Little Jerry Lawler
Sigmund Freud On Ritalin And Roids
List who you think in the current WWE roster are technical wrestlers.
Heath Slater doesn't count.
Heath Slater doesn't count.
Technical Wrestlers
- Thread starter Little Jerry Lawler
- Start date
Big Nick Dudley
Nick
Orton, CM Punk (sometimes)... that's about it.
How are guys who work a primarily striking and high impact move style of wrestling technical wrestlers?
Big Nick Dudley
Nick
How are guys who work a primarily striking and high impact move style of wrestling technical wrestlers?
Orton takes his opponents apart in a methodical manner. No one executes like he does, and I don't think anyone is as clean in the ring (right now, of course). Punk has the same ability, but is quite sloppy from time to time.
Better question - what is technical wrestling? I think crisp, clean execution, and taking someone apart methodically. I suppose everyone has a different definition.
If you think about the term "technical wrestling", it can help you define it (though, I'm not sure that's WHY the term exists, it's just helpful). If I were to say, in a kayfabe sense, that Cena isn't technically WRESTLING, he's fighting, what kind of images would that conjure up? Someone who is using his fists to win his matches, right. Now if I said, technically, a guy like GSP is a wrestler, what images come to your mind now? The traditional MMA wrestler, correct? It's like if I said, technically, more Americans wanted Al Gore to be President than George W. Bush back in 2000.
Thus, technical wrestling is the art of "technically" wrestling. Holds, grabs, locks, with the occasional slam and suplex. Technical wrestling roots are in Greco-Roman and freestyle wrestling.
Think of an amateur wrestling match, pretend it gets applied to a pro wrestling match, and you're much closer to a definition of a technical wrestler.
Big Nick Dudley
Nick
We're talking about professional wrestling, and I can't find a definition of "technical wrestling." Bret Hart is the only "top guy" to be called (on a consistent basis) a technical wrestler. There is no set definition, which is why I stick with my own. I get what you're saying, but there really is no set definition, so I'm guessing most differ, slightly.
I think that technical wrestling per se is a dying art form in professional wrestling. In looking at the current WWE roster and applying my definition of a technical wrestler, the only guy who fits the bill in my opinion is William Regal, and he's in the twilight of his career. Unless of course he were to head to Orlando, at which point, he'd just be hitting his prime.
I just gave you a definition.
I know we're talking about pro wrestling, my post was about pro wrestling. In pro wrestling, the definition of a "technical wrestler" is one who is technically wrestling. That's not intended as a circular argument, I wish I could think of a good synonym, but I'm quite tired at the moment.
What I'm saying is, if you think of an amateur wrestler, put him in pro wrestling, and the pro wrestler works as an amateur wrestler, you're much closer to the definition of a technical wrestler.
But during the majority of his main-event time in the WWF, he wasn't.
Not really. Using your definition, I can say Hulk Hogan was a technical wrestler. Hogan was crisp, he executed very well, he was methodical in his wrestling...are you saying he was a technical wrestler? Of course not.
Hogan was a striker/brawler. He was the John Wayne of pro wrestling. John Wayne wouldn't be caught dead using an Indian Deathlock, and rare are the occasions you couldn't say the same about Hogan.
Big Nick Dudley
Nick
A definition of your own creation. Not saying you don't know what you're talking about, but there is no set definition, that's a fact.
I get it, and I think you're right. However, that doesn't mean that's the only form of technical wrestling. Bret Hart didn't wrestle an amateur style, he picked his opponents apart, piece by piece. Most consider that at least a form of technical wrestling (in pro wrestling).
This is undoubtedly where we'll begin to spin our tires. I'll tell you, once again, how there isn't a set definition, and you'll tell me I'm wrong. Not saying that to be a dick, but that is what's going to happen.
Hogan was extremely clean, more so than most would give him credit for. That, in my book, is something a technical wrestler does. However, first and foremost, he was a big, strong brawler. He wasn't methodical, he fed off emotion. He didn't have a gameplan, he didn't think things through. He was more of a wild man, like Cena. Again, I'm not saying technical wrestlers are necessarily better than anyone else (though I do prefer technical wrestling), I'm saying the classification exists, even if the definition isn't clear.
Not really. I mean, would you say there's no set definition of a brawler?
You can pick your opponents apart piece by piece as a technical wrestler. But Hart didn't work a technical style.
Most have never heard of going Broadway either. Many in the IWC think the offensive moves you use determine how good you are.
What you have to understand is when you're dealing with the IWC, you have to think for yourself, and not rely on "most".
Agreed, but by the definition you gave, Hulk Hogan is a technical wrestler. Are you prepared to make that statement?
He didn't feed off emotion until the very end. The rest of the time, he was very calculating and methodical.
Sure he did.
Big Nick Dudley
Nick
Completely different. A brawler, by nature, is a more simplistic wrestler. With that being said, the definition is more cut and dry. I hope that makes sense, but I'm having issues putting that into words (I'm tired as well).
Well, according to Gorilla Monsoon and every other former professional wrestler who called his matches, he was. I trust those guys.
They also believe Zack Ryder is World Championship material.
I was referring to those who know what they're talking about (actual wrestlers), not IWC members.
He fits some of my traits, but overall, no, I wouldn't consider him a technical guy. My definition didn't only consist of being clean.
That's an interesting take. I usually agreed with Heenan - big meathead who, in the end, was tougher than his opponents. Not really a "thinking" wrestler.
It's not completely different. A brawler is a style of wrestling, just like an aerial wrestler or a technical wrestler.
It's not at all different.
Gorilla Monsoon didn't call Hart's matches as a main-eventer.
And I'm afraid you'll have to be more specific on the others. Hart was as close as there has been in a long time to working a technical style as a main-eventer, but he wasn't a true technical worker. He relied a lot striking and high impact moves. He was methodical and he was crisp, but a traditional technical wrestler he was not.
In comparison with the WWE main-event scene since Hogan arrived, Hart is the closest you'll find.
So you see the folly in using them as a guide.
And I know what I'm talking about.
By most of your definition Hogan is. Not sure what you mean by being clean though.
Yes, but Heenan was playing a character, just like Jesse Ventura. Both guys put Hogan over as that kind of a wrestler, because they tried to distinguish brawlers from the technical wrestlers. Those guys are also the reason so many idiots in the IWC don't understand the difference between pro wrestler and technical wrestler.
But you have to understand, Ventura and Heenan weren't working with your definition of technical wrestling, they were working with mine.
Big Nick Dudley
Nick
I agree this is a technical style of wrestling. It's meant to look like a more flashy take on amateur style wrestling. I think Kurt Angle was a technical guy as well. However, that doesn't mean what Bret Hart did wasn't technical. It doesn't mean what Orton does isn't a form of technical wrestling. In the pretend world of professional wrestling, the definition is quite broad.
Big Nick Dudley
Nick
Sure it is. It's much easier to identify Cena's style of wrestling (a brawler) than it is Shawn Michaels. Identifying a brawler takes roughly two seconds.
Gorilla Monsoon didn't call Hart's matches as a main-eventer.
You don't think Hart was the same kind of wrestler at WM 8 and WM 12? His style didn't change much from midcard to main event.
According to your definition. Once again, there is no set definition. Tell me I'm wrong about that as many times as you'd like, but I'm not.
Rarely botched, superb execution.
Hogan was a meathead. A great, great wrestler, but a meathead. No one, not even Monsoon, accused Hogan of being the sharpest knife in the drawer in that ring (all in character, of course).
I disagree (yes, I realize that means, automatically, I'm wrong
)Dowdsy McDowds
Sally was here
Only 2 names that spring to mind for me are Daniel Bryan and Del Rio to an extent.
How come?
No...not really. Technical wrestling is a style of wrestling, just like brawling or lucha libre. Technical wrestling is not a definition which describes being methodical and/or crisp. Do you know what DOES describe a wrestler as being methodical and/or crisp? Saying they are methodical and/or crisp.
Technical wrestling is a style, not a criterion for quality.
So does identifying a technical wrestler.
You seem to think because you're having problem defining the term, no definition exists, and that a technical wrestler cannot be easily labeled. That's silly. The reason you can't find examples of technical wrestlers is because technical wrestling doesn't draw today. It hasn't been a draw in over thirty years. That's why you have trouble defining it and labeling it.
The other thing you have to remember is that pro wrestlers aren't locked into one style. I'm not sure if you're a gamer of fantasy games or not, but if you're even mildly aware of the games Dragon Age 2 and Elder Scrolls Skyrim, you'll understand what I mean. In Dragon Age 2, you pick whether you're a fighter, a thief/rogue or a mage. You are limited to only those three classes, and once chosen, you're not allowed any benefits from the other classes. In contrast, Skyrim doesn't lock you into any style. It allows you to choose what you want from all styles, to complete your character the way you wish.
Pro wrestling is not Dragon Age 2, it's Skyrim. Workers identify with a style of wrestling, but incorporate other aspects into it to complete their character. You're trying to define this openness of choice as "technical wrestling", as long as they are methodical and crisp in execution, and that's incorrect. But it's this openness of choice which makes it hard to define someone like Michaels, because he takes a little from all styles of wrestling to complete his character.
Bret's midcard career encompasses a wide range of time, which is why I discussed primarily his main-event career. Yes, Hart was the same kind of wrestler at 8 and 12, and that wasn't a pure technical wrestler.
Yes, you are. Saying there is no definition of a technical wrestler is saying there's no definition of an aerial wrestler or a brawling wrestler. That's just silly. They are all styles of wrestling, and the idea two of them have clear definitions but the third one doesn't defies logic.
Gotcha...definitely describes Hulk Hogan. Yes, I know your point was that was not the only qualification, I'm just furthering my case for Hogan as a technical wrestler under your definition, something we both agree he's not.
I think you need to go back and watch some older video. Ventura regularly accused Hogan of being sneaky, of working the angles. So did Heenan.
Glad people are starting to realize this.I disagree (yes, I realize that means, automatically, I'm wrong
What you're trying to pass off as a technical wrestler is the mindset of a character and the crispness of his execution. And I'm sorry, but that is just inaccurate. Like I've said, technical wrestling is a style of wrestling, like brawling or aerial wrestling. It is hard for many of today's fans to identify because we rarely see it. We see elements of technical wrestling, such as the classic collar and elbow tie-up, but wrestlers who work primarily a technical style just don't exist these days. And the reason for this is because fans in America don't care to see it. If I want to watch freestyle wrestling, I'll watch the Olympics. They are a whole lot better at it than guys who are just pretending. Fans wants to see larger than life characters duking it out. It's the traditional American style of fighting, the so-called John Wayne mentality of Americans.
Technical wrestling was big 50 years ago because fans believed it was real, and the workers worked very hard to protect the secret of it being staged. They couldn't work today's style of match, and still pretend it was real. That's why you saw the more classic/technical style of wrestling, the advance (if you can call it that) of the amateur style to the pro ranks. Those were technical wrestlers.
A guy like Orton? He's much more of a brawler, though I recognize the idea of a brawler conjures up something with more wildness and emotion. He punches, he kicks, he clotheslines, he does powerslams and DDTs...very little of his style is technically based. The same goes for Punk. He is primarily a striker. All of those kicks and high impact moves do not lend themselves to a technical style.
It's been a LONG time since I've seen the match (for good reason, too) but if I remember correctly, the first 20 or so minutes of the HBK vs. Hart match WM 12 was a fairly technically based match. A lot of throws and locks, counters and holds, a fairly technical style match. As I said, it's been a long time since I watched the match, so my timing might be off, but I do know there were several exchanges where HBK outdid Hart in a technical style, a "passing the torch" mini-story in the context of the match.
Daniel Bryan (obviously)
Tyson Kidd (he does some high flying as well, but he's still VERY mat oriented)
Alberto Del Rio (targets body parts in almost every match)
Randy Orton (the methodical technical type, as opposed to the submission style)
CM Punk (very much the same as Orton)
Sin Cara/Mistico (textbook Tecnico)
Tyson Kidd (he does some high flying as well, but he's still VERY mat oriented)
Alberto Del Rio (targets body parts in almost every match)
Randy Orton (the methodical technical type, as opposed to the submission style)
CM Punk (very much the same as Orton)
Sin Cara/Mistico (textbook Tecnico)
Very few wrestlers even have that 'technical' style anymore. Some show a flash of it here and there. But to squash this back and forth bickering, if you wanna know what perfect technical wrestling is, look at Owen or Bret Hart. In any of their matches that were a normal match, not a No DQ, Cage or Ladder match, but any normal match. You can count the number of punches they throw on 1 hand. In todays day in age technical wrestling is sorta out the window, hardly anyone uses it anymore. But few wrestlers show flash of it here and there, and those wrestlers are:
CM Punk
Tyson Kidd
Daniel Bryan
CM Punk
Tyson Kidd
Daniel Bryan
Considering Hart is one of the major reasons for the bickering, I doubt your comment will "squash" it. More likely, people will look at your full month and a half experience and 8 non-spam posts, and compare that to the combined over 6000 non-spam posts and several years of experience between the Moderator and the Administrator who are doing the bickering, and just dismiss your comment without so much as a second thought.
Indeed, this is probably the most awareness you'll receive from your post in the entire thread.
Little Jerry Lawler
Sigmund Freud On Ritalin And Roids
DAGGER ALERT!!!! DAGGER ALERT!!!!
We were in the same position and said that same garbage when we first began here. However, you're still here arguing this point so don't even act like you can be exempt from the point you're attempting (and gracefully failing) to make.
Technical wrestling is hard to date as a term because in the very old days it would have been a redundant concept. All wrestling was technical in nature; it would be like having submission based ju-jitsu or a striking specialist in a boxing ring... utterly redundant.
If you want to trace the concept back it starts to emerge around World War II when a large number of the legitimate wrestlers were called away from the industry and the revelation began to be made that you could push a guy with star quality but no legitimate credentials just as easily as you could push a technical veteran. 1950's east coast the Sports Entertainment style starts to gain momentum with guys like Rogers and Rocca, and this is when you first start to see noticeable divide between in ring techniques.
Of course back then it wasn't called technical wrestling, it was called scientific wrestling, but it began to develop into a more fast paced, crowd pleasing spectacle whilst remaining true to the principles of realism and legitimacy. Scientific wrestlers focused on using legitimate and realistic hold and counter-hold action in order to present a compelling match. The concept was usually to present something less flashy but substantial than the competing Sports Entertainment promotions. AWA was probably the most successful proponent of the style and produced talents like Flair, Steamboat, Backland and Henning who later amalgamated the scientific style with the sports entertainment promotions.
So if you want a definition of technical/scientific wrestling, go and watch the Flair/Steamboat feud and ask yourself if what you're comparing looks anything like that.
Amusing the style that now calls itself technical wrestling (which I refuse to refer to it as), instead focuses on being more flashy than sports entertainment with even less substance. Somewhere along the way the purveyors of technical wrestling forgot that the whole point of the style was that it looked more realistic than the brawlers and powerhouses who were beginning to take over the industry. Perhaps this is why technical wrestling stopped being able to draw for shit.
If you want to trace the concept back it starts to emerge around World War II when a large number of the legitimate wrestlers were called away from the industry and the revelation began to be made that you could push a guy with star quality but no legitimate credentials just as easily as you could push a technical veteran. 1950's east coast the Sports Entertainment style starts to gain momentum with guys like Rogers and Rocca, and this is when you first start to see noticeable divide between in ring techniques.
Of course back then it wasn't called technical wrestling, it was called scientific wrestling, but it began to develop into a more fast paced, crowd pleasing spectacle whilst remaining true to the principles of realism and legitimacy. Scientific wrestlers focused on using legitimate and realistic hold and counter-hold action in order to present a compelling match. The concept was usually to present something less flashy but substantial than the competing Sports Entertainment promotions. AWA was probably the most successful proponent of the style and produced talents like Flair, Steamboat, Backland and Henning who later amalgamated the scientific style with the sports entertainment promotions.
So if you want a definition of technical/scientific wrestling, go and watch the Flair/Steamboat feud and ask yourself if what you're comparing looks anything like that.
Amusing the style that now calls itself technical wrestling (which I refuse to refer to it as), instead focuses on being more flashy than sports entertainment with even less substance. Somewhere along the way the purveyors of technical wrestling forgot that the whole point of the style was that it looked more realistic than the brawlers and powerhouses who were beginning to take over the industry. Perhaps this is why technical wrestling stopped being able to draw for shit.
