What Makes Someone "Shit" in the Ring?

[gd]

Many wrestlers are crucified around here for being shitty in ring workers. From Batista to Abyss to The Pope to Czena. However, there really is never any talk about why they are so bad in the ring. It's just everyone ripping on a particular wrestler without giving the reasoning behind it. In your mind, what makes a bad in ring worker. In my opinion, a wrestler should be expected to do their job and nothing else.

I expect Big Show to throw his opponent around and pretty much dominante, but I don't expect him to do a frog splash or anything, because that's not his job. However, if it's someone like Evan Bourne, I expect a bunch of high flying and exciting moves from him.

Another thing that give wrestlers the reputation of shit is not selling their opponents moves. This is mostly true for bigger wrestlers, who have a hard time making their miniscule opponent's offense seem legit. There are probably plenty of other things as well, but that's all I got at the moment.

So, what do you think? What specifically makes someone a horrible in ring worker? How does your definition differ from mine?

 

[The Doctor]

To me, being bad in the ring means you have boring matches and aren't good at moving. I hardly expect Khali to move with the speed of Kofi Kingston, but he is rather jerky and disjointed.

Matches should flow. They may not be quick, but they have to have a definite flow. A technical wrestling masterpiece can be slow-paced or fast-paced, but it moves, and you never get bored or think "Man, where the fuck did that come from?"

Wrestlers have styles, and if they can make their styles look good, they are good in the ring. I consider Big Show good, because he's huge and his stuff looks painful. Does he do a million moves? No, but he plays to his strengths. Same with Cena. His matches are exciting and fun to watch.

 

[Miko]

I dont know what makes someone shit in the ring really, but that may be because most of the people that are crucified for being shit in the ring I happen to think are awesome. People like JBL and Ultimate Warrior.

I mean, with me it all comes down to enjoyability, JBL for example was such a cunt that he managed to piss everyone off when he was in control and when he was getting beaten on people fucking loved it. Warrior was just fun, someone beating the crap out of him only for him to shake the ropes and start running around like a lunatic.

Shit in ring wrestlers are just guys who cant make me give a shit no matter what they're acrobatics, guys like Shelton Benjamin and Kofi Kingston. Nice flip dude, I just dont care sorry, rather watch Warrior pump his arms up and down. So in short I think I mean that a good wrestler makes you care or something.

 

[hArdyPUNKmArk]

You're shit in the ring if you can't tell the story, sell your opponents offence or make your offence look legit.

They are the 3 things I believe you need to be decent in the ring.

Telling a story - You need to be able to continue the feud/story by keeping the character going wether it be Ziggler or Jericho yelling at the ref or Triple H getting pissed or Edge pushing his hair back etc. Everyone needs to keep in character and continue telling the story while they are in the ring.

Selling - You need to be able to sell your opponents moves well. This is something a lot of the great wrestlers seem to do just as well as their offence moves. Guys like Cena, Jeff Hardy, HBK etc sell really well and make it look like they are really in pain or hurt. It's something that get's over looked but it's something that is very important. You have to be able to sell the moves of your opponent.

Offence - You need to make your offensive moves look legit and real. Guys like the Big Show make it look like his KO punch could really knock you out or Punk's kicks or Benoit's crossface. All these moves look legitimatley painful which is something that is very important in being a great in ring performer.

I believe with these 3 qualities you should be a great in ring performer because you're keeping the story going, making your opponent look good and making yourself look good. It's the perfect formula

 

[Razor]

You need to tell a story. If you can't tell a story, you're shit in the ring.

Take, for example, Cena's match against Swagger many a moon ago on Raw. The story was the (current?) ECW champion fighting Cena on a 3-hour Raw for a draft pick, if I remember correctly. Cena was confident he would win, but so was the cocky Swagger. The two power wrestlers collided in the ring.

What happened during the match? Cena was caught off guard by Swagger's sheer power, that's what. Cena suddenly had to pull everything he had against Swagger to get the win. Cena barely made it out with the win over the (former?) ECW champion.

That match told a complete story of Cena vs. Swagger, and left Swagger looking like a veritable powerhouse. It was a completely legit wrestling match that only blind Cena haters would claim was bad.

Now, let's take a shit match. I don't know....your generic Benjamin match of old (I've heard he's gotten better...so I'll reserve judgment of his newer stuff.) Jump jump, kick, missed dive, pin attempt, kick, kick, Benjamin gets pinned. No story at all. Benjamin would randomly try a jump kick, even if his leg had been worked on for the past 30 minutes. His offense would make no sense, and his selling even less. The matches would tell no story, and you would be left confused. Shit wrestling.

Also, one more thing. A story isn't everything. You have to be able to work the crowd. The main eventers make the "comeback" almost every match. It wouldn't work if they couldn't get the crowd to care about them beating the heel.

So. Tell a story and work the crowd. You wouldn't think it very hard, huh?

 

[Mantaur Rodeo Clown]

You need to tell a story. If you can't tell a story, you're shit in the ring.

Take, for example, Cena's match against Swagger many a moon ago on Raw. The story was the (current?) ECW champion fighting Cena on a 3-hour Raw for a draft pick, if I remember correctly. Cena was confident he would win, but so was the cocky Swagger. The two power wrestlers collided in the ring.

What happened during the match? Cena was caught off guard by Swagger's sheer power, that's what. Cena suddenly had to pull everything he had against Swagger to get the win. Cena barely made it out with the win over the (former?) ECW champion.

That match told a complete story of Cena vs. Swagger, and left Swagger looking like a veritable powerhouse. It was a completely legit wrestling match that only blind Cena haters would claim was bad.

You know what, fuck it, I'm going to go ahead and say it. This has got to be one of the most overrated matches of the year. it had people clamouring for more of Swagger vs Cena, when really, it was a sub par Swagger match. He had had much better with Christian before hand on ECW. I don't know what it was, but some of the spots didn't connect properly, and the camera angles coupled with a some nasty ad breaks really pissed me off. It felt disjointed and not theb est they could've pulled off.

I suppose it told the story, but I think they could have made that match so much smoother. But since you have the future and the present all in one match, people had to clamour over it like it was a copy of Half Life 2 covered in cocaine.

Now, let's take a shit match. I don't know....your generic Benjamin match of old (I've heard he's gotten better...so I'll reserve judgment of his newer stuff.) Jump jump, kick, missed dive, pin attempt, kick, kick, Benjamin gets pinned. No story at all. Benjamin would randomly try a jump kick, even if his leg had been worked on for the past 30 minutes. His offense would make no sense, and his selling even less. The matches would tell no story, and you would be left confused. Shit wrestling.

I have to disagree greatly on this. You want a story? He had WAY better matches in his "days of old". Upon first being drafted to RAW and leaving Charlie Haas, he was at the top of his game and I believe this firmly cemented his place as the golden boy of the IWC. He wasn't so much of a spot monkey, and he worked pretty well. Case in point? His match with HHH on his first night on RAW. Probably just as overrated as John Cena vs Swagger, but I'm going to pull the old "covers your ears, shut your eyes and embed a video" argument.

[YOUTUBE]xa-Pi17uYHs[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]MzMqrKDUHsU[/YOUTUBE]

I thought this told a great story of New Kid on The Block vs The Champ. The New Kid was proving he could hang in there. All the little messages throughout the match were great, from the slap in the face to the "this close" gestures. I mean, you say he's gotten better? Goddamn, if anything he has regressed. But you are right in that without the story, there would be no match, just a sequence of moves. And this goes back to the main point of the thread in that, what defines most wrestlers as "shit" is that they aren't making us believe it. We WANT to believe what they're doing is real, so when it just looks like they've remembered some dance steps, we feel robbed.

We want to see the pain on every slam, the desperation in every kickout. that, I believe, is what defines whether we call someone shit or not. If they can make us believe it's real, even for one second, and transport us back to when we were 8 years old.

 

[The Gribbler]

I think storytelling is the most subtle art in wrestling. A lot goes in to building a good match that truly invites the viewer to invest him or herself into it. This is why so many people fail in getting themselves over, they simply want a spot fest or a chain of moves and an arbitrary comeback. Some think that they are telling a story but fail.

The thing is a good story is told without the viewer even having to think about it, it is just there. It's hard for me to explain. But that intangible quality, that little something extra, call it the X-factor or whatever cliched term you want. But that story that gets told without you having to read a match is what makes something good.

Without this element you are left with what I think is essentially a shit match.

Just my opinion

 

[Wrath]

Maybe storytelling,selling and your offence what makes a great worker in the ring but for me if someone is boring in ring I don't give any shit to those skills. I'm not a wrestling expert, I've always been outside of the business as an ordinary fan. I don't know how this business works as much as Vince so why should I have to give shit to all those skills it's not my job. I watch wrestling to entertain it's that simple. Yes watching wrestling for long time gave us an idea of what makes a great worker but I don't actually care it that much.

For example I don't care if Big Show is even a brilliant technical wrestler or his storytelling is phenemonal he's very boring and I start to snore when he's in ring. Everybody is saying that John Cena is shit in the ring his storytelling,selling and offence is brilliant but what makes I love him is being entertaining in the ring. Everyone is saying Jeff Hardy is a spot monkey and blah blah blah but he is an entertainer and his first job is to entertain people yes without in ring pshycology the match looks really fake and it's a bad thing I've always thought storytelling is one of the factors that make wrestling look like an art but I'd prefer an entertaining spot monkey Hardy to a boring Hardy.

Yes in ring pshycology,selling and storytelling is what makes you a great worker but if you are not entertaining I don't care it. I don't care in ring psychology unless the match is entertaining. So the biggest factor that makes you horrible in ring is being not entertaining in the ring.