Why is term ring-performer and "talent" so narrow? When it's 1000 other attributes!

[mizowns]

It's pretty funny when you think about "talent" like it something that's only performing in the ring like Kurt Angle. When talent can be so many other things, like micskills, like ring-psychology, working the crowd, charisma, telling a story etc.

And the term ring-performer. It isn't about moving like Rey Mysterio or Shawn Michaels - the term is very narrow, when a ring-performer should do more then moving good or have technical moves.

I think the term is much bigger - talent and ring-performer are much much bigger definition like

Ringperformer also is = Ringpsychology, working the crowd, telling a story - etc that's a good ring-performer. Not only moving good in the ring or wrestling like Kurt Angle.

 

[Navi]

I'm sorry but I'm really at a loss to see what this thread is all about. Well except for the fact that it seems to be a love fest for Kurt Angle. Maybe the OP can enlighten us.

 

[Uncle Sam]

I think the OP's point is that a good ring performer doesn't simply mean being athletically gifted, and he's right. He's actually criticising Kurt Angle (if I'm reading it right).

I don't agree with the Kurt Angle example - Kurt was one of the most vibrant characters of the Attitude Era and routinely bored crowds with his solid fundamentals, even if he did always have moonsaults and big suplexes in his back pocket.

 

[mizowns]

I think the OP's point is that a good ring performer doesn't simply mean being athletically gifted, and he's right.

Correct.

But I didn't ciriticize Kurt Angle, I just everyone is not like him.

The term ring-performer only being atheltic most expand the definition, not only to be a athetlic, but ring-psychology, working the crowd, charisma, telling a story