Wrestler you like, but rest of the IWC doesn't?

[Papa Pillman]

You're looking at it in the wrong way. You're seeing all pro wrestling promotions as equal.

Not equals. Alternatives.

That's wrong. The better model is Major League Baseball.

See, I think the baseball analogy is flawed. It doesn't hold weight with me.

Aside from minor strategical tweaks, baseball is baseball. There aren't a variety of ways to present it.

In Major League Baseball, you have the big leagues and the minor leagues. Promotions like ROH are the minor leagues. How often do you find great MLB level players in the minor leagues?

See inside of the WWE I get this analogy. I have always looked at it as Raw and the Smackdown main eventers are the big leagues, shows like Superstars and the lower/middle card of Smackdown is the triple-A level, while developmental is the company's lower minors. Obviously this analogy has shifted to a degree since the brand extension has faded, but you get my point.

A more appropriate analogy when comparing across company's with different philosophies would be one similar to NCAA football for example. A school like Boise State can't compete monetarily to get the obvious top recruits but they take the kids that others might not see something in and put those kids into an alternative system that they can thrive in, and what results is success on the field, entertaining games, and eventually recognition for the players. And as an end result not only do you get years where BSU wins BCS bowl games, but you get situations like the 2012 NFL draft where Boise has six players drafted into the NFL while LSU, a big money, big fanbase, national power program only has five drafted despite coming off playing for a national title. It doesn't make Boise LSU's equal, but it makes them a alternative, and one that shouldn't be immediately disregarded as terrible or inferior.

As it is, the WWE already takes those with potential, do you think if there was an elite wrestler in the indys, they wouldn't already have him?

Some guys are still very young, while others don't have a "WWE-look", or plenty of other reasons that don't necesarily mean that those workers are inferior to every worker under WWE contract

PWG uses alot of the same talent that ROH does as well as the top DGUSA talent, etc. and they are presenting a style that is far different and caters to a seperate crowd. That doesn't make the wrestling they present low quality.

Chikara is another good example, they aren't trying to be like the WWE. They have their own niche, and in an art like pro wrestling that shouldn't be seen as an automatic negative.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

You do realize the indy style IS terrible, right?, the indy style is just fucking terrible.

I have a strong level of confidence that this is a major contributing factor.

anyways, as for the question....The obvious.

Cena, Hogan, Ultimate Warrior, The Road Warriors, The Nasty Boys...Uh, Chris Benoit.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

PWG uses alot of the same talent that ROH does as well as the top DGUSA talent, etc. and they are presenting a style that is far different and caters to a seperate crowd. That doesn't make the wrestling they present low quality.

Sure doesnt. The lack of quality is what makes it low quality.

 

[Shadowmancer]

I think there is an element of going into certain sorts of wrestling with a preconceived notion of what is expected, while yes there is a bad side of Indy wrestling, I do think that there are certain people within the Indy scene that know what they are doing and understand the business side of things. There are stories out there that are good. It is all about going into it with a show me what you can do in telling a story. Its a fairly positive mindset to go into things with,

 

[pshanbhag92]

Krispen Wah!

 

[Dirk]

Krispen Wah!

Oh, come off it, he'd get road-head from most people on the forum. Good ol' Ben Wa Balls.

 

[pshanbhag92]

Jim Cornette. What do people think of Jim Cornetee?

 

[DirtyD79]

The Shockmaster

Nobody could make an entrance like that guy.

 

[Slyfox696]

Not equals. Alternatives.

Yes, poor alternatives.

See, I think the baseball analogy is flawed. It doesn't hold weight with me.

Aside from minor strategical tweaks, baseball is baseball. There aren't a variety of ways to present it.

You obviously don't know very much about baseball then.

How do you choose to build a team? Do you rely on a strong pitching staff or look for hitters? How does the park you play in factor into your decision? If you choose pitchers, do you look for innings-eating starters, or do you try to build a strong bullpen? Do you try to match righty vs. lefty, or do you put your best pitcher out there and let him win? Do you prefer young pitchers with live arms, or do you like the more veteran pitchers who have more savvy and skill in their craft? How do you handle your pitchers? How do you handle their recovery? Do you shut Stephen Strasberg down to preserve his arm, or do you build his strength by letting him pitch into the postseason?

Just from my very first question, look at all the different possibilities and differences in philosophies. Baseball very much has a large variety of ways to present, and I just did a broad overview of the pitching side.

My baseball example is spot on. ROH is the minor leagues. The minor league players are not nearly as good as those in the major leagues, because if they were, they'd be in the major leagues.

See inside of the WWE I get this analogy. I have always looked at it as Raw and the Smackdown main eventers are the big leagues, shows like Superstars and the lower/middle card of Smackdown is the triple-A level, while developmental is the company's lower minors. Obviously this analogy has shifted to a degree since the brand extension has faded, but you get my point.

It certainly can work in this manner as well.

A more appropriate analogy when comparing across company's with different philosophies would be one similar to NCAA football for example. A school like Boise State can't compete monetarily to get the obvious top recruits but they take the kids that others might not see something in and put those kids into an alternative system that they can thrive in, and what results is success on the field, entertaining games, and eventually recognition for the players. And as an end result not only do you get years where BSU wins BCS bowl games, but you get situations like the 2012 NFL draft where Boise has six players drafted into the NFL while LSU, a big money, big fanbase, national power program only has five drafted despite coming off playing for a national title. It doesn't make Boise LSU's equal, but it makes them a alternative, and one that shouldn't be immediately disregarded as terrible or inferior.

No, this does not work, for a variety of reasons, of which I'll name two.

1) In college football, once a player signs a scholarship, another team cannot recruit him. Unlike in college football, the moment the big league sees someone they want, they can offer a MUCH more lucrative contract immediately.

2) Everyone in college football is, more or less, on the same experience level. A 20 year old lineman from Boise St has played just as much football as a 20 year old lineman from Alabama. This is how you sometimes see certain guys at smaller colleges bloom into NFL caliber players, as their level of experience increases.

That's not true in pro wrestling. There is a wide discrepancy in experience of pro wrestlers. Ric Flair has been wrestling since the 70s. Ryback has been wrestling less than 10 years.

Now you may say, "there are guys in their 30s working in the indys", to which I'd say "yes, there are", but then I would point you back to #1. If a guy works for a while, and greatly improves his ability to work, then the WWE is going to sign him.

Your college football example does not apply. The Major League Baseball is much more appropriate.

Some guys are still very young, while others don't have a "WWE-look", or plenty of other reasons that don't necesarily mean that those workers are inferior to every worker under WWE contract

Tell me, does CM Punk or Daniel Bryan have the "WWE-look"? Has that mattered to the WWE?

PWG uses alot of the same talent that ROH does as well as the top DGUSA talent, etc. and they are presenting a style that is far different and caters to a seperate crowd. That doesn't make the wrestling they present low quality.

No, "the lack of quality is what makes it low quality.".

Chikara is another good example, they aren't trying to be like the WWE.

Because they can't be. The talent they have isn't good enough.

Who wouldn't want to be like the WWE? Who wouldn't want to make money hand over fist? Chikara is the PERFECT example of what I said in my last post:

"Once you realize the quality of wrestler is lower in the indys, you'll understand why the quality of work is lower in the indys. Because the quality is lower, and the wrestlers aren't as good, they have to find alternate ways to entertain the audience, which is why you see the so-called "indy style" (which is terrible term, considering how many different styles are worked). "

They have their own niche, and in an art like pro wrestling that shouldn't be seen as an automatic negative.

Pro wrestling isn't an art, at least not in the way you're meaning. Pro wrestling is a business. They have a product they are trying to sell. It is salesmanship. The "art" in pro wrestling is knowing how to make people care about you. The best matches are the ones in which the workers make you care about the characters, not the moves. In the large amount of "great" indy matches I've seen over the years, the focus hasn't been on the characters, but rather the moves, a case of "what will top what he just did". Good pro wrestling doesn't need that. A good pro wrestling match can be done with 4 moves used by each man total. It's all in how you sell the story of the match. Triple H vs. Undertaker last year wasn't great because they used weapons or because they wrestled a technical style match. Triple H vs. Undertaker was terrific because the story they told (along with HBK) was fantastic, drawing upon the memories of the years previous as well as Undertaker's Wrestlemania magic.

That's what good pro wrestling is. And that's not what you see in the "indy style".

Sure doesnt. The lack of quality is what makes it low quality.

I liked this so much I had to steal it for myself.

 

[Gelgarin]

And the award for circular reasoning goes to...

 

[Coco]

Same old shit.

 

[Papa Pillman]

And the award for circular reasoning goes to...

^^^
This.
Thank you Gelgarin.

I will stop trying to reason in the face of that type of "logic".

 

[H33LTurn]

Triple H- I think hes great in the ring, underrated on the mic, and overlooked because of his relationship with Stephanie. If there is one guy who has one foot in the ring and one in the office I'm glad its Triple H because he has a mind for the business and it appears that things will be improving once he takes the reigns permanently.

The Miz- He has the it factor in my opinion. Its all of question of how WWE wants to use it. The man is naturally charismatic, something that doesnt come with every superstar. Nothing that he does on the mic feels forced and when allowed to be his true self he can be pretty darn entertaining. In the ring he's improved greatly over the years and this new storyline with Ric Flair should catapult him somewhere nice in the cards.

Randy Orton- Now heres a weird one because over the last couple of months I havent cared much for him but lets just say the IWC grew weary of him way before I did. His rivalry with Christian was the best thing to happen to Smackdown in a long time and definitely motivated creative to put some effort into the blue brand. In the ring he's smooth and calculated, unaccompanied in today's era of brawlers and high flyers. While his gimmick needs some fine tuning, the shit Orton gets for his in ring work is unwarranted.

 

[dman1373]

You're looking at it in the wrong way. You're seeing all pro wrestling promotions as equal. That's wrong. The better model is Major League Baseball.

In Major League Baseball, you have the big leagues and the minor leagues. Promotions like ROH are the minor leagues. How often do you find great MLB level players in the minor leagues? The answer is "very rarely". So it goes in the indys. The wrestlers simply are not good, if they were, they would be scooped up by WWE or ROH. As it is, the WWE already takes those with potential, do you think if there was an elite wrestler in the indys, they wouldn't already have him?

Once you realize the quality of wrestler is lower in the indys, you'll understand why the quality of work is lower in the indys. Because the quality is lower, and the wrestlers aren't as good, they have to find alternate ways to entertain the audience, which is why you see the so-called "indy style" (which is terrible term, considering how many different styles are worked).

ROH and the WWE are not equal. The WWE is the New York Yankees. TNA is the Cleveland Indians. ROH is AAA. Everything else doesn't deserve my time being rated.

thats not a fair statement considering wrestling is not a real sport. Because of that people like the miz can main event the wwes top ppv. He is only a below average worker, but since you cant look at a batting average, or how fast the fast pitch they throw, than its all a matter of opinion on whos better. And also there is more than just wwe, tna, and indies. There is also aaa, cmll, new japan, all japan, noah all which have shows in large arenas.

 

[Dirk]

Really enjoying this long-winded, off-topic flame war

 

[Slyfox696]

thats not a fair statement considering wrestling is not a real sport.

But it IS a real business. Like baseball teams. There ARE different levels of skills/abilities and potential, like in sports.

Because of that people like the miz can main event the wwes top ppv.

Only if people like that can be expected to sell tickets.

He is only a below average worker, but since you cant look at a batting average, or how fast the fast pitch they throw, than its all a matter of opinion on whos better.

You don't look at a radar gun or batting average, but you do look at drawing ability, reaction from the audience, merchandise sales, TV ratings, etc.

And also there is more than just wwe, tna, and indies. There is also aaa, cmll, new japan, all japan, noah all which have shows in large arenas.

None of which are in the United States, and all of which don't really compare well in this conversation.

 

[Gelgarin]

The movie industry is a real business isn't it?

 

[Slyfox696]

The movie industry is a real business isn't it?

It is, why do you ask?

 

[Gelgarin]

Because following that logic, does it not make sense to conclude that all mainstream Hollywood blockbusters and the people staring in them are objectively superior to all independent cinema/actors?

 

[Slyfox696]

Because following that logic, does it not make sense to conclude that all mainstream Hollywood blockbusters and the people staring in them are objectively superior to all independent cinema/actors?

No, because you have yet to define the intent. In pro wrestling, the intent is to make money. Wrestlers achieve this by making people care about them, connecting to the fans emotionally so they'll be willing to pay money to watch them wrestle. This is the intent (and skill) of pro wrestling.

If you wish to carry the example to Hollywood, you have to define the element you're looking to evaluate. If we're evaluating Hollywood in the same way we evaluate pro wrestling, then the answer to your question is yes. The mainstream stars are objectively superior to actors who cannot make people care enough about them to pay money to watch them. If you wish to evaluate Hollywood/acting in ways other than the way pro wrestling is defined, then you use different criteria.

 

[Blaze]

The Miz

 

[Gelgarin]

No, because you have yet to define the intent. In pro wrestling, the intent is to make money. Wrestlers achieve this by making people care about them, connecting to the fans emotionally so they'll be willing to pay money to watch them wrestle. This is the intent (and skill) of pro wrestling.

If you wish to carry the example to Hollywood, you have to define the element you're looking to evaluate. If we're evaluating Hollywood in the same way we evaluate pro wrestling, then the answer to your question is yes. The mainstream stars are objectively superior to actors who cannot make people care enough about them to pay money to watch them. If you wish to evaluate Hollywood/acting in ways other than the way pro wrestling is defined, then you use different criteria.

I'm not entirely sure on what grounds you can claim that professional wrestling exists exclusively to make money. Sure it's a business, as is Hollywood, publishing, music, theater, and the vast majority of other performance or artistic industries. Every one of these fields is ultimately driven by money, otherwise we wouldn't have record labels or publishing houses. That being said, declaring any one of these fields (including pro wrestling) as existing exclusively to generate profit seems rather naive.

There are a thousand conflicting agendas in every committee driven artistic endeavor. Movies are perhaps the best comparison to wrestling, and in any given movie there are people on both sides of the camera who care about garnering critical acclaim, or resonating with particular sections of the audience, or making a certain artistic statement, or making people smile or laugh, or ensuring that their own contribution to the project meets their own subjective standard of quality... and yes, there are people who just care about the bottom line. There are as many ways to judge the success of a piece of art as there are people involved in its creation; and to say that one single mode of thinking represents an "objective truth" is more than a little short sited.

The Shawshank Redemption, In the Name of the Father, Munich and Letters from Iwo Jima were all thoroughly disappointing when judged in terms of box office performance; but not even the most fanatical capitalist would declare them "objectively bad" movies on that count.

Why then should we apply a totally different standard for professional wrestling? Notions of critical acclaim, niche audiences and playing to your fans are no more alien to the wrasslin' industry then they are to cinema. A movie premiering at Sundance isn't courting mainstream blockbuster success, it's trying to impress the more artsy minded film critic and the people who care about what the more artsy minded film critic has to say. Similarly, your typical Ring of Honor show isn't courting the same audience as your average Smackdown, it's going after the kind of people who use the words "five star match" unironically. If it impresses the people it is trying to impress then it is successful. Guys on the indy scene never shut up about wanting to achieve their own personal interpretation of an amazing match - if their intent is what matters, as you just suggested, then they are almost by definition not unsuccessful.

A foreign language art-house film about the authorial mindset such as Swimming Pool (one of my favorite films) is never going to draw comparable numbers to a mainstream Hollywood blockbuster about giant killer robots no matter how good or bad either one may end up being. They are not in the same genre and they are not competing for the same audience and any attempt to draw a direct comparison between the two, without immediately acknowledging this, is ultimately faulty.

This holds equally true for wrestling promotions. If the entire WWE roster were to all perish is a tragic plane crash and the promotion were forced to promote the entire FCW roster, the company would still outdraw its nearest independent competition several thousand fold. Replace the FCW roster with indy guys and the eventual result changes not one iota; which logically makes saying that a guy is more talented because he is in the WWE transparently flawed.

The only way this reasoning works is if you infer on the WWE talent relations department a near superhuman ability to judge both a performer's skill and potential, and also remove from the equation every other factor that has an influence on who gets hired (nepotism and backstage personality come to mind). Now we know that the WWE talent relations department, whilst skilled, is not infallible in their hiring procedure - I'm sure I don't need to go trawling back through the archives to find evidence of this.

Now you and I are in full agreement when it comes to our opinions of most independent wrestling... I hold the majority of it in roughly equal (although perhaps fractionally better informed) contempt to you; but I do so for reasons that aren't quite as silly.

Your logic is ultimately circular. Guys in the WWE are intrinsically superior to guys on the indy circuit because if the guys on the indy circuit were better then they would be in the WWE. That's a textbook example of a logical fallacy; since I'm feeling nostalgic I might even go so far as to suggest that it's good old fashioned smoke and mirrors. [winking emoticon]

I hate the indies because they're shit. Their product is painfully bland and so wiped out by the law of diminishing returns that after two or three high profile RoH main events I never feel the need to watch one again. I could literally double the length of this essay with all the reasons I don't enjoy most of the independent scene and whilst all of my reasons would be sensible, logical and well argued, they would ultimately be subjective statements - and almost all of them would be based on the notion that I don't like the genre, rather than trying to presuppose some lack of ability on the participants. I hate indy wrestling and subsequently indy wrestlers. I also despise shitty horror movies, but that doesn't make Robert Englund an objectively bad actor - the guy used to do passable Shakespeare before be became Freddie Krueger.

Performing in CZW or Chikara or Dragon Gate are all thoroughly different from one another, and are equally different from performing in the WWE. There are many transferable skills, which is why guys like Punk, Joe, Wolf, Bryan, Aeries and whoever the fuck those Shield guys are have been able to transfer from one genre to another with comparatively immediate impacts.

As an aside, this rather shoots your 'guys in the indies are bad because they are in the indies' theory in the foot. Guys like Rollins, Aeries, Cesaro and Ambrose were performing consistently on the indies for years before the WWE snapped them up. They didn't magically get better just before they were signed - in fact history has shown us that if you (personally) watch any of their indy work you will declare them to be talentless hacks despite this now self evidently not being the case. Austin Aeries was a critical success for half a decade, jumped to TNA and was immediately a big deal. It's possible for a talented guy to work the indies for quite a long time without the laws of causality forcing him into a mainstream company.

That being said; not all skills are transferable between genres. There are guys on the indy scene who are incredibly good at what they do, but would never make it in the WWE. Similarly, there are guys in the WWE who would never make it big on the indy scene. Someone like Mark Henry (particularly early days Mark Henry) would transition just as badly to a Dragon Gate show as Amazing Red would to a WWE main event.

So to summarize:
1) Wrestling quite evidently does not exist exclusively to make money.
2) Even is statement 1 is inaccurate, comparing ability between mainstream and indy promotions is illogical.
3) Being in the WWE does not require the same skillset as being an indy darling.
3.5) I probably shouldn't be given time off work.
4) Having the WWE's preferred skillset does not make you an "objectively superior" performer to an indy guy.
5) The person who scrolled past the last six paragraphs so that they could type TL-DR is not, nor have they ever been, funny. They are a moron who finds long words challenging.
6) Assuming that I am right and that Slyfox is wrong; indy wrestling is still total shit.

 

[Slyfox696]

I'm not entirely sure on what grounds you can claim that professional wrestling exists exclusively to make money.

What other purpose is there? Unlike creating a song or a film, a pro wrestling promotion HAS to make money to continue. If a pro wrestling promotion doesn't make money, they go out of business. Without money, they cannot exist.

The entire point of pro wrestling is to make money. It's just an inescapable fact.

There are a thousand conflicting agendas in every committee driven artistic endeavor. Movies are perhaps the best comparison to wrestling, and in any given movie there are people on both sides of the camera who care about garnering critical acclaim, or resonating with particular sections of the audience, or making a certain artistic statement, or making people smile or laugh, or ensuring that their own contribution to the project meets their own subjective standard of quality... and yes, there are people who just care about the bottom line.

In the movie business, who would you equate to the WWE? The movie studios, correct? Isn't the goal of every movie studio to make money?

You have to compare apples to apples. You're referring to people in the industry, I'm talking about the industry itself. I could host a pro wrestling event in my backyard and take a loss on it, and do so in the name of the "art" of pro wrestling, but I couldn't do it very long before I was out of business. The "art" of pro wrestling is making people care about who you, making them care about your successes and failures. The "art" of pro wrestling will never be the number of moves you do or the amount of flips you can do.

Why then should we apply a totally different standard for professional wrestling? Notions of critical acclaim, niche audiences and playing to your fans are no more alien to the wrasslin' industry then they are to cinema. A movie premiering at Sundance isn't courting mainstream blockbuster success, it's trying to impress the more artsy minded film critic and the people who care about what the more artsy minded film critic has to say. Similarly, your typical Ring of Honor show isn't courting the same audience as your average Smackdown, it's going after the kind of people who use the words "five star match" unironically. If it impresses the people it is trying to impress then it is successful. Guys on the indy scene never shut up about wanting to achieve their own personal interpretation of an amazing match - if their intent is what matters, as you just suggested, then they are almost by definition not unsuccessful.

Tell me, then, what makes a match a 5 star match? What are the alternative ways to for a match to be "5 stars", if not for the way the wrestlers make people care about them, to invest emotionally into the match?

This holds equally true for wrestling promotions. If the entire WWE roster were to all perish is a tragic plane crash and the promotion were forced to promote the entire FCW roster, the company would still outdraw its nearest independent competition several thousand fold. Replace the FCW roster with indy guys and the eventual result changes not one iota; which logically makes saying that a guy is more talented because he is in the WWE transparently flawed.

No one is saying that a guy is more talented because he is in the WWE. What I'm saying is that the talented workers end up in the WWE. A very important distinction. Not all workers in the WWE are more skilled than those in the indys, but the guys who are very skilled in the indys will eventually work in the WWE.

What this means is that, overall, your level of talent in the indys is much lower. If a guy knows how to work, knows how to make people care so much about him they buy tickets to watch him wrestle, the WWE will sign the guy. Because the WWE offers incentives indy level promotions simply cannot match.

The only way this reasoning works is if you infer on the WWE talent relations department a near superhuman ability to judge both a performer's skill and potential, and also remove from the equation every other factor that has an influence on who gets hired (nepotism and backstage personality come to mind). Now we know that the WWE talent relations department, whilst skilled, is not infallible in their hiring procedure - I'm sure I don't need to go trawling back through the archives to find evidence of this.

Of course not, the WWE takes shots on guys all the time who do not work out. As I said earlier in this post, not everyone in the WWE is a good worker. There are some wrestlers who aren't nearly as good, but either show tremendous potential or who serve well in other roles.

But you'll rarely find great workers on the indy level, because if they are great workers, the WWE is going to get them. So the indy guys who are left, since they are not going to be skilled as those who work the big time in the WWE, have to rely on other ways to make fans come to the show. Which is why you see such a premium placed on "technical wrestling" and high spots. That's why the indy level places so much greater of an emphasis on the moves.

And at the end of the day, wrestlers who can do moves are a dime a dozen. Those who can make people care, those are much harder to find.

Your logic is ultimately circular. Guys in the WWE are intrinsically superior to guys on the indy circuit because if the guys on the indy circuit were better then they would be in the WWE. That's a textbook example of a logical fallacy; since I'm feeling nostalgic I might even go so far as to suggest that it's good old fashioned smoke and mirrors. [winking emoticon]

You have me wrong.

The guys in the WWE aren't intrinsically better because they are in the WWE. My statement is that guys who are better will be in the WWE. Being in the WWE doesn't automatically make you better, no more than being in the Major Leagues automatically makes you a better sports player. But the fact is, if you ARE good at what you're doing, you will be in the big leagues, because they offer incentives which the minor leagues cannot match.

Does that make sense?

I hate the indies because they're shit. Their product is painfully bland and so wiped out by the law of diminishing returns that after two or three high profile RoH main events I never feel the need to watch one again.

Why is that? Why do you not care about the "art" they are performing?

Is it because they don't make you care nearly so much about the workers themselves, but rather the moves they are doing? And after you've seen them done, it's no longer special, and thus, no longer worth watching? Honest question, even if it appears leading.

As an aside, this rather shoots your 'guys in the indies are bad because they are in the indies' theory in the foot. Guys like Rollins, Aeries, Cesaro and Ambrose were performing consistently on the indies for years before the WWE snapped them up. They didn't magically get better just before they were signed - in fact history has shown us that if you (personally) watch any of their indy work you will declare them to be talentless hacks despite this now self evidently not being the case.

Except this supposes that wrestlers are incapable of learning and refining their craft.

Take CM Punk, for example. Punk left ROH in 2005. It wasn't until 2011 before Punk truly became a superstar in pro wrestling. That's 6 years of learning, working with other great wrestling minds, honing his craft, etc. As far as guys like Rollins, Cesaro and Ambrose go...who says they are good? I don't know if I've even seen a match with the Shield, and Cesaro is hardly what I would call a top worker. Full of potential? Maybe. Skilled? Not like what you see in the WWE's main-event.

They don't "magically" get better after signing, but neither do they stay at exactly the same skill level either. John Cena as a wrestler today is much better than John Cena as a wrestler in 2005 (and he wasn't a bad worker in 2005). CM Punk is much better now than when he debuted in 2006. These guys get to work with the top minds in pro wrestling every week. They are going to improve.

Austin Aeries was a critical success for half a decade, jumped to TNA and was immediately a big deal.

The second time, you mean. The first time, Austin Starr, was a waste of time. But TNA isn't on the WWE's level. That's why I called them the Cleveland Indians. Yes, they exist on the major league level, but to pretend they are the New York Yankess would be foolish.

And if I could put that into soccer/football terms, I would, but I'm just not familiar enough with the sport to do so.

It's possible for a talented guy to work the indies for quite a long time without the laws of causality forcing him into a mainstream company.

I dislike using the word "talented" in these discussions, because I think it causes a bit of confusion.

It's possible for someone with potential to work the indies for quite a long time, yes. But it's VERY rare for someone with a high level of skill to do so.

So to summarize:
1) Wrestling quite evidently does not exist exclusively to make money.
2) Even is statement 1 is inaccurate, comparing ability between mainstream and indy promotions is illogical.
3) Being in the WWE does not require the same skillset as being an indy darling.
3.5) I probably shouldn't be given time off work.
4) Having the WWE's preferred skillset does not make you an "objectively superior" performer to an indy guy.
5) The person who scrolled past the last six paragraphs so that they could type TL-DR is not, nor have they ever been, funny. They are a moron who finds long words challenging.
6) Assuming that I am right and that Slyfox is wrong; indy wrestling is still total shit.

1) Yes, it does. If it didn't make money, it would not exist.

2) Not at all, because the skill in quality wrestling will always be the same, just as it is in any endeavor. The skills required to be a good actor or a good musician or a good sports athlete will be the same, no matter what level you're performing on.

3) Being a good pro wrestler always requires the same skillset.

3.5) Tell work you're doing something far more important.

4) This is sort of correct. Being in the WWE doesn't mean you are a better wrestler. However, the best wrestlers are in the WWE (or, to a lesser extent, TNA).

5) This should have been 4.5, not 5. Shame on you.

6) You're half right. Indy wrestling is shit. I can never be wrong though.

 

[Alastor]

Wrestling has more in common with porn than acting or singing or Hollywood.

 

[NotaHippie]

He is only a below average worker, but since you cant look at a batting average, or how fast the fast pitch they throw, than its all a matter of opinion on whos better.

Who looks at batting average anyway? What is this, 1975?