More Important: In ring work or entertainment value?

[foxhound101]

To me the ability to put on great matches is NOT the entire key to the success of the WWE. When I watch RAW or Smackdown I want to be entertained. After all, is it not what the WWE is supposed to be promoting? Sports Entertainment?

Look back to the Attitude Era. Widely known as the best era in history. We had Entertainment. For example, This is your life Rock...correct me if i'm wrong, the highest rated segment in history. Then we had classic moments like, Stone cold filling Vince's car up with concrete, or Running over Rock's car with a monster truck. Or DX invading WCW. Now, who honestly remembers the 5 star matches of that time? not saying they werent there, but when WWE was on top of the world they invested alot of time into the pure entertainment part of the program. Just don't see that like you used to, and In my opinion this is where they are lacking today.

In my opinon when it began to end was the end of the monday night war. Without competition, there was no more need to push the envelope...but thats a whole new thread in and of itself.

your thoughts???

 

[Hyorinmaru]

They're both very important to the WWE.

If the werestler's aren't doing good in the ring and judt flopping around like dead fish people are going to stop watching because no one wants to see 2 people just flop around.

On the flip side people also want to be entertained. If there is only wrestling then then people will stop watching because it would get boring after a while.

It's all about findind the right balance of Wrestling and Entertainment to keep the majority of fans happy.

 

[yoshi_doce2006]

I say the in ring product. I love the action more than the Promos anymore mainly because they have Hollywood writers telling the performers what to say rather than making the wrestlers actually think during promos like back in the old days when you actually had to have talent on the mic to make it in the business. Because of that promos seem very fake to me and because of that I would rather watch the action. So in my opinion I believe the action is the best part of the show and what makes it more successful.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

n spite of all the crap some want to talk about the WWE, you actually do have to be a half way decent in ring performer to be with the WWE. Being an entertainer is also cruicial. Often, some have more of one than the other, but that's basically the way it is with everyone. Lots of guys in the business can put on a good match, but they have absolutely no character. Without character, then an audience can't really fel as they they know anything about the guy. If a guy is great on the mic but is horrible in the ring, then he ultimately won't last long, in most cases anyhow. Every now and then, you'll run across someone that's great in the ring but not much of an entertainer and they'll make it. Every so often, you'll run into someone that's great on the mic, shitty in the ring and they'll make it.

Ultimately it all comes down to what you consider good or bad. Personally, I think Hulk Hogan was one of the most atrocious in-ring performers I've ever seen but there are lots that will swear up and down that the man was fantastic. Same with Batista, but these guys have made it regardless of what I think. So, overall, I think that if you don't have a good mix of both, then you're just another worker.

 

[RKO18]

Dude there were a few good PPV matches in the attitude era. Rock/HHH were ALWAYS good and worked well no matter who was the Face or Heel. They had some good matches from just about everybody back then. Not as good as The New Generation matches, but better than alot of todays in ring work for sure

 

[barley96]

They are both important, but I think that in ring work is slightly more important because without the wrestling aspect of the show, it would be nothing but a variety show, but without entertainment, wrestling can still be a wrestling show.

 

[Chill]

Both are important aspects of succeeding in wrestling but what I would say is that it is possible to be just okay in the ring but still make it in the business because of your charisma, character or 'entertainment value'.

Look at Hulk Hogan, for example, now I'm not saying he couldn't wrestle but it was his charisma and entertainment value he brought to the dance which made him a star...people didn't care if he was wrestling Ric Flair quality matches or not because his personality meant more to them. Hogan went on to become the most famous pro wrestler and he did it by using his unprecedented and over the top charisma.

Others include Stone Cold Steve Austin and John Cena today....again I'm not saying they can't wrestle but they both succeeded because of their ability to connect with the audience, with guys like this it's almost as if the wrestling is a secondary thing while their ability to entertain the masses takes the forefront.

Then we have people like Shelton Benjamin who can wrestle very well but maybe aren't so hot in terms of 'entertainment value' and because of that he is finding it very difficult to get over, despite having been with the WWE for some time now. Overall, you would think in wrestling the in ring work would take most importance but in actual fact I think entertainment value, especially in today's product, is more important in terms of the long term success a wrestler will enjoy. You can be the best wrestler in the world but if the people don't care about you then you can forget it (which is sad but true).

Take a last example of Dustin Rhodes, when he wrestled as himself he found it very difficult to step out of Dusty's footsteps, as the 'Natural' he experienced moderate success here and there, picked up the odd US title here and there but what made him was the outrageous Goldust character. It is Goldust which ultimately made people sit up and take notice of Dustin Rhodes becuase when he performed as that character, he was able to bring an entertainment value unlike anything he was able to do before.

Of course, it wont always work this way, there are excepetions but generally I think in the world of pro wrestling (especially in the US) you need to be able to entertain in some capacity.

 

[Wrath]

Neither is important as long as you find a way to make yourself cared.Yeah mic skills,charisma and in ring ability are important to make yourself cared but they're not always necessary.For example Jeff Hardy.This guy sucks on mic and in ring ability is not great but he is the current world heavyweight champion even though he is about to leave the company and had two strikes before but look at him he is the top face of the brand.He made himself cared by his life risking moves.Andre The Giant is an another good example.His in ring skills and charisma were nothing special but he was extremely over by the crowd just because he had a huge look.So as long as you find a way to make yourself cared I don't know how maybe with your spotty moves maybe with your look or maybe only with your intensity if you can make yourself cared the other factors are not really much important.

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

One of my biggest pet peeves with today's old-fashioned "rasslin".

If you need to know the answer to this question, look no further than to the two most prominent Eras in WWE history-- the Hogan Era and the Attitude Era. And I could especially point to Hulk Hogan. Wrestling 4 star matches night in and night out doesn't mean diddly to the Casual fanbase who simply want to be "Entertained" as stated in the OP. One could put two of the best amateur wrestlers in the ring together for a great match, and the crowd would sit there like a bump on a log.

The people who argue otherwise, and state that "the wrestling is definitively more important" only say that because that is their own personal preference and bias coming into play. History has not shown that to be the case.

Now, at the same time, you can't be horrible in the ring, but you don't have to be .... well, put it this way, you shouldn't have to be a wrestler who produces 4 star matches regularly to make it in pro wrestling, as demonstrated by the stars of the past. Although, McMahon seems absolutely obsessive with the "quality of wrestling in the ring" when judging the performers AND the Divas while not seemingly all that interested in pretty much anything else, like character development or storylines.

If someone has a bad match in this day and age, and Vince gets upset about it, you definitely hear about it. Vince was fuming at the Jericho/Big Show match against Legacy at the Night of Champions PPV. The man obsesses over the wrong elements in his show, in my opinion.

One's ability to connect with the crowd is what the crowd is looking for. And in order to do that, more often than not, you need to be a successful talker on the mic. If you can't get the crowd to care about you first, great matches mean diddly squat.

 

[foxhound101]

Lord Sidious...You completely get the point i was trying to get across. Albeit you put it in better words than I did. Finally someone who truely understands what makes wrestling fun.

I never said that the wrestling itself was always bad, it was great! It told a story. In the past even halfway decent wrestlers understood how to tell their story, and put their opponent over in the process.

I enjoy the matches of today, I'm just afraid that matches like Carlito and Primo from RAW last night are taking over. It was an incredible display of athleticism, and they hit all their spots, should have been a big draw...but without the soap opera antics involved nobody cared, that place was quiet as a mouse