Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Dec 24, 2014 13:44:02 GMT -5
By today's standards Jake Roberts would be a poor promo as he didn't have anything to say the crowd could chant for half the segment. In fact none of the great promos or promoists of the past would be anything other than terrible today. Which, for my money, just goes to show how out-of-line the definition of a great promo seems to be.
|
|
Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Dec 24, 2014 13:48:17 GMT -5
In this case it is objective. What is a wrestling promo supposed to do? Get the crowd involved. Really? I'd have said the primary objective was to pique interest in an upcoming match/PPV etc rather than audience participation. The two aren't always mutually exclusive but if we're defining what a promo is supposed to be by if the crowd join in, then I think it's a sign of how far the art is fallen. Has it really gone from "make the people want to pay to see the match" to "they like your catchphrases, say them and they'll chant a bit" ?
|
|
Ben Wyatt
Crow T. Robot
Are You Gonna Go My Way?
I don't get it. At all. It's kind of a small horse, I mean what am I missing? Am I crazy?
Posts: 41,472
|
Post by Ben Wyatt on Dec 24, 2014 13:49:02 GMT -5
By today's standards Jake Roberts would be a poor promo as he didn't have anything to say the crowd could chant for half the segment. In fact none of the great promos or promoists of the past would be anything other than terrible today. Which, for my money, just goes to show how out-of-line the definition of a great promo seems to be. To your point, I can probably name the "great" promos from about 2005-today on one hand.
|
|
Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Dec 24, 2014 13:50:30 GMT -5
By today's standards Jake Roberts would be a poor promo as he didn't have anything to say the crowd could chant for half the segment. In fact none of the great promos or promoists of the past would be anything other than terrible today. Which, for my money, just goes to show how out-of-line the definition of a great promo seems to be. To your point, I can probably name the "great" promos from about 2005-today on one hand. Punk was a good promo. Heel promos are kind of more in line with the past as it's not very heelish to have a crowd joining in or chanting your name or favoured sayings.
|
|
|
Post by Magic knows Black Lives Matter on Dec 24, 2014 13:52:05 GMT -5
By today's standards Jake Roberts would be a poor promo as he didn't have anything to say the crowd could chant for half the segment. In fact none of the great promos or promoists of the past would be anything other than terrible today. Which, for my money, just goes to show how out-of-line the definition of a great promo seems to be. Completely missing the point, same goes for you IpponDropkick. The point I was making is that Rock got people invested in his promos. He got people to CARE. By the definition of what a promo is supposed to accomplish, that's a success. You can say he was shit in the sense that he didn't personally entertain you, that's fine. You can say his style sucked, that's fine. But, by definition, he is a good promo cutter because he accomplished his goal. To say that he was an outright bad promo cutter implies that he didn't get people to care which is a lie. He was, at worst, the second most over guy in his generation and the only one above him was freaking Stone Cold. That's what I mean by objectivity. Jake had a completely different style that was equally effective of maintaining the attention of the audience.
|
|
Ben Wyatt
Crow T. Robot
Are You Gonna Go My Way?
I don't get it. At all. It's kind of a small horse, I mean what am I missing? Am I crazy?
Posts: 41,472
|
Post by Ben Wyatt on Dec 24, 2014 13:53:26 GMT -5
To your point, I can probably name the "great" promos from about 2005-today on one hand. Punk was a good promo. Heel promos are kind of more in line with the past as it's not very heelish to have a crowd joining in or chanting your name or favoured sayings. Agreed. Edge's promo on Matt Hardy the week after Matt's retun Piper's "Old School is cool" promo on the Highlight reel There are 2 right there that totally understood how to get a match/situation over
|
|
Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Dec 24, 2014 13:56:53 GMT -5
By today's standards Jake Roberts would be a poor promo as he didn't have anything to say the crowd could chant for half the segment. In fact none of the great promos or promoists of the past would be anything other than terrible today. Which, for my money, just goes to show how out-of-line the definition of a great promo seems to be. Completely missing the point, same goes for you IpponDropkick. The point I was making is that Rock got people invested in his promos. He got people to CARE. By the definition of what a promo is supposed to accomplish, that's a success. You can say he was shit in the sense that he didn't personally entertain you, that's fine. You can say his style sucked, that's fine. But, by definition, he is a good promo cutter because he accomplished his goal. To say that he was an outright bad promo cutter implies that he didn't get people to care which is a lie. He was, at worst, the second most over guy in his generation and the only one above him was freaking Stone Cold. That's what I mean by objectivity. Jake had a completely different style that was equally effective of maintaining the attention of the audience. They care about his catchphrases, certainly. If audience participation is the sign of good promo then the 'What?' chant must mean we've been ovelooking some classics through the years. He was over because he was the Rock and had charisma and catchphrases. That doesn't change the fact that the promos themselves, from a content perspective, weren't that good. At least his babyface ones.
|
|
|
Post by Magic knows Black Lives Matter on Dec 24, 2014 14:02:06 GMT -5
Completely missing the point, same goes for you IpponDropkick. The point I was making is that Rock got people invested in his promos. He got people to CARE. By the definition of what a promo is supposed to accomplish, that's a success. You can say he was shit in the sense that he didn't personally entertain you, that's fine. You can say his style sucked, that's fine. But, by definition, he is a good promo cutter because he accomplished his goal. To say that he was an outright bad promo cutter implies that he didn't get people to care which is a lie. He was, at worst, the second most over guy in his generation and the only one above him was freaking Stone Cold. That's what I mean by objectivity. Jake had a completely different style that was equally effective of maintaining the attention of the audience. They care about his catchphrases, certainly. If audience participation is the sign of good promo then the 'What?' chant must mean we've been ovelooking some classics through the years. He was over because he was the Rock and had charisma and catchphrases. That doesn't change the fact that the promos themselves, from a content perspective, weren't that good. At least his babyface ones. That's where the subjectivity comes in. It's fine to think Rock's promo content was lacking at times, that's perfectly fine. But, even at his worst, his promos got crowds more hype than most wrestlers. Just looking at what a promo is supposed accomplished, ignoring whatever personal biases you or I may have, it did it's job. That's objective. You can use a lot of words to describe Rock's style. Lame? In recent years, yeah. Lazy? Sure. Overrated? Keeping in mind the point of cutting a promo, no, it is not.
|
|
|
Post by MichaelMartini on Dec 24, 2014 15:51:59 GMT -5
They care about his catchphrases, certainly. If audience participation is the sign of good promo then the 'What?' chant must mean we've been ovelooking some classics through the years. He was over because he was the Rock and had charisma and catchphrases. That doesn't change the fact that the promos themselves, from a content perspective, weren't that good. At least his babyface ones. That's where the subjectivity comes in. It's fine to think Rock's promo content was lacking at times, that's perfectly fine. But, even at his worst, his promos got crowds more hype than most wrestlers. Just looking at what a promo is supposed accomplished, ignoring whatever personal biases you or I may have, it did it's job. That's objective. You can use a lot of words to describe Rock's style. Lame? In recent years, yeah. Lazy? Sure. Overrated? Keeping in mind the point of cutting a promo, no, it is not. I was going to respond to Boo but now I don't have to. This says it all. Boo seems to think all the Rock did was regurgitate catch phrases. But even just looking at that, how does a catch phrase become popular? It was because of the initial delivery. They were invested in what the Rock was saying. You can't create a catchphrase by simple repetition. They've tried. The crowd chooses what will become popular. Besides, his content was just fine. Boxers and other athletes trash talk their opponent to get crowds hyped. It goes back to Ali. Rock was the ultimate trash talker in wrestling. I don't get why people in here are acting like that doesn't get people excited to see a match. It's the perfect formula. Either you were entertained by what he was saying and would root for him, or would want to see him get his ass kicked if you weren't. Putting your opponent over in a promo usually just leads to crowd apathy.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Dec 24, 2014 16:02:38 GMT -5
By today's standards Jake Roberts would be a poor promo as he didn't have anything to say the crowd could chant for half the segment. In fact none of the great promos or promoists of the past would be anything other than terrible today. Which, for my money, just goes to show how out-of-line the definition of a great promo seems to be. No one said the only way to have a good promo was to have audience participation. But having it doesn't automatically make it a bad promo. The problem is that you seem to see one and only one path to a great promo, when in reality there are many of them and they all boil down to charisma. Whether a promo is lighthearted or serious as a gunshot, a good talker can make it good. Punk and Jericho have two very different styles of promo, but they both are amazing at delivering them. By your standards, Jericho was awful because he had catchphrases. What sense does that really make? And this isn't anythin new or unique to wrestling. Someone who talks well is goin to get people more interested than someone who doesn't, even if they have better points. The mind doesn't want to focus on someone who has poor delivery, it wants to focus on someone who has great delivery. The content is secondary to that, if you can't get people to listen to what you have to say, they'll never hear it no matter how good it might be. And no, you can't just imitate someone and be instantly as good as them. If that were the case, then public speaking would be the easiest thing in the world, just watch and copy MLK or Billy Graham. But it doesn't work that way, because delivery and mannerisms aren't just something you get by osmosis. Some people excel at trash talk, others by being angry, and others by being hypemen. All lead to different styles of promos and all require different talents to work well, and often what you find is that someone who excels at one just sounds phony when trying to deliver another. The Rock's cadence and tone works great for trash talk, but people forget anything he says if he's being serious (just look at how people treat the Rock/Cena volley). Cena is a great hypeman, but angry Cena looks like he's been holding a crap for a 17 hour flight.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2014 17:22:46 GMT -5
People really need to stop using the word "objectively". We're judging a wrestling promo. Objectively does not exist. The Rock's promos were awful. Yeah, he had great delivery but the content was terrible. He never had anything meaningful to say. In this case it is objective. What is a wrestling promo supposed to do? Get the crowd involved. Whether you like it or not, the crowds were always very responsive to the Rock. He got some of the loudest pops of all time. All you have to do is watch the footage. He would get crowds as pumped as Hogan or Austin. It's a fact. I think a wrestling promo should do more than get the crowd involved. It should move the rivalry forward and reveal more about the personalities of the wrestler and his opponents. Rock said a lot of funny shit, but very little that moved him as a person.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2014 19:24:17 GMT -5
The Rock gives probably the best promos of all time. You don't even have to like him to acknowledge that.
All that matters is getting people into what's going on. Sure 90% of his promos could be copy and pasted to a different opponent and they had barely any relevence to much of anything, but lets face it. It didn't matter.
Does the crowd like it? Yep. So we're good to go. I hate dead crowds. If you make the crowd into things I will get into it too.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Dec 25, 2014 8:16:55 GMT -5
Wrestling promos exist for one reason and one reason only, to get the crowd invested in what that wrestler is doing. If a promo makes people like a guy to move merchandise and buy PPV's, then he did his job. There are plenty of different ways to get there.
When you get down to it, anyone who delivers frequent promos is going to get repetitive. Not every promo is going to reveal something new, because they give them every week, sometimes more than once a week, and playing up the feud is typically them saying the same things we already know. We stopped learning new things about Austin, Hogan, Angle, Jericho, and Cena shortly into their stints of frequent promos. Even guys like Punk and Heyman don't attempt to change people's outlook on fueds with every promo, because that's not how talking about a feud tends to work out. Fueds last longer than one or two promos, which is really all you truly need to say whatever you'd say about it.
|
|
|
Post by eJm on Dec 25, 2014 13:35:50 GMT -5
People really need to stop using the word "objectively". We're judging a wrestling promo. Objectively does not exist. The Rock's promos were awful. Yeah, he had great delivery but the content was terrible. He never had anything meaningful to say. Objectivity exists in EVERYTHING. Literally everything. That is why debates are a thing. Hell, that's why this whole forum is a thing.
|
|
Crappler El 0 M
Dalek
Never Forgets an Octagon
I'm a good R-Truth.
Posts: 58,479
|
Post by Crappler El 0 M on Dec 25, 2014 13:40:04 GMT -5
You should judge his promo ability on how well he connected with the audience. In this way, I find it extremely difficult to say he was overrated. He sold so many shirts based off his promos and the fans would 'sing-along' with all of his catchphrases. The audience was engrossed by his promos. There are very few wrestlers who succeeded with promos as much as The Rock. Again, it's very hard for me to see his promos described as 'overrated.' They deserve to be rated extremely highly.
|
|
DjZonk
Don Corleone
Where's my cat?
Posts: 1,325
|
Post by DjZonk on Dec 25, 2014 13:51:12 GMT -5
Some of the late 90's, slow talking, catchphrase ridden routines haven't aged well at all. AT ALL.
Cocky rising the ladder early 1998 Rock is still a riot, thankfully.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 25, 2014 19:29:50 GMT -5
Rock's promos weren't the best in terms of content, but if he was in an important match, he knew how to sell it as such. His normal promos were about humor and audience participation, but they also helped create Rock's connection with the crowd, which translated to interest in his matches.
|
|
FinalGwen
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Particularly fond of muffins.
Posts: 16,410
Member is Online
|
Post by FinalGwen on Dec 25, 2014 19:32:49 GMT -5
If he had to have a Brock Lesnar style t-shirt, it would read "Dick joke, homophobia, catchphrase, repeat."
|
|
|
Post by -Lithium- on Dec 26, 2014 0:39:01 GMT -5
CM Punk destroyed Rock on the mic in the lead up to the Rumble in 2013, but I don't know if you can say for a fact that one is better than the other because its apples and oranges. Rock had flash. Punk had substance.
Look at Jerichos debut. That might be the height of Catchphrase Spewing Rock. The lead up to the countdown clock is literally NOTHING but Rock catchphrases. Jericho was miles ahead of Rock that night.
However, no one has ever had control of a crowd like Rock. People say Hogan, but thats bullshit. Hogan didn't have control over the crowd. The crowd cheered at what they were trained to cheer for. It's like the claims of Vickie being this great heel because the crowd boos "EXCUSE ME!". They are trained to boo that. Vickie used it as a crutch to the point where she'd say it even when the fans weren't booing. If the crowd didn't boo, Vickie would be lost. Hogan pretending to look out into a crowd while making stupid fish faces doesn't mean he's "reading the room". He's doing his schtick. Going through the motions. That's it. Rock really did have control over the crowd and would react in the moment to the things they reacted to...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2014 7:46:13 GMT -5
People really need to stop using the word "objectively". We're judging a wrestling promo. Objectively does not exist. The Rock's promos were awful. Yeah, he had great delivery but the content was terrible. He never had anything meaningful to say. Objectivity exists in EVERYTHING. Literally everything. That is why debates are a thing. Hell, that's why this whole forum is a thing. Are you confusing the word "objectively" with "subjectively"?
|
|