Commonly used terms on forums and what are your thoughts on them?

[Dysturbed]

A lot of people say how certain wrestlers “don’t need” titles or victories in certain situations. My question is how do each of you define what a wrestler needs and in your opinions s there ever a time when a wrestler can or should still be allowed to be put in a certain position on the card, winning a match, or getting a title even if it’s not “needed?" without it being an issue?

For example when The Rock used to make his sporadic appearances and actually wrestle he tended to lose and people kept saying how that’s good cause he didn’t need to win. That is absolutely true, he wouldn’t lose any luster by losing. However, just because he didn’t need to win doesn’t mean that from time to time it would be a bad thing. That can be applied to anyone that ends up in a similar position. People said that Jericho didn’t need the title and he didn’t, but to me that doesn’t make him having it a bad thing.


A lot of people also mention who “benefits” from situations. In your opinions does every match have to involve someone benefiting and someone not or is it ok to just be entertained at times? To me I have preferences for winning matches but don’t view them based on who gets what out of it cause I’d probably enjoy things less by doing so every single time. Others of course feel differently.

Another common term is “looks bad” referring to a wrestler losing a match or being in a bad situation. To me someone looks as I perceive them too and I usually don’t define a wrestler as having a downward spiral based on not winning a match or a match in awhile or whatever cause if they looked like they could win and come back the next match for more and show a fighting spirit they still look good. Again I realize that others view things differently.

Another one is that someone "deserves" something. How do you guys each define who deserves a push, title of any sort, etc? Obviously factors like a nice fanbase, proven reliability. hopefully some good matches, going through the necessary ups and downs, etc factor in depending on the person but as I mentioned in the Santino thread sometimes people get things and THEN show if they deserve to hold onto it and move up the ladder or whatever. So since there's no concrete way of determining what is and isn't deserved I'm wondering about your thoughts.

If you can think of any other commonly used terms or phrases feel free to add them and share your thoughts on them plus the ones that I mentioned.

BTW I am kind of a rare IWC fan as I notice things that I dislike just like everyone else, but don't really focus on them and tend to see the good and the bad in most situations. That's why I bring up some of the things that I have noticed over the years. I figure that even though I don't tend to use those terms I am curious about others thoughts on them.

 

[AnthonyMango/NoFate007]

Brace yourselves, this will be long...and if you know me, you know my posts are always long as it is, so this will be "very" long most likely haha.

"Doesn't need". A wrestler "doesn't need" a title when they've transcended the popularity boost that one gets with a title reign. The two prime examples are HBK and Undertaker. These two are able to get the crowd emotionally invested and excited about feuds that have NOTHING to do with the title. The crowd isn't concerned about whether or not "so and so" will drop the title, and they don't need to be, because they're more concerned about watching a good wrestling bout and being entertained by the story being told. People that DO need a title are the ones that don't have the skills to capture the audience without the threat of losing a championship. Also, there's a sort of unspoken rule about how many times you've held titles and how long you've been over with the crowd in comparison to whether or not you "need a title". Would it really boost HHH that much more if he wins the title again after this? Doubt it. But would it really boost Morrison or Hardy or MVP or Kennedy if they won the title for the first time? Yes. Thus, HHH has had his title reigns and he's over enough with the crowd (and has been for nearly a decade) that he doesn't require a title to either propel himself to the main event or maintain his spot in the main event, and him hogging the championship spotlight is preventing others that may need that extra boost from becoming a top tier wrestler.

"Benefit". Let's pick a brand new star, just to start off with a fresh slate. Gavin Spears. Gavin makes his debut and the fans don't know whether or not to cheer or boo him, so they do nothing. They don't know if this guy is a piece of garbage or if he's the next big thing. Having him come out and lose his first match can help him how? You have to supply evidence to support a theory. If Spears is meant to be a heel that thinks he's better than everyone else but truly isn't, and that's his gimmick, then having him lose 2 out of his 2 matches is the way to go. But if they planned on trying to convince the audience that Spears was a legitimate challenger and he was just a heel because he's cocky, then having him lose his 2 matches doesn't "benefit" him at all, because it doesn't support the theory, it negates the theory. A wrestler benefits from a situation if they come out looking better. The main target about this is, once again, HHH. Example: HHH is pinned by Hardy at Armageddon for a #1 contender's spot. Hardy comes out looking slightly better for having gotten a clean win. But it was a fluke. The audience comes out thinking "Hardy really just got one quick move in there and HHH basically got cheated out of a win. This doesn't prove that Hardy is better. It proves that Hardy can't beat HHH unless HHH makes a mistake." So Hardy doesn't benefit too much from it. Then, he has his title match at the Royal Rumble and almost wins, but doesn't, so he only benefits slightly again by people saying he came close. He'd clearly benefit more if he won the match, because he'd be champion and people would be able to say "Hardy was a world champion and a top level superstar". Then the Elimination Chamber comes around and Hardy loses to HHH, albeit with two pedigrees, one of which being on a steel chair. This effectively renders the quick pin at Armageddon as equal and now void, as HHH looked like he only lost on a fluke the first time but the second time, it looked like Hardy only lost because HHH needed double the effort plus a weapon. As it stands right now, Hardy and HHH are tied against each other, but HHH still has more clout as he's been a main event star for years and a multi-time champion, while Hardy hasn't. The score is 1-1. Cut to the Championship Scramble, where Hardy and HHH almost stalemate, but HHH comes out on top. Hardy doesn't benefit from this, HHH does, as right now, he's got a 2-1 score over Hardy. Hardy becomes #1 contender, but it means nothing yet, because if he loses to HHH at No Mercy, the score will be 3-1, and anybody in their right mind would say "Hardy isn't good enough to beat HHH, so HHH is better than Hardy". If Hardy would get a clean pin over HHH, it would boost him back up to 2-2 score, maybe even edging him out now that he won the title as opposed to just a clean win in a non-title match. "Benefits" is when a wrestler comes out of a situation (no matter what it is - a match, a backstage segment, a promo, or even being on TV in comparison to being left off TV like Elijah Burke) looking better than they did before the situation started.

"Looks bad". If you rate wrestlers on a scale from 1-10 (lowest to highest), and you say Wrestler A is a 10 and Wrestler B is a 1. Remember that. Then you book the two in a match, and Wrestler B (1/10) gets a clean pin over Wrestler A (10/10). Does that make Wrestler A look GOOD, or BAD, in that they lost to someone who they should have dominated? If you have a bodybuilder lose a fight against a toddler, does the bodybuilder not lose credibility of toughness in doing so? Thus, they "look bad". If Kofi Kingston is supposed to be our Intercontinental Champion - and by proxy, supposed to be "king of the midcard" - and he can't defeat Santino - a guy who lost to Maria, Beth Phoenix, Roddy Piper, Jerry Lawler, Cousin Sal, etc - then doesn't Kofi look like he's incapable of defeating Santino? This means that Kofi "looks bad" because he's inadequate. He wasn't even able to defeat a guy who is supposed to be a huge loser. Now, if Santino was the type of wrestler that did win matches, and he won, it wouldn't seem so bad, but the sheer number of matches he's lost (and the skill levels of the people that he's lost to have to be taken into account) makes him someone that, if wrestling was real, you would NOT bet on. If they're bad enough that nobody expects them to win, ever, and someone loses to them, then that person looks like they're worse than the person who was terrible in the first place. In another aspect, if a wrestler can only get quick roll-up pins, or wins from disqualification/count out, or they can only win because of interference and cheating, then they "look bad" because they're incapable of winning on their own. If they can't win on their own, why should the audience ever believe that they're talented enough to be a winner? Its an impressive feat if you can run a mile in a minute. But if you find out afterwards that the clock stopped and it really took you 2 hours, you don't come out of that looking better, you come out "looking bad".

"Deserves". This is the thing that I think most people differ on with their opinions. Essentially, I declare whether or not someone "deserves" to be upgraded in one way or another on a few categories: root talent, improvement, crowd support, innovativeness, reliability, and effort. A wrestler deserves a title reign if either they were very talented to begin with and didn't lose steam or if they were bad at first and have improved so much that they're at that level of talent that is required now, the fans are behind them and cheering/booing for them because they're into the performer, they offer something new to the current situation, they've proven that they won't get injured or suspended on a frequent basis, and that they're really trying for it. I might be in the minority, but I believe nobody "deserves" the right to go from a brand new star to a world champion unless they move up the ladder. If a newbie has proven himself worthy of being a valuable asset, let them take a run at the midcard title. If they prove that they're able to hold onto such, then they deserve a shot at a main event slot. If they prove that they're a draw and that they can keep the audience interested at the main event caliber that they're in, then they deserve a run with a world title. If they fail, don't just trust that they'll get it right the second time, but don't rule it out either. Make them earn the right to do so by improving. Then, if they improve enough and meet your specifications, they deserve another shot. Also, there's a reference to how dedicated you are to the company. Someone like Kane has never been a problem for the WWE over the years. He hasn't jumped ship to another company. He hasn't badmouthed them. He hasn't held out and tried to get rid of his contract. He hasn't threatened to quit and take them down with him if they didn't raise his paycheck. So he deserves to be treated better than someone who hasn't earned that level of respect. If he wants to put people over, that's good, because it shows he's dedicated to the business and not just his own legacy. So he should be rewarded for his efforts....maybe not with a long title reign, but at least with a mediocre storyline and a worthwhile position in the company.


I think that's enough from NoFate. Haha. I'll let someone else reply to the thread without eating it all up.

 

[Davi323]

First, let me define the terms, as I would define them:
“don’t need” This refers to whether a wrestler needs to wear a championship belt in order to get over with the fans. A wrestler that doesn't need is one who is going to be incredibly over with the fans regardless of whether they have the belt or not. Examples would be HBK, Undertaker, Triple H and Rey Mysterio. These guys are going to be popular simply because of their longevity and previous accomplishments, and do not need to wear gold in order for the fans to think of them as immense talents. In these cases, giving the belt doesn't really enhance their careers at all, merely adding a number to the stats (looking at you, Triple H) Basically, what is left for wrestlers like the Undertaker or Shawn Michaels to have to prove to anybody? This is a stark contrast to someone like Batista, who, in my opinion, needs to wear the belt, or he gets lost in the shuffle. As to your question about whether its okay for a wrestler who doesn't need a certain spot or championship anymore to still get those opportunities, absolutely. If the brand that wrestler is on doesn't have legitimate candidates for the belt, or the timing of the storylines prevents someone from wearing it, it is perfectly okay for a wrestler who doesn't really need it, to wear it. Smackdown is a good example. Triple H doesn't need to win any more titles ever, he is a lock for the WWE Hall of Fame already. But, so is the Undertaker, and after those two, other than Edge maybe, who can really stake a claim to the WWE title? In the absence of legitimate alternatives, no reason why Triple H can't be WWE champ until someone steps up to the plate.


“benefits” This is a very simple definition, as I would define "benefits" as any match or storyline in which a wrestler comes out looking better than they did before entering it. I don't think it is necessary for every match to have someone specifically benefiting, but, that largely depends on the storyline, and the wrestlers involved. Sometimes benefiting means an actual win, sometimes it just means putting on a hell of a good match. You can lose a match, and still benefit from it.


“looks bad” This is tied in with "benefits", as the opposite. I define it as a wrestler who after a storyline or match, looks weaker than they did before starting. This can be the result of a horrible storyline, bad match booking, a botched finish to a match, a wrestler getting dominated, or something like that. Again, you do not have to lose to "look bad", simply putting on a bad match will accomplish it. For me, There is nothing the Great Khali can do in the ring that will ever make him not look bad, and I think he makes all of the wrestlers he wrestles with look bad too, simply because they cannot perform a high quality match with Khali as their opponent.

"deserves" I define this as a wrestler that has earned their stripes, put on consistently good matches, is either cheered or booed loudly (depending on whether they are face or heel, obviously) and has otherwise proved to be a very solid wrestler. A lot of people think Jeff Hardy "deserves" to wear a heavyweight title, others think his history of substance abuse makes him unreliable and therefore undeserving. In his case, his personal behavior could be factored into whether or not he deserves to win. There is no question Jeff Hardy is a solid in ring performer, but, can they trust him with the belt? On the flip side, we have someone like Evan Bourne, who will most likely be moved to RAW within the next few weeks, on the assumption that he is a fast rising star, and while he has only been in the WWE a few months, in that time, he has been absolutely amazing, impressing everyone. I think Ted DiBiase Jr will deserve a monster push sooner rather than later as well...he just has the "it" factor. Who I think deserves a push is generally based on a wide range of factors, between their longevity, in ring ability, mic skills, overall attitude, crowd reaction, etc. It's never the same formula twice, it's kind of one of those "I know it when I see it" things.

 

[Dead Kennedy]

Whoo, another mind-bender of a thread. Let's see here. Heh, it's funny, we all come up with these words but we probably all have different values and opinions on what they mean. Here's what I'm referring to when I use one of the terms you brought up.

"Doesn't Need" basically applies to workers that have been in the business for a long time and are over for life, e.g. Triple H, Shawn Michaels, Undertaker. They've done it all and are sure-fire legends of the business. Sure, it's nice to see HBK or 'Taker with another reign, but they don't exactly *need* title reigns to continue their legacy in my opinion. I'm more of a fan of giving title runs to up-and-coming talent rather than established legends. Besides, let's use HHH as an example here, when he's maintained such a level of high-quality, memorable championship reigns in the past, it's easy to compare the newer reigns to the old ones. Such as his current WWE Championship reign. I can truly say the current one is the HHH reign that I've liked the least and basically, dropping it to a new worker "who needs" it would be a good move in my opinion.

The one who "Benefits" is the one who comes out of the match looking more impressive than when they entered it. The worker has "benefitted" from winning the match. Take for instance the Intercontinental Championship match from Night of Champions '08. Had Jericho won, he wouldn't have "benefitted" from it, except maybe add a little excitement to a long, dreary Intercontinental Championship reign and beat a newcomer to the business, effectively ending or slowing down his current push. Kofi won a PPV match against an all-time great and thus he "benefitted" tremendously from winning the match. Another way someone "benefits" is when a match in a feud is good enough to keep it going for a while, no matter the result. We don't always need someone to benefit from winning a match though, an entertaining match where both men look good is also good to see.

The antithesis of the when someone "Benefits" is when wrestlers "look bad". Basically, losing the match or the way they lost the match made the worker look bad and look less impressive than when he entered the match. There are many factors as to why someone "looks bad;" for instance, an uneven work rate - the guy who "looked bad" didn't put as much into his work as his opponent did. Some others here but I'm a bit pressed for time right now so maybe I'll edit it in later.

"Deserves" is pretty easy. When a wrestler has shown an impressive amount of work over time (long or short, 'tis dependent on the quality of the work) and received little push and few wins to show for it, he "deserves" a push or title reign. Also, when someone who has legitimate talent, be it as a wrestler or on the stick, is not getting a push while someone less talented, at least in that one fan's opinion they may feel that he "deserves" a title reign more than the other. But this is very subjective and many may disagree. So basically, "deserves" is the most individual IWC term and the one I expect to be the most different in the upcoming posts.
______________________________________

Well, I wrote something at least. I'll be checking up on this thread to see other guys' point of view on the IWC terms. Once more, you excel in thread-making. You "deserve" a thread-making championship, or else you "look bad" >.< am I overdoing it with the analogies much? BAH, my main point is YOU GOOD POSTER.

 

[Dysturbed]

Thanks for all of the responses and comments so far. Another word that I'll mention it "buried." If someone is getting squashed, especially repeatedly or is being made to "look bad" they are often referred to as buried. However, the term also tends to be used when someone just happens to lose a lot or not be in quite the same position as before.

However, sometimes losing a lot isn't really being buried rather it's simply losing a lot. Going back to what I said about "looking bad" to me if someone is presented as having a legit chance of winning every match then even if they keep on losing I don't see that as a burial. Years ago Jericho kept losing and losing and people kept saying that he was being buried. "Held back" is probably a better term in that case and that term was also used but several posters exaggerated the term to be the worst possible thing of a burial.

These days i don't see the term used as much but when I do it's usually an exaggeration but like with the other terms it's opinion based.



BTW sorry for initially posting this in the wrong place. At the other place that I post I had it in the WWE forum since general is usually ignored and I figured that people were going to use mostly WWE examples. At WZ general wrestling is a more suitable place so thanks for doing your jobs and moving it