|
Post by romanstylesiii on Dec 22, 2019 0:20:53 GMT -5
Yes, I love a good technical match, but i mainly love wrestling for the stories and characters. The WWE has the best wrestlers it ever has, but at the same time, there are just so few characters anymore.
I am not saying my preference is superior at all, but I care more about "why" guys are fighting, as opposed to seeing two guys having a good match for the sake of it, which seems to be 90% of the WWE now.
|
|
|
Post by Instant Classic on Dec 22, 2019 0:21:53 GMT -5
It’s nice, but I need character. It’s why I like guys like Otis.
|
|
|
Post by GuyOfOwnage on Dec 22, 2019 1:15:50 GMT -5
What drew me into wrestling nearly 30 years ago was character work, and it's a driving force in keeping me interested. Guys like Taker, Foley, and Jake, for example, were always able to draw me into whatever story they were telling, no matter how good or bad the writing was. Likewise, today, guys like Orton (when he gives a shit) and Wyatt never fail to draw me into whatever story they're telling. Don't get me wrong, I love a good technical wrestling match, especially one that can tell a good story, which is why I also mark for guys like Bryan, Styles, and a good chunk of the NXT roster, but ultimately, it's compelling and interesting character work that's kept me around for almost 3 decades now.
|
|
ayumidah
Wade Wilson
The ace-iest bi you'll ever meet
Posts: 26,643
|
Post by ayumidah on Dec 22, 2019 1:26:14 GMT -5
I like a mix of both. I enjoy good matches but ones that give me a reason to be emotionally invested are the best.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2019 2:20:29 GMT -5
Ali, Ricochet, Humberto, and Cedric are all the same character.
I keep seeing people say this the most talented roster in WWE history it really doesn’t feel that way. When they divid the roster by 3 (or 5 however you look at it) and guys have no character besides underdog filling up time having pointless matches on a three hour show.
These matches are “good” but just kinda blend together after a while. There’s no stakes and no personal reason these guys are fighting.
Matches in the attitude era were crap for the most part. But every guy even the guys on heat had a story, had alliances and enemies, was over, had character. If they couldn’t connect with the crowd they were repackage or retooled. Now it’s like that doesn’t work? Well we keep trying till people hate you or will just just do the same thing that didn’t work with someone else.
|
|
Andee9001
Samurai Cop
Posts: 2,237
Member is Online
|
Post by Andee9001 on Dec 22, 2019 4:31:13 GMT -5
The reason i got into wrestling was because of the larger than life characters. You look at a lot of guys on all 3 shows whose characters are either good guy who wrestles good or bad guy who wrestles good or big guy who wrestles good and i just find it harder to get attached to more than a few guys. Like i like Ali for what he stands for and he has cool gear and moves. Why should i care about Cedric, Riccochet, Humberto, Gargano, Gable, etc when they are pretty much all the same character wise and i already have my guy?
|
|
Abdullah
Hank Scorpio
Thank you, Ishmeal Loves Bayley!
Posts: 6,420
|
Post by Abdullah on Dec 22, 2019 5:32:38 GMT -5
This is something that Triple H believes in, I think—workrate over character.
Look at his version of 205 Live. Look at this week’s NXT, which people are saying is the best ever. In a lot of cases, some guys have a few character traits and that’s it. Pete Dunne is essentially a phenomenal wrestler and a permanent scowl. In a lot of cases, they insist on falling back on real life stories which is why someone like Ember Moon still doesn’t have a character.
Workrate NXT was fine when the weekly shows were squashes, with maybe a few solid matches. It made the Takeover epics really seem epic. Now, every other match has to be near four stars and it’s a little like… ‘WTF? Slow down.’ This approach may come back to bite them.
I do think Triple H has good booking instincts, and I definitely don’t think the main roster’s approach to most characters is the answer, but look at the episode of Smackdown he helped to book: Ciampa worked with Miz. Cole worked with Bryan. Both are established, largely identifiable characters. There’s something to that.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Dec 22, 2019 6:17:52 GMT -5
It depends what people mean by "workrate", since I don't think there's a solid, established definition.
If it simply means "technically proficient at performing moves, often very athletically impressive", then yes, I agree that's not quite enough to create real investment in a wrestling match or show. It's good for spots or for establishing that someone is exciting to watch, but after awhile it won't do enough to keep people interested.
However, I think there's an argument to be made that "workrate" can also encompass a wrestler's ability to work a crowd, pace a match well, integrate psychology, and utilize their mannerisms to tell an in-ring story, all to go along with their technical proficiency and athleticism. If that's the definition, then I don't need a lot more than that; promos and angles are fine sometimes, but the heart of wrestling, for me at least, is how a wrestler communicates to an audience who they are and what's motivating them while they're between the ropes; after that, promos and angles should serve to compliment the heavy lifting being done in the ring.
|
|
|
Post by Jedi-El of Tomorrow on Dec 22, 2019 7:19:44 GMT -5
However, I think there's an argument to be made that "workrate" can also encompass a wrestler's ability to work a crowd, pace a match well, integrate psychology, and utilize their mannerisms to tell an in-ring story, all to go along with their technical proficiency and athleticism. If that's the definition, then I don't need a lot more than that; promos and angles are fine sometimes, but the heart of wrestling, for me at least, is how a wrestler communicates to an audience who they are and what's motivating them while they're between the ropes; after that, promos and angles should serve to compliment the heavy lifting being done in the ring. I agree that all of that is part of workrate. Hulk Hogan was one of the best "workrate" guys there was, not because he was technically proficient, but because he could work a crowd, pace a match, have great psychology, and tell a story, with the most basic of movesets. Hell, today Miz isn't the best "wrestler" but he can do all of that without much effort, he gets the crowd into his matches. I think Triple H does understand that, the Horsewomen in NXT had characters to go with their in ring work. The women in NXT right now all have characters. Shayna vs Rhea told a story, and outside of a couple spots, they weren't doing anything too big. Shayna destroying Rhea's arm while Rhea screamed in pain, is basic storytelling, and it worked brilliantly. And they have their characters of Rhea as "The Nightmare" and Shayna being "The Reality". Rhea's an ass kicker, but a bit nicer, and prefers to do it by herself. Shayna's a bullying egotistical sadistic bitch, who can back up everything she claims, but because she's that damn evil, you can't cheer her, and because she also uses her goons.
|
|
|
Post by Alice Syndrome on Dec 22, 2019 7:28:24 GMT -5
engaging a crowd is part of your workrate, noi matter wether you do it with a sweet dropkick or great storytelling.
|
|
Abdullah
Hank Scorpio
Thank you, Ishmeal Loves Bayley!
Posts: 6,420
|
Post by Abdullah on Dec 22, 2019 7:34:17 GMT -5
Another thing is that—I think back to two of my favorite periods in WWE recently: 2016 Smackdown, 2018 Smackdown.
Especially in 2016, the show had a format of two-four matches. Maybe one of those matches would be really good, maybe two. The rest of the episode would go to promos and angles that would build up feuds. Imagine how shitty Miz vs Ziggler would be, they already feuded in 2014 and 2013, if there wasn’t a story? Nikki vs Carmella? Any of what was praised back then.
The storyline informs the ringwork. You can get away with a really good match, Humberto vs Andrade is an example, but when that’s the norm—it absolutely blends together in a mess of nearfalls and restholds.
TV shows are for angles. PPVs are for workrate.
|
|
XIII
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 18,389
|
Post by XIII on Dec 22, 2019 7:35:00 GMT -5
Given the choice of great workrate for the sake of great workrate or great character storytelling I’ll take the storytelling every time. Especially now that a large percentage of wrestlers can have a greatly wrestled match, wrestling and wrestlers have a problem of leaning too hard one way or the other, it used to be that there were a ton of great characters and not a lot of great matches, but now it’s a ton of great matches but not as many great characters/stories. If they could find both great characters/ storytelling and great matches wrestling would be amazing.
|
|
J. Hova
Don Corleone
Emotionally exhausted and morally bankrupt
Posts: 1,986
|
Post by J. Hova on Dec 22, 2019 8:15:25 GMT -5
To me, you need to be able to go in the ring. However, there needs to be some character work. A great example is that my first real clear wrestling memory is Jake and Randy Savage with the snake bite angle. Both of these guys were good to great in the ring (Savage more than Jake obviously) but their characters were so great and they were both really, really great workers. If you can find a better program than those two in 1991 - 92, I'd like to debate that.
|
|
|
Post by Slingshot Suplay on Dec 22, 2019 8:27:43 GMT -5
The wwe doesn't have the best wrestlers it's ever had, it has the most athletic roster it's ever had. Alot of the guys can do the same amazing things in the ring, but the thing they can't do is draw a dime.
|
|
|
Post by Jedi-El of Tomorrow on Dec 22, 2019 8:44:02 GMT -5
To me, you need to be able to go in the ring. However, there needs to be some character work. A great example is that my first real clear wrestling memory is Jake and Randy Savage with the snake bite angle. Both of these guys were good to great in the ring (Savage more than Jake obviously) but their characters were so great and they were both really, really great workers. If you can find a better program than those two in 1991 - 92, I'd like to debate that. The program that led into that, Macho King vs Ultimate Warrior. Savage wanting a title shot, Warrior shooting him down, and Savage's obsession leading him to cost Warrior the title. They both want each other so much, that their careers are put on the line. At that same time, Macho King's kingdom was falling apart, and Warrior was the one tearing it down. It all leads to one of the greatest matches ever (and the Mania match that I'd put ahead of it is Bret vs Austin), where everything that's built up comes to pass with Savage losing. And out of the ashes of him losing, and Sherri attacking him, Elizabeth returns to help him, and the Macho King dies and the Macho Man is reborn.
|
|
J. Hova
Don Corleone
Emotionally exhausted and morally bankrupt
Posts: 1,986
|
Post by J. Hova on Dec 22, 2019 9:06:10 GMT -5
To me, you need to be able to go in the ring. However, there needs to be some character work. A great example is that my first real clear wrestling memory is Jake and Randy Savage with the snake bite angle. Both of these guys were good to great in the ring (Savage more than Jake obviously) but their characters were so great and they were both really, really great workers. If you can find a better program than those two in 1991 - 92, I'd like to debate that. The program that led into that, Macho King vs Ultimate Warrior. Savage wanting a title shot, Warrior shooting him down, and Savage's obsession leading him to cost Warrior the title. They both want each other so much, that their careers are put on the line. At that same time, Macho King's kingdom was falling apart, and Warrior was the one tearing it down. It all leads to one of the greatest matches ever (and the Mania match that I'd put ahead of it is Bret vs Austin), where everything that's built up comes to pass with Savage losing. And out of the ashes of him losing, and Sherri attacking him, Elizabeth returns to help him, and the Macho King dies and the Macho Man is reborn. That was a phenomenal program and led to Warrior having his best match (common denominator being Savage). The Jake/Savage program was just...perfect to me. Roberts was cutting some of the best promos of his career at the time and think about how much ground that covers. The lead into This Tuesday in Texas was just tremendous and if you haven't seen those promos, watch them. Jake's will make your skin crawl and Savage's just made you go, "Ok, this is my guy. He's back to being a straight up face." The WWE wishes they could get that kind of emotional investment today.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2019 9:47:34 GMT -5
I like good technical matches, but nothing beats a bunch of high spots or a hardcore brawl with weapons.
|
|
trollrogue
Hank Scorpio
Nashville City of Music!!
Posts: 5,603
|
Post by trollrogue on Dec 22, 2019 11:23:23 GMT -5
Ali, Ricochet, Humberto, and Cedric are all the same character. I keep seeing people say this the most talented roster in WWE roster it really doesn’t feel that way. When they divid the roster by 3 (or 5 however you look at it) and guys have no character besides underdog filling up time having pointless matches on a three hour show. These matches are “good” but just kinda blend together after a while. There’s no stakes and no personal reason these guys are fighting. Matches in the attitude era were crap for the most part. But every guy even the guys on heat had a story, had alliances and enemies, was over, had character. If they couldn’t connect with the crowd they were repackage or retooled. Now it’s like that doesn’t work? Well we keep trying till people hate you or just do the same thing that didn’t work with someone else. I liked what you're saying here cause the WWE babyfaces, compared to AEW babyfaces like Darby Allin, Jon Moxley or even Jungle (JACK PERRY!!! bah gawd /JR) Boy have better personas than the WWE talent you name. But WWE is trying-- for instance Ricochet they repeatedly push him being a 'real life superhero' (which they don't really back up in any storylines-- i.e. he needs a super-villain to fight like the Green Arrow/Stardust storyline), Mustafa Ali is a wannabe People's Champ (but he never challenges for the US title), Cedric is... okay Cedric has no gimmick at all let's face it. The one thing AEW has over WWE is the character motivations and gimmicks, which makes sense if you subscribe to the 'AEW is nothing but video game cosplayers like Kenny Omega/Young Bucks' theory they would all need over-the-top-gimmicks to really get over in that environment. But I agree with OP, over-the-top-gimmicks is what you need in pro wrestling and it makes for a boring product (i.e. RAW and Smackdown most weeks) if you just do paint by the numbers matches between a bland babyface and a bland heel every week without anything else going down. For all the flak it gets with the IWC, at least Lana/Rusev/Lashley gets insane amount of reaction with live crowds and on social media every week because despite the ridiculousness, there is a freakshow-like aspect to making you want to see what they'll do next that is lacking with all the bland wrestlers WWE has atm.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2019 11:34:06 GMT -5
I have never been one to look into work rate aspect of any match because IMO if you are a great wrestler it will show through.
But the character work and by association story is wrestling at its best when wrestling embraces its obsurdity.
It is why LU to me was and is the perfect wrestling show...they had great matches but nothing every overstayed its welcome on that end but their stamp on who they were was the character work.
As an example it is why Pentagon and Fenix in LU will always be the best versions of themselves where as in AEW they have more so Pentagon has become almost a paraody of what made him a star which is when his character work was emphasised over his in ring stuff.
Melissa Santos the ring announcer of LU had a character arc better than most womens wrestlers....a story with Marty The Moth that began as just this creepy dude who gradually became more unhinged over episodes , over seasons , over time and his obsession with Melissa grew weirder and stranger and more deranged untill she fell for someone and that would drive Marty over the edge...pretty much to the point of murdering Fenix and this would push Melissa to a point where no one thought she would go to , getting into the ring with the man who wants nothing more than to have her to himself and then all of this would tie into her next story because her love for Fenix would then become corrupted by a woman who has longed obsessed over Fenix for not love but other reasons and through this we would get unargueably the best version of Fenix ever....and this is just a brief synopsis as there is so much more to this.
To me workrate is not something I much fret over as a great wrestler will always show they are great with great matches but great character work especially in modern mainstream wrestling is few and far between and when one comes along it is what I am paying attention to because then so many possibilities for storytelling open up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2019 11:47:09 GMT -5
If by workrate you mean the super athletic, no selling, no psychology video game style that even main event matches have now, then yes. I don’t care about it and don’t understand the appeal.
If you mean workrate as in Bret Hart type matches, then I’d disagree as those are usually filled with realistic selling, and as much realism as the silly world of wrestling can allow.
But ultimately yes I think wrestling is at its best when characters and storylines are the focus.
|
|