What Makes a Good Worker?

[BillAlfonso]

I have to admit, my weakest point of judging pro wrestling is good workers. I know a good or, at least, entertaining match when I see it. I know good mic work and charisma. I know a good storyline. Being a fan of Bret Hart and Ric Flair, I know good ring psychology. Things like taking out a big man's legs instead of just taking him on straight up and miraculously defeating him even though, realistically, he'd crush you. But I can never tell who's a good worker or not. Like I said, I know an entertaining match but I can't tell if both guys are good or if one guy is carrying the other. I'm often confused by things like I've heard someone say that HHH is a better in-ring worker that RKO but to me, RKO is just a faster version of HHH except that he sells moves a little more differently. So, what make a good worker to you?

 

[Blue Chipper]

You've already named a couple things that make a good worker, but there's more.
Here's how you determine the quality of a professional wrestler:
In-ring:
Workrate
Selling
Chrisma
Storytelling
Psychology
Out of ring:
Promo ability/mic skills
How good a wrestler is in each one of those characteristics, is how to determine if a pro-wrestler is good or not. So, after looking at that criteria, do you still think Randy is better to or equal to Triple H? If so, then my last piece of judging is below.

Alternatively, you can look at which wrestler is the most entertaining, and to determine that, we see how big of a draw he is. Afterall, isn't pro-wrestling about entertaining the fans? Yes, it is. So, you could say the wrestler that's consistently entertaining is a good wrestler. Now, do you think Randy is better/equal to Triple H? The answer should be "No".

So, you judge the quality of a professional wrestling based upon psychology, storytelling, charisma, workrate, selling, and mic skills. Also, you need to factor in how entertaining they are, determined by how much pops they recieve, and how big of a draw they are.

 

[BillAlfonso]

You've already named a couple things that make a good worker, but there's more.
Here's how you determine the quality of a professional wrestler:
In-ring:
Workrate
Selling
Chrisma
Storytelling
Psychology
Out of ring:
Promo ability/mic skills
How good a wrestler is in each one of those characteristics, is how to determine if a pro-wrestler is good or not. So, after looking at that criteria, do you still think Randy is better to or equal to Triple H? If so, then my last piece of judging is below.

Alternatively, you can look at which wrestler is the most entertaining, and to determine that, we see how big of a draw he is. Afterall, isn't pro-wrestling about entertaining the fans? Yes, it is. So, you could say the wrestler that's consistently entertaining is a good wrestler. Now, do you think Randy is better/equal to Triple H? The answer should be "No".

So, you judge the quality of a professional wrestling based upon psychology, storytelling, charisma, workrate, selling, and mic skills. Also, you need to factor in how entertaining they are, determined by how much pops they recieve, and how big of a draw they are.

I think what I meant was in-ring stuff. For example, people crap on Cena for his in-ring stuff but the only difference I can see between he and someone like Jeff Hardy is that Hardy does a lot of high spots, not so much as he used to but definitely more than Cena but Stone Cold, himself admitted that he only had 3 offensive moves and don't get me started on Hogan and they seem to have matches the people liked. In fact, as I remember back to matches between The Rock and Austin, there was very little wrestling and their matches seemed to only end in the ring, the majority took place outside and no one complained.