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

[newwaveknight]

"Ring Psychology".......

....This is a term I see thrown around a lot. "He's a great worker, idiot. Look at his in-ring psychology!"

"Dude, you just don't appreciate a wrestler who has good ring psychology."

I feel like quoting Inigo Montoyo; we keep using that word. I'm not really sure it means what we think it means.

Yes, such a thing as in-ring psychology exists. It's the ability to make your matches seem more theatrical and more real. I'm not saying that ring psychology isn't important, but are we really just using it as an excuse to justify the in-ring presence of superstars who we don't want to admit are shitty workers?

It seems that anytime I criticize a superstar for having lackluster ability in the ring, someone always brings in how great their in-ring psychology is. To me, does that really justify a bad athletic performance? Do we really have to use in-ring psychology as a go-to for guys like Benoit, Angle, Jericho, Flair, Malenko, or Bret Hart? Granted, they have proven themselves as solid workers and know a thing or two about in-ring psychology, but I don't see it being used nearly as much with them.

But this thread isn't just about how I feel; it's about how the WZ Universe feels. So, WZ Universe, do you feel that "in-ring psychology" is mainly our go-to for justification as to why our favorite superstars don't suck in the ring when maybe they do?

 

[Coco]

Sounds like you just want everyone to blindly agree with your worthless opinions. In your attempt to rise above the usual riff-raff, all you've done is show that you're right on their level.

Go choke on a fucking straight razor.

 

[newwaveknight]

Sounds like you just want everyone to blindly agree with your worthless opinions. In your attempt to rise above the usual riff-raff, all you've done is show that you're right on their level.

Go choke on a fucking straight razor.

Wow, sounds like I need to call the WAHHHHHHHHHHbulance.

 

[Mr. Artistic guy]

If someone has good in-ring psychology, they probably aren't a shitty worker. So no.

 

[Harthan]

Sounds like you just want everyone to blindly agree with your worthless opinions. In your attempt to rise above the usual riff-raff, all you've done is show that you're right on their level.

Go choke on a fucking straight razor.

>Checks if we're in the bar
>We're not

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Having good psychology is the main component of being a good "worker" .
EVeryone (most of them) who you named in the opening post have phenomenal psychology.


Im not sure what exactly in the hell you are blathering about here.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

Wrestling psychology is the most important component to a good match or program. I will take a good psychologist over the most skilled technical wrestler any day of the week.

Wrestling psychology is at least in American Wrestling what gets a person into a match and makes them legitimately give a shit about what's going on in the ring or in a program. Especially when it comes to the likes of Daniel Bryan if he didn't have wrestling psychology he wouldn't be anywhere near Cena right now. Some guys can get over without having much psychology but they sure as shit can't stay over without psychology.

 

[Барбоса]

"In-ring psychology" is such a catch-all term that it can be applied to virtually all facets of what makes professional wrestling - selling, timing, acting etc.

Without decent "in-ring psychology" you basically cannot be a decent professional wrestler.

 

[ヒュー　G.　レックション]

WZ Universe made me feel sick

Okay, now I always thought psychology... in its simplest, was all about working over bodyparts, and the recipient selling those bodyparts.

For instance there was a match at One Night Only X-Travenganza between Austin Aries and Samoa Joe. Now in that match Aries was working over Joe's leg and Joe was selling it like a pro. Now usually a wrestler with good psychology would target the bodypart relating to their finisher, so usually Aries targets the head so he can hit the brainbuster or Last Chancery.

But in this match he worked over the leg, why? Well by working over the leg, Joe couldn't do much of his usual offence with the jumping high kicks. Then at one point in the match Joe tries to go for a suicide dive to the outside but he stumbles and falls. This leaves Aries to counter with one of his own. Then the eventual finish happens when Aries beats Joe with a roll-up, pushing down on Joe's worked over leg, brilliant!

So yeah in my opinion that match and its performers had great psychology. There's many other examples I'm sure but that's a recent one that stood out to me.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

"Ring Psychology".......

....This is a term I see thrown around a lot. "He's a great worker, idiot. Look at his in-ring psychology!"

"Dude, you just don't appreciate a wrestler who has good ring psychology."

I feel like quoting Inigo Montoyo; we keep using that word. I'm not really sure it means what we think it means.

Yes, such a thing as in-ring psychology exists. It's the ability to make your matches seem more theatrical and more real. I'm not saying that ring psychology isn't important, but are we really just using it as an excuse to justify the in-ring presence of superstars who we don't want to admit are shitty workers?

It seems that anytime I criticize a superstar for having lackluster ability in the ring, someone always brings in how great their in-ring psychology is. To me, does that really justify a bad athletic performance? Do we really have to use in-ring psychology as a go-to for guys like Benoit, Angle, Jericho, Flair, Malenko, or Bret Hart? Granted, they have proven themselves as solid workers and know a thing or two about in-ring psychology, but I don't see it being used nearly as much with them.

But this thread isn't just about how I feel; it's about how the WZ Universe feels. So, WZ Universe, do you feel that "in-ring psychology" is mainly our go-to for justification as to why our favorite superstars don't suck in the ring when maybe they do?

List names.

 

[Coco]

>Checks if we're in the bar
>We're not

 

[Con T.]

Aaahhhh we got a "that guy" contrarian here!

Don't be "that guy". You don't have the chops for it, kid.

Take that shit to Wreddit

 

[It's...Baylariat!]

Ring psychology makes average wrestlers great, great wrestlers awesome, and awesome wrestlers into Hall of Famers.

So no. It's not a cop-out.

 

[It's...Baylariat!]

Aaahhhh we got a "that guy" contrarian here!

Don't be "that guy". You don't have the chops for it, kid.

Take that shit to Wreddit

I'M THE ONLY ONE ... that can be 'THAT GUY' around here.

Kitchen's closed, man!

 

[Slyfox696]

I'm not really sure it means what we think it means.

It means exactly what I think it means.

Yes, such a thing as in-ring psychology exists. It's the ability to make your matches seem more theatrical and more real.

Kind of, but your description is not good. I'm going to copy and paste a detailed explanation I've given before. To be clear, it was part of a much larger explanation, so if something isn't quite clear, let me know.

Psychology: Psychology is all about the character the wrestler plays. In the old days, guys would NEVER refer to themselves as "playing a character", because in their minds, they WERE characters. When they got in front of an audience, they weren't actors, they were literally the crazy people fans saw. But, for the ease of this tutorial, we'll say wrestlers play characters.

Psychology deals with how that character would think and react to situations, in and out of the ring, and how those characters are played mean so much in trying to get the character over with fans. For example, take Stone Cold Steve Austin. Imagine if he had worn a fancy robe to the ring, and had pranced down the aisle to Beethoven's "Ode to Joy". Would we have bought him being a tough redneck guy who flips the bird and rebels against authority? Of course not. But when Austin comes out in plain black trunks, wearing a leather vest, and he's storming to the ring looking pissed off, we know he means business. When Flair walked to the ring in a fabulous robe, with beautiful women lining the aisle, we knew he was the Nature Boy. When Sting was "Surfer Sting", and he came to down the aisle full of energy, howling at the fans, slapping everyone's hands, we knew he was pumped and excited for the match. That's psychology.

But it doesn't stop once a guy gets in the ring. Psychology is all about what you do in the ring as well. Now, so many ignorant people in the IWC think that psychology is about working a leg to set up a Sharpshooter, or something equivalent. It's not. It's not at all. Psychology is playing the part of your character in the ring. Let's use Hogan again as an example (since I told you I would explain why he was a great wrestler). Picture John Wayne, the real man's man and American tough guy, in professional wrestling. Would he have stepped into a bar, and use a drop toe hold, sliding over to a front headlock, and turn that front headlock into a hammerlock? Not a chance in the world. You say a cross word to John Wayne, he's going to plant his feet, ball up his right fist, and lay one right on your cheek. That's the American style of fighting, or at least that's how Americans like to glorify their fighting.

That's what Hulk Hogan was...he was American style fighter, who had huge muscles, and he got in that ring to fight you with his fists, not a bunch of fancy moves. That's what Hulk Hogan, the character, was. If Hogan had spent 3/4 of a match using wrist locks, Indian Deathlocks, Bow and Arrows, etc. type moves, it would have been completely ridiculous for his character. So Hogan used moves which made sense for his character, he threw a lot of punches and kicks, he used his strength with slams, etc. That's good psychology.

Now that's just speaking of character psychology. There's more that goes into psychology than just character psychology. Match psychology plays an important part too. Let's look back at that Hogan vs. Warrior match I mentioned earlier. The whole concept of that match was about how equal those two guys were, about how they were two unstoppable forces battling it out. Now, if they had gone back and forth, but Hogan was hitting big power moves, and Warriors was responding with cheap shots, and arm bars, would the story of those two guys being equals have worked? Of course not, that would have been poor match psychology. When the two guys use the same moves on each other, and respond in kind to one another, that's good match psychology, which makes up good storytelling.

I'm not saying that ring psychology isn't important, but are we really just using it as an excuse to justify the in-ring presence of superstars who we don't want to admit are shitty workers?

Very rarely will someone have good psychology and be a shitty worker. Usually shitty workers will expose themselves as having poor psychology.

"In-ring psychology" is such a catch-all term that it can be applied to virtually all facets of what makes professional wrestling - selling, timing, acting etc.

It works in concert with, but I wouldn't say it's a term for other things. Psychology in wrestling has a very specific definition.

Okay, now I always thought psychology... in its simplest, was all about working over bodyparts, and the recipient selling those bodyparts.

It's more than just limb psychology.

 

[ヒュー　G.　レックション]

So what else comes under it Slyfox?

 

[Con T.]

I for one want to hear Generic Contrarian #46's opinion on Hulk Hogan's dog psychology

 

[newwaveknight]

I for one want to hear Generic Contrarian #46's opinion on Hulk Hogan's dog psychology

Dude, quote the person you consider a "generic contrarian". Jesus, do you even message board?

 

[Con T.]

Are you really that starved an identity?

So yeah, Hulk Hogan; thoughts?

 

[Bernkastel]

I found it funny the OP used the words "Malenko" "solid worker" and "psychology" all in the same sentence.

 

[Slyfox696]

So what else comes under it Slyfox?

What do you mean?

 

[newwaveknight]

List names.

I just got done with a thread where I insinuated that Mick Foley wasn't a great in-ring worker as far as athletic ability went. Someone (who may be the same person who made the CmPunker account) went into "ring psychology" as to why he's a great wrestler in the ring. I can go through my recent threads and find more, but that was just the most recent one that comes to mind.

Are you really that starved an identity?

So yeah, Hulk Hogan; thoughts?

Okay, WZ, maybe I should have clarified a little bit more, as apparently my definition of worker is different from your's.

To me, how someone is as a worker refers to simply their athletic performance in the ring.

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.

 

[Slyfox696]

I just got done with a thread where I insinuated that Mick Foley wasn't a great in-ring worker as far as athletic ability went. Someone (who may be the same person who made the CmPunker account) went into "ring psychology" as to why he's a great wrestler in the ring. I can go through my recent threads and find more, but that was just the most recent one that comes to mind.

Mick Foley was a tremendous professional wrestler. And he had fantastic psychology.

To me, how someone is as a worker refers to simply their athletic performance in the ring.

But your definition of what makes a good worker is wrong. Using your erroneous belief on what makes a good worker makes irrelevant your beliefs on who is a good worker, because you're using a faulty understanding of pro wrestling to judge.

But from a purely athletic standpoint, was Hogan THAT great in the ring?

Athleticism does not make someone a good wrestler.

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.

No, Hogan supporters will come in and point out that being an athlete has nothing to do with being a good wrestler. Can it be an advantage? Sure, just like being a good athlete is an advantage to a pitcher in baseball. But being a good athlete doesn't make your fastball move or your curveball break, and it doesn't make you a good wrestler.

Do the people who have "great in-ring psychology" really have it

Depends entirely on who you're referring to. But, generally speaking, a wrestler will not be successful in wrestling if he has poor psychology.

 

[newwaveknight]

But your definition of what makes a good worker is wrong. Using your erroneous belief on what makes a good worker makes irrelevant your beliefs on who is a good worker, because you're using a faulty understanding of pro wrestling to judge.

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.

 

[JGlass]

So what else comes under it Slyfox?

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

Also...

Dude, quote the person you consider a "generic contrarian". Jesus, do you even message board?