What is work rate?

[Rest easy big bro]

Inspired by another thread I'd like to discuss our various definitions of what work rate really is and how important it is.


My Definition: Work rate is how well someone does there job overall, An example would be Jason the janitor at my job has an excellent work rate, He almost never misses a day of work and almost never comes in Late, Also he often goes the extra mile to help people.

I think (The way I define it) Work rate is vital it shows that the wrestler is someone dependable and willing to help others.

My guideline for what *I* think work rate should be:

1: Dependability: Can you count on X wrestler to show up to a scheduled appearance?

2: Skills: Do they show that they have a fairly good knowledge of basic wrestling and have the ability to improve?

3: Teaching: Will they help out younger,newer wrestlers and help them eventually get over?

4:Entertainment: This one is a bit subjective but Does the wrestler have the ability to make the match he's in Entertaining and fun to watch?

5:Carry Ability: Also subjective, Is the wrestler able to make a match between him and whomever seem really good despite the lack of ability in the opponent he's facing?

To sum it up a wrestler worth his weight should have one or more of those five things for me to say "Yeah that guy has a solid work rate".

Discuss

[H-Fist]

This is a tenuous subject on this message board for reasons that elude me.

But work rate simply means rate of work. In other words, how much actual wrestling is being done by the wrestler? A wrestler with a great work rate would be Daniel Bryan, HBK, Bret or Owen Hart, Ricky Steamboat, or Greg Valentine. But note that high work rate and great wrestler aren't synonymous. Vader, Big Show, Andre the Giant, Hulk Hogan, and Ultimate Warrior are all guys who are/were big-time stars without great work rate. Or some wrestlers who use psychological tactics rather than power or technique to gain an advantage - think Jake the Snake - might also be successful despite a low work rate.

Lance Storm has answered this question on his website in the past with pretty much the same basic definition I gave. It's a term from the locker room and the dirt sheets, not the fans. If you draw money, no one gives a crap about your work rate. But if you don't draw money on your own, having a high work rate can be a characteristic that keeps you employed making the money guys look good.

It really isn't an opinion thing. This isn't about who is or isn't a good professional wrestler. It's about who's acting like a good wrestler, i.e. pretend fighter. We can argue until the cows come home whether Kurt Angle or Dusty Rhodes is the better pro wrestler. But there is no debate to be made over who is a better wrestler from the hold-for-hold, move-for-move standpoint. Kurt is a great wrestler in large part because of his work rate. Dusty didn't need a high work rate to be successful: he had money promos, a bionic elbow, and the ability to draw sympathy from the crowd. There isn't anything related to "rate" in that description of Dusty: a rate by definition is quantifiable, not a qualitative measure.

[TOK Is the Target Demo]

Jan 16, 2011 23:43:24 GMT -5 H-Fist said:

This is a tenuous subject on this message board for reasons that elude me.

But work rate simply means rate of work. In other words, how much actual wrestling is being done by the wrestler? A wrestler with a great work rate would be Daniel Bryan, HBK, Bret or Owen Hart, Ricky Steamboat, or Greg Valentine. But note that high work rate and great wrestler aren't synonymous. Vader, Big Show, Andre the Giant, Hulk Hogan, and Ultimate Warrior are all guys who are/were big-time stars without great work rate. Or some wrestlers who use psychological tactics rather than power or technique to gain an advantage - think Jake the Snake - might also be successful despite a low work rate.

Lance Storm has answered this question on his website in the past with pretty much the same basic definition I gave. It's a term from the locker room and the dirt sheets, not the fans. If you draw money, no one gives a crap about your work rate. But if you don't draw money on your own, having a high work rate can be a characteristic that keeps you employed making the money guys look good.

It really isn't an opinion thing. This isn't about who is or isn't a good professional wrestler. It's about who's acting like a good wrestler, i.e. pretend fighter. We can argue until the cows come home whether Kurt Angle or Dusty Rhodes is the better pro wrestler. But there is no debate to be made over who is a better wrestler from the hold-for-hold, move-for-move standpoint. Kurt is a great wrestler in large part because of his work rate. Dusty didn't need a high work rate to be successful: he had money promos, a bionic elbow, and the ability to draw sympathy from the crowd. There isn't anything related to "rate" in that description of Dusty: a rate by definition is quantifiable, not a qualitative measure.

Thank you. For years, I keep seeing the term being misused, with people assigning high workrate to wrestlers they like and low workrate to those they don't. It is an actual measure, not something debatable.

[The OP]

Jan 16, 2011 23:43:24 GMT -5 H-Fist said:

This is a tenuous subject on this message board for reasons that elude me.

But work rate simply means rate of work. In other words, how much actual wrestling is being done by the wrestler? A wrestler with a great work rate would be Daniel Bryan, HBK, Bret or Owen Hart, Ricky Steamboat, or Greg Valentine. But note that high work rate and great wrestler aren't synonymous. Vader, Big Show, Andre the Giant, Hulk Hogan, and Ultimate Warrior are all guys who are/were big-time stars without great work rate. Or some wrestlers who use psychological tactics rather than power or technique to gain an advantage - think Jake the Snake - might also be successful despite a low work rate.

Lance Storm has answered this question on his website in the past with pretty much the same basic definition I gave. It's a term from the locker room and the dirt sheets, not the fans. If you draw money, no one gives a crap about your work rate. But if you don't draw money on your own, having a high work rate can be a characteristic that keeps you employed making the money guys look good.

It really isn't an opinion thing. This isn't about who is or isn't a good professional wrestler. It's about who's acting like a good wrestler, i.e. pretend fighter. We can argue until the cows come home whether Kurt Angle or Dusty Rhodes is the better pro wrestler. But there is no debate to be made over who is a better wrestler from the hold-for-hold, move-for-move standpoint. Kurt is a great wrestler in large part because of his work rate. Dusty didn't need a high work rate to be successful: he had money promos, a bionic elbow, and the ability to draw sympathy from the crowd. There isn't anything related to "rate" in that description of Dusty: a rate by definition is quantifiable, not a qualitative measure.

Wow. I've seen that term a lot here on the board, but I can't recall off the top of my head any other place I've come across it. Obviously I'm not an expert on this by any means, but for what it's worth this seems like a logical explanation. I'll buy it, unless anybody has something better.

["Dashing" Dr.VonPhoenix]

It has always been my understanding that the term "work rate" is a measure of endurance. If you've ever tried to wrestle a match, you know how draining it can be.
If someone can be consistently active (to me) in a match going hold for hold, blow for blow, counter for counter without using any long rest holds for an extended amount of time, then his work rate is superior.
If a guy is gassing forty five seconds into the match and moves like he's on the verge of a major stroke, then his work rate is shit.

[Steveweiser]

I term it as pulling off moves with variety, consistency, keeping the match from dragging, and keeping the fans involved in the action. A worker can do the first three things, and I'd rate it a good match, but if the fans aren't interested, that's often a full star difference.

[i.Sarita.com]

Eli Cottonwood is a good place to start at the bottom of the work rate list if you were going to make one of the current WWE/FCW wrestlers.

[Ryushinku]

I just see it as high energy, high work rate. Putting in the effort.

As opposed to a wrestler doing little but letting the other guy bounce around before hitting their own stuff in short order for the pin. Guys in late WCW like Luger and Nash were notorious for those kind of low-energy efforts.

[FUNK_US/BRODUS]

Making sure the time is filled basically. Not just repeatedly using clubbing blows to the back or punches, but putting moves together, actively attacking their opponent, creating a flow to the match. A good example for work rate that I found recently which is only a short match, is Batista vs Daniel Bryan. Bryan just constantly goes after him, and it brings a great effort out of Batista too.

[Next Level was WRONG]

This man right here.

[BayleyTiffyCodyCenaJudyHopps]

The one definition of workrate I don't see as subjective would be when it's used to define "effort"- hence why I think Cena, who is no technician, has superb workrate whereas Kevin Nash's usually sucks.

But in any other definition, I do think it's extremely subjective. When comparing wrestlers like HBK and Bret Hart to ones like Hogan and Big Show, there's multiple things to take into account as to why their styles are so different. For starters, Big Show carries a lot of weight around in the ring, and in retrospect it was phenomenal how he had the athleticism to pull off missile dropkicks when he was younger and (relatively) lighter, as it was with Vader and his moonsaults.

On average, there's going to be a clear speed and thus moveset difference between a hoss and a cruiserweight. When Kane wrestles Dolph Ziggler, more than likely he's going to take more time between moves because he's using up more energy due to there being so much "him". It's not necessarily that he's lazy.

Also, there's past injuries and surgeries to consider. Edge doesn't "suck" now- his style has become a lot more grounded and psychological over the years, and that has more to do with what he's physically capable of today. It's also why Rey Mysterio's style is more conservative, and why Hogan can barely move. On the flipside, Jericho's lack of major injuries over the years is probably the main reason why his ring work is still so fluid.

Finally, who was the wrestler influenced by? The worker's personal preferences are of course gonna have a lot to do with how they wrestle. Daniel Bryan idolized and was mentored by HBK and William Regal, hence why his ring work is a hybrid of those two guys with a little Misawa for good measure. And Cena's mentioned being a long time Hulkamaniac as a kid, which I suspect has a lot to do with why his style revolves around power and big, not-that-realistic comebacks.

That's why a lot of who fans consider to have good/bad workrate has to do with taste. If you like speedy, hard hitting wrestlers who have submissions, you'll feel Bryan has good workrate. If you like big guys who look like they can believably kick your ass, chances are you'll have a soft spot for Mark Henry.