Jump to content

what makes a great wrestler


E2K
 Share

Recommended Posts

there's a very simple equation that every wrestling fan knows:

 

good athleticism + good ring skills + good mike skills + good gimmick

= good wrestler

 

Actually, all those things amount to a LEGEND. Cos there's very few guys that have it all. Rock, Stone Cold, Angle,etc, the guys who have risen to dominate the business and attain legend status. But they're gone now. Which brings me to the present.

 

I don't know about the rest of you but I'm lowering my expectations as of now. Anybody who does even one part of the above equation well is alright with me. Cos us wrestling fans are hard to please most of the time. Benoit's not a worthy champ cos he cant talk. He's too small. He's also one of the finest ring technicians of his generation. Jericho is too inconsistent and his gimmick is old. He's also very entertaining. Eddie's gimmick is just a racial stereotype. But he plays it really well and is also a damn fine wrestler. Cena has a lot to learn in the ring and he's no rapper. But he's damn funny. HHH is a shadow of his former self, he's slow in the ring, his promos are boring and he's too selfish in the ring . . . . . true, true.

 

The fact is, there's no wrestler left today thats fresh all the time, or that wrestles great matches all the time. So from now on I'm gonna just appreciate whats good instead of criticising wrestlers for what they lack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


What about good in-ring psychology?

 

Mick Foley never had good athleticism and I wouldn't say Ric Flair ever did - yet I would consider Ric Flair to be more of a 'legend' than Rock, Austin and Kurt Angle. Rock, Angle and Austin I would not consider to be legends.....yet.

 

I would say that the three things below are the most important:

 

Psychology (In and Out of the ring)

Charisma

Bumping

 

The Rock wasn't a good in-ring worker. He was a good bumper, had immense charisma and good in ring psychology. Rock was carried to his best matches by Triple H, Mick Foley and Austin.

 

Steve Austin could have been the 'next' Ric Flair had his neck not packed in circa 1997 and perhaps the same goes for Kurt Angle.

 

I don't think gimmicks are that important. Ok, if you get saddled with a Russo-esque gimmick, your career is done. The best gimmicks are the gimmicks that aren't really gimmicks :lol.

 

Look at Flair - he did used to go and party every night with the horsemen and buy Armani suits and sleep with loads of women.

 

Look at Foley - his characters were all based on feelings and moods that Foley was having at the time.

 

Austin - is a redneck who drinks beer.

 

Angle - Did win a gold medal and is rightly arrogant about that fact.

 

Bret Hart - Let his wrestling be his 'gimmick'. Why don't they just stick a leather jacket on Lance Storm?

 

So in short - Psychology, Bumping and Charisma.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony Clifton has pretty much hit the nail on the head with his post.

 

I think the main attribute is charisma, which people like Rock, Angle, Stone Cold, Hitman and HHH have in bucketloads. John Cena and Shelton Benjamin are the next big stars if you follow that line.

 

Gimmicks are probably the worst thing you can have. As Tony mentioned above, none of the stars he listed were given a gimmick (well, a charachter defining gimmick), they were just amplified versions of their natural selves.

 

As for what seperates the wheat from the chaff, I think a major part is unpredictability. There are only a few wrestlers who I want to see week in-week out because they may:

 

Lose unexpectedly, perform a massive spot that's out of character, squash a rival in minutes, or have a 20 minute marathon match with someone they're expected to squash (Undertaker vs Jeff Hardy).

 

If I'm watching RVD or Booker T, chances are I'll switch over or grab a beer or something: They (RVD especially) perform the same matches every week, same moves, same order. Same stupid Spin-a-rooney.

 

With guys like Rey Mysterio, Benoit, HHH, Matt Hardy, Jericho and Foley, they will go through their repertoire of moves and bumps but are not afraid to lose if the role needs it. They will do something extra, or something we're not expecting, to make their match more exciting. These are the guys I want to watch every week, not RVD.

 

Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to clarify, I didn't mean gimmick in the classic sense e.g a mad dentist, a garbage man, etc. I meant the way Angle is the arrogant olympic medalist, stone cold is the beer swilling redneck, etc. Which, in fact, as Tony quite rightly alluded to, are just amplifications of their own non-wrestling personae. In fact its fair to say that, the vast majority of the time, the best gimmick is no gimmick at all. Undertaker is really the only classic gimmick left.

 

The thing that draws me to wrestling is the crowd interaction, that it draws a reaction from you when you're watching it even if you dont want it to. Its the mark of a great wrestler to do that, to make you laugh or get mad or stay in on a friday night cos you're so damn anxious to see what happens next. But I also like to see a good match, Athletic prowess aint neccessarily gonna make that happen but it helps. Heres the way I rank it:

1. Psychology (how they bring the crowd into play)

2. In-ring ability (how they put a match together, including bumps, arsenal of moves, etc)

3. Charisma (including mike skills, conveyance of emotions, etc)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The Rock wasn't a good in-ring worker. He was a good bumper, had immense charisma and good in ring psychology. Rock was carried to his best matches by Triple H, Mick Foley and Austin.

 

 

I don't think Rock was the best in ring worker but I wouldn't say he was bad, far from it, especially if you watch matches like his match against Lesnar, which in that match it was totally the other way around.

 

IMO the Rock is probably thee greatest athlete (with acception to Lesnar) the wwe had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Rock was the best in ring worker but I wouldn't say he was bad, far from it, especially if you watch matches like his match against Lesnar, which in that match it was totally the other way around.

 

IMO the Rock is probably thee greatest athlete (with acception to Lesnar) the wwe had.

 

I didn't say he was bad. He was just 'carriable' to good matches - like I said, he is a good bumper with good psychology.

 

As for The Rock being the greatest athlete WWE had apart from Lesnar? Give me a break.

 

What about Kurt Angle and the rest?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well that's just my opinion! and just because you don't agree doesn't mean I'm gonna change my mind. Trust me' date=' I'm not the only who thinks Rock is arguably the most athletic wrestler.[/quote']

 

I appreciate your opinion mate and believe me, there is no way I'd try to change it. :xyx

 

There is no doubt that Rock can work and the match he and Lesnar put on at Summerslam made Lesnar look like a star.

 

But we aren't talking about the greatest athlete. We're talking about what makes a good wrestler. Sure Rock is a good athlete - I never doubted that, but he is not a particularly good wrestler.

 

He's not bad - but he's not good either.

 

He's nowhere near, Benoit, Guerrero, Triple H and Austin (in his prime) in terms of in ring ability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, it shocks a lot of people to know that Lesnar is actually probably more agile than The Rock. The guy is shockingly fast for such a big guy, and could probably keep up with The Rock on all accounts of athletisism.

 

And I would never call The Rock the top athlete, when you've got guys like Chris Jericho, Rob Van Dam, Eddie Guerrero, Chavo Guerrero Jr, Rey Mysterio Jr, etc. And The Rock is little more than a brawler. He pulls off some good moves sometimes but stick him in a brawl and he's gonna have a doozie with you. His "wrestling" moves aren't great (and his Sharpshooter is AWFUL), but he's got tonnes of adrenaline and charisma to cover it and make no one really care about his downfalls.

 

The best wrestler/athlete? No.

 

The most adrenalined worker? Possibly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair though it really depends on the style, cause like him or hate him Rock could work the main event style incredibly well, just like the Flair's, Savages, HBK's and that's not technically to do with what style you are, or technique, but more to do with one very important thing, which has been overlooked.

 

Timing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...