|
Post by leemir on Jan 1, 2007 21:39:30 GMT -5
I love Pro Wrestling , I will respect somebody who works hard at it, even if they aren't that good I will still respect 'em for that. I don't wanna see some guy who can't work & has no respect for the business come in make a whole bunch of money & leave without actually helping the business.
|
|
nisi
Vegeta
Da Bears
Posts: 9,868
|
Post by nisi on Jan 1, 2007 21:42:15 GMT -5
I tend to care more about gimmicks and psychology than workrate alone, but I tend to like wrestlers who sell and make an effort, i.e., guys who work hard.
|
|
|
Post by odanobunaga on Jan 1, 2007 21:45:54 GMT -5
You see, it´s very easy. I don´t care for "workrate", what I care is for a interesting match. I am not asking for insane bumps all the time, and I am not asking for a bunch of Circus high flyers. I just want matches that are fun to watch and No, K-Fed vs. Cena wasn´t one of then.
|
|
Scott
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 3,577
|
Post by Scott on Jan 2, 2007 5:20:43 GMT -5
I can't stand Chris Benoit or William Regal matches, but I would go crazy if the Ultimate Warrior came out and killed one of them. Why? Because I like the larger-than-life characters. I don't want to see average-sized guys mat wrestle in a classic style, it takes away the superhero mystique that professional wrestling has always been known for. Watching Greco-Roman style mat wrestling that is predetermined is like watching a football game where the score is planned before the coin toss. Pro wrestling isn't about being believable or being the guy who can do the best moves or the most flips. The ring and the wrestling provides a canvas for which they can create the image of a battle between characters. That's why workrate is such a stupid concern to me.
|
|
|
Post by carter 15 on Jan 2, 2007 6:57:55 GMT -5
There are definitely a lot of people who are anti-smark, there was even a group of anti-smarks awhile back captained by a very good looking, handsome, rugged in a way, individual. Well, actually it was captained by a bum, but who cares. Anyway, if I could quote Raven, usually the favourites of the fans who like wrestling aren't everyone else's favourites. Those fans believe they have a critical eye for talent, even though people on the internet have the least valuable opinion when it comes to wrestling, because most people will choose guys who they like, not who could potentially draw. So the average joe who likes John Cena because he's a good guy and he has some morals is gonna have a more valuable opinion then the guy who doesn't like Cena because his wrestling ability isn't up to par. It's not about that most of the time. But that's for drawing and such. Workrate has always confused me, mostly because the term contradicts itself. Working isn't how much action you do. Working is making the crowd believe what you're doing. Randy Orton is someone I give as a great example of this. He is a brilliant worker. When it comes to the traditional term of workrate, he's not very good, but as a worker, he's tremendous, because he's very believable, and very smooth in the ring. When I do watch wrestling, I think one reason I don't become jaded from it is I don't expect everyone to wrestle a certain way. I love great wrestling. If people want to call it workrate, fine. I just call it wrestling. Chris Benoit, Finlay, Shawn Michaels are some of the best. In ROH which I've been watching recently, Joe, Danielson, Daniels and others are great. But when I watch Kane wrestle, I don't expect strong technical wrestling. When John Cena wrestles, I don't expect technical wrestling, I think that's where their hate comes in. People only tend to like just the good, smooth technical wrestling, and if it's not that, it's bad. And it's their opinion, but it makes fans become so easily jaded. I love the power wrestlers. I love the comedy, the drama, and everything about wrestling, where as the wrestling or the "workrate" is just one of my particular favourite parts, and I don't expect a guy who's 6'6 and 300 pounds to do something that a guy who's 5'11 and 230 pounds can do. And I feel that a lot of people do expect that. This post almost sums up my opinion perfectly. I like watching people that i think are entertaining, neither workrate or drawing really bothers me. It REALLY annoys me however when people shit on the likes of The Big Show, Mark Henry etc... I mean what the hell do you expect them to do once they step in the ring, HONESTLY?! They're not going scientifically wear down their opponent, they're NOT suppose to sell a great deal...basically THEY'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A TECHNICAL MASTERPIECE. These guys are legit 7'0" - 500lbs - 6'3"/4?" - 400lbs people, they're never going to move/wrestle like Benoit, Daniels etc, take them for what they are....Especially when these two particular people CAN be in entertaining matches.
|
|
|
Post by decemberguy on Jan 2, 2007 7:12:53 GMT -5
Im somewhere in the middle...I've always liked guys like Booker or Savage. Not the greatest wrestlers, certainly not the best, but work their tails off and have charisma out the wazoo!
|
|
|
Post by Loki on Jan 2, 2007 7:36:10 GMT -5
I can't stand Chris Benoit or William Regal matches, but I would go crazy if the Ultimate Warrior came out and killed one of them. Why? Because I like the larger-than-life characters. I don't want to see average-sized guys mat wrestle in a classic style, it takes away the superhero mystique that professional wrestling has always been known for. Watching Greco-Roman style mat wrestling that is predetermined is like watching a football game where the score is planned before the coin toss. Pro wrestling isn't about being believable or being the guy who can do the best moves or the most flips. The ring and the wrestling provides a canvas for which they can create the image of a battle between characters. That's why workrate is such a stupid concern to me. I agree, but Benoit (and partially Regal) managed to develop a character to "pair up" with their technical style to appeal also to the fans who prefer "larger-than-life" wrestlers. About the workrate debate, I think many of us stretched the meaning of the word so it could fit their elitism. "workrate" became synonymous with "flashy and/or technical moveset, insane spots and/or chain-wrestling clinics" while IMO it'd just be "the ability of ENTERTAINING the audience (or most of it) for the longest time possible. Hogan only needed 4 moves, two taunts and the same storyline to accomplish that. At some points, Austin and Rock only had to show up without even performing their finisher to generate excitement. On the other hand, guys like Flair, Bret, Shawn, Benoit etc were able to entertain the crowd WHILE putting on good-to-great matches. Many other wrestlers may be much more talented and hard workers, but if they fail to click with the crowd, or if they need to kill themselves night in and night out to get a "holy shit" cheer, all the "workrate" in this world won't get them over past the hardcore smarks. About the "drawing money" argument: money is a by-product of popularity, and popularity happens when the audience like a wrestler. So those who entertain the biggest number of people draw more money. But the up-and-downs of the business can indeed distort the real meaning of the figures. One more thing about "hype matches" v "workrate matches"... Hogan-Andre may be not so great to watch 20 years later, but it's an unicum. No matter how hard WWE tried, it's IMPOSSIBLE to replicate such a match. Not for the moves, not for the storyline, but for the mystique and the meaning it had back then. WCW tried to re-dp Hogan-Warrior (anothe hype classic) and it failed miserably... There's plenty of technical masterpieces, but there are very few Immortal Matches...
|
|
|
Post by odanobunaga on Jan 2, 2007 7:44:00 GMT -5
I can't stand Chris Benoit or William Regal matches, but I would go crazy if the Ultimate Warrior came out and killed one of them. Why? Because I like the larger-than-life characters. Soooo you prefer Warrior because he is was a big muscle head semi naked guy with faice paint that cut promos that made no sense because he was "larger than life"? I am sorry to be nit picky but Warrior has such a boring and stupid character that I just couldn´t not to point this out. Regal did some pretty interesting and "Larger Than Life" himself, just because he didn´t run like an idiot or screamed gibbergish didn´t made him "smaller". With that said, I can see were are you coming from. Sometimes, a interesting character is more important than everthing. It´s a shame that in this time and day in the WWE, there aren´t any.
|
|
Scott
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 3,577
|
Post by Scott on Jan 3, 2007 6:38:31 GMT -5
I can't stand Chris Benoit or William Regal matches, but I would go crazy if the Ultimate Warrior came out and killed one of them. Why? Because I like the larger-than-life characters. Soooo you prefer Warrior because he is was a big muscle head semi naked guy with faice paint that cut promos that made no sense because he was "larger than life"? I am sorry to be nit picky but Warrior has such a boring and stupid character that I just couldn´t not to point this out. Regal did some pretty interesting and "Larger Than Life" himself, just because he didn´t run like an idiot or screamed gibbergish didn´t made him "smaller". With that said, I can see were are you coming from. Sometimes, a interesting character is more important than everthing. It´s a shame that in this time and day in the WWE, there aren´t any. You could take what I said about Warrior and replace it with Andre, Jake Roberts, Demolition, or anyone from the days before movesets or "workrate" - (interpretation is open) became so important. Regal is a great wrestler, Benoit too, and this is just my opinion, but they don't make me want to watch wrestling because they don't do anything but make moves look good. Give them something besides experience and respect of everyone and I'd be right back on their side. Warrior was the example I went with because he kept A LOT of people interested for a few years by doing those crazy things you said. He talked about people in the heavens, there was lighting everywhere, and the crazy look showed that pro wrestling offers something unique that other sports can't. It used to be like watching a comic book on TV every Saturday, but if workrate takes over, it will be overmuscled synchronized swimming - all technicality without the chance for good charisma to shine through.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Jan 3, 2007 10:40:14 GMT -5
This is a very narrow-viewed debate going on here.
What we're doing is really constricting the meaning of "workrate."
See, any wrestler with an athletic background and good conditioning can go in a ring, and pull off any number of highspots, or sick looking submissions, or mat wrestling, etc.
However, those guys don't often last. Why is that?
It's because, for all their moves, they don't develop other reasons for you to care about them, and, no, I am not talking about developing a gimmick.
Look at Matt Stryker in ROH (Not ECW Matt Striker, the indy one); he came in and, for a time, was over due to presenting a style of mat wrestling that not everyone was used to at the time. He executed his moves well, had some cool looking ones, etc.
But what happened to him? It ended up only taking about a year for ROH fans to get tired of him. He never developed a character that the fans could connect with, and his matches, for all his fluid transitions or cool looking submissions, often lacked some kind of coherent story-telling or psychology. So while guys like him, Chad Collyer, and others have faded from ROH, it's the technical workers like Bryan Danielson and Nigel McGuinness who have made a lasting impact, since there's much, much more to them than just cool-looking maneuvers in the ring.
That is the essence of "workrate." It's absolutely everything you do in the ring, from the "cool moves", to your selling, to how well or poorly you develop your character, to how you interact with your opponent and/or the crowd, to your psychology and story-telling, etc.
Chris Benoit has always had amazing "workrate"; he wrestles a technically-sound style, but does so in a way that tells a discernible story, and gets whatever character he's playing, and whatever feud he's engaged in at the time, over. By the same token, Dusty Rhodes, a much, much, MUCH less technical wrestler than Benoit, also had amazing "workrate"; through his actions in the ring, fans had an immediate connection with him, and he also knew how, when, and, perhaps most importantly, why to hit certain moves at certain times.
Really, it's the biggest mistake fans make when discussing this issue; people will make comments like "Well, you must be the kind of fan who'd have liked Verne Gagne, Bob Backlund, or Bruno Sammartino, boring guys who just wrestled well!". Those comments COMPLETELY ignore the work men like this did in the ring to not only put over their characters, but the characters of their opponents as well, not to mention how they used certain moves, styles, or spots to get over what the main drive of the storyline going into their match was supposed to be. Just because they didn't wear shiny outfits or scream into a microphone doesn't mean that they can't accomplish these things; you just need to be a bit more observant at times, is all.
|
|
|
Post by odanobunaga on Jan 3, 2007 11:18:13 GMT -5
Hmark: That´s exatly my point. Ultimate Warrior no sold his oponent offense it was...Boring to watch it. A stupid character doing stupid things in the ring, that got over because people never saw something like that.
I bring to the table Hard Gay. The guy was megaover in Japan, and for what? He made a match 10 times funnier with his selling and manerisms, and nothing esle.
|
|
|
Post by JoshWoodrumGreaterThanHBK on Jan 3, 2007 12:49:09 GMT -5
My 2 cents:
Hogan had a great work rate! Yes. I said it. Why?
Hogan's greatest strength was his ability to make the drama believeable. Hogan makes his opponents look good. Sure he Hulks Up and leg drops them, "No Selling", which everyone does at some point!
Hogan made Warrior look good, was able to make Savage look better than he had ever looked, and sold like crazy for Goldberg and the Rock.
Hogan's job, was to be the BIG DRAW. His workrate is phenomnal.
Benoit, Finaly. Great wrestlers, great technical matches. But their workrate isn't as good as Hogans. Benoit can tell a good story, but Hogan can sell a GREAT story.
Hogan is the greatest Wreslter ever, because of his gimmick, his charisma, and his ability to control the crowd. A hand to his ear gets a bigger pop than AJ Styles or Jeff Hardy doing a 720 flipping moonsault. Why? Hogan has a better workrate!
|
|
salTy
El Dandy
Posts: 8,425
|
Post by salTy on Jan 3, 2007 13:37:06 GMT -5
Hmark said it best.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Jan 3, 2007 13:54:36 GMT -5
My 2 cents: Hogan had a great work rate! Yes. I said it. Why? Hogan's greatest strength was his ability to make the drama believeable. Hogan makes his opponents look good. Sure he Hulks Up and leg drops them, "No Selling", which everyone does at some point! Hogan made Warrior look good, was able to make Savage look better than he had ever looked, and sold like crazy for Goldberg and the Rock. Hogan's job, was to be the BIG DRAW. His workrate is phenomnal. Benoit, Finaly. Great wrestlers, great technical matches. But their workrate isn't as good as Hogans. Benoit can tell a good story, but Hogan can sell a GREAT story. Hogan is the greatest Wreslter ever, because of his gimmick, his charisma, and his ability to control the crowd. A hand to his ear gets a bigger pop than AJ Styles or Jeff Hardy doing a 720 flipping moonsault. Why? Hogan has a better workrate! You're just using the "he was a bigger draw" argument, but changing a few words around. It doesn't really work that way.
|
|
BrianZane
Team Rocket
The Finest Fibers All The Way From France
Host of Wrestling With Wregret
Posts: 972
|
Post by BrianZane on Jan 3, 2007 14:28:24 GMT -5
Here's my two cents on things:
There is a difference between a "good workrate" and "knowing how to work." "Workrate," to me, is a word that got made up by Meltzer and the gang to make them sound important. That word was never used by veterans of the olden days, and in the locker rooms I'm in, I rarely, if ever, hear it there. "Workrate" is a smark word that makes them sound like they know what they're talking about, and it makes a wrestler's level of ability seem tangible, like it can be measured like lines on a cup. If you consider someone to have a "good workrate" because they can tell a good story, use good psychology, can make it seem like they're really fighting for their lives, and can sell really well, don't say he's "got great workrate," say that he knows how to work, because it's more accurate. Someone doesn't have "great workrate" just because he can flip and do these awesome moves that are banned in WWE for being deemed to unsafe to do on an every-night basis (and if they're not...God forbid...a HOSS!). You need to be able to tell a story. That's all pro wrestling is, and all it ever has been, and all it ever will be. It's great when guys like Angle and Lance Storm and all those guys who can wrestle real well come around to add an air of legitimacy to it, and if you had nothing but those guys filling up TV time, it would be great at first, then it would get old real damn fast. In wrestling, it's all about the money. Nothing more, nothing less.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2007 14:32:52 GMT -5
Here's my two cents on things: There is a difference between a "good workrate" and "knowing how to work." "Workrate," to me, is a word that got made up by Meltzer and the gang to make them sound important. That word was never used by veterans of the olden days, and in the locker rooms I'm in, I rarely, if ever, hear it there. "Workrate" is a smark word that makes them sound like they know what they're talking about, and it makes a wrestler's level of ability seem tangible, like it can be measured like lines on a cup. If you consider someone to have a "good workrate" because they can tell a good story, use good psychology, can make it seem like they're really fighting for their lives, and can sell really well, don't say he's "got great workrate," say that he knows how to work, because it's more accurate. Someone doesn't have "great workrate" just because he can flip and do these awesome moves that are banned in WWE for being deemed to unsafe to do on an every-night basis (and if they're not...God forbid...a HOSS!). You need to be able to tell a story. That's all pro wrestling is, and all it ever has been, and all it ever will be. It's great when guys like Angle and Lance Storm and all those guys who can wrestle real well come around to add an air of legitimacy to it, and if you had nothing but those guys filling up TV time, it would be great at first, then it would get old real damn fast. In wrestling, it's all about the money. Nothing more, nothing less. VERY well put.
|
|
|
Post by Doodoo McAllister on Jan 3, 2007 14:48:12 GMT -5
I dunno, I mean, Hogan drew the most, but it wasn't necessarily the man Terry Bollea that was especially good at what he did, it was just the super icon character Hulk Hogan itself, and Vince was really the man behind the machine there. So in that sense, according to Nash, McMahon would be the best worker.
|
|
|
Post by leemir on Jan 3, 2007 15:53:50 GMT -5
I just wanna say I taught Big Show had great workrate.
|
|
|
Post by KrutonTheFirst12YearOldSmark on Jan 3, 2007 15:57:30 GMT -5
I was surfing YouTube recently and found two interesting things. One was a Kevin Nash "shoot" interview, and the other was Flair on Off the Record. When watching those clips, two things stuck out at me. In the Nash shoot, I think he was asked who does he feel is the best worker, and Nash's response was "Hogan 1, and Rock 2". He claimed in a sport where winning and losing is determined by a writer, and there's no statistical criteria to distinguish between workers, that the guy who is the best worker should be the guy who made the most money. Hence, Hogan at 1 and Rock at 2 (he later grouped Rock and Austin together). In the Flair interview, he was asked who is the greatest of all-time between Hogan and himself, and Flair said Hogan. His reasoning? "Because he drew more money than me". Flair then goes on to bash Bret Hart endlessly. Why? Because Bret didn't draw any money (according to Ric). Many consider Flair to be the best "wrestler" ever, while Nash at the very least was big enough to main event for two seperate companies. The point is, both of them quickly pointed out that drawing money was the most important criteria when evaluating a wrestler's career. Guys like Bret and Shawn look towards workrate because that's really all they have/had. The guys who actually drew money realize the significance of it. So why do most of you care so much about workrate when the wrestlers themselves base the business on drawing money? I can understand caring about workrate if you find it entertaining, but some of you base legacies on it. Hogan is bashed because "he has no talent" (which is completely subjective, by the way) yet his matches (Andre, Warrior, Savage, Rock, etc) are still talked about today and they all drew HUGE numbers. People here CRAVE for the Attitude Era to come back, yet fail to realize that the Attitude Era had 2 minute matches on TV that always ended in DQ, and focused almost entirely on promos and character development (like they should). Just like the '80's. Yes, the two most SUCCESSFUL periods in wrestling, two periods that people are dying to re-live, didn't focus on wrestling but moreso on the over-the-top characters in wrestling. So why all the fuss about workrate or how a wrestler "works"? Does it really drive the business? No. Has workrate by itself drawn money? No. Flair wouldn't be Flair without having Flair charisma. Austin drew more money after his ring work got limited due to a botched piledriver than he ever did when he was a great worker. The list goes on. I'm the anti-smark on this board. I don't care about workrate, that's why I stick up for Hogan, Warrior, Goldberg, Andre, etc, who people don't want to give the proper credit to. I don't pretend to be an expert on the business, but I do know that the whole point to the wrestling business is to draw money. Why are people here so reluctant to accept that? Why are people here so quick to bash those who made money, but praise those who didn't based on a criteria that even RIC FLAIR doesn't use (and Flair is the poster child for workrate to some people)? I find that completely mind boggling. Just my rant for the day. A-MUTHERLUVING-MEN!
|
|
Dynamic Dee
ALF
I love it when they call me Big Papa
Posts: 1,174
|
Post by Dynamic Dee on Jan 3, 2007 16:18:08 GMT -5
I don't worry about who can draw and who has the best workrate. I just watch and enjoy the guys who i find entertaining.
|
|