How do you determine what a "good" professional wrestler is

[Blue Chipper]

There's several criteria someone could exercise to decide what a good wrestler is. You could judge the quality of a wrestler by what and how many manuevers he or she utilizes. You could judge it on their drawing aptitudes. You could judge the rank of a wrestler by their use of phycology. Or, you could even judge them based off of how well their look, persona, and gimmck are.

I decided to make this thread because there's no concrete definition of what actually makes a professional wrestler good - it's so subjective. Everyone has their personal preference and method for picking their favorite wrestler, so how do you personally decide the quality of a wrestler?

 

[Razor]

No, actually. There is a set criteria of what makes a *Professional Wrestler* good.

Pro wrestling is all about getting the crowd to pay money for tickets and merchandise and PPVs. Not about putting on a 5 star match, not about big spots, not about putting on an hour of chain wrestling. It's about getting that crowd to care.

Your criteria of "how many maneuvers a wrestler knows" is immaterial. You need that crowd to get involved. A crowd isn't going to know what to do if you don't bring along a story. Try it. Have Jericho just slap the Walls of Jericho onto a jobber. No crowd is going to care. There's gotta be a fight. A real fight for the crowd to care. That jobber has to put on a fight, he's gotta look like he's in agony. Jericho has to work on that leg for a while before he puts on the Walls of Jericho and really bend his back and legs so that it looks like he's really putting the jobber in pain. Wrestlers need to put on a play, so that the crowd can follow.

Think of it this way. In Romeo & Juliet, Mercutio gets stabbed by Tybalt whilst Tybalt is trying to fight Romeo. Mercutio tries to break up the fight, Tybalt stabs him, Romeo gets pissed off and fucks Tybalt's day up. If Shakespeare were to start the 3rd act with Tybalt walking up and stabbing Mercutio for no reason, the crowd would be epically confused. Why would he do that? Mercutio getting into the middle of a fight gives a reason for his death, and the crowd can rightfully feel bad for Mercutio, who was simply trying to protect his friend.


Now, Face and Heel psychology. The crowd cares about faces and their eternal struggle against the bad guys. It's always Superman vs. Lex Luthor, and the crowd always wants Superman to win. In the Hogan days it was The Immortal Hulk Hogan fighting all those wimpy, unpatriotic non-men. In the Attitude Era it was Steve Austin fighting his asshole of a boss. In this new Post-Attitude Era, it's Cena and Triple H standing up against the crazy Orton. The crowd gets behind these characters because they identify with the Face personas, and want them to beat out the Heels. Psychology is integral to this. Without proper heel/face psychology the crowd won't know who's face or heel.

Their look, their persona, their gimmick, the amount of maneuvers they use are immaterial. If the wrestler can grasp the heel or face psychology and get the crowd to get into the match (either for or against them. The heel wants them booing him, and the face wants him cheering him) then they've done their job as Professional Wrestlers, and they deserve their paycheck. If a wrestler can do fancy flips, a hundred moves, and has the perfect look, but can't get the crowd into the match he blows as a Professional Wrestler, and should lose his job.

 

[Nate DaMac]

Good question. To me, it is all about execution. If you are a power based wrestler, you have to be able to properly execute power wrestling moves. Same as a high flyer or a brawler. If you do what you are supposed to do, you are a good wrestler IMO. If you wanna be able to be a star, its another story. You don't have to be great on the mic, but it helps. Hell your wrestling skills don't even matter that much, it's all about crowd connection. If you can make the fans give a fuck about you, you will likely have a spot on the top of the card.

 

[Miko]

I determine a good pro wrestler as a guy that entertains me the most, but if I had to choose criteria it would be the ability to make people care. Say what you want about some of those so called underrated mat wrestlers or whatever, nobody else cares, so they suck as professional wrestlers.

I dont really understand story telling or psychology but I guess that they go hand in hand with making people give a shit, so if people care about whether you win or lose then your good at your job.

 

[gd]

A good professional wrestler is one that's interesting. I don't care if you can do 1 billion moves in the ring, if you're boring I don't care. You have to be able to make a match interesting, take punishment in addition to dishing it out. Good wrestlers are ones that the crowd either boos or cheers strongly because they make the fans care.

In addition to being interesting in the ring, you have to be interesting on the mic for me to give a shit. You can do the craziest moves in the ring, but if you're a monotone on the mic you never are going to be successful, at least in American pro wrestling.

Ring ability, mic work, the look, and overall ability to entertain all determine whether or not I think that someone is a "good" pro wrestler.

 

[GSM]

From a fans perspective a guy who has charisma, great in ring skills, mic skills and overall convincing acting skills is considered a good professional wrestler.

From the businnes perspective a guy who draws money and doesn´t hurt anyone and doesn´t get hurt is considered a good pro wrestler.

For example Ric Flair is/was a professional wrestler who was considerer good or even better by the fans and by the companies he was working for.

While Bret Hart was over with the fans and had charisma but didn´t draw enough money or very much money.

 

[Uncle Sam]

The most objective perspective you can have - short of being, well, omniscient - is, as Mr. Foxxy has always said, how much wrestlers draw, the merchandise they sell and, simply put, how much money they make. The more money they make, the better they are as a wrestler.

I think that point of view has many noticeable flaws, but it's probably the best one you're gonna find.

As for how I determine what a good professional wrestler is... well, I'll let you in on a secret. I have a list of 65 criteria. Before I sit down and watch a show, I print off these criteria and stick them on a clipboard. I watch the show and tick off how many criteria certain wrestlers fulfil. Depending on how many they fulfil, I give them a grade. John Cena, for example, is a grade B, having fulfilled fifty-three. John Morrison, on the other hand, is a grade E, fulfilling only twenty of my requirements.

 

[ztwhite]

The most objective perspective you can have - short of being, well, omniscient - is, as Mr. Foxxy has always said, how much wrestlers draw, the merchandise they sell and, simply put, how much money they make. The more money they make, the better they are as a wrestler.

I think that point of view has many noticeable flaws, but it's probably the best one you're gonna find.

As for how I determine what a good professional wrestler is... well, I'll let you in on a secret. I have a list of 65 criteria. Before I sit down and watch a show, I print off these criteria and stick them on a clipboard. I watch the show and tick off how many criteria certain wrestlers fulfil. Depending on how many they fulfil, I give them a grade. John Cena, for example, is a grade B, having fulfilled fifty-three. John Morrison, on the other hand, is a grade E, fulfilling only twenty of my requirements.

Any chance we can get that criteria posted for all of our viewing pleasures ??

Do the same 65 apply to the ladies as well ?? How about Hornswoggle ??

My response is much the same as others - how much am I entertained.

But I don't care if it's in the ring or on the mic - I want to be entertained.

I like Santino because he's funny - that's entertaining.

I like HHH because he's a bad ass - that's entertaining.

I like the Miz because he has charisma - that's entertaining.

Unfortunately, wrestling really is entertainment. It's not about the in ring performances anymore. I don't think I could sit through a wrestling match from the 1930's where a guy was placed in an arm bar for 45 minutes until he couldn't take the pain anymore. How's that entertaining ?

Wrestling is like a movie, a concert, a baseball game or a date with your girlfriend. All of those things should entertain you or you need to find a new female friend.

When I stop being entertained, I'll stop watching.