What's Your Criteria for Greatness?

[IrishCanadian25]

Ok, well, since John Cena's return I have noticed an exponential increase in the number of debates, arguements, and just all-out bitch fights over who's better than whom, and who is the greatest or worst of all time. And of course, in a never ending attempt to be the voice of reason, I remind everyone that each of our criterion is different when we "rank" wrestlers. So now, it's time to rank our criteria.

Of the following "factors" in a wrestler, which one is the "most" important to you?

1. "Wrestling Ability." This means the ability of a wrestler to perform different maneuvers. "Technical" wrestling ability, often dealing with a focus on submission moves, suplexes, reversals, and innovation.

2. "Crowd Heat." The ability of a wrestler to work the crowd, either making them cheer if they are a face, boo if they are a heel, or just react in a way that shows they are paying attention. In short, do they generate a "pop?"

3. "Work Rate." Defined as how a wrestler competes in a match in the ring. How hard do the work, what quality of matches do they put on, etc. A clearer definition of this term would be appreciated.

4. "Ring Psychology." How well does a wrestler "tell the story" in the ring? Do their spots make sense? Do they create emotion because of how they work an opponent, a match, a crowd, etc?

5. "Putting Others Over." Does the wrestler willingly go out and "do the job" when asked to pass the torch or make other guys look strong? Do they conduct matches that make their opponent look good regardless of the outcome?

6. "Athleticism." Is the wrestler a true athlete? Are they in shape, can they perform in the ring for an extended period of time at a consistent level?

7. "Mic Skills." How effective are they at cutting promos / doing interviews? Can they enhance their character with their speaking ability? Do they enhance a match and improve the build-up because of their words?

8. "Toughness." Do they work through injuries? Do they come back from injuries? Do they work a higher number of days / matches each year than others despite the aches and pains?

9. "Backstage Demeanor." Are they one of the "good guys" backstage? Do they take the time to talk to rookies, or are they bullies backstage? Do they enhance morale or destroy it? Would you want them around your guys if you owned the company?

10. Other. Any other legitimate criteria you use to determine your opinion on a wrestler. Be specific and explain it to us all.

Please, vote for your #1 criterion and then let us know why it is important to you. Are there a few others you think count? Are there any that don't count at all? Who are the wrestlers who exude these top criteria in your eyes?

-IC25

 

[figure4]

I think putting people over is the most important factor. The ability to put people over earns the champions the respect of their peers and of the crowd. When it is time to "do business", a champion should always put people over the proper way. It is the closest thing to etiquette in wrestling. Even if a champion produces hundreds of classic matches, fans will always remember if that guy did business the proper way. That is why some of the greatest champions of all time have been criticized despite their track records, for their inability, or refusal, to put people over the right way.

 

[Slyfox696]

Work Rate has nothing to do with how hard a wrestler works, or how many moves they do or anything like that.

A Shoot in wrestling is when something on screen becomes real. A work is the opposite. A Work is the illusion of reality put on by performers. Thus, Work Rate refers to the ability of a worker to make an audience believe that his performance is "real", or more likely "believable and realistic".

Generally a high Workrate will result in great crowd heat.


Ring Psychology is the logic of the match, and when dealing with workers, how well the match fits their character and their supposed strengths. To display good ring psychology, a worker should use moves and taunts that fit their character and flow logically within a match. This is what so many indy level workers lack, and why the very things people criticize The Ultimate Warrior for, actually make for great psychology.

Storytelling is a combination of Workrate and Psychology together, as well as the acting of the part. Selling also makes a big difference here.


In my opinion, the five greatest characteristics (in order of importance) are:

1. Workrate - Because if the fans are unable to be drawn into the match, then the match is pointless.
2. Psychology - Poor psychology in a match leads to crowd disinterest and the ruination of the illusion of reality.
3. Selling - One of the more common ways to tell a story in the ring is through the selling of one or the other individual.
4. Charisma - Not to be confused, like it often is, with working the crowd, charisma is the ability to connect with a crowd and understand what they want and understanding how to make them feel what it is you want them to feel and make them behave/react the way you want them to, and when you want them to. See Hulk Hogan for a prime definition of this.
5. Motivation - Watching a guy like Carlito slop through matches for 2 years was downright painful, and it made me wonder how he ever thought he'd be successful. When a wrestler is not motivated and committed to putting on the best show possible for the fans each and every night, that turns me off to a wrestler.

 

[Kliq]

I think putting people over is the most important factor.

Ugh, that's disgusting. I actually feel the exact opposite, and am disappointed when a veteran lets an up and comer win, unless its once in a great while.

Greatness to me is charisma coupled with the right look [gimmick] and a few signature moves. The first time I saw HBK I thought to myself "I'm going to be a fan forever". I had the same feeling about Nash, Hogan, and Stone Cold, among others.

 

[midgensa]

It is definitely Crowd Heat for me. If a wrestler cannot generate the "pop" in any shape or form then all else fails I think. I think this is kind of hand-in-hand with mic skills, but if you cannot make the crowd interested ... then how well you work or wrestle matters little.

 

[HBK-aholic]

I've gone for Wrestling ability, because that's what I seem to have been arguing for lately and that very few people seem to understand. This isWorled WRESTLING Entertainment, therefore Wrestling skill should definately be a factor in what happens and who we view as the 'greatest'.

However it isn't the only thing, because that wouldn't be very entertaining for 2 hours. I think storytelling is also a huge factor, because without that it'd just be a group of matches, with no reasons behind them, and nothing to look at other than who's won.

 

[crazy88]

3. Selling - One of the more common ways to tell a story in the ring is through the selling of one or the other individual.
.

Selling a move, whether your the guy giving the move or the receipient, is essential in this business. Remember, if Hulk Hogan wants the crowd to "buy" that the Atomic Legdrop could damn near decapitate an opponet, said opponent needs to "sell" that the move is painful. We've all seen guys in the ring who have "no sold" his opponents finishers. It looks tacky and is highly unprofessional. It's the equivalent of helping a co- worker with a project, then having him take all the credit.
There are other components that I feel go into a great superstar. And they are:
1. Crowd " heat"- Does the boo the ever loving shit out of a superstar as soon as his music hits? Does the crowd go batshit crazy as a superstar's music hits? Or does the crowd barely register? If the answer is questions 1 or 2, then a superstar is doing a good job. Number 3, obviously they and creative team need to back to the drawing board.
2. Ring Psychology- How does a superstar react to a given situation? What moves would they use to put away an opponent? What tactics would they use? Why would taunt a particular opponent, but not another? What can they do to get the crowd to boo/cheer them more? The great ones are masters of ring psychology, and the ring is their therapists' couch.
3. Wrestling Ability- This trait is like a good deodorant: It can mask certain liabilities. Some guys may not have a great personality, may not play the political game backstage, but that won't make them a failure. A guy who can flat out wrestle can go far. Will that put in the Hall of Fame or make them a multiple time champion? It depends. But people who know wrestling will appreciate them.
4. Workrate- Do you work well with others? Do you give their spots, and do you perform yours when needed? A great superstar delivers witout fail.
5. Passion- The other day I was watching the 2007 Hall of Fame ceremony, particularaly JR's induction. And he talked a lot about passion for wrestling. Let's face it, These guys are on the road 250- 275 days a year, spending time away from their families, friends, homes, everything safe and secure. So a love for their job is a pre- requisite. You can have all the skill, charisma, political stroke in the world, but if a superstar is not passionate about putting on a great match, it can really show.
Their are different components that can make a great superstar, but I think that it is essential to have more than one attributes to make it happen.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

Work Rate has nothing to do with how hard a wrestler works, or how many moves they do or anything like that.

A Shoot in wrestling is when something on screen becomes real. A work is the opposite. A Work is the illusion of reality put on by performers. Thus, Work Rate refers to the ability of a worker to make an audience believe that his performance is "real", or more likely "believable and realistic".

Awesome. It's good to have a strong definition of that term. I search the net for a while last night trying to get a viable definition and didn't come up with much. Thanks for explaining that.

3. Selling - One of the more common ways to tell a story in the ring is through the selling of one or the other individual.

Good choice here. Definately belongs both on the list and in the discussion. Crazy88 brought up the infamous "no-sell" and I think it's also fair to include the "over-sell" in the discussion of what kills a wrestler's heat.

4. Charisma - Not to be confused, like it often is, with working the crowd, charisma is the ability to connect with a crowd and understand what they want and understanding how to make them feel what it is you want them to feel and make them behave/react the way you want them to, and when you want them to. See Hulk Hogan for a prime definition of this.

Fair enough. The charisma adds to the emotional investment the fan has in the match, no matter what form that emotion takes. The greatest confirmation of the success of the nWo angle and Hogan turn was the fact that WCW fans littered the ring with trash when Hogan came down in his Hollywood persona. THAt was emotion. On the flip side, I remember Hogan losing Title Matches to The Undertaker at Survivor Series and Yokozuna at KOTR. The cameras smartly panned to kids in the crowd who were BALLING their pathetic little eyes out.

5. Motivation - Watching a guy like Carlito slop through matches for 2 years was downright painful, and it made me wonder how he ever thought he'd be successful. When a wrestler is not motivated and committed to putting on the best show possible for the fans each and every night, that turns me off to a wrestler.

Also very true. If a guy doesn't want to be there, why in the hell should the fans want him there in the first place. A lot of IWC people whine and complain "why isn't this guy getting pushed?" Well, maybe this is a reason.

 

[Slyfox696]

Awesome. It's good to have a strong definition of that term. I search the net for a while last night trying to get a viable definition and didn't come up with much. Thanks for explaining that.

No problem. Generally people have come to think that work rate refers to what my dad always called the pacing of the match. Many in the IWC think that it refers to how many moves are done and fast they run...or whatever. Really has nothing to do with it.

When thinking of it in terms of the opposite of a Shoot, it makes a lot more sense what a Work is, and what Workrate means.

Good choice here. Definately belongs both on the list and in the discussion. Crazy88 brought up the infamous "no-sell" and I think it's also fair to include the "over-sell" in the discussion of what kills a wrestler's heat.

I would like to point out that "no-selling" does have it's place in wrestling, as long as it's done at the best moment. For example, Sting no selling the guitar shot at Bound For Glory 2005 was a subconcious sign that Sting was completely badass, and that nothing would stop him on his conquest towards the World title...which only caused the fans to go nuts. The Undertaker's gimmick is that of a deadman, and theoretically, it's hard to hurt a dead man. So, no-selling occasionally makes sense there as well.

So, no-selling does have its place in wrestling as well.

Also very true. If a guy doesn't want to be there, why in the hell should the fans want him there in the first place. A lot of IWC people whine and complain "why isn't this guy getting pushed?" Well, maybe this is a reason.

Very very astute observation.

 

[Meilichia]

I felt most of the factors mentioned in the poll influence my opinion on a whether or not a wrestler is great. Here’s a list of what I think makes a great wrestler, in order.

1. "Wrestling Ability." In the poll I voted for ‘Wrestling ability’ as the most important thing for a ‘great wrestler’, simply because I have great belief in technical wrestling abilities. Not so much in the quantity of the wrestling moves, but more in respect to variety and originality of moves.

2. "Work Rate." I feel this is again very important, within the believability of a move, and the ability to sell a move to an audience, as an illusion. With this I also think the ability to continue at this rate, throughout all matches is another sign of a great wrestler.

3. "Athleticism." This really I feel goes with both the first two choices; athleticism will prove a stamina that will help with work rate and the quality of a match.

4. "Ring Psychology." Wrestling psychology is very important to a ‘great’ wrestler, not only in their ability to work within their character, but being able to work off another wrestler, I feel a great example of ring psychology is a young Shawn Michaels, he portrayed his ‘cocky’ attitude within his wrestling moves, his taunts and his body language throughout a match. I feel psychology within a match should be closely linked to charisma outside the ring.

5. "Mic Skills and Charisma" Mic Skills are very valued in wrestling ‘entertainment’ establishments. A wrestler who can convince the fans of his character is far better than a wrestler who just appears to be ‘saying’ meaningless words, an example of this would be Jeff Hardy, who only appears to be saying the words.

6. "Putting Others Over." I personally feel a great wrestler is one who is willing to lose, for the benefit of another wrestler’s growth if deserved. A wrestler who continually wins will slowly lose fans because of credibility.

7. “Career Length” The ability to climb the wrestling hierarchy is very important, a wrestler who starts at the top won’t often have as much fan respect as one who has worked his way up, although there is exceptions to this, such as the Undertaker. There is also a chance to ‘prove’ one self by showing determination and growth. That I feel is one of WWE’s biggest down falls currently, taking a young wrestler and pushing them too soon.

What shouldn’t be an influence but very much is -
"Backstage Demeanour." Backstage politics and rumours often spoil the reputation of a wrestler within the IWC. I feel as a fan, I should base my opinion of a wrestler purely on what I see with my own eyes on TV. How a person is off the camera shouldn’t be a huge influence on an opinion of whether a wrestler is a great wrestler or not.

 

[Slyfox696]

I have to disagree with those who say athleticism is what makes a good wrestler. Because if it was then Harley Race, Dusty Rhodes, Arn Anderson, One Man Gang, etc would never have been considered good wrestlers.

Athleticism, relative to other wrestlers, really is not much of a factor. It can help, but really isn't necessary.

3. "Athleticism." This really I feel goes with both the first two choices; athleticism will prove a stamina that will help with work rate and the quality of a match.

How does stamina help work rate?

 

[Meilichia]

I have to disagree with those who say athleticism is what makes a good wrestler. Because if it was then Harley Race, Dusty Rhodes, Arn Anderson, One Man Gang, etc would never have been considered good wrestlers.

Athleticism, relative to other wrestlers, really is not much of a factor. It can help, but really isn't necessary.

How does stamina help work rate?

Athelticism is what is important to me, to make who in my opinion are great wrestlers, for the reasons I gave.

Stamina I suppose would have been the wrong word to use, the point I was trying to get across was the continuation of work rate via believability. To keep the same level of work rate in every match.

 

[Slyfox696]

Athelticism is what is important to me, to make who in my opinion are great wrestlers, for the reasons I gave.

And I disagree, and gave my opinion why, and even included examples of how athleticism really isn't a factor to support my position.

Stamina I suppose would have been the wrong word to use, the point I was trying to get across was the continuation of work rate via believability. To keep the same level of work rate in every match.

How does athleticism, then, contribute to the working of a crowd?

I'm not criticizing, I'm just curious.

 

[Meilichia]

And I disagree, and gave my opinion why, and even included examples of how athleticism really isn't a factor to support my position.
How does athleticism, then, contribute to the working of a crowd?

So are you asking how athleticism helps the work rate?
If you are, I'd have to say in the same way wrestling ability does.
With wrestling ability, its important not only to perform the moves, but also to sell them, in a way that looks believable. I feel athleticism helps this, and helps this to continue for longer periods of time. I'm not saying it counts for all wrestlers, because there are few that don't follow this, but I suppose what I am trying to say is athleticism helps prolong the work rate, so a match doesn't become sloppy. For example if you compared a long match say of one of the Rock's, who i feel was very athletic, to say a long match of Khali's (if there was ever one), athleticism would play a major role in the believably.
I think that made sense.

 

[HLOTN]

"If you are, I'd have to say in the same way wrestling ability does.
With wrestling ability, its important not only to perform the moves, but also to sell them, in a way that looks believable. I feel athleticism helps this, and helps this to continue for longer periods of time. I'm not saying it counts for all wrestlers, because there are few that don't follow this, but I suppose what I am trying to say is athleticism helps prolong the work rate, so a match doesn't become sloppy. For example if you compared a long match say of one of the Rock's, who i feel was very athletic, to say a long match of Khali's (if there was ever one), athleticism would play a major role in the believably.
I think that made sense."

Thats still quite an outrageous comment, though. Some of the world's best wrestlers aren't that athletic i.e Stan Hansen. Comparing Khali to the Rock is pretty wild as one really can't work and the other was a phenomenal worker at times. That hasn't got much to do with athleticism either. Khali wouldn't have to be a great athlete to be a good wrestler - thats the bottom line.

I'm sorry but your point seemed to lose track a little and I didnt quite understand what you were talking about. If you prefer athletic wrestlers, thats cool, but in no way does athleticism separate good from bad wrestlers.

 

[Meilichia]

I never made the statement it stops wrestlers from being separated into bad and good categories. I only said athleticism helps prolong a good match. It stops it from being sloppy. That is my opinion.
I could use other wrestlers if you didn't like my examples. Jeff Hardy for example, one of my favourite wrestlers, but as the match gets longer, his work gets sloppier, and that I feel is part due to his athleticism.

 

[HLOTN]

"I never made the statement it stops wrestlers from being separated into bad and good categories. I only said athleticism helps prolong a good match. It stops it from being sloppy. That is my opinion.
I could use other wrestlers if you didn't like my examples. Jeff Hardy for example, one of my favourite wrestlers, but as the match gets longer, his work gets sloppier, and that I feel is part due to his athleticism."

I haven't watched a full Hardy match for some time, but even still, having little athleticism does not make a match sloppier. Stan Hansen and Harley Race are two world renowned wrestlers who are considered all time greats, and their matches were never what I would call "sloppy". Some workers are just simply that - sloppy workers. I really think youre mixing yourself up. From what I remember, Jeff was very athletic. He was just careless and all over the place at times. That has nothing to do with athleticism.

 

[Meilichia]

I haven't watched a full Hardy match for some time, but even still, having little athleticism does not make a match sloppier. Stan Hansen and Harley Race are two world renowned wrestlers who are considered all time greats, and their matches were never what I would call "sloppy". Some workers are just simply that - sloppy workers. I really think youre mixing yourself up. From what I remember, Jeff was very athletic. He was just careless and all over the place at times. That has nothing to do with athleticism.

Jeff Hardy often misses his spots, but its athleticism in my opinion that makes his matches end up sloppy.
Also i think you are mixing up looking 'athletic' and being 'athletic'. There is a great deal of difference.

 

[HLOTN]

"Jeff Hardy often misses his spots, but its athleticism in my opinion that makes his matches end up sloppy.
Also i think you are mixing up looking 'athletic' and being 'athletic'. There is a great deal of difference."

No, I'm really not. Jeff doesn't actually look that athletic, but he is (or was). He does miss spots, but that just means he's sloppy. So, was your point you have to be athletic to actually have stamina and hit all your spots? If so, thats crazy talk.

 

[Meilichia]

"Jeff Hardy often misses his spots, but its athleticism in my opinion that makes his matches end up sloppy.
Also i think you are mixing up looking 'athletic' and being 'athletic'. There is a great deal of difference."

No, I'm really not. Jeff doesn't actually look that athletic, but he is (or was). He does miss spots, but that just means he's sloppy. So, was your point you have to be athletic to actually have stamina and hit all your spots? If so, thats crazy talk.

Excuse me this is my opinion on what makes a wrestler great, and I feel athleticism does. I'm not saying it makes you hit all your spots, I'm saying you are more likely to do so, towards the end of a long match is you are athletic.

 

[HLOTN]

"Excuse me this is my opinion on what makes a wrestler great, and I feel athleticism does. I'm not saying it makes you hit all your spots, I'm saying you are more likely to do so, towards the end of a long match is you are athletic."

Please, enough of the "it's my opinion!" cop out. It doesn't mean youre more likely to hit your spots towards the end of a match because there are definitely wrestlers who are not that athletic who can do just that. Thats a fact.

 

[Meilichia]

This whole thread is about opinions HLOTN. If it's a fact, please tell me more... I'd obviously like to know where I am going wrong. Who is a non-athletic wrestler who could hit a spot, say after 30 minutes of a match, without it being sloppy?

Also use the quote button from now on, please, makes it easier. .

 

[butters1234]

I would have to say, Undertaker\The war machine Stone Cold Steve Austin are the 2 greatest wrestlers ever, so this prooves 2-3 things to me, in ring phycology/mic skills are the most important thing in wrestling and wrestling ability. Heres the thing the greats, have them all not just 1 thats why im tired of John Cena, no wrestling ability, no in ring phycology, just mediocre (spelling?) mic skills. and as i said, you need more than 1 to make yourself Great.