"In-Ring Psychology": Easy Justification For Favorite Superstars' Sub-par Ring Work

[Slyfox696]

I don't believe it's wrong, but perhaps I didn't communicate my thoughts properly here. Like I said, when I refer to someone's ability as a "worker", I'm simply referring to how they are from a purely athletic standpoint. I see that the term "worker" does not only refer to how someone is athletically in the ring.

I understand what you're getting at, but it's still incorrect. And you're using your incorrect definition to accuse others of justifying what you believe are poor workers to be called good workers.

I very seriously doubt anyone is going around saying "Of course he was athletic, he had psychology".

And whether you find someone's beliefs to be erroneous or not does not mean that they're irrelevant.

It does, actually. Basing conclusions from false information invalidates the conclusion.

Entertainment is almost entirely subjective to the opinion of the individual.

We're not talking about entertainment, we're talking about what makes a pro wrestler skilled.

 

[JGlass]

I don't believe it's wrong, but perhaps I didn't communicate my thoughts properly here. Like I said, when I refer to someone's ability as a "worker", I'm simply referring to how they are from a purely athletic standpoint. I see that the term "worker" does not only refer to how someone is athletically in the ring.

And whether you find someone's beliefs to be erroneous or not does not mean that they're irrelevant. It's simply a difference in opinion. I haven't gone here to try and tell people why they're wrong (I save that for Horatio ******io a.k.a. The Aritst Formerly Known As CmPunker), just why I disagree with them.

Entertainment is almost entirely subjective to the opinion of the individual.

Entertainment is generally subjective, but at the same time the vast majority of people recognize greatness when they see it.

When it comes to wrestling, athleticism can help you be wildly entertaining in the ring, but above all else it is character that entertains the masses. Maybe your character is extremely athletic, and the wrestler displays that through his ring psychology. Guys as great as Kurt Angle or as mediocre as Shelton Benjamin have built careers on that.

Other guys aren't blessed with the athletic prowess of a Kurt Angle, and their characters don't display that. Look at Vader, for example. He wasn't exactly about to chain wrestle across the ground, but the Vader character had little interest in engaging in that type of contest. Instead he found ways to use his imposing size to dominate his opponents, and that was his ring psychology: look like a monster, talk like a monster, act like a monster.

Look at Undertaker. He's not exactly the most athletic guy in the world, but he has one of the greatest characters in wrestling history, and he sells the crap out of it with his ring psychology. He uses dominating and humiliating moves like the chokeslam or the Tombstone Piledriver. He measures his opponents before delivering devastating strikes. Everything he does is deliberate and powerful, just like his character. He sells his match not by running around the ring pulling crazy stunts, but by using his character to sell the match.

That's what ring psychology is: not wrestling the match as an athlete, but as the character you walked down the ramp as. It's the ability to play your role when you're in the ring just as well as you play it outside of the ring. It's why if you blurred out the faces and attire and just saw two shadowy figures wrestling each other in the ring, you'd be able to identify which one is Hulk Hogan and which one is The Million Dollar man, or which one is Stone Cold Steve Austin and which one is Mick Foley.

If that doesn't enlighten you, I don't know what will.

 

[newwaveknight]

Look at Vader, for example. He wasn't exactly about to chain wrestle across the ground, but the Vader character had little interest in engaging in that type of contest. Instead he found ways to use his imposing size to dominate his opponents, and that was his ring psychology: look like a monster, talk like a monster, act like a monster.

Let me take a moment to give Vader some props on in-ring work, simply on the grounds that I still mark when he does moonsaults.

 

[Mr. Artistic guy]

But also, Dr. Zeus, I never said that in-ring psychology isn't important. I love the whole "Hulk up" bit, you love it, we all love it. But from a purely athletic standpoint, was Hogan THAT great in the ring? No. However, I'm sure if I said that, Hogan zealots will come bearing torches and pitchforks, painting it like his in-ring psychology makes his matches athletically on par with Kurt Angle or Shawn Michaels.

And that's the point I'm trying to make. I'm not really taking too solid of a stance either way, but I'm trying to ask a question: Do the people who have "great in-ring psychology" really have it or are we trying to justify their lack of athleticism in the ring. Maybe I should have named the thread that instead.

It's a fair question so I'll answer candidly. If it were the case that the term 'in-ring psychology' was merely interchangeable with 'nonathletic' than anybody could make a claim for any slow methodical worker to be a good one. However, there are guys like Eli Cottonwood or Mason Ryan that people would almost universally say are not good workers because they lack the ability to make people care about what they do in the ring.

A guy like Mick Foley; his work is deliberate, it imbues facets of his character no matter which he plays, it's unique, it's engaging and all because of how he chooses to present himself in the ring. Someone like Mason Ryan lacks these traits, they can't make people invest themselves in what they do and that is because of the fabled 'in-ring psychology', or thinking work involved in what they do in the ring, or lack thereof.

 

[ヒュー　G.　レックション]

Dude, he just gave a full length definition of ring psychology in the post right above yours. Read it.

Haha I'm sorry for missing that. I should be banned from posting late nights because this is the second time something like this has happened with me.

What a great post Slyfox! It's comforting to see my definition wasn't entirely wrong, but just severely lacking.

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

Athleticism is overrated. Kofi Kingston is athletic and he's awful. Hulk Hogan is half the athlete but four times the wrestler.

To me, a good ring psychologist tells a great story, totally in-character.

I'll take that any day over fast-paced, incoherent trash that doesn't bother telling a story (almost every indy wrestler on the planet).

Faster is not better, as unpopular an idea as that might be around here.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

Let me try an analogy:

Taylor Swift is no Luciano Pavarotti but the psychology she brings to a song and story she tells in her voice helps make her a great singer.

And it helps that she has terrific production and looks good.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

.

Look at Undertaker. He's not exactly the most athletic guy in the world, but he has one of the greatest characters in wrestling history, and he sells the crap out of it with his ring psychology. He uses dominating and humiliating moves like the chokeslam or the Tombstone Piledriver. He measures his opponents before delivering devastating strikes. Everything he does is deliberate and powerful, just like his character. He sells his match not by running around the ring pulling crazy stunts, but by using his character to sell the match.

Errrrr.....Undertaker is nearly seven feet tall and does over the top rope dives, and walks the top rope. He does things literally NO ONE his size has ever done. He is insanely athletic, and quick. To the point were people forget he is over 6'10 and 300 pounds.