally, "definitively" be thrown in someone's face why they're stupid to like a certain wrestler doesn't get us anywhere.

Considering that "workrate" has had a sold definition from the get-go, but just been bastardized into something elitist...

[H-Fist]

Workrate (n) The pace of a match and the skill level exhibited therein.

www.pwtorch.com/insiderglossary.shtml

That is the actual definition of workrate.

Now, according to Wikipedia's page on Dave Meltzer, here is the description of the "star system:"

As in the field of film, a rating is a largely subjective affair that may take into account the amount of action, as opposed to restholds ("workrate"), the difficulty and variety of moves used, the history of the workers and their feud, the development of an in-match storyline based on the wrestling moves and how they affect the wrestlers, and the overall reaction of the crowd.

A little less closely tied to the industry, but generic answer site AllExperts offers:

In professional wrestling, workrate refers to the ratio of action in a wrestling match to the inaction. A worker is said to have a "high workrate" if he or she has little inaction in the match.

en.allexperts.com/e/w/wo/workrate_%28professional_wrestling%29.htm

So we can talk about workrate, high workrate, or good workrate.

So skill itself is being judged when we speak of workrate. Skill is inclusive of myriad physical talents and the many facets ring psychology. So a EDIT HERE: match is a function of workrate and dependent on the quality, amount and psychology of the action. OOPS - distracted typing first time around. mea culpa.

A match with high workrate, then, is contested at a fast pace. The action is generally packed together, and holds such as a hammerlock or rear chinlock are applied in meaningful manner.

But can a match have too high a workrate? Certainly. One of the major complaints people have about TNA's X Division is the lack of selling. This allows the wrestlers to pack large amounts of moves, holds, submissions, and aerial maneuvers into a short amount of time. Influenced at root by lucha libre, this very high workrate informs a style that often offends the sensibilities of fans of traditional American pro wrestling. However, it appeals to a younger generation that has been raised on instant media gratification and the excesses of the Monday Night Wars and Attitude Era.

So it appears that people often think about "workrate" as synonymous with the star system. There's your problem.

Workrate = action/inaction
Star System = workrate + (booking + match) psychology + move set

Good =/= High workrate by definition.

I don't like citing Wikipedia any more than I have to. But it is useful here. And the Torch is basically giving the meanings of terms as used by people inside the industry.

[Peeetah]

I disagree on what you think is universally agreewd that the best matches are.

[dh03grad]

Wrestling is based on how the performers connect to the audience via their actions in the ring. Different wrestlers utilize their characters in different ways in ring all towards the same goal: To gain reaction from the audience. That is workrate.

[BoilerRoomBrawler]

That's how I've always seen workrate since I first learned about it.

I do think that workrate and ring psychology are confused for each other though.

The way that I see it: Workrate > Ring Psychology, but Ring Psychology ideally feeds into Workrate in a "1+1=3" kind of way.

[Real Folk Bruce]

Oct 8, 2009 21:48:04 GMT -5 dh03grad said:

Wrestling is based on how the performers connect to the audience via their actions in the ring. Different wrestlers utilize their characters in different ways in ring all towards the same goal: To gain reaction from the audience. That is workrate.

This. If you can't connect with the crowd and get them involved in your match, you better start packing your bags.

[SickFlipPiledriver]

Workrate isn't subjective at all; it's the rate, or speed, at which one works.

[Bubble Lead]

I think ring psychology trumps workrate.

However, a guy like Bret Hart has a firm grasp of both. He had both an excellent workrate and excellent ring psychology. So did Steve Austin. So did The Rock [YES! THE ROCK WORKED HIS ASS OFF! Check his matches.]

However, most of the time John Cena couldnt identify ring psychology if it slapped him in the face twice and then kicked him in the balls. He works hard, but he has no grasp of that factor of wrestling.

[MrBRulzOK]

Sloppiness could argued to be more realistic, but it can also most assuredly be more dangerous to the workers taking these sloppy moves. Therefore it is best when the moves are done in a non sloppy manner and thus it's not really a matter of subjectivity. More a matter of safety.

[TripleMerc]

I was about to rant about this. Seriously. Then I realised about 2 sentences in that I really don't care. It gave me this free feeling, like a weight was lifted off my chest. Try it.

[H-Fist]

Oct 8, 2009 22:33:04 GMT -5 Real Folk Bruce said:

Oct 8, 2009 21:48:04 GMT -5 dh03grad said:

Wrestling is based on how the performers connect to the audience via their actions in the ring. Different wrestlers utilize their characters in different ways in ring all towards the same goal: To gain reaction from the audience. That is workrate.

This. If you can't connect with the crowd and get them involved in your match, you better start packing your bags.

NO!!!! FOR THE LAST G. D. TIME NO!!!
That is PSYCHOLOGY - the placement of moves and spots and changes of momentum in a match; their relationship to the in-ring story and the angle; their ability to connect to the crowd.

WORK RATE = HOW MUCH; a RATE of WORK or RATIO of ACTION to INACTION, if you will.
PSYCHOLOGY = WHY and WHEN; a LOGIC of the PSYCHE or STUDY of the MIND, if you will.[/size]

Work Rate is the pace of the action, with well performed action considered more highly than poorly performed action.

Psychology is the pacing of the action. In fact, psychology controls workrate by dictating when and why actions should or should not be performed.

This is not a matter of preference. Words have definitions, and they mean what they mean, not what you want them to mean.




Plenty of matches have a high workrate but are NOT great matches because they have a) poor psychology or b) sloppy execution. Who cares how many flips the Young Bucks can do in 2 minutes if they do them after being hit in the knee with a chair? Who cares how many dives some luchadores can do if they clip the top rope or concuss themselves on the guardrails? High [objective] workrate, [subjectively] bad match.

Hogan and Andre wrestled at WM III and got a great reaction and put on a psychologically gripping match, despite Andre being unable to move and Hogan having nothing to do but sell the pain of a bear hug. Two bumps by the Giant did more than any amount of flipping could do. A scoop and a leg drop later, and legend is made. Low [objective] workrate, [subjectively] good/great match.

Workrate has NOTHING concrete to do with your subjective enjoyment of a match or your preferences for ring psychology. Workrate is a tool that let's you see how much action actually happened, and if the execution of what did happen was any good.

Charlie Haas and Jamie Noble could spend 15 minutes on Raw putting the crowd to sleep with endless chain wrestling and solid matwork and body part-focused offense with minimal pauses to call the next sequence and catch a breath. Then in the next segment, Super Cena might sell a chinlock for 5 minutes, hit 5 moves of doom, and get a huge reaction. The first match had an OBJECTIVELY higher workrate, but was flawed because it failed to recognize what the fans respond to. The second had an OBJECTIVELY lower workrate but might be a SUBJECTIVELY better match to the 12,000 people in the arena.

[Kash Flagg]

Do you need a glass of water? Maybe need to lie down and relax? I'm not being a smartass for once...just kinda seem high strung over an unimportant topic.

[H-Fist]

Oct 9, 2009 15:25:26 GMT -5 Kash Flagg said:

Do you need a glass of water? Maybe need to lie down and relax? I'm not being a smartass for once...just kinda seem high strung over an unimportant topic.

No, I'm plenty calm now. It's just that every two months or so there arises a new thread about workrate. It's a smark term. It's a subjective term. It's all about how the crowd responds. It's this and it's that...It just bugs me. I'm tired of the recurring thread. and maybe by yelling loud enough, it will stop coming up and turning into the same argument. You know, because yelling loudest means everyone has to listen to me.

It is a term that has an *actual definition.*

[Tea & Crumpets]

H-Fist is right. Workrate and ring psychology are often confused. Workrate is also different to having a wide moveset. You can do all sorts of crazy moves and stuff, but if you don't do them lots you don't neccessarily have a high workrate as workrate is an action/inaction ratio concept. Cena has a small moveset, high workrate. Randy Orton probably has a larger moveset, but lower workrate.

Workrate is neither good nor bad, its merely part of what goes into the psychology of a match. Matches can have low workrate and be great, low workrate and be awful, high workrate and be great, high workrate and be awful. Same with movesets.