Dean Ambrose is not a good wrestler.

[Dave]

And I don't see how anyone can really disagree with me.

Having getting myself psyched up for the big event on Sunday, I have been catching up on some of the other PPV's this year; starting with Hell in a Cell from last year. And I have to tell you, I am so happy that he is seemingly off the card at this year's event.

For me, he is amongst the worst wrestlers on the entire card and I just cannot stand watching his matches. In fact, I don't know how anyone can. He is the most boring person in the ring and actually doesn't have that much of a move-set. Now, this may be a redundant point but Ambrose is clearly a striker. He doesn't get into canvas wars like the likes of Daniel Bryan and he doesn't have the technical ability of someone like Kevin Owens. So it really bothers me that people seem to think he is amongst the best in the company. Even "the best pure striker in the history of the WWE"; The Undertaker... Even he had a better move-set than Ambrose does. He just doesn't do any wrestling moves...

I think I first noticed this when he was getting a push against Rollins a few months ago. I don't think he is capable of having good matches by himself and relies on being the underdog to get him over. I'm not buying it and I think that other people make him look better than he could ever do himself.

Discuss.

 

[Reflection]

A wrestler's moveset is based on his character and size. Daniel Bryan and CM Punk's character were that of best wrestlers in the world, so their movesets were of one type. Roman Reigns and John Cena are powerhouses, so their moveset is of another type. Rey Mysterio and Kalisto- high flyers that jump from turnbuckles at every opportunity, Samoa Joe and Kevin Owens- fat guys with agility, Big Show and Mark Henry- huge guys that do tackles and headbutts. Likewise, Dean Ambrose- mentally unstable guy that does repeat punches and rebounds, and gets agitated if hit in the head for long... These are all different characters they are playing, and their roles dictate their moves to a large extent. Just because Dean Ambrose doesn't do the whole mat wrestling stuff, doesn't mean that he isn't a good wrestler.

As for "carrying" a match, a match is carried not just by the wrestler on the offense, but also the one selling the offense. Both the performers are important. Having a 5 star match with a broom is a myth. During tag team matches too, Dean is often the one that spends the most amount of time in the ring, before making the tag to Roman or someone else for the final phase. He has a sound contribution in carrying the matches that he is a part of.

 

[laodaron]

You see, this is the whole point. Wrestling ability is completely irrelevant. This is why people like Hogan can get over for decade after decade.

Also, carrying a match is such a misnomer, and it's so stupid to think that one person carries a match (unless it's Brock against Shannon Moore).

 

[OYDK]

I'd agree with you in the sense that he's not a fantastic "pure" wrestler. The ones who call Dean Ambrose one of the best pure wrestlers in the world are not really looking at his character the right way. He's not C.M. Punk or Chris Jericho... he doesn't base his whole persona on being a good wrestler. On the independent circuit, Ambrose was more comparable to Mick Foley than he would be to say, Daniel Bryan. He was a hardcore wrestler who had one of the most sadistic personalities in the entire business. That's what got him over, and it's what has gotten him over in WWE as well.

However, I personally get really into Ambrose matches. I think he's a great storyteller in the ring and has impeccable timing when it comes to working a crowd. He's coming to kick your ass, not to put on a wrestling clinic. Wrestling ability is not a HUGE factor when it comes to my preferences. I don't love Seth Rollins because he's a great wrestler. I like him because he is great at playing his character. Same goes for Ambrose.

While everyone's entitled to their opinion, I wouldn't call him one of the worst wrestlers on the roster. You can try and sell me on it though, I'm always open to hearing a good argument.

 

[Prince Vee]

And I don't see how anyone can really disagree with me.

Having getting myself psyched up for the big event on Sunday, I have been catching up on some of the other PPV's this year; starting with Hell in a Cell from last year. And I have to tell you, I am so happy that he is seemingly off the card at this year's event.

For me, he is amongst the worst wrestlers on the entire card and I just cannot stand watching his matches. In fact, I don't know how anyone can. He is the most boring person in the ring and actually doesn't have that much of a move-set. Now, this may be a redundant point but Ambrose is clearly a striker. He doesn't get into canvas wars like the likes of Daniel Bryan and he doesn't have the technical ability of someone like Kevin Owens. So it really bothers me that people seem to think he is amongst the best in the company. Even "the best pure striker in the history of the WWE"; The Undertaker... Even he had a better move-set than Ambrose does. He just doesn't do any wrestling moves...

I think I first noticed this when he was getting a push against Rollins a few months ago. I don't think he is capable of having good matches by himself and relies on being the underdog to get him over. I'm not buying it and I think that other people make him look better than he could ever do himself.

Discuss.

Oh I certainly don't agree with you on this one mate. He isn't awful as a wrestler and you already know clear enough how the WWE creative will tweak a wrestler's moveset. I had seen him wrestle in FCW and he had great matches. He had always played the dominator against Seth Rollins who was the underdog in that feud. They had a quite good ironman matches which is a treat to watch.

His in ring psychology is one you should adore. Whether he plays face or heel, regardless of that he got a personality to make the match look interesting. He even made his match against the Big Show looked good!!

To be honest, when he was the member of the Shield, I despised him. But once I understood he was playing his character well like a caged-dog I started to like him. It might take time for you as well but you will like him and his matches.

I got one question for you though. Just wondering, didn't you enjoy the ladder match at Money In The Bank he had against Rollins?

Cheers!!

 

[Dave]

A wrestler's moveset is based on his character and size. Daniel Bryan and CM Punk's character were that of best wrestlers in the world, so their movesets were of one type. Roman Reigns and John Cena are powerhouses, so their moveset is of another type. Rey Mysterio and Kalisto- high flyers that jump from turnbuckles at every opportunity, Samoa Joe and Kevin Owens- fat guys with agility, Big Show and Mark Henry- huge guys that do tackles and headbutts. Likewise, Dean Ambrose- mentally unstable guy that does repeat punches and rebounds, and gets agitated if hit in the head for long... These are all different characters they are playing, and their roles dictate their moves to a large extent. Just because Dean Ambrose doesn't do the whole mat wrestling stuff, doesn't mean that he isn't a good wrestler.

Yeah, I understand that. I'm obviously not expecting him to be doing a moonsault every single match. But would it really hurt for him to have a little more offence than punching and rebounds? Seriously, that is what passes as a wrestler these days, is it? Come on, man! You really think that little of the business and of WWE that you are willing to let a guy who shows no pure wrestling skills be a top draw in the biggest wrestling Fed in the world? Not me, anyway...

I'd agree with you in the sense that he's not a fantastic "pure" wrestler. The ones who call Dean Ambrose one of the best pure wrestlers in the world are not really looking at his character the right way. He's not C.M. Punk or Chris Jericho... he doesn't base his whole persona on being a good wrestler. On the independent circuit, Ambrose was more comparable to Mick Foley than he would be to say, Daniel Bryan. He was a hardcore wrestler who had one of the most sadistic personalities in the entire business. That's what got him over, and it's what has gotten him over in WWE as well.

However, I personally get really into Ambrose matches. I think he's a great storyteller in the ring and has impeccable timing when it comes to working a crowd. He's coming to kick your ass, not to put on a wrestling clinic. Wrestling ability is not a HUGE factor when it comes to my preferences. I don't love Seth Rollins because he's a great wrestler. I like him because he is great at playing his character. Same goes for Ambrose.

While everyone's entitled to their opinion, I wouldn't call him one of the worst wrestlers on the roster. You can try and sell me on it though, I'm always open to hearing a good argument.

You do? How exactly? I watch him do the same things over and over and never get the level of shit that people like John Cena get. He is a one trivck pony that has been riding the same story in the ring for as long as I can remember. At least since the SHIELD broke up. He's been the one that no one expects anything from and he constantly takes a beating in the ring. But suddenly, he always makes a come back and the match is competitive for a while. It is the same story for people like Cena but because Ambrose has a good rant down the microphone, he gets away with it? It makes me sick.

I got one question for you though. Just wondering, didn't you enjoy the ladder match at Money In The Bank he had against Rollins?

Cheers!!

I think that is the only match that I enjoyed. But it is also the first match that I noticed how limited his offence was. And also the first time I noticed how overrated he was. For me, he only does well when he is in the ring against better wrestlers than he is.

At the end of the day, I think he needs to shape up. I think it is funny that Bray Wyatt is getting shit for the crap he spouts down the microphone now. But Ambrose is literally worse. I've seen him make numerous nonsensical promos that he gets away with because he is seemingly unhinged. In actual fact, he is the smartest wrestler alive because he can use his gimmick to make his mistakes look like him getting into his gimmick. Terrible in every aspect.

 

[Mustang Sally]

This is why people like Hogan can get over for decade after decade.

Yes. When a person dons the tights, gets in the ring and engages in a wrestling match, we naturally tend to think of him/her as a wrestler. But many of these people have the wrestling ability of a handball. What they are is 'performers.' They can take fans through a match while working in the style they've managed to convince a wrestling organization to hire them for.

Even a conniving opportunist like Hogan can keep a crowd in the palm of his hand as he 'performs' his way through a match while scarcely using a wrestling maneuver. Got to hand it to him.

Same goes for Dean Ambrose. He doesn't wrestle, he performs. If you're a fan who has no patience to actually sit through a match that involves technical wrestling, you might still like Dean because he entertains with his 'striking' (the OP's word....and an apt description of Ambrose) plus facial expressions and attitude.

That move he does with bending himself backward over the ropes and launching himself at his waiting opponent is entertaining to watch, but fundamentally ludicrous. Can you imagine trying that in an actual fight on the streets?

No criticism of Dean Ambrose is intended. What he does, he does well.

But it ain't wrestling.

 

[Vanilla Midget]

The good news is you're not wrong, he's not a great wrestler. The bad news is that your opinions aren't fact, no matter how strongly you feel about it.

You're kind of shifting the burden of proof onto the forums when you make statements such as, "I don't see how anyone can really disagree with me." Welcome to the IWC, there's lots of fun and interesting ways people will find to disagree with you. The other week someone tried to tell me The Rock wasn't black, anyway.

Ambrose was always just that, the talking guy. The Shield was the wrestler in Rollins, the look in Roman, and the voice in Ambrose. He was the first one of them to open his mouth, as people have said, he's a performer.

No one should be capable of having good matches by themselves, the notion that someone could has always been a method of flattery on that particular wrestler, and that piece of rhetoric seems to have entered some people's minds as a genuine measure of skill.

In WWE, look, charisma, and marketability always come first. What Ambrose lacks in look, he makes up for in charisma. I don't care for the guy, I hate that fake second rope fall to clothesline move, it's goofy and for the kids.

You find Ambrose boring? You're probably not alone, he doesn't get me out my seat. I'm a fan of his heel promos, and I can't wait for him to turn. If you're wanting to see every match hit that gold standard of five stars, WWE might not be your cup of tea.

TLDR:
If you don't like Ambrose, don't buy the t-shirt. Just because you don't like him doesn't mean we all don't. He's not a technically great wrestler, but he moves merch and gives great promos, so he's likely going to be around for a long time.

 

[Blade]

Well let me give you another side of the argument, away from your criteria for what makes a good wrestler.

Now, no one can disagree that Ambrose's moveset is limited. Aside from his finisher, he throws some punches, some clotheslines, a top rope elbow and a suicide dive. Fine, whatever. Whether that's Ambrose's fault or WWE's fault, it doesn't really matter.

But the truth is, despite the lack of moves, the guy has gotten over. He's no main eventer, and he might never be one, but as a solid upper midcarder, people really care about him. Which is more than we can say for most of WWE's midcard scene. And Ambrose got over by being an entertaining character, but also an endearing one, as an unhinged but fiercely loyal, passionate guy who can take a beating.

So considering the guy got to over to this extent with a limited moveset makes him a pretty good wrestler. It's what Hogan and Cena did, albeit on a much larger scale.

relies on being the underdog to get him over.

Isn't that just... Storytelling? Like, 90% of the reason that Bryan got over?

 

[OYDK]

You do? How exactly? I watch him do the same things over and over and never get the level of shit that people like John Cena get. He is a one trivck pony that has been riding the same story in the ring for as long as I can remember. At least since the SHIELD broke up. He's been the one that no one expects anything from and he constantly takes a beating in the ring. But suddenly, he always makes a come back and the match is competitive for a while. It is the same story for people like Cena but because Ambrose has a good rant down the microphone, he gets away with it? It makes me sick.

But doesn't everybody do the same things over and over? Look at Daniel Bryan. His WWE repertoire consisted of mostly kicks, a headbutt, a suicide, dive, his running knee, and the Labelle Lock. Since his matches with Cena, Owens has relied on mostly strikes, a standing senton, the corner cannonball, rest holds, and the pop-up powerbomb. Even somebody like Neville's moveset has been reduced to a german, a flying cross-body, and the Red Arrow. These are some of the best wrestlers in the world. Ambrose is no different with his strikes, flying elbow, rebound clothesline, suicide dive, and Dirty Deeds. Nearly everybody in the WWE has a set move set that they work with. It's WWE's "style".

Right now Ambrose is a face, so he'll play the underdog role like nearly every other face does. Personally, I like the underdog story and always have. As for what entertains me about Ambrose, mostly his selling and facial expressions. You BELIEVE that he's just been through a war based on his expressions alone. When he comes back, his face shows that intensity that gets the crowd into it. I just enjoy the character he plays in the ring. He makes me want to see him win, which is the primary role of a face. Plus he bumps like a champ.

As for Cena, I've always liked him as well. Again, even though he was doing the same thing every night, he did it in a way that entertained me.

 

[Azane]

Wrestling matters less than entertainment in the current business. If you can play your part and tell a story, you can get by with just a brawling moveset and a marketable finisher.

5 Star Matches aren't criteria to be a main eventer.

 

[Kris Benwa]

I think it's more so that he wrestles like his character would. Dean Ambrose the character is the psyched out, street fighting, brawler type guy. I'm from Cincinnati and he grew up in OTR a very rough neighborhood so I'm sure he got in fair share of fights. Anyway, I think he wrestles as if he's actually FIGHTING someone as opposed to WRESTLING someone because that's his character type. Why would anybody in a fight do an arm drag or start trying to chain wrestle a guy? In fight you're trying to beat somebody's ass whichever way you can and I think his character shows that.

Like Austin a lot of times did that too BUT he was able to incorporate wrestling moves because of his former character in wwf The Ringmaster.

I hope I'm making sense

 

[BestSportsEntertainer]

Look at the three biggest stars of all time - Hulk Hogan, The Rock, and Stone Cold.

Neither of them were very good at pure in-ring wrestling. So why are they held so highly?

-- They told a story in the ring. (Ambrose does)
-- They mastered ring psychology. (Ambrose has also)
-- They had great characters. (Ambrose does)

What else are you asking for? Do you want a spot-fest? I'd prefer Ambrose to keep doing what he's doing now - tell a story using elements of his character.

 

[MWRedskins]

i'll agree on the sense that Dean Ambrose isn't a great pure wrestler. Ambrose is no Daniel Bryan, CM Punk or Seth Rollins. he won't win you over with amazing holds and wrestling moves. What Dean Ambrose is though is a great in ring performer. he's not one with wrestling holds, he just has great fan catching moves like his suicide dive or rebound clothesline. he's more like a Mick Foley at wrestling. his in ring ability is more brawler type and that's just fine with me because while pure wrestling isn't what he does best, he makes up for it with his great brawler style and of course, his excellent mic work. if he ever is a main event player, the mic work will be the biggest reason for that. he can play both a face (as seen) and a heel (as seen) character and that is why i found Dean Ambrose to be a great WWE Superstar. again, not a great pure in ring wrestler, but he is great for what he does do and he does entertain me.

 

[Navi]

And I don't see how anyone can really disagree with me.

Having getting myself psyched up for the big event on Sunday, I have been catching up on some of the other PPV's this year; starting with Hell in a Cell from last year. And I have to tell you, I am so happy that he is seemingly off the card at this year's event.

I think I first noticed this when he was getting a push against Rollins a few months ago. I don't think he is capable of having good matches by himself and relies on being the underdog to get him over. I'm not buying it and I think that other people make him look better than he could ever do himself.

Discuss.

I disagree to a certain extent. I don't think he's a horrible wrestler, but I do agree that we see the same moves all the time. That being said though, you can pretty much expect that with every wrestler on the roster. They all have their own moveset and go through them like automatons.

Cena, Reigns, Wyatt even Owens, all use the same moveset and you can pretty much forecast a match while it's in progress. I don't necessary think that's the wrestler's fault, it's the WWE as a whole.

Some moves are synonymous with certain wrestlers, like the Superkick was with HBK. Now sadly everyone uses it from the Uso's, Rusev, Ziggler and even Harper. Ambrose uses that fall through the ropes clothesline and so far he's the only one in the present day WWE to do so.

But I hear what you are saying. His booking has also been horrible. He's lost pretty much every feud he's been in since the Shield broke up, and that's what makes him the underdog. I remember him as Jon Moxley and he was never the underdog. He has one hell of a mean streak and he isn't allowed to show it on RAW.

If they ever let him loose to really show what he can do, you'd see one hell of a different Dean Ambrose. He is actually just as good as Rollins. He is more than capable of standing on his own two feet and putting on a good match, the problem is I think they are holding him back. They had to help Rollins out as he was the weakest link. Reigns was to be the next Cena, and Ambrose would have been one hell of a heel.

I think once Cena leaves for his vacation and they start to push Ambrose a little more, we might see something different. If we don't I'll be more disappointed than you are.

 

[Cena Is A Punk Rocker]

Not to sound like an Indy nerd but I also know what Dean Ambrose is truly capable of. I've followed this mans career for the last eight years. Seen him put on stellar matches with the likes of Jimmy Jacobs to CM Punk and his matches with Seth Rollins in FCW are tremendous. I agree with Dark Lady 100%

 

[Heartbreak_Kid_707]

Finally someone agrees with me. I don't see any world titles in his future and he'll a low mid car. People think Stone Cold. I think more well beaus clay

 

[MartialHorror]

The problem with Ambrose is that his style doesn't work very well while he's a jobber. There's no credibility for a brawler who can't win. Personally, I have gotten a little bored of Ambrose. He's a good performer, perhaps even exceptional, but there's not enough variety. When he first turned face, I liked how spontaneous his moveset was. He's still doing the same moves, but they've become predictable.

I can't think of the last exceptional match from him...I liked some of his matches with Rollins during their first feud, but their ladder match put me to sleep. Rollins has also struggled with this as well and I will give the Kane feud credit, at least it has him saying new things. I feel like cutting the same promo on a weekly basis restricts them.

 

[Reflection]

Yeah, I understand that. I'm obviously not expecting him to be doing a moonsault every single match. But would it really hurt for him to have a little more offence than punching and rebounds? Seriously, that is what passes as a wrestler these days, is it? Come on, man! You really think that little of the business and of WWE that you are willing to let a guy who shows no pure wrestling skills be a top draw in the biggest wrestling Fed in the world? Not me, anyway...

What you don't understand is that it really isn't necessary for him to more moves than what he does. Why should he do more moves and limit his opponents' offense when he is just fine the way he is?
The point isn't about Dean Ambrose not doing a moonsault or a delayed suplex, it's about variety in wrestling styles. Not everyone has a technical style of wrestling. Not everyone needs to do a minimum of n number of moves in a match. A taekwondoin is not a bad martial artist because he has lesser moves than an MMA fighter. Dean Ambrose's character and style don't require him to show any more moves.
Moreover, RAW isn't a tryout; he cannot just go out there and do whatever moves he wants to. He does the moves that have been deemed fit for his character and assigned to him. So the whole argument of him not being in convention for a top spot because he doesn't "show pure wrestling skills," isn't really applicable.

 

[ASKane]

Dean Ambrose is a good wrestler but he is not an entertaining one, since he debuted with the Shield Ambrose was always the third wheel, he was the guy who I felt didn't belong because along with the OP I don't think he puts on enjoyable matches. I don't like his moveset and the way he sells but I do think he has talent. If he was allowed to do everything he was capable of I think he would be more interesting but at the moment he is an entertaining character but I don't enjoy his style. He has put on good matches with entertaining opposition like Rollins but in the standard 5-10 minute TV match, I just don't find them enjoyable.

 

[ShinChan]

Although he is not a pure wrestler; he is an awesome fighter..... he masters ring psychology and is like Stone Cold of this era......

 

[ilapierre]

Ambrose is as bad a wrestler as Rollins and Ziggler are on the mic...I can't get over how wrestling 'entertainers' these days are so one dimensional..They don't make em like they use to.