STMP
Hank Scorpio
Wild and Only 50
Posts: 5,569
|
Post by STMP on Jan 4, 2007 14:16:04 GMT -5
After Hmark's post I'd assume that the discussion would be a lot clearer now. After my points about 'moneymaking' I'd guess people would be wondering why Hogan and Flair put together (in WCW) still weren't able to outsell Austin (in the WWF) who wasn't nearly as popular as Hogan was in the 80's. How does that work? Hogan simply stopped drawing as much as he used too. Does that make him a bad wrestler? It does if you use the 'making money'-argument. That whole argument is complete bullcrap. But because Hogan was carrying a very entertaining product in a time when everyone was open to the product Vince McMahon was delivering, some people call him the best ever. And the same happened with Austin. There was a very strong undercard in those big era's, there was an obvious gameplan, there was overal quality with very good angles and just plain stupid stuff. But in the end the overal quality was good enough for the audience to keep watching. Yet everyone goes 'ooohh but Hogan drew money, so he is the best ever'. Bullcrap. That's the stuff Hogan will tell you. Looking at how much someone draws doesn't make sense. It is something that is very important for a promoter. If a promoter has a chance to book Hogan or Benoit, he will pick Hogan because he knows Hogan is a bigger name and will therefore draw more. In the end, the promoter is happy and the fans who got to see Hogan in person and meet him are happy. But does that matter to us? We, the audience who weren't there and are perhaps watching it on tape and see Hogan do the same stuff as usual. Making money is only important to the wrestlers and bookers. For the bookers to book the biggest draw and for wrestlers to become the biggest draw so they can make more money. But why should we as fans have anything to do with that? Should we watch a movie just because we know that Ben Affleck earns a lot of money? And in that case, how should we deal with someone like Halle Berry, who was a huge moviestar and is now making craptymovies that don't make any money at all. Should she return the oscar they gave her? "I'm sorry to inform you miss Berry, but you're last movie made no profit so we would like to get that Oscar back" We are fans, we are not wrestlers. So we are indeed allowed to talk about workrate. Because it is not a word that wrestlers use, it is a word that fans use. And we are fans, we are viewers, we are consumers. And we need to act like that. Instead of stupid sheep that don't feel like we can be critical because those wrestlers know the best. No, I have seen Bret Hart wrestle and because of that I can say that Warrior sucks and is a terrible wrestler. I don't need to be in the ring to know that. And then people say 'yeah, but Warrior was a big draw'. What the hug?! Why should I care about that. I'm not going to book him and it's not 1991 anymore. So why bring that up? If the wrestlers among themselves say 'well, that Warrior sure knew how to draw'. Let them, if it is their goal to make a crapload of money, all the power to them. But should I be a fan of a wrestler who makes a lot of money? Should I respect a wrestler because he sold a lot of t-shirts? No, of course not. Not as a wrestlingfan. Perhaps if I was a professional t-shirt seller, then hell yeah I'd be marking for The Rock. But as a viewer who wants to be entertained I don't give a crap about that. And it all comes down to this. People have different tastes. Some like brawling and others like technical wrestling and others like lucha libre etc. But as a fan, I want to see a wrestler do what he is best at. And people say 'well, Big Show is too big to wrestle a technical match, so don't expect him to'. Well, I don't expect that from him, I expect him to brawl, but he isn't that good in brawling either. I've seen some great brawls, stuff that impressed me and was just punch, kick, headlock, punch, clothesline. As a fan you should demand quality and saying 'that guy is big, so he is allowed to botch, no sell and forget to tell a story' is cheating yourself out of a good product. Some people just don't have the proper appreciation for what it is that these guys actually do. the argument that the biggest money-maker is the best does indeed hold merit, because what it is that most don't realize, is that all the things that they do, say, in the ring, is about drawing people. In pro wrestling, the worst wrestler can be the greatest pro wrestler ever, because it's not wrestling. When Undertaker first made his debut in 1990, he had buttloads of technical wrestling skill, but he used 3 moves and choking for his entire matches, because it fit his charactor better than if he did all the moves, so his charactor was a worse wrestler, but was actually better. You CANNOT judge a wrestler's real-life skill based on what you see them do in the ring. Undertaker is a very good wrestler and still does stuff people never expected him to do. When you sum up his signature holds, there aren't that many. But if you look match per match you'll be really impressed. So you are selling him short in a way. And you also overrate what people here actually call good wrestlers. A lot of fans on this forum love Puroresu. But how many moves did Misawa do? You can easily count them on one hand, same with Kawada, Kobashi, Tsuruta etc. Because a good wrestler doesn't need a lot of moves. And that is where workrate comes in. I am not impressed by Jeff Hardy floating around. Yet, AJ Styles completely made the X-Division with his flip flopping. The odd thing is that the general public/marks seem to care more about high spots, then the internetfan/smarks. But that is a different discussion. Moneymaking you say, happens in whatever they do. They draw in people. But exactely that is workrate. I won't say Hogan was a bad worker, because he worked his ass off to entertain. He's just a very lazy wrestler who didn't bother in the ring because he knew that the fans would come to see him anyway. Workrate is needed to make money. Wrestlers need to work hard to give the fans their money's worth. That is why Batista is a big problem. He's a lazy and bad wrestler, who isn't good on the mic. There isn't a lot entertaining about him. So, how is he supposed to make money? Workrate is simply working hard. And that's not just doing a lot of moves, it's just bothering in the ring. It's telling a story, drawing the fans in, selling, wrestling, doing moves the right way without injuring someone and having the fans ask for more. So they will come to see you again next time. And that makes money.
|
|
Slapnutz McGee
Trap-Jaw
Can't wait to live, yet addicted to dying.
Posts: 358
|
Post by Slapnutz McGee on Jan 4, 2007 14:26:32 GMT -5
I think that "workrate" is/should be a mixture of both, the ability to draw money AND the ability to put on good matches. Take a look at the NFL, for example. TO draws alot more people and makes more money for the Cowboys than Steve Smith does for the Panthers. Does that make TO a better receiver? Well, if you look at the stats over the last few seasons, Steve Smith was more productive as a receiver. So, according to talent, To is not a better receiver, but according to money making ability, he is. Apply this to wrestling, and you would get VERY FEW wrestlers through out history that were able to bring in alot of money AND put on great matches. In a "sport" that doesn't keep statistics or have any "real" championship to compete for, then the money-making side of it would be the only side that really mattered. From the businesses, point of view, that is. From a fans point of view, though, it doesn't matter how much money a wrestler makes, all that matters is how much they are entertained by said wrestler. So, the talent side of it is more important. In an area such as wrestling where so many factors go into whether or not a wrestler gets "over", it's almost impossible to come up with a standard definition of what "workrate" would be. For the most part, I don't care about it. I look for entertainment, and that's it. I'd pay to see Hogan vs. The Boogeyman before I'd pay to see Benoit vs. Punk, not because of the wreslting, but because I feel that a Hogan/Boogeyman storyline would be way more entertaining. When I know that everything is predetermined, how good a wrestler is at pretending to do his moves is kinda pointless to me. Sure, the actual match between Benoit/Punk would be much better, but all the antics and skits leading up to the Hogan/Boogeyman match would slaughter all of the "technical" expertise in the previous match. The same goes for movies, Million Dollar Baby might have won lots of awards and was a "great" movie, but Pirates of the Carribean was much more entertaining and funner to watch. In the end, it's whatever gets your adrenaline flowing, and "workrate" would have a personal meaning for each individual fan.
|
|
STMP
Hank Scorpio
Wild and Only 50
Posts: 5,569
|
Post by STMP on Jan 4, 2007 14:46:28 GMT -5
I think that "workrate" is/should be a mixture of both, the ability to draw money AND the ability to put on good matches. Take a look at the NFL, for example. TO draws alot more people and makes more money for the Cowboys than Steve Smith does for the Panthers. Does that make TO a better receiver? Well, if you look at the stats over the last few seasons, Steve Smith was more productive as a receiver. So, according to talent, To is not a better receiver, but according to money making ability, he is. Apply this to wrestling, and you would get VERY FEW wrestlers through out history that were able to bring in alot of money AND put on great matches. In a "sport" that doesn't keep statistics or have any "real" championship to compete for, then the money-making side of it would be the only side that really mattered. From the businesses, point of view, that is. From a fans point of view, though, it doesn't matter how much money a wrestler makes, all that matters is how much they are entertained by said wrestler. So, the talent side of it is more important. In an area such as wrestling where so many factors go into whether or not a wrestler gets "over", it's almost impossible to come up with a standard definition of what "workrate" would be. For the most part, I don't care about it. I look for entertainment, and that's it. I'd pay to see Hogan vs. The Boogeyman before I'd pay to see Benoit vs. Punk, not because of the wreslting, but because I feel that a Hogan/Boogeyman storyline would be way more entertaining. When I know that everything is predetermined, how good a wrestler is at pretending to do his moves is kinda pointless to me. Sure, the actual match between Benoit/Punk would be much better, but all the antics and skits leading up to the Hogan/Boogeyman match would slaughter all of the "technical" expertise in the previous match. The same goes for movies, Million Dollar Baby might have won lots of awards and was a "great" movie, but Pirates of the Carribean was much more entertaining and funner to watch. In the end, it's whatever gets your adrenaline flowing, and "workrate" would have a personal meaning for each individual fan. Once again, someone completey doesn't get that workrate IS how entertained you are. Workrate is 'working' and how well you do it. Boogyman is only good with weird antics, but he sure makes it believable and entertaining. Same with Hogan. So for you to be entertained, workrate is involved. If the Boogyman character would be played by Benoit, would you still be entertained by the Boogyman? No, because he wouldn't be able to play the character they way it should be played and wouldn't bother too. And I know it is an example, but Boogyman vs Hogan the match itself wouldn't be entertaining at all. For nobody, not even the fans. Because Boogyman is a terrible wrestler, who is only good at backstage skits when someone plays of him very well, like JBL did. The match itself would be a terrible match, which a lot of fans wouldn't enjoy at all. Hogan would have to carry it, but Hogan's strong point is the Babyface-comeback. Boogyman would have to control the match and then allow Hogan to make a comeback. But before that would happen, they would have lost the crowd. While Benoit and Punk would have a guarenteed match of the year full of emotion. But could also have a great angle, the example of that was in OVW. When Benoit-light Brent Albright had a great and hot feud with Punk that the crowd loved. And that is when the booker is important. Benoit can not carry a backstage skit or promo, so he would need to work with someone who can. Punk would be great for that. So those two is a safe bet for a very entertaining feud and a match that people would talk about for a long time. Pro-wrestling is just like a theaterplay. You can't just rely on good actors to carry the piece, but at the same time you can't expect that only a good story will be enough to entertain the audience. That is why wrestlers need to be able to tell that story, the same way actors have to. And to say 'well it's fake so wrestling isn't important' is plain stupidity. It would be the same when actors would read their lines from the script, because hey movies are all fake so why pretend it isn't.
|
|
|
Post by Cousin Judge on Jan 4, 2007 14:59:07 GMT -5
It always surprises me when every single Hogan match I've ever seen has entertained the live audience more than any other match on that card, yet people STILL want to claim that the guy is "unentertaining" like the term isn't subjective.
Workrate by definition is how hard someone works get make a good match. Problem is in wrestling is that some people don't need to work that hard to have a match that people buy whereas others can sweat their balls off having the best technical match in the world and have nobody care about it. The key word is 'work' if you 'work' (i.e can work a crowd, draw TV ratings, PPV buys, sell merchendise) then surely your 'workrate' could not be higher despite what in-ring style you adopt.
|
|
|
Post by MGH on Jan 4, 2007 15:07:23 GMT -5
The only thing that bugs me when this discussion gets brought up is when someone says "you shouldnt care about workrate, care about what entertains you". Like, is it really that hard to understand that "workrate" and good matches IS what entertains a lot of people? It isn't like people suddenly program themselves to say "he isn't a good wrestler, don't like him". Well, I'm sure some morons do, but that isn't the majority.
The entire argument is subjective anyway. People have their own definition of what workrate is. For me personally, I don't give 2 craps about how much money someone makes for the company. That doesn't mean I think you're entertaining. That doesn't mean you're a good worker. It means some people thought so, but not me. Why? Because you don't fall in to what I consider to be a good worker.
|
|
STMP
Hank Scorpio
Wild and Only 50
Posts: 5,569
|
Post by STMP on Jan 4, 2007 15:08:06 GMT -5
It always surprises me when every single Hogan match I've ever seen has entertained the live audience more than any other match on that card, yet people STILL want to claim that the guy is "unentertaining" like the term isn't subjective. Workrate by definition is how hard someone works get make a good match. Problem is in wrestling is that some people don't need to work that hard to have a match that people buy whereas others can sweat their balls off having the best technical match in the world and have nobody care about it. The key word is 'work' if you 'work' (i.e can work a crowd, draw TV ratings, PPV buys, sell merchendise) then surely your 'workrate' could not be higher despite what in-ring style you adopt. Nobody said Hogan was 'unentertaining'. And selling merchandise or drawing tv-ratings isn't in the hands of the wrestlers themselves. They have to work in the ring, then the office takes over and creates the t-shirts, toys and other shit. It's the office who creates a feud that could sell or not. It is the office who promotes a pay per view and advertises. It is the wrestlers job to entertain in the ring. That can be done in different ways. Hogan is very good at entertaining a LIVE audience. By drawing them in and by cupping his ear which means 'make as much noise as you can'. Hogan is someone who people want to see live. So he will sell out arena's quicker then someone like Benoit who is better on tv, where you can see the small details he does. However, making money is a job that the office does and not the wrestler. It's the wrestlers job to get himself over and entertain, and at times the office does that too when they want someone to get over. In the end a wrestler needs to deliver quality to stay over. That can only be achieved trough workrate, which has been explained multipile times by now.
|
|
Slapnutz McGee
Trap-Jaw
Can't wait to live, yet addicted to dying.
Posts: 358
|
Post by Slapnutz McGee on Jan 4, 2007 15:13:47 GMT -5
I think that "workrate" is/should be a mixture of both, the ability to draw money AND the ability to put on good matches. Take a look at the NFL, for example. TO draws alot more people and makes more money for the Cowboys than Steve Smith does for the Panthers. Does that make TO a better receiver? Well, if you look at the stats over the last few seasons, Steve Smith was more productive as a receiver. So, according to talent, To is not a better receiver, but according to money making ability, he is. Apply this to wrestling, and you would get VERY FEW wrestlers through out history that were able to bring in alot of money AND put on great matches. In a "sport" that doesn't keep statistics or have any "real" championship to compete for, then the money-making side of it would be the only side that really mattered. From the businesses, point of view, that is. From a fans point of view, though, it doesn't matter how much money a wrestler makes, all that matters is how much they are entertained by said wrestler. So, the talent side of it is more important. In an area such as wrestling where so many factors go into whether or not a wrestler gets "over", it's almost impossible to come up with a standard definition of what "workrate" would be. For the most part, I don't care about it. I look for entertainment, and that's it. I'd pay to see Hogan vs. The Boogeyman before I'd pay to see Benoit vs. Punk, not because of the wreslting, but because I feel that a Hogan/Boogeyman storyline would be way more entertaining. When I know that everything is predetermined, how good a wrestler is at pretending to do his moves is kinda pointless to me. Sure, the actual match between Benoit/Punk would be much better, but all the antics and skits leading up to the Hogan/Boogeyman match would slaughter all of the "technical" expertise in the previous match. The same goes for movies, Million Dollar Baby might have won lots of awards and was a "great" movie, but Pirates of the Carribean was much more entertaining and funner to watch. In the end, it's whatever gets your adrenaline flowing, and "workrate" would have a personal meaning for each individual fan. Once again, someone completey doesn't get that workrate IS how entertained you are. Workrate is 'working' and how well you do it. Boogyman is only good with weird antics, but he sure makes it believable and entertaining. Same with Hogan. So for you to be entertained, workrate is involved. If the Boogyman character would be played by Benoit, would you still be entertained by the Boogyman? No, because he wouldn't be able to play the character they way it should be played and wouldn't bother too. And I know it is an example, but Boogyman vs Hogan the match itself wouldn't be entertaining at all. For nobody, not even the fans. Because Boogyman is a terrible wrestler, who is only good at backstage skits when someone plays of him very well, like JBL did. The match itself would be a terrible match, which a lot of fans wouldn't enjoy at all. Hogan would have to carry it, but Hogan's strong point is the Babyface-comeback. Boogyman would have to control the match and then allow Hogan to make a comeback. But before that would happen, they would have lost the crowd. While Benoit and Punk would have a guarenteed match of the year full of emotion. But could also have a great angle, the example of that was in OVW. When Benoit-light Brent Albright had a great and hot feud with Punk that the crowd loved. And that is when the booker is important. Benoit can not carry a backstage skit or promo, so he would need to work with someone who can. Punk would be great for that. So those two is a safe bet for a very entertaining feud and a match that people would talk about for a long time. Pro-wrestling is just like a theaterplay. You can't just rely on good actors to carry the piece, but at the same time you can't expect that only a good story will be enough to entertain the audience. That is why wrestlers need to be able to tell that story, the same way actors have to. And to say 'well it's fake so wrestling isn't important' is plain stupidity. It would be the same when actors would read their lines from the script, because hey movies are all fake so why pretend it isn't. I DID get that workrate is how entertained you are. I said that it comes down to opinion and what entertains you. Those viewpoints were my opinion, only. What I would be entertained by. While some might be entertained by great in-ring work, others might be entertained by out of the ring work. Still, some are entertained by both. You need to realize that what you said is YOUR opinion. You are one person, and can't say what the "fans" would or wouldn't be interested in. I didn't say that I thought Hogan/Boogey would be a better story. I said that I would enjoy it more. My argument is that workrate is an opinion based term and can't be defined with one standard set of criteria. If you are entertained by a wrestler, then that wrestler has a good workrate to you. To someone else that doesn't like them, they would have a bad workrate. Trying to argue your point about Punk/Benoit just proves my point more.
|
|
|
Post by Sumbody Gon' Get Dey Kneelift on Jan 4, 2007 15:20:01 GMT -5
I'm entering this thread a tad late, but let me just say my piece about the OP and get outta here.
#1: Identifying yourself as "the anti" anything is silly. With 158 posts, I feel like you haven't been around long enough to be the cemented anti anything, you know? ((("Why do you care so much about post count?")))
#2: The Fifth Element is an awesome movie. It made no money. Hostel is a TERRIBLE movie. It made tons of money. I would therefore rather watch The Fifth Element over Hostel. See the argument?
|
|