Wrestling fans who don't care about the in-ring action.

[autisticgeordie]

This is not a complaint about the fans who prefer storylines and characters to in-ring action, like, I'm in that camp too, I'd rather be invested in the story and the characters, which is why I love promotions like Lucha Underground and DDT Pro so much. But it's interesting how little interest a lot of wrestling fans have in the actual in-ring action. 

A match can be great in-the-ring, but some people just won't care about the in-ring action if they don't care about the people who're fighting; I'm not saying that it has to be one or the other, either, like, David Starr vs. Jordan Devlin from OTT was a perfect mix of hard hitting, indy style in-ring action and phenomenal story-telling.

It's weird, though, how some fans will actively use 'oh, they're just a good wrestler' as a form of insult almost, look at how many indy guys get shit on for having no character. Look at a lot of the WWE roster, they get criticised for being all about the matches, as if the matches don't matter. But if the matches don't matter, then why do we all get up-in-arms when the person who we think is the 'wrong person to win' ends up going over?

[Clash, Never a Meter Maid]

Uh, wha? Wrestling fans care more about in-ring action than ever.

[celtics543]

Jan 7, 2020 13:24:17 GMT -5 autisticgeordie said:

This is not a complaint about the fans who prefer storylines and characters to in-ring action, like, I'm in that camp too, I'd rather be invested in the story and the characters, which is why I love promotions like Lucha Underground and DDT Pro so much. But it's interesting how little interest a lot of wrestling fans have in the actual in-ring action. 

A match can be great in-the-ring, but some people just won't care about the in-ring action if they don't care about the people who're fighting; I'm not saying that it has to be one or the other, either, like, David Starr vs. Jordan Devlin from OTT was a perfect mix of hard hitting, indy style in-ring action and phenomenal story-telling.

It's weird, though, how some fans will actively use 'oh, they're just a good wrestler' as a form of insult almost, look at how many indy guys get shit on for having no character. Look at a lot of the WWE roster, they get criticised for being all about the matches, as if the matches don't matter. But if the matches don't matter, then why do we all get up-in-arms when the person who we think is the 'wrong person to win' ends up going over?

To answer your last question, we care because it's all about driving the story and if the wrong person wins then they are shutting off potential fun story elements.

I'm in the camp though of I don't care if they wrestle some kind of technical masterpiece, if I don't care about the people involved then I just don't care. It's why "real" sports have started formulating storylines to help get more people watching. Wrestling is going in the other direction, having technically great matches that have as much excitement and storytelling as dry toast.

The undisputed biggest stars in wrestling history are Hogan, Andre, Austin, Rock, and Ric Flair. All of them had characters that were more important than wrestling ability, even Flair. During the biggest boom periods in the history of wrestling it's always been about characters. The 80's was all about strong characters. Attitude era was prime character development.

Its hard for me to watch wrestling between two guys who I don't care about when they just flip around, sell nothing, and have no story at all. I think overall my main point is that wrestlers today seem to just want to impress and amaze fans instead of tell a story and it hurts the show.

[autisticgeordie]

Jan 7, 2020 13:38:17 GMT -5 Clash, Never a Meter Maid said:

Uh, wha? Wrestling fans care more about in-ring action than ever.

Do they? I mean, it seems like the in-ring action doesn't mean as much to people as the storyline or the characters; like the match doesn't matter as much as they people involved in said match.

(ironically, I'm one of those people, too.)

[Dr. Bolty, Disaster Enby]

I mean, there is a point where in-ring action can only get past a certain level of goodness if there is good characterization.

The 90's AJPW Four Pillars of Heaven matches are sort of the archetypical smarky workrate favorites, and those matches are all about character. Kenta Kobashi was tremendously gifted in the ring, but none of it would have clicked if he couldn't tell full stories using only his face. On the other hand, no matter how good his expressions and physical acting were, it wouldn't work half as well if not backed up by the smooth wrestling and selling that made all of those strike exchanges and technical sequences look great when it mattered.

There's a balance, there always is. It's why ROH was started as a workrate promotion but found fans rejecting wrestlers like Matt Stryker and John Walters - guys who simply could not connect what they were doing in the ring to any kind of story or character. It's why Jack Evans has always found work while guys who are just as gymnastically impressive have flamed out. ROH reached its critically revered peak with Bryan Danielson as the champion, not because Danielson was the most gifted technician of the age - but because his technical expertise was combined with a compelling character as the arrogant jerk who knew exactly how good he was and would still bend the rules because screw you. That character is the real reason why every single Danielson title defense is, at minimum, not bad, and why they are great even against uncharismatic opponents like Jimmy Rave and Roderick Strong.

And that's the other thing - at least in my opinion, you can have a great match with one great personality, as long as the other wrestler's ring work gives that personality something to work with. Roderick Strong in 2005 had all the personality of a board, but he could do great chops and power moves - and Bryan Danielson could sell and beg off to the point where the audience was begging to see Roderick knock him for a loop. Mitsuharu Misawa was practically a workrate robot in his prime, but his opponents could tell amazing stories of their frustration mounting as they could not put down this endlessly resilient peak athlete who was just flat out better than they were; Misawa's athleticism made those stories believable in a way that few wrestlers could.

So yeah...balance. Your great characters fall flat if they only amount to an 05 WWE safe style match that has one swinging neckbreaker, one superplex, five rest holds, punches, and a finisher. But all of the cool moves in the world won't amount to anything without a narrative to make them matter.

[arrogantmodel]

For me, a great match is just the icing or the cherry on top. I loved the Triple H-Mankind/Cactus Jack story. Triple H was an incredible asshole, who even dipped into being a sociopath himself. Foley was fantastic as the veteran who wanted the belt again, and had to deal with the snobby douchebag.

They went back and forth, and you believed that they wanted the other dead. That they were going to tear each other apart. The promos, the facial expressions, they nailed it.

And that all lead to an incredible street fight at the Royal Rumble. Holy shit, it's the 20 year anniversary of that!

So yeah, I love a good match, no doubt, but if I don't care about why they're fighting, it's not interesting. Flip side, if I am totally invested in the story, I don't need to see Steamboat-Savage. Just give me a good match to cap everything off, and I'm a satisfied customer.

[Deleted]

I can appreciate a great match like anyone else but I have never been one to put focus on that because to me a great wrestler will have great matches but also that there is so much emphasis on the in-ring work rate now a days that it has all been seen and done and also because the human body can only and I have said this...jump so high , do so many flips etc.

Which is what completely gravitated me to LU because they put on amazing matches but my investment was into the world building and in the characters following along to see the directions they would take them because unlike the in-ring stuff there isn't a limit to where you can take a character and what you can make a character do and with how openly creative LU there was always that feeling anything can and will happen on this show and it usually did.

[David-Arquette was in WCW 2000]

You can only do so much athletic work rate stuff. I'll take characters and story over modern 'classics' between two guys who are good at moves.

[ogreknee]

Jan 7, 2020 13:38:17 GMT -5 Clash, Never a Meter Maid said:

Uh, wha? Wrestling fans care more about in-ring action than ever.

Yeah we demand both enthralling charismatic people and great in ring action

Naito and Okada being two bland white dudes in tights...nah

Pomp and circumstance and extra in ring excellence is what we all want.

We also do not was 45 minute matches.

People who say in njpw promos do not matter and it is all in ring. Have no clue what it takes to main event as all the top guys except sanada are great promos.

[Deleted]

I've always loved the ridiculous characters and segments, those have been always great.

But from probably 2005 to 2014 the in-ring action was all what I could think about. I was obsessed with workrate indy feds, even angry when someone made dick jokes on a show. What a bitter old man I was when I was younger?

Somewhere after that, I softened up and started to embrace the silly goose of wrestling more!

That's why Daniel Bryan and Kenny Omega for example are my favourites. They're one of the bests in the ring, but they're also so freakin' funny that I'm invested following their careers in every aspect.

e: I usually watch only 1 or 2 matches nowadays without looking elsewhere, whatever the show is and just happens to interest me.

[Fade]

I’m always going to be a characters/story guy over wrestling.

Really became cemented at the latest BAR wrestling show I attended. Maybe it’s becayse it was the closest I’ve been to a ring at a show, but the more “flippy”, “spotty” obviously choreographed stuff came off looking lame in comparison to other matches where guys really exuded character and the match flow was more dynamic between brawling and spots.

It kinda reminds me of the criticism aimed at the Star Wars Episide 1 lightsaber fight: Like it’s pretty and exciting but it’s also obviously choreographed and lacks being character driven.

[Dr. Bolty, Disaster Enby]

Jan 7, 2020 16:16:59 GMT -5 mj0mn0m said:

I've always loved the ridiculous characters and segments, those have been always great.

But from probably 2005 to 2014 the in-ring action was all what I could think about. I was obsessed with workrate indy feds, even angry when someone made dick jokes on a show. What a bitter old man I was when I was younger?

Somewhere after that, I softened up and started to embrace the silly goose of wrestling more!

That's why Daniel Bryan and Kenny Omega for example are my favourites. They're one of the bests in the ring, but they're also so freakin' funny that I'm invested following their careers in every aspect.

I had a very similar journey. I think there's some aspect of oversaturation involved. If you got into WWE post-Attitude, great technical matches were rarities for a while - people talked about a six-minute Shawn Michaels vs. Shelton Benjamin match for years, and Shelton was one of the icons of a guy with great workrate that WWE would pass by for supposedly charismatic (but actually dull as dishwater) wrestlers like Chris Masters. It was often the worst of both worlds - the characters weren't actually that compelling, and the great technical wrestling was tucked away to Velocity like some dirty secret. It didn't help that the match structure and movesets were so standardized and limited that I could tell you when the swinging neckbreaker and superplex were coming in every. single. match. in the midcard.

Nowadays, though, wrestlers rarely even get in the door without being at least able to hang. The average is higher. WWE's oblivion booking has further emphasized how little good wrestling works in a vacuum; meanwhile, indy wrestling has now spent almost two decades reinventing the wheel on how to get over a character in front of a few dozen people who have never seen you before and don't get a handy Titantron music video or vignettes to tell them who you are.

[Cranjis McBasketball]

Everyone cares about in-ring action. Though what that entails is different. For instance, I by and large hate the in-ring style of WWE now. I find it illogical, boring and everyone does the same crap.

I prefer the 80/90’s style of WWE. That’s just how it is.

[Wieners=$$$]

I think there are some fans who love a match for it's athleticism, because it legitimizes the thing many consider "fake."

While there are other fans who recognize that something that is scripted should have characters to make them invested, like all fiction.

These two groups aren't exclusive, as I fall somewhere in between. If I'm showing someone why I love wrestling, I have two go to matches; Undertaker vs. Mankind HiaC and Ricochet vs. Ospreay BOSJ 2016.

Either way, I enjoy the spectacle no matter. At it's core, it's still scripted entertainment with varying degrees of athleticism; much like the Harlem Globetrotters. It's fun to buy into it, no matter what you buy.

[Laces]

I've been back to wrestling for almost a year now. (The first Raw I watched since the Attitude era was the post 2019 Rumble edition of Raw) and I love a good solid match but it's the stories and characters that keep me coming back.

I love seeing someone like Dustin Rhodes go in the ring, but I also love seeing the backstage/behind the scenes stuff that tells me *why* he's going. If that makes sense anyway.