The W
Views: 99013815
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
18.9.14 1656
The W - Pro Wrestling - workrate
This thread has 12 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1(13331 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (14 total)
Weevil
Polska kielbasa








Since: 19.3.02
From: Ireland

Since last post: 3180 days
Last activity: 3180 days
#1 Posted on
This keeps coming up, so it should probably get it's own thread.

What is your definition of workrate and how important is it in determining if a wrestler or match is good.

While we are at it what about moveset? Are five moves good enough if well used or does that make for a bad wrestler.
Promote this thread!
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 37 days
Last activity: 37 days
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.42
The number of moves a wrestler uses aren't as important as when and how he uses them. The Rock doesn't have a huge arsenal. Neither does Steve Austin, nor the Undertaker. But they know how to time it so that the moves they use have the maximum impact.

For heels, they generally need more moves available then faces, because a heel spends most of the match in control, while a babyface only needs his two or three big moves to make a comeback and win.



Caring is the first step towards disappointment.
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 50 days
Last activity: 19 hours
AIM:  
#3 Posted on
To me workrate comes down to two things:

1- How good do the moves look or sound or seem to be. Everything Chris Benoit does generally looks amazing or painful or sounds wicked. Most of what RVD does is at least cool to watch, even if it doesn't always seem like the most logical thing to do in a fight. Most of what Hulk Hogan does looks very silly and extremely unharmful.

2- How good is the worker at keeping the match flowing well. Again, Benoit matches generally tend to avoid any sort of lag, as even the rest holds tend to be exciting or interesting because of the first factor. Here someone like Rock is better than he is on the first thing, as his matches generally have a decent pace to them, as he doesn't tend to need any long rest bits or sections that have no real flow to them. Perhaps this could be best summed up by saying it's the exact opposite of the Booker T vs. Buff Bagwell match from Raw.

In general, I tend to like wrestlers who excel at minimum of one of the two things. When they excel at both, like Benoit does, I worship the ground they walk on. As for moveset, I dig when wrestlers can vary the moves, and especially enjoy wrestlers with multiple finishing moves.



"You used it to shove your miserable daughter down our throats week in and week out...not anymore!" - Ric Flair gives me hope, Raw 3/18/02

"I thought it was cool how HHH just tossed Jericho out of the ring and made him vanish, possibly into another dimension, at the end of the match." - Dr. Unlikely says the funniest thing I've ever read on Wienerville.

twoelitistsnobs, filling all your bitter pop culture reviewing needs
Weevil
Polska kielbasa








Since: 19.3.02
From: Ireland

Since last post: 3180 days
Last activity: 3180 days
#4 Posted on

    Originally posted by spf2119
    To me workrate comes down to two things:

    1- How good do the moves look or sound or seem to be. Everything Chris Benoit does generally looks amazing or painful or sounds wicked. Most of what RVD does is at least cool to watch, even if it doesn't always seem like the most logical thing to do in a fight. Most of what Hulk Hogan does looks very silly and extremely unharmful.



To me this is execution. for instance the people's elbow is a silly move,but since it's established as meaning something it can be used very effectively and the Rock is definatly doing something, which is workrate, right?
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 50 days
Last activity: 19 hours
AIM:  
#5 Posted on
I'd call the people's elbow part of the second group actually. The spot is an integral part of the match, and it has been able to lead into many different ways for the match to go over time. But really, it IS a silly move, half the time he doesn't even hardly touch the other guy, and for crying out loud it's an elbow drop!



"You used it to shove your miserable daughter down our throats week in and week out...not anymore!" - Ric Flair gives me hope, Raw 3/18/02

"I thought it was cool how HHH just tossed Jericho out of the ring and made him vanish, possibly into another dimension, at the end of the match." - Dr. Unlikely says the funniest thing I've ever read on Wienerville.

twoelitistsnobs, filling all your bitter pop culture reviewing needs
Weevil
Polska kielbasa








Since: 19.3.02
From: Ireland

Since last post: 3180 days
Last activity: 3180 days
#6 Posted on
This comes back to my original point. Some people seem to define workrate as the goodness of the match rather than one factor.

I'm one of many people who really enjoy the Rock's work despite his often lousy execution because he's so good at other things.

The Vile One
Chourico








Since: 3.1.02

Since last post: 4410 days
Last activity: 4287 days
#7 Posted on
I think what makes good workrate, is not just how many moves a wrestler does, but being able to pull them off well, and keep a quick exciting match. A good example is the Lance Storm vs. Edge IC title match at Summerslam 2001. Or the Benoit/Austin WWF title match from Smackdown in Edmonton in May 2001, Bret vs. Owen at Wrestlemania X, or the Sting vs. DDP World title match from Nitro in April of 99.




"It is a strange fate that we suffer so much fear and doubt over so small a thing...such a little thing."
-Boromir
WTF13
Boerewors








Since: 22.1.02

Since last post: 4425 days
Last activity: 4425 days
#8 Posted on
I'm not much of a workrate mark, myself, though I don't like bad wrestling. Workrate doesn't factor much into my enjoyment of a match. To me, charisma is much more important--if you can't make the fans care about the match, it doesn't matter how well you execute the moves. Which is why I'm not quite as sold on Benoit as some people are. Also, if everything you do "looks amazing or painful or sounds wicked" how do you get people to pop for the pivotal moves in the match?

I'd rather see a average wrestler in a good storyline than a great wrestler in a stupid storyline, or in no storyline at all. I'd also rather watch a good talker than a great wrestler. Wrestling isn't real, so I think the moves are secondary so long as they're done properly and safely.



HUSS! HUSS! HUSS!
Travis
Boerewors








Since: 7.3.02
From: Baltimore, MD

Since last post: 4503 days
Last activity: 4439 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
#9 Posted on

    Originally posted by WTF13
    I'm not much of a workrate mark, myself, though I don't like bad wrestling. Workrate doesn't factor much into my enjoyment of a match. To me, charisma is much more important--if you can't make the fans care about the match, it doesn't matter how well you execute the moves. Which is why I'm not quite as sold on Benoit as some people are. Also, if everything you do "looks amazing or painful or sounds wicked" how do you get people to pop for the pivotal moves in the match?

    I'd rather see a average wrestler in a good storyline than a great wrestler in a stupid storyline, or in no storyline at all. I'd also rather watch a good talker than a great wrestler. Wrestling isn't real, so I think the moves are secondary so long as they're done properly and safely.



You must have LOVED the WWF in the early-mid nineties.

Quoth the Sean: "Workrate: the rate at which one works."

Now if you're referring to the QUALITY of work, well that's a different animal.
I prefer to watch a credible match that has the air of competition and/or personal animosity, combined with a reasonable suspension of disbelief. If I want "a good story" I'll go watch a freakin' soap opera.

I'm aware that wrestling is fake- everyone is. A good worker can make me ignore that fact and go "holy shit" despite the fact I know what just occured was both planned and protected.

A good worker can often parlay that into charisma- go back and dig the pops that Benoit used to draw as a face. Check out the heel heat he can garner. It's because even though we all know it's fake, he still comes across as a total badass who's very good at what he does.

Charisma is a part of someone's overall ability as a worker, not a seperate concept. And just like Psychosis can cover for his lack of upper body strength or William Regal can cover for the fact that he can't do topes and planchas, an "uncharismatic" worker can win over a crowd be being GOOD at what he does.

Alternately, one can forgo all of that and fuck the owner's fat daughter. Yep.



Stop pretending you don't wanna be ME.
Randomwrestling: Not only do we actually know who Chris Hamrick is, but we know he sucks!
albert44
Italian








Since: 12.2.02
From: houston , TX

Since last post: 3362 days
Last activity: 3094 days
#10 Posted on
With all this mambo jambo about spots and charisma.(sgh)
I recently purchased the dynamite kid compilation tape-.Included in the tape
is Tom's match with tiger mask(sayama) from Madison square garden. It's amazing-during the
intros-they get absolutely no reaction. But by the final bell, both get a standing ovation from the garden crowd.
And last time i checked neither really worked the crowd. they just worked their asses off..



albert44


EDDY GUERRERO IS MY FAVORITE WRESTLER!!! YEAH HE IS!!!!!
Quezzy
Knackwurst








Since: 6.1.02
From: The Moon

Since last post: 3 hours
Last activity: 3 hours
AIM:  
#11 Posted on
I agree with most of what has been said, but you're forgetting something important. Protecting your opponent, if someone goes out there and makes crisp moves and keeps the flow of the match going but injures his opponent, does not have good workrate. That's why some of the japanese wrestlers who everyone raves about don't have as good a workrate to me, because they are stiff. Really I think the only reason to be stiff is to get a point across to someone if they are screwing up or something, but people who are stiff all the time don't have a good workrate. Someone else has already mentioned Benoit so I'll use him as an example, last year in his match with Stone Cold on Smackdown, he was german suplexing Stone Cold all over the place, I'm sure Stone Cold agreed to it because he knew that Benoit would take care of him. Someone with stiffer suplexes probably would've ended Stone Cold's career.



Lance's Response:

THAT IS AWESOME!
EastCoastAvenger
Bockwurst








Since: 4.1.02
From: Clearwater, FL

Since last post: 1958 days
Last activity: 8 hours
#12 Posted on
Yeah, DEFINITELY important to protect your opponent and not work overly stiff. Then again, make it LOOK like you're killing the guy. Benoit does this very well. Every time I see him go all suplex nuts, I cringe and think he's just KILLING the poor guy, but the only Benoit-caused injury I've heard of is Sabu, and I'm still not sure (to this day) if it was entirely his fault.





There are no facts-only observational postulates in an endlessly regenerative hodgepodge of predictions. Consensus reality requires a fixed frame of reference. In a multilevel, infinite universe, there can be no fixity; thus, no absolute consensus reality. In a relativistic universe, it appears impossible to test the reliability of any expert by requiring him to agree with another expert. Both can be correct, each in his own inertial system.

-Bene Gesserit Azhar Book
WTF13
Boerewors








Since: 22.1.02

Since last post: 4425 days
Last activity: 4425 days
#13 Posted on
I have a tape of that match but never heard anything else about it. What actually happened? Did that really mess up Sabu's career?
I haven't watched that match [if you can call it that...they didn't even really start] in a while but if I recall it correctly it was sort of a freak accident thing--or maybe the mistake was made in positioning.

I agree you should look like you're killing the guy if it's an important part of the match, but I think if you do that every single move it loses its intended effect. The only time people should do that is if it's a squash match, and they don't really do those anymore.


My favorite time period in wrestling is the 80s NWA. Aside from a few people [Steamboat, mainly], the workrate definitely was not what it became in the 90s, but the matches were better, because the wrestlers had more charisma and made you care about what was going on in the ring.

Of course part of that is because feuds lasted longer, and titles meant something...neither of which is the case today. I guess if we can't have that, we might as well have workrate, but I think workrate without storytelling might as well be figure skating.



HUSS! HUSS! HUSS!
Rudy
Polska kielbasa








Since: 3.1.02

Since last post: 4347 days
Last activity: 4336 days
#14 Posted on
I try not to use the word "workrate". It's so vague that it's essentially meaningless.

When I see someone else use that term, I expect to be treated to their opinion about whether or not they enjoy the work of a particular wrestler. Which may be something that a majority of people agree with, or not.

I would guess that at one point a "good workrate" meant that a wrestler could carry on a match with few lulls, restholds, or dead spots, and still tell a well-paced story that isn't just a spotfest.

However, since it's a subjective call, using the word "rate" as part of the term is a bit wrong. "Rate" implies an objective standard with scientific criteria for measurement.

So it's a bit of a bogus term, although when doled out as a compliment to an obviously talented worker, you can't really argue with it.

Some people prefer to use terms like that instead of saying things like "I tend to enjoy ______'s matches because they always entertain me."

Essentially:

"Good workrate" = exciting worker who's fun to watch

"Bad workrate" = boring worker who's not fun to watch, usually a buddy or loyal stooge of Mr. McMahon.

Later, Rudy
Pages: 1Thread ahead: Maven's Future
Next thread: WWF Desire
Previous thread: Lance Storm , cruiserweight?
(13331 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
TKG: This show sucked ass. Worse one of these we watched. It completely wore me out. An hour and five minutes in, it felt like I had been watching RAW for 12 hours. ing . After this show I gladly watched 2003 Steve Williams vs.
The W - Pro Wrestling - workrateRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.434 seconds.