Match Psychology: Wrestling or Characters?

[Viola Moonlight]

When you see a match happen in professional wrestling, there has to be some sort of psychology driving it... otherwise the entire match is going to be useless and a waste of our time. Things like booking, the type of match, etc. all influence the match and for the most part, the people involved have the right (or close to) answer deployed and it works. But there is one thing that I have noticed is the way the professional wrestlers portray how the match goes for the purposes of entertainment. They either use superb wrestling ability keeping their characters for promo use and such, or allow their characters to wrestle for them that may restrict them from performing certain moves. Dolph Ziggler would be someone who would use excellent wresting in the ring, but has no substance in terms of character when in a match (except for some certain pre-planned spots). On the other hand, Randy Orton isn't someone who can pull off pure technicality but shows his character through his wrestling in every match, portraying his character. My question is, as the title says, which one is better for matches: your character or your pure wrestling skills?


If I were to choose, I'd say that the character is the most essential thing to use and everyone should take advantage of it. Anyone can throw a suplex or a backbreaker with impact, but to be able to get inside the head of one's character and act out these moves accordingly brings everything to a whole new level. It makes people get into not only the match, but the characters... which leads to them becoming much more successful. Some of the greatest wrestlers in history such as Stone Cold utilised what their characters are(n't) able to do and transform their matches to higher levels, gaining popularity in the process. It's evident in the modern wrestling world... compare someone like Orton (with the aforementioned slithering around in the ring) to Rhodes. Does Cody's wrestling style make you think that he is someone who represents a Dashing gimmick? Of course not. Who out of the two is more successful? Orton is. Same reasons for why people like R-Truth are over but people like Ted DiBiase fail to captivate audiences on a much more personal level.

What do you think?

 

[Rayne]

That's like asking which is better on a sandwich- peanut butter or jelly. You need both.

Wrestling without a reason for people wrestling is a tumbling exhibition. Like world-class tumblers, it takes a lot of skill, but with nothing driving it, it's boring. Characters without wrestling; well, that's the rest of television. Professional wrestling is supposed to be about competition, with a spike of personal drama to up the ante. It's an old trick that's been selling matches in sports since before even the territory days; this guy is going to fight that guy, and do they hate each other.

A good professional wrestler wrestles as an extension of his character. Think Chris Jericho yelling "ask him!" Think Randy Orton during his viper gimmick. (And for how not, think Randy Orton right now. He is neither face nor heel nor believable tweener.) In good professional wrestling, the two are inseparable.

 

[Ferbian]

The character as a whole in my opinion is really what should be regarded as the better thing for a match psychology. Especially considering the fact that, while a lot of people are gonna regard someone as quite an opponent if they can wrestle circles around you.

However, a guy like John Cena for example, he's not the greatest of in-ring wrestlers. However, his character has that of a never give up never quit persona, and therefore he gets to be the bigger opponent, because his character isn't one to give up no matter what there's thrown against him. The character as a whole, is usually what gets the feud, as well as the match over. The character is what the wrestlers plays on for the most of it, and not the fact that they're great wrestlers, unless your Chris Jericho, or Kurt Angle.

The in-ring skills only matters when the match is there, however the psychology isn't revolving around it, especially considering Undertaker for example, who uses his presence, and intimidation factor to gain the psychological advantage, over a guy who's just generally great in the ring.

 

[Viola Moonlight]

That's like asking which is better on a sandwich- peanut butter or jelly. You need both.

Wrestling without a reason for people wrestling is a tumbling exhibition. Like world-class tumblers, it takes a lot of skill, but with nothing driving it, it's boring. Characters without wrestling; well, that's the rest of television. Professional wrestling is supposed to be about competition, with a spike of personal drama to up the ante. It's an old trick that's been selling matches in sports since before even the territory days; this guy is going to fight that guy, and do they hate each other.

A good professional wrestler wrestles as an extension of his character. Think Chris Jericho yelling "ask him!" Think Randy Orton during his viper gimmick. (And for how not, think Randy Orton right now. He is neither face nor heel nor believable tweener.) In good professional wrestling, the two are inseparable.

I'm not too sure whether you understood my point. By wrestling, I meant it being like ROH style where the matches inside the ring include a lot of flashy and impressive moves that enable the fans to get "wow'd" by the extent of the wrestler's knowledge. By characters, I meant that they limited their ability to perform the aforementioned moves in favour of things that their character would use... perform spots that their character would do if it was them in real life, actually act their gimmick out 24/7. I know it probably sounds stupid to separate both of them, but these two differences do exist.

Matches have been able to capitalise on both style types. Take a look at Mickie James vs. Trish Stratus from WrestleMania 22. James, throughout the match, wrestling in her character that a psycho would do. She methodically picked apart her opponent and focused on... er... certain areas that re-enforced her fascination. Stratus played the role of the victim and nothing more. That was a pretty good match involving character-only wrestling, even for a Diva's match. Nothing revolved around pure wrestling here... which would be personified by the Ziggler/Kingston feud I mentioned in my earlier post. I don't see any character wrestling here, just pure wrestling between the two. Vickie was the only reason why Ziggler has any character and Kofi... well, I don't know what he is since losing the Jamaican roots.

I hope I cleared things up a little, because I can understand a lot of people telling me I'm an idiot here because professional wrestling is both (not one or the other). I'm just asking, which is more important to the match... playing the character and wrestling as the character, or using the character for promo's and using pure wrestling for matches.