Believe me, I get it. I have just grown to accept that what they do isn't really for me (and even so, they still do pull out some matches I like... see them against the Golden Lovers or even them vs. Omega and Hangman).
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Pro wrestling fans: Do you care more about in ring clinics and matches or characters and storylines?
- Thread starter HomokHarcos
- Start date
A little from column A a little from column B.
The whole point of wrestling is to have both in a way. It's like going to see a broadway play and the main stars can sing but can't act or dance. The idea is to have a mix.
I guess if I'd *have* to go with one, it's storyline and characters. Al Snow gives has this YouTube video from his wrestling school talking about how to build a rivalry around 2 moves, the DDT and the figure four, and like... You don't need to be doing backflips and those suicide reverse piledrivers from the top rope, you can build a legitimate great match and rivalry if you both guys have a move that is over. As he describes it, the heat gets built for this through creative storytelling -- "The DDT is banned!" -- or "the guy broke his ankle and can't puyt in the figure four!" Those are storyline elements that lend weight to the maneuvers. In the 2000s the DDT became a boring move, you'd have to add some twist -- top rope spinning DDT -- to get the crowd to care, because every schmo did a DDT and it was no big deal. Guys today do these stand-up DDTs with their bodies straight in the air, and the crowd pops for the spectacle and performance of the sell, but nobody thinks that it's going to put the guy away because he's standing up doing a Frankensteiner 2 moves later.
But go watch the ... `91 or 92 Rumble, where the crowd was fucking ELECTRIC for just the THREAT of a DDT. I don't think Jake Roberts even landed a DDT in that match but he had like 5 guys lined up for it and EVERY TIME the crowd was leaping to their feet to see it. That's done through storytelling and character, and obviously Roberts is an amazing worker and he worked that move so damn well, but it was really built up as devastating primarily through storytelling. I think the Stunner is the same way. It's a move that got built to what it is by storytelling. The first time Austin drops the stunner on Roberts in the King of the Ring and finishes him, the crowd wasn't even really ready for it, nobody was standing up, a few people clapped or lifted their hands. There's nothing devastating looking about the stunner. But then it gets built and built...... and then it's not just the stunner that gets people to pop, it's the KICK before the stunner. A KICK. Austin had a kick over bigger than most other guy's finishers. While Austin was a great tactical wrestler, one of the best of the generation, by the time the stunner was truly over he was a brawler and his matches were usually pretty paroquial heel dominating baby face matches.
Looking back at the era of pro wrestling that I was most into, early 90s, and late 90s. WWF was made for me at those ages. Early 90s I was 8 years old, and so wrapped up in Hogan, legit scared of the monster heels. I non-ironically loved No Holds Barred The Match the Event or whatever it was, rented it multiple times. Was soooo into the monster heels. Savage & Elizabeth vs. Jake Roberts... I was TERRIFIED of Jake Roberts, I thought he was like a legitimately EVIL person, like someone the police should arrest because he's sadistic. That feud was built up around Jake going after Liz to get to Savage, and incidentally that feud is what made the Undertaker a babyface. Lex vs. Yokozuna I was so invested in it. Bushwackers vs. Head Shrinkers. I was really into that as a kid. And then fast forward 5 or 6 years I kinda lapsed from wrestling, and then was soooo into Austin, the Corporation, DX. I was so into Austin vs. Vince, and Austin was just a brawler at that point in his career, Vince obvious wasn't a truly trained wrestler at all (I mean, sure he was trained, but he largely brawled and had schmozzes, took finishers, had guys run interference). And neither of those guys, for the most part, were injuring themselves in their rivalry and yet it was probably *the* rivalry in the 2nd half of the 90s, and the rivalry that kinda went onto define wrestling for in the decade around it. Though to be fair the Austin vs. McMahon feud was similar to, like, babyface vs. Heenan in the 80s/early 90s, where Heenan basically just had a faction and the babyface would wrestle Heenans top guy, and eventually "get to Heenan" but it usually wasn't a proper match. Still, like I didn't really care that Austin put down Big Bossman, I cared that Austin put down bossman because Bossman was representing McMahon.
Meanwhile there have been tons of great workers who have come and gone, some truly amazing matches, but i didn't get into them as much as I did the well told character driven matches.
I think often a great match will get mixed up as ... like ... a spotfest or a high spot crazy match. And, I don't think you need to do that. I think you can build a great match, and get the crowd super invested with it being a slow match. Bob Bachlund vs. Bret Hart feud from the 90s is a good example of a move that is utterly harmless when applied by Bachlund but was just soooo fucking over because of how they built it through the "CrAzY MiStEr Backlund" character. Bob had the crossface for ages as his finisher, but it was most over when you thought it was this devastating move and Mr. Backlund was just too crazy, too unpredictable to let go of it, would end your career because he lost his mind. 3 years before, Backlund might get the crossface on a jobber but nobody really care until it was matched up with his Mr. Backlund madman persona.
But again, can't have one or the other, you need both. My most memorable feuds -- the multi-year odyssey of Bret vs. Owen -- were both, great in-ring workers, but also great storytellers who knew how to work the crowd in and out of a match.
The whole point of wrestling is to have both in a way. It's like going to see a broadway play and the main stars can sing but can't act or dance. The idea is to have a mix.
I guess if I'd *have* to go with one, it's storyline and characters. Al Snow gives has this YouTube video from his wrestling school talking about how to build a rivalry around 2 moves, the DDT and the figure four, and like... You don't need to be doing backflips and those suicide reverse piledrivers from the top rope, you can build a legitimate great match and rivalry if you both guys have a move that is over. As he describes it, the heat gets built for this through creative storytelling -- "The DDT is banned!" -- or "the guy broke his ankle and can't puyt in the figure four!" Those are storyline elements that lend weight to the maneuvers. In the 2000s the DDT became a boring move, you'd have to add some twist -- top rope spinning DDT -- to get the crowd to care, because every schmo did a DDT and it was no big deal. Guys today do these stand-up DDTs with their bodies straight in the air, and the crowd pops for the spectacle and performance of the sell, but nobody thinks that it's going to put the guy away because he's standing up doing a Frankensteiner 2 moves later.
But go watch the ... `91 or 92 Rumble, where the crowd was fucking ELECTRIC for just the THREAT of a DDT. I don't think Jake Roberts even landed a DDT in that match but he had like 5 guys lined up for it and EVERY TIME the crowd was leaping to their feet to see it. That's done through storytelling and character, and obviously Roberts is an amazing worker and he worked that move so damn well, but it was really built up as devastating primarily through storytelling. I think the Stunner is the same way. It's a move that got built to what it is by storytelling. The first time Austin drops the stunner on Roberts in the King of the Ring and finishes him, the crowd wasn't even really ready for it, nobody was standing up, a few people clapped or lifted their hands. There's nothing devastating looking about the stunner. But then it gets built and built...... and then it's not just the stunner that gets people to pop, it's the KICK before the stunner. A KICK. Austin had a kick over bigger than most other guy's finishers. While Austin was a great tactical wrestler, one of the best of the generation, by the time the stunner was truly over he was a brawler and his matches were usually pretty paroquial heel dominating baby face matches.
Looking back at the era of pro wrestling that I was most into, early 90s, and late 90s. WWF was made for me at those ages. Early 90s I was 8 years old, and so wrapped up in Hogan, legit scared of the monster heels. I non-ironically loved No Holds Barred The Match the Event or whatever it was, rented it multiple times. Was soooo into the monster heels. Savage & Elizabeth vs. Jake Roberts... I was TERRIFIED of Jake Roberts, I thought he was like a legitimately EVIL person, like someone the police should arrest because he's sadistic. That feud was built up around Jake going after Liz to get to Savage, and incidentally that feud is what made the Undertaker a babyface. Lex vs. Yokozuna I was so invested in it. Bushwackers vs. Head Shrinkers. I was really into that as a kid. And then fast forward 5 or 6 years I kinda lapsed from wrestling, and then was soooo into Austin, the Corporation, DX. I was so into Austin vs. Vince, and Austin was just a brawler at that point in his career, Vince obvious wasn't a truly trained wrestler at all (I mean, sure he was trained, but he largely brawled and had schmozzes, took finishers, had guys run interference). And neither of those guys, for the most part, were injuring themselves in their rivalry and yet it was probably *the* rivalry in the 2nd half of the 90s, and the rivalry that kinda went onto define wrestling for in the decade around it. Though to be fair the Austin vs. McMahon feud was similar to, like, babyface vs. Heenan in the 80s/early 90s, where Heenan basically just had a faction and the babyface would wrestle Heenans top guy, and eventually "get to Heenan" but it usually wasn't a proper match. Still, like I didn't really care that Austin put down Big Bossman, I cared that Austin put down bossman because Bossman was representing McMahon.
Meanwhile there have been tons of great workers who have come and gone, some truly amazing matches, but i didn't get into them as much as I did the well told character driven matches.
I think often a great match will get mixed up as ... like ... a spotfest or a high spot crazy match. And, I don't think you need to do that. I think you can build a great match, and get the crowd super invested with it being a slow match. Bob Bachlund vs. Bret Hart feud from the 90s is a good example of a move that is utterly harmless when applied by Bachlund but was just soooo fucking over because of how they built it through the "CrAzY MiStEr Backlund" character. Bob had the crossface for ages as his finisher, but it was most over when you thought it was this devastating move and Mr. Backlund was just too crazy, too unpredictable to let go of it, would end your career because he lost his mind. 3 years before, Backlund might get the crossface on a jobber but nobody really care until it was matched up with his Mr. Backlund madman persona.
But again, can't have one or the other, you need both. My most memorable feuds -- the multi-year odyssey of Bret vs. Owen -- were both, great in-ring workers, but also great storytellers who knew how to work the crowd in and out of a match.
Last edited:
It has to be the best of both worlds, and I don't mean that a single wrestler needs to be perfect at both. I'm talking about a promotion as a whole, you need a diverse roster with a lot to offer.
Having 30 wrasslin' gods with forgettable gimmicks or having 30 folks with entertaining gimmicks who can't wrassle for shit is a no go.
Having 30 wrasslin' gods with forgettable gimmicks or having 30 folks with entertaining gimmicks who can't wrassle for shit is a no go.
This take... what?
Their match vs Hangman/Omega was easily MotY in 2020. Their Golden Lovers match is one of the best tag matches ever. Their ladder match against Cole/O'Reilly and The Smash Bros in PWG is still like the gold standard of indy ladder matches.
I don't know how you can say they just do flippy stuff.
It ideally should be a mix of both. Nowadays, now that WWE has driven me away, good matches are the focus for me more than the characters ruined by their weekly booking. Wrestling is at it's best when there's something for everyone - 5 star classics, 2 big dudes clubbering each other, a vicious brawl, a bit of comedy, serious characters, goofy characters, promos. A nice big mash up of stuff.
Doesn't really matter how good of a story you tell if when we get to the actual match I'm looking at my phone. At some point you have to get into the ring and DO something.
There's no logic to their matches. It's just a crescendo of moves with no reason on why they get there.
Why do a flip to spike a tombstone pile driver? There's no reason why you would do this OTHER than being flashy.
Yeah, I'm with you there -- I long stopped saying they "suck". They're really good at what they do, but what they do isn't for me.
Omega and Ibushi could wrestle a broom for a 30 minute ironman classic.
That aside, and honestly without snark intended here, you're the one who said "their matches are a just bunch of flips"! You also praised their character and storytelling work, and I disagreed with the praise.
I was saying that their matches are more than flippy stuff. There's nothing but character work and storytelling in their matches. Again, just because they do flippy stuff doesn't mean that's all their matches are.
I believe it's both but a good story or character elevates a good wrestling match. Pro wrestling is built on the storytelling adding more to a match. For example, Sasha Banks/Bayley fought more than once after their Takeover matches. They're technically good matches but no one cared because the story wasn't there. Fast forward to last year when the payoff actually happened and ended up with a fantastic blowup to their feud.
I love a good technical showcase as I imagine a lot of us do but the characters and players involved are essential.
I love a good technical showcase as I imagine a lot of us do but the characters and players involved are essential.
The Bucks do flash because the Rock 'n' Roll Express did flash, and that was their inspiration. The flash is literally part of their character. That's why both of the things in the OP are intertwined.
Where is the both option? Push comes to shove, I'm taking storylines and charisma. But the storyline has to function both in and out of ring for it to really work. No-context technical showcases are boring af. I need some level of investment in the characters involved.
LMAO
btw, that was a tables match??
that sounds dangerous, both of them can't wrestle
Wrestling is at its best when that impressive technical match is supported by a story and characters you care about. Both are essential.
I like both and think shows and PPVs should have both. A card filled with 60 minute broadways once a week on TV would get old and tiring. If you have nothing but zany characters and comedy sketches than you can't really get invested into these people or care about in outcomes cause it's all a joke and nothing matters.
A good mix of both, although I'm mostly into the athletic side of things since I grew up with high flying lucha libre. Good character development in-ring is amazing, and some of the best matches ive seen that have stuck with me manage to blend both things amazingly.
If I had to choose I guess, I'd rather watch bland people do flippy shit than the most hilarious and entertaining talker be shit in the ring.
If I had to choose I guess, I'd rather watch bland people do flippy shit than the most hilarious and entertaining talker be shit in the ring.
You really do need both and to those that say you can't are crazy.
I say I prefer matches more than characters but I also can't watch NXT anymore because I just can't for the life of me care about who's on-screen. And I say this as a Johnny Gargano fan, and that match he's gonna have against Kushida is gonna be fuckin fire.
Idk wrestling's weird and the more you try to find the FORMULA of what you like about it, the more likely you're just gonna have your eyes roll to the back of your head. I've had this conversation with myself many times throughout my life but at the end of the day; what's good is good. There's room for what everyone likes.
This might sound weird but honestly the surprise factor of a great match happening in front of your eyes is one of the things I like about wrestling. There's a FOMO factor to me in AEW or New Japan (RIP sleeping schedule) that's why I think watching shit live, is the preferred way to do it. Whenever I say, "holy shit these guys or girls are going at it, what the fuck?!" in the moment and I had zero expectations going in, that's the shit I live for.
That maybe the key actually, no expectations. Not just wrestling but in life.
I say I prefer matches more than characters but I also can't watch NXT anymore because I just can't for the life of me care about who's on-screen. And I say this as a Johnny Gargano fan, and that match he's gonna have against Kushida is gonna be fuckin fire.
Idk wrestling's weird and the more you try to find the FORMULA of what you like about it, the more likely you're just gonna have your eyes roll to the back of your head. I've had this conversation with myself many times throughout my life but at the end of the day; what's good is good. There's room for what everyone likes.
This might sound weird but honestly the surprise factor of a great match happening in front of your eyes is one of the things I like about wrestling. There's a FOMO factor to me in AEW or New Japan (RIP sleeping schedule) that's why I think watching shit live, is the preferred way to do it. Whenever I say, "holy shit these guys or girls are going at it, what the fuck?!" in the moment and I had zero expectations going in, that's the shit I live for.
That maybe the key actually, no expectations. Not just wrestling but in life.
Last edited:
I err more on the characterization/storyline side of things. I'd take a compelling story or an interesting character over two generic CAWs doing a five-star match for no reason.
Give me stuff like Mankind, Final Deletion, or Lucha Underground anyday.
Like, Lucha Underground even got me liking John Morrison during his run, for cripe's sake, and all of that was on the basis of the writing. I couldn't give a shit about him in any other promotion.
Give me stuff like Mankind, Final Deletion, or Lucha Underground anyday.
Like, Lucha Underground even got me liking John Morrison during his run, for cripe's sake, and all of that was on the basis of the writing. I couldn't give a shit about him in any other promotion.
Mixed of both. Characters and storyline is what get me invested. WWE has been failing for the last several years building interesting storyline besides a few, but when they, the build up can be amazing.
Cena vs Punk, Daniel Bryan's YES movement, Kofi vs Bryan, Cena vs Styles are probably some of the best storyline WWE had during the past decades. Kofi, despite his run as a champion was shit, the pay off of him winning at Wrestlemania was pretty amazing. Same for Bryan winning at WM30.
Cena vs Punk was a great rivalry, its probably one of the more defining rivalry Cena had besides his rivalry with Edge and Styles.
It also shows in the current road to Wrestlemania how lackluster their current storylines are. While I didn't like Edge winning the RR, there are only a few wrestlers in the current roster that can cut a promo like he does. The only real storyline that keeps me interested is Roman Reign since his Heel run has been fantastic with Heyman.
Cena vs Punk, Daniel Bryan's YES movement, Kofi vs Bryan, Cena vs Styles are probably some of the best storyline WWE had during the past decades. Kofi, despite his run as a champion was shit, the pay off of him winning at Wrestlemania was pretty amazing. Same for Bryan winning at WM30.
Cena vs Punk was a great rivalry, its probably one of the more defining rivalry Cena had besides his rivalry with Edge and Styles.
It also shows in the current road to Wrestlemania how lackluster their current storylines are. While I didn't like Edge winning the RR, there are only a few wrestlers in the current roster that can cut a promo like he does. The only real storyline that keeps me interested is Roman Reign since his Heel run has been fantastic with Heyman.
Where's the both option?
The ironic part is, that match was less than 30 seconds long.
ultimately the matches are what sell tickets and sell PPVs....but wrestling companies dont sell tickets or ppvs anymore, so maybe i am just behind the times
All about the matches. If the matches are not good then why am I watching? The first time I saw All Japan Pro wrestling back in the 90'a was when I realised pro wrestling doesn't have to be some wacky product with soap opera storylines.
If the bouts are good I'll watch it just like I'll watch any other combat sport.
If the bouts are good I'll watch it just like I'll watch any other combat sport.
It's the matches. Promos come second. Storylines should be intertwined within the framework of the match and the build. Goofy characters, gimmicks, all that stuff is icing on the cake, not the main course.
I always put more importance on character and theatre with this stuff than technical skill.
Like, I recognize that Brett Hart is an incredible performer, but give me classic Undertaker any day of the week. if I don't care about the character performing the wrestling, then I don't care how good he is while he's doing it. It has no meaning or hooks for me.
Like, I recognize that Brett Hart is an incredible performer, but give me classic Undertaker any day of the week. if I don't care about the character performing the wrestling, then I don't care how good he is while he's doing it. It has no meaning or hooks for me.
A bit of both. I feel like current wrestling is more "Arcady" and less "Sim" like it was in the 80's and 90's.
Why not both? I think the best matches can tell a story in-ring without a single word spoken.
If I had to pick one, it would be in-ring work. But both are very important.
If I had to pick one, it would be in-ring work. But both are very important.
Last edited:
Wrestling is good when you care about who wins and the wrestlers involved make you believe they care about winning. That's it.
Both but something that's equally important is the ability to sell which sadly its getting more and more ignored. You should feel the importance of every hit to get behind a match, if you see 100 superkicks and false knockouts it just takes away from it. I might be in minority but a lot of people advised the Bucks vs Omega and Hangman as a great match, especially for the Golden Trigger on Omega and his reaction and It blew my mind that he not only acted like it was nothing but got up pissed and started fighting back, thats totally anime fuckery and it makes everything look bad, almost as Warrior not selling the pedigree bad
The characters that can give a good match. Charisma is great, it's why I follow some wrestlers on Twitter, even though I haven't watched wrestling for about 4 years. But if the wrestling itself is boring, well, that's why I fell off, with Vince's keeping the good wrestlers down, and all the injuries that that kind of wrestling causes.
A great match, and I think the people saying "charisma, storyline, etc." totally don't understand the meaning of a "great match". Because they need a good story and yes, charisma from the participants, to be great.
That doesn't automatically mean "Insert NJPW/AJPW match". It means whatever that constitutes within the promotion's style.
A great match in isolation can draw anyone in, without them even knowing the context. But the context can further elevate it. That takes making an in ring story worth watching.
That doesn't automatically mean "Insert NJPW/AJPW match". It means whatever that constitutes within the promotion's style.
A great match in isolation can draw anyone in, without them even knowing the context. But the context can further elevate it. That takes making an in ring story worth watching.
On topic:
I want Bret Hart. Stories told in the ring. Not spot fests and goody promos.
Damien Sandow and Elias are examples of people who can get over with gimmicks but end up ruining themselves because they can't translate that charisma to the ring. It's not so much technical ability but no sense of in ring storytelling, they are incredibly vanilla. Someone like Santino is an example of someone who could bridge the comedy charismatic gimmick with in ring storytelling.
Goldberg, Warrior, and Sandman are examples of people who pretty much had no real technical ability but got over with pure manic charisma, in ring and out of it. Goldberg could do 2 moves in a 30 second match and come out more over than ever.
Then you have your Dean Malenkos who are lauded for their technical ability but held back by their lack of charisma and on screen presence.
The fanbase becoming more niche, hardcore, and insular means the Goldberg types don't really work like they used to. The Malenkos get more support but they can't draw in the wider casual audience. The Damien Sandows are the same as ever, straddling in between everything.
I think the Attitude era had a lot more people who could translate their gimmicks into an in ring storytelling product, making up for their lack of "work rate". Too Cool could pop the crowd like no other, no one talks about Scotty 2 Hotty ever having barn burner matches but goddamn did the crowd get up when he hit The Worm or when Rikishi put his ass in someone's face.
Goldberg, Warrior, and Sandman are examples of people who pretty much had no real technical ability but got over with pure manic charisma, in ring and out of it. Goldberg could do 2 moves in a 30 second match and come out more over than ever.
Then you have your Dean Malenkos who are lauded for their technical ability but held back by their lack of charisma and on screen presence.
The fanbase becoming more niche, hardcore, and insular means the Goldberg types don't really work like they used to. The Malenkos get more support but they can't draw in the wider casual audience. The Damien Sandows are the same as ever, straddling in between everything.
I think the Attitude era had a lot more people who could translate their gimmicks into an in ring storytelling product, making up for their lack of "work rate". Too Cool could pop the crowd like no other, no one talks about Scotty 2 Hotty ever having barn burner matches but goddamn did the crowd get up when he hit The Worm or when Rikishi put his ass in someone's face.
True but I need it to be physical. It being a work is irrelevant to me. I watch boxing and used to be big into k-1 and pride fc. I need see pro wrestlers actually try and make it look like a contest and not a rehearsed act.
Ultimately you need both though. I missed that era (on purpose), but my friends were wrestling fans back then. They all told me that if Goldberg went past the "time" he usually did for his matches, it was garbage. The hype was the gimmick--come down, have a two minute squash match, leave. Try to have a "wrestling" match with him and it'd be garbage.
I've been listening to retro reviews for Ultimate Warrior--a lot of his TV matches were garbage too, because he was bad. Charisma can only get you so far, workrate can only get you so far.
Which is why Brock v. Goldberg at Wrestlemania a few years back was the match of the night by a mile.
Characters and storylines for sure. While a higher work rate can be great, who cares about guys like Neville, Richochet, and all the flippity floppity Indy guys. They have zero personality. In the end I personally don't care who can be better at fake fighting or put on better fake matches.
If you're just good enough with decent ring psychology, you can go far as an over the top personality or charisma. Guys like Hogan, Rock, Cena, etc have gotten away with very limited movesets.
If you're just good enough with decent ring psychology, you can go far as an over the top personality or charisma. Guys like Hogan, Rock, Cena, etc have gotten away with very limited movesets.
Mic skill almost exclusively. The wrestling part of wrestling hasn't appealed to me since I was a kid. It's all a blur. But personalities, gimmicks and etc are all interesting to me.
I'd watch a 4 minute 2000 Raw match over these 20 minute Raw/nXt/Smackdown matches any day.
I'd watch a 4 minute 2000 Raw match over these 20 minute Raw/nXt/Smackdown matches any day.
