Are the criteria for what makes a great wrestler subjective?

[Kris Benwa]

Is wrestling skill subjective?

For me I never saw it as such it was always if you can consistently put on great matches then you're a great wrestler. This question came to me during a debate with a typical Cena hater. He was saying Cena sucks in the ring and that he's never enjoyed a Cena match. Thus making Cena a bad wrestler and when I explained to him why I felt that was wrong he said wrestling skill is subjective. Personally if you tell me you've never enjoyed a Cena match I either think you're a liar or don't know very much about wrestling. With that being said it got me thinking on matches that a lot of people like that I don't find to be great matches.

The most recent example of this is the Punk vs Undertaker match from WrestleMania 29. To me it's a good match but not near the match of the year or even as good as any Streak matches since WM 24. While I didn't enjoy the match more than other people I wouldn't say either one is a bad wrestler. This would mean that match quality is subjective but not particularly wrestling skill right?

Does what appeals to you in a wrestling match determine how you view a wrestler's skill? For me matches aren't about doing a ton of moves or having a lot of spots I prefer two guys going at it telling a great story inside the squared circle. Something I feel Cena, Punk, and Taker respectively are three of the best at. However I enjoy the great matches that are high spots and I enjoy matches that focus more so on technical wrestling than a story I just prefer a good story.

With all this being said I understand that match quality is subjective and what appeals to a person changes from individual to individual, but is wrestling skill as far as what makes a wrestler a great one subjective? Or is it just what I always thought: If you're putting on good-great matches consistently then you must be a great wrestler?

Thoughts on this?
Why do you think the way you do?
I'd also be interested on if anything in this thread may have given you a new perspective on things.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

To one degree or another, everything about pro wrestling is subjective.

If professional wrestling relied on being a world class mat grappler & technician like Thesz, Gagne, Hodge or Angle as the measuring stick for being a "great wrestler", then pro wrestling probably would've gone out of business a long time ago. Hulk Hogan would've been laughed out of the arena in his first match. There's in-ring ability, athleticism and crowd interest that are the three major component of what makes a "great wrestler", at least as far as professional wrestling goes. Hands down, the most important of these is crowd interest because if you can't make the fans interested in what you're doing, then it doesn't matter if you have a body that looks like it's carved out of solid granite, a face like a movie star or what sort of in-ring skill you have. If you can't connect with the crowd, then all the athletic ability and good looks in the world won't make you a success. Daniel Bryan's athletic, he's loaded with in-ring ability and he's easily the most over babyface in wrestling right now. Does he have as good of a "look" as someone like Cena or Orton or Ziggler? Can't say that he does, but that interaction & interest he has from fans, the fact that they WANT to cheer for him and watch what he's doing is the single most important task of any wrestler, especially if that wrestler is in the main event.

If someone just simply isn't into a wrestler for whatever reason, then that's just how they look at the guy. There are people who'll claim that John Cena isn't a great wrestler and no argument will persuade them because they simply just don't like the guy. I'm not a mega fan of Cena or anything but, in my opinion, the guy's a damn good professional wrestler. The crowd is always interested in whatever he's doing, otherwise he wouldn't be making tons of money for WWE and if he wasn't making tons of money for WWE, he wouldn't be in the spot he's been in for nearly 10 years. He obviously has a good deal of athletic ability with a great look and he's had FAR, FAR too many strong matches with FAR too many opponents over the years for me to think that he can't put on entertaining matches. For instance, if someone thought his match with Cesaro a few months ago on Raw was crap, then there's simply no hope of convincing them otherwise and I seriously have to question their tastes. You don't even have to be a fan of John Cena to think that was a great match.

 

[Bernkastel]

Not necessarily. There are subjective and objective ways of viewing how great a wrestler is. For example I'll use my favorite wrestler Kane, and one of my friends favorite Shawn Michaels...

To me Kane has a better character than Shawn. He's more charismatic. He has a better moveset. He has a more appealing entrance and presence. He's more audacious. These are subjective criteria because any Michaels fan could easily argue the opposite. And rightfully so.

To be objective you have to look at drawing power, influence, and legacy. It's pretty obvious that Shawn was a bigger draw than Kane. At one point he had the whole company built around him. Kane has always been an upper mid card guy, but never has he been the top guy or face of the company. Michaels also has a bigger legacy, with more classic matches and more meaningful title reigns. I love me some Kane versus Snitsky but that doesn't stack up to Shawn versus Bret.

Looking within kayfabe itself and analyzing it also objective. The wins and loses themselves don't matter. You have to ask yourself why they matter. I feel that you have to ask yourself why are they significant. Why was Kane booked to have a one day title reign? Why was he never booked to be the face of the company? Why was Shawn given so many other opportunities? These aren't subjective questions.

From a subjective standpoint I may fancy Kane as being the better wrestler, but objectively Michaels was the better wrestler.

 

[bko]

Subjective, yes... If this were a real competitive sport you could base this off statistics but its not, so since this is only (Athletic)entertainment the best wrestler is based off who you the individual enjoy watching the most in the Arena or on TV and invest the most time individually.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

From a fans perspective, yes. "who's the best in the ring" "who's the best brawler" etc.

However, from a promoter's standpoint, it's fairly objective. If you were to put an add out for a pro wrestler, what would you put as job qualifications and expectations? I'd put:
1. Safe in the ring
2. Draws money

That's really it. If you draw money, and you're safe in the ring, you're good.

 

[Jaiye]

The criteria for being a great wrestler in my opinion is in-ring ability, an intriguing and adaptable wrestling persona, and the ability to make people care about whatever it is you're doing whether it be waiting and anticipating all of your promos like many do with Bray Wyatt now or putting on a great and exciting match such as wrestlers like Shawn Michaels.
With that being said, John Cena has proven that he has all of those qualities except one: adaptability. That is the reason people chant Cena sucks and say he isn't good. That is what will spark many individuals to look back over his career and say ehh, he's not that great because he just does the same thing over and over again. I myself, think Cena is a good wrestler, otherwise he wouldn't have been around this long, but his character right now is stale and wrestling fans can be vicious. If they don't like you today, a lot of them will act like they never liked you in the first place.

Anyways, I'm doing a project for my last college course ever on the perceptions of female professional wrestlers. If anyone would like to help me out and take the survey below, I would really appreciate it.

https://qtrial2014.az1.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_7PTdpnqEHlwJ0Pz

 

[Meth Head]

Cena is good where it counts, which is the ability to work a match and tell a good story. That makes him a good worker. His skill as a wrestler is another matter altogether. Fourteen years in the business and he still the shittiest dropkick I've ever seen, and the most awkward STF known to man.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

Cena is good where it counts, which is the ability to work a match and tell a good story. That makes him a good worker. His skill as a wrestler is another matter altogether. Fourteen years in the business and he still the shittiest dropkick I've ever seen, and the most awkward STF known to man.

Ultimately too though, isn't your crediblity in judging technique pretty low? I mean, you don't actually know how to do all the moves. For a guy his size, who's afraid to back bump because of his neck injury, it's not pretty bad.

I know (vaguely) how to take a bump. Flair took the shittiest bumps.

Somewhat of a side discussion that made me think about, how can fans who don't know how to actually perform the moves critique technique?

 

[Meth Head]

Somewhat of a side discussion that made me think about, how can fans who don't know how to actually perform the moves critique technique?

You don't need to be a baker to tell if the bread sucks. Know what I mean?