The WWE style.

[Mantaur Rodeo Clown]

What is the WWE style of wrestling, can someone explain to me? What is your interpretation of what works in the WWE? Obviously, the have set up places like FCW, where new recruits can hone their skills and adjust to a WWE style. We always hear of some new addition to the roster being 'sent down to developmental' to "adapt" to the WWE style. Some cannot do this however, and are released. I bring this up amidst the news that

The Wrestling Observer is reporting what we initially heard, which is that former Ring of Honor stars Bryan Danielson and Nigel McGuinness will be bypassing WWE developmental and will instead debut with WWE on the company's main roster. This of course can change, but as of now the current plan is to bring them directly to TV. No word yet on which brand the stars are headed to.

What does this mean in terms of the WWE style? Are the so girfted they can bypass it altogether? Is the WWE introducing newer styles? Are they already pretty close? Im not quite sure.

I watch TNA, and get the feeling of a different in ring style. It's like a sogn you know the name of, but can't seem to say. Just a way the moves flow differently, the spots are a little disjointed. Is it because of a smaller ring? More ropes? Perhaps its a smaller arena that makes it look a bit strange. But I know it looks different from say a RAW match. Not necessarily a bad thing mind you.

So in closing, what is the WWE style, or how do you percieve it?

 

[Viola Moonlight]

The WWE style has always been a mixture of the best wrestling styles out there like watered-down hardcore matches, technicality & submissions, power matches... but they seem to aim for the entertainment side of wrestling where they create the match proceedings where it is able to tell more of the story without having to cut promo's.

There is also the feeling that the WWE style is not a fast-paced one at all & sticks to something of a more relative speed, similar to what you & I would live in. If they change pace, its usually to something slower. That why the fans can have the time to understand & react to whats going on. If they ever go fast-paced, its usually just for cheap pops or a weapons-type match.

 

[S_Raines]

One of the biggest things is the cameras, you have to know which camera is on you, and always be working the "hard" side. most people don't worry about that ,which is bad, in the independent level, even if there are cameras,and then we have to adapt when there is a camera on us. The next thing is, yeah they don't want spot monkey's goin out there and trading moves back and forth. They want proper psychology, I.e. shine, heat, false comebacks, cutoffs, comebacks, and finishes, and they WANT them to all make sense. Independent wrestling for small crowds works completely different from a T.V. setting, thats why alot of guys go out and really enjoy house shows, because you have more freedom, less time restraints..... whcich another thing "WWE style"...... You're given a specific time limit that MUST be adhered to, andyou MUST get the story across the way they want you to..... Most independents the booker or promoter will say, hey he's going over you have about this much time, make it happen.... HUGE difference and people need to be trained out of their old ways of thinking.

 

[Slyfox696]

The first two posts are close, but there's more to it as well.


The WWE style is story based, as opposed to move based like you see in many indy promotions. The concept is to tell a story between the ropes (for example, Good vs. Evil), and for the match itself to follow a logical flow. In my mind it is sort of unique as it puts a HEAVY emphasis on realism during the match...while simultaneously flaunting the fact it's scripted entertainment. Which really is quite remarkable. What I mean by this is that while the match is going, the match itself is desired to make sense if it was a real fight...to "work" the crowd into believing it is real. But, at the same time, they openly falunt the entertainment aspects of it, such as the pandering to the crowd, the crotch chops, the "ballin", etc., which would NEVER happen in a real fight.

This makes them different than the old AWA, for example, in that the AWA was very much promoting a REAL product and did not regularly endorse the playing around...it promoted a type of wrestling which was VERY much oriented towards everything seeming legit. It also makes them different from the TNA style, which tries to feature a more athletic high pace style, which sometimes puts realism in the back seat.



Finally, the WWE does not feature one type of wrestling. They support all types of matches, however, when you get to the main-event, you will usually see more of a brawling style, with lots of punching and high impact moves. That has kind of been the staple of WWE main-events for decades.

 

[Razor]

Well. At the risk of sounding like I just took Slyfox's points and regurgitated them for the extra post count, here's my shot.

The WWE style, as compared to the TNA style, does seem slower. However, that is to be expected. The TNA style calls for faster action with the introduction of that new ring. It also seems faulty to me, though. The TNA style seems very disjointed, and very stilted. It's like they're just running around doing moves until the big storyline part of the match can take place (run-in, cheating, chair shot). They don't...have a story.


And that, essentially, is what the WWE style is. The story. They mix in various forms of wrestling (watered down to ensure safety, of course) and make a story out of it. What story? Well, the eternal Good vs. Evil story. It's what Professional Wrestling has been built off of sense the days of the AWA, is it not? Big and bad wrestler A fucked around with Wrestler B, now they're having a legit fight. A little barbaric simmering down of the storylines, but you get my point.

Also, the WWE expects their wrestlers to get us to believe...while at the same time playing to us. We're supposed to believe it's a real fight, only it's a real fight in which HBK jumps up after 30 minutes of lower back trauma to Superkick me in the face. That it's a real fight in which John Cena waves his hand in front of his face, does a weird jig, then slams his palm into my face...which of course would cause me extreme pain. That Bourne would legit climb up something high just do that that Shooting Star (I think?) move on me. No real fight would actually claim those as maneuvers. However, the WWE does.

..And yet, despite the fact that the WWE claims those over-the-top maneuvers, we still get drawn in. At least, we who don't think it too beneath us to get drawn in do. That is the WWE style. To get us fans drawn into a otherwordly match of Good vs. Evil, a soap opera in which a shitty mexican man who has done nothing but take orders from his Aunt for the past year is fighting a Leprechaun, a world that has the World's Strongest Man and the WWE's highest paid rookie teaming up to take on two suit wearing, dastardly individuals. If we can believe that, then hell. Who said the WWE sucks?

 

[Super Crazy]

In my opinion the WWE style is about storytelling. They move at a slower pace as to give the fans an entertaining match. As both Razor and Slyfox said the point of the slower pace is to let the fans understand and take in the battle of good versus evil.

If you compare this to TNA or other indy promotions it is not the same. In these other promotions to me it seem that their matches are about hitting those really hard skillful moves that makes the crowd " Oo " and " Ahhh " at them. There is storytelling in this but nowhere near the same as the WWE.

The WWE uses their story telling of good versus evil to draw us in and make us want to see what is going to happen next. They want us to tune in to see if John Cena can win the next potentially hard fought battle. They want us to tune in to see if CM Punk will lose the championship. They do this by not only cutting promos but by using their emotions in the ring.

In other promotions they just go and go until they have the planned spot to further the storyline as Razor said. I mean sure they put characters involved in the feuds against each other but there is no real build to it. To me it is just " Let me hit my crazy huge flipping spinning moonsault splash on you and then you can hit your ultimate jumping flying suplex press on me ". I know that is a stupid way to put it but to me that is all it is. They are just spot after spot after spot.

I enjoy both TNA and WWE but for different reasons. It all boils down to me watching TNA to see the skills of the wrestlers for their crazy moves and watching WWE for the story behind the match and the story in the match.

 

[S_Raines]

The first two posts are close, but there's more to it

My post was what WWE means when they say "WWE style" the way matches are booked in TNA vs. the way they are booked in WWE are all just from a creative stand point..... that's why the guys that are main eventing still use the same wrestling style and story telling that is used in WWE, the guys that are mainly spot monkeys aren't main eventing because they aren't getting the story across as well as the others, storytelling is the main part of wrestling.....hell, that IS wrestling....everywhere from independents to WWE.... It's knowing how to switch from working a crowd to working a national audience, and knowing how to properly work the camera.....

 

[school-of-hard-knocks]

WWE style is very different from indy wrestling. As someone beforehand said there is a lot more attention to detail especially with all of the cameras. The matches are slower paced and wrestlers usually take time to sell moves rather than move from one spot onto another like they do in a lot of other places. And of course TV matches are different as they are allocated less time in which the wrestlers have to sell the match without doing too much. WHen you get a 7 minute TV match you can't go out there and do too many spots. You can't work quite as stiff as you would at other places. You have to understand the difference in between working the big crowd (15,000-20,000 people) from the small crowd (500-1,000 people). And there are some moves out there that you can't do because they belong to other wrestlers or are considered to be too dangerous.

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

Like the others, I have to agree that overall, the WWE style of a match is generally considered a slow-paced style with some high spots. I am not going to refer to it as "storytelling in the ring" and use the talking points of Vince McMahon and others .... because they have a lot of room for improvement if that is what, in fact, they are trying to do.

In order to tell a story in the ring, a story must be told outside of the ring to draw the fans into a feud. Simply putting two guys in the ring with each other to tell a story with very little, if any buildup outside of the ring doesn't make for a captivating product that lures people in ... especially if the wrestlers have very little personality to connect to the audience with. It is those concepts of "the build-up to a feud and development of a storyline" that has been lost in the WWE these past few years. Quite frankly, I don't know if that was intentional on the part of Vince-- to try to educate his audience to solely derive their entertainment from the technicality of the match (similar to ROH and Japanese fans) ........... OR whether it was simply laziness on his part and the part of his Creative team.

There is no question that the quality of the matches has vastly improved in WWE over the years. And the impression I get is that Vince obsesses over this one single aspect of his product. And unfortunately, the bi-product of that is that he loses sight of everything else. And that is what happens when you are too-hands-on with writing the product.

But back to the match, as stated the WWE typically presents a slow-paced match with a couple high-spots and signature moves of certain wrestlers to connect with the audience. Their matches are not solely a spotfest.

TV matches are wrestled at a faster pace, but still have been slowed down over the years, with WWE allocating more time to the matches, particularly on Smackdown. Unfortunately, this allocation has come at the expense of developing feuds and storylines ... as well as opportunities at character development to increase each star's marketability.

However, this style of a match not only teaches the audience not to expect a spot-fest for every match, but also is generally regarded as a much more safe style to prevent injuries. WWE doesn't have that many high flying performers anymore, other than Rey Mysterio, how there is always an exception to the rule .... but the rule of thumb remains in place.

 

[Agonizer]

Currently WWE commentators do not use the term "wrestling" but rather, "sports entertainment". Which values perceived entertainment aspects and values over those traditionally found in wrestling.

The intent of the WWE style is to make the format a male driven soap opera with less emphasis on the physical aspects of wrestling. Attempts to keep the attention of the audience include exploiting women in a sexual manner as stereotypical props. The desired effect is to add to the male character interaction and drive the action forward in one-dimensional masculine displays. Matches pitted in this style are devalued in importance than in conventional wrestling styles where story builds tension for the ultimate payoff of a match.

This same kind of idea can be seen in other areas of entertainment as in the NFL where the most exciting thing about the Super Bowl is the commercials (followed by the half time entertainment) and not the game itself.

The current WWE style has a pronounced softer edge physically than traditional wrestling. It is characterized by moves that have less impact than even 80's WWF wrestling. From time to time moves such as the piledriver have been outlawed in the WWE by Vince McMahon. This style is meant to prolong the in ring careers of the performers, who are less wrestlers and more traditional Hollywood stuntmen.

 

[Mantaur Rodeo Clown]

The intent of the WWE style is to make the format a male driven soap opera with less emphasis on the physical aspects of wrestling.

God I hate it when people use this term. "soap opera". It's what my dad used to call it when he saw me watching Austin vs The Rock. The whole point is to tell a story. To show that The Rock is a jerk, and that Austin if fighting authority. The emphasis off the physical apects is good, because it gets a hella boring. Hence why an amateur wrestling match will not fill up the Citrus Dome or Reliant Stadium.

Attempts to keep the attention of the audience include exploiting women in a sexual manner as stereotypical props.

They do wrestle too. It just looks better if they're in skimpy clothes. I'm sorry, haven't they been doing this for decades?

The desired effect is to add to the male character interaction and drive the action forward in one-dimensional masculine displays. Matches pitted in this style are devalued in importance than in conventional wrestling styles where story builds tension for the ultimate payoff of a match

Do you even enjoy Professional Wrestling? I mean everyone here knows thats the purpose of Pro Wrestling, to build storylines in the ring and outside of it. It's not only the WWE doing this, it's TNA as well, as well as ROH, NJPW and CZW and whatever other wrestling company you can find. As for One Dimensional, you should probably watch some matches before you make that claim. The facial expressions of agony on HBK's face during his Summerslam 2002 look pretty damn Three Dimensional to me, hombre. So, do you even enjoy wrestling?

This same kind of idea can be seen in other areas of entertainment as in the NFL where the most exciting thing about the Super Bowl is the commercials (followed by the half time entertainment) and not the game itself.

This opinion isn't subjective at all

You seriously only watch the Superbowl for the advertisements?

The current WWE style has a pronounced softer edge physically than traditional wrestling.

Traditional Wrestling involved greasing up ones naked body in the Parthenon and grappling a virgin down to be your bride.

It is characterized by moves that have less impact than even 80's WWF wrestling. From time to time moves such as the piledriver have been outlawed in the WWE by Vince McMahon. This style is meant to prolong the in ring careers of the performers, who are less wrestlers and more traditional Hollywood stuntmen.

OMG! Holy Crap! A good point! The banning of moves, not bad. Finally your rambling has some sense. And an end. In terms of moves having less impact, I disagree. The Ultimate Splash wasn't awfully dramatic, and The Leg Drop less so. I don't see how that changed with The Peoples Elbow or The Stunner. There have always been some moves that are impactful and some that aren't.

In terms of banned moves, I suppose the restriction faced by some indy wrestlers could be too much to come to grips with, as much of their offense and hence selling point involves dangerous moves. So how did Matt Sydal survive?

Rumour has it he practiced it 50 times in front of officals to show he could successfully pull it off. Only to use it tagging with Hornswoggle.

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

Currently WWE commentators do not use the term "wrestling" but rather, "sports entertainment". Which values perceived entertainment aspects and values over those traditionally found in wrestling.

After reading your entire post, I don't really know which WWE program you are watching, but some of your talking points sound like it comes straight from WWE PR, when in reality, the exact opposite type of a product is shown on TV.

Let's go through some of this:

The intent of the WWE style is to make the format a male driven soap opera with less emphasis on the physical aspects of wrestling.

That is a position that I have advocated for quite some time now-- for WWE to be portrayed as more of an Entertainment Action/Drama sitcom over a sport. Unfortunately, what I have seen on the screen has been anything but a soap opera these past 2-3 years.

Although WWE has leaned very slightly back to the Entertainment side, the past couple years, the product has featured nothing but wrestling, wrestling, and more wrestling ... with very little else on the show. No storylines. No interesting feuds. No development of characters to connect with the audience. Rather, just wrestling, wrestling, and more wrestling between the same bland, boring people.

Attempts to keep the attention of the audience include exploiting women in a sexual manner as stereotypical props. The desired effect is to add to the male character interaction and drive the action forward in one-dimensional masculine displays. Matches pitted in this style are devalued in importance than in conventional wrestling styles where story builds tension for the ultimate payoff of a match.

Can't say I have seen too many Playboy Pillow Fight Matches or Bikini Contests these past couple years on Raw. Ever since the company went PG, all that stuff that you mentioned went out the window. Probably even so far back as in 2006.

As far as story, which Divas are involved in an actual storyline? I can name feuds, with which they finally deserve some credit in developing feuds between their Divas after leaving all of them high and dry for so long, but what soap opera storylines do you see the Divas involved in these days?

This same kind of idea can be seen in other areas of entertainment as in the NFL where the most exciting thing about the Super Bowl is the commercials (followed by the half time entertainment) and not the game itself.

The current WWE style has a pronounced softer edge physically than traditional wrestling. It is characterized by moves that have less impact than even 80's WWF wrestling. From time to time moves such as the piledriver have been outlawed in the WWE by Vince McMahon. This style is meant to prolong the in ring careers of the performers, who are less wrestlers and more traditional Hollywood stuntmen.

That's about the only part of this entire post I can agree with. Other than that part, I have to seriously question if you are watching the WWE in this day and age, as I find your characterization very much off the mark of what has actually been reflected in the product since the PG Era began.