You've been worked!

[Slyfox696]

I've been thinking about this for a while, and have finally decided to create this thread to adjust one of the biggest misconceptions amongst the IWC these days about professional wrestling.

A work in wrestling is an illusion of something that is put on by performers in a wrestling company to make the audience believe is accurate and real.

So, how have you been worked? Well, maybe you haven't been, but we'll see.



Throughout my many months and many arguments debating John Cena and Hulk Hogan, one thing was offered as criticism time and time again. When comparing Cena vs. Bryan Danielson, I heard the same thing over and over. "Danielson is a WRESTLER, and Cena is not". Oh really?

If John Cena is not a wrestler what is he? Just like Randy Savage, and Kamala, and Bryan Danielson, John Cena is a wrestler. So, where does this mistaken notion that Cena is not a "wrestler" come from? And more importantly, where does this thinking that a "wrestler" (meaning: technical wrestler) is more talented and has more in-ring ability than other styles of wrestling?

Well, that's where fans have been worked.

Go back to some old videos where Jesse Ventura is commentating. Numerous times you can hear him say something like "For Rude to win this match, he'll have to out-wrestle The Warrior" or you may hear something like "Hogan is just a puncher, a brawler if you will, while Mr. Perfect is a wrestler and will have to use his abilities as a superior mat technician to take down Hogan". And, it's not just Ventura that says it, as almost all commentators have used some form of this expression. For example, see Wrestlemania 22, HHH vs. Cena and Jim Ross's comparisons.

So, why is this important and why do I bring this up? Well, because Jesse Ventura and Jim Ross both know that wrestling is not a real competition. However, in their broadcasts and through their announcing, they are trying to make you believe that what is going on in the ring is actually a real contest between two men, and are analyzing the strengths of each man and what they have to do to win the match. They are literally trying to work the audience. And, over the years, decades even, as commentator after commentator has said things like this, wrestling fans have bought into this type of thinking and have been worked to believe that those who wrestle a technical style are superior in-ring workers, while those who have big muscles and use power moves are less skilled and get by for reasons other than skill. All the while, wrestling fans lose sight of what REALLY makes a professional wrestler skilled in the ring, and what truly makes a wrestler have good in-ring ability.

So, in conclusion, have you been worked? Do you agree with my position here? Did you used to think that technical ability was the only way to demonstrate skill? Do you still think that? Any additional thoughts? Let me have them.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

I went to see a movie on Tuesday night. "The Bucket List." It's that new film with Jack Nicholson and Morgan Freeman. By the end of the film, despite how much I'd laughed, by eyes were red and I was clutching my third tissue. Why?

Because I'd been worked by the movie.

Never once did I look at my sobbing fiancee and say "honey, it's just a movie." Lord knows I could have.

In fact, I could have stood outside the theatre and asked each person who went into the building "Why are you going in there? Don't you know the films in that theatre...well...aren't real?" Yeah, be one of those people.

But I didn't do any of those things. Why? Because I allowed the film to work me. The same way I do each Monday night, hell, EVERY DAMN DAY on this site, for one reason.

It's fun.

I started watching wrestling at age 10 and thought it was real. Yes, I was wrong. But I had SO MUCH FUN. And now, at age 26, I am in the unenviable position of fighting each day to enjoy wrestling the way I did as a kid, rather than reading about it the way I do Apple Inc.'s financials in Business Week magazine. I won't buy the idea of John Cena being a "poor wrestler" because I don't mind him. He doesn't bore me, he works a fair match. He's not an all time favorite of mine, not because I don't respect him, but just because he doesn't always appeal to me. Oh well.

It's hard for me to separate myself from the "technical wrestling" aspect of a match because I was an amateur wrestler for 4 years. I respect what it takes to mat wrestle rather than pick somebody up and drop them. It's hard to separate the two. That's me.

Sly makes a fair point here. If we hadn't all been worked, we all wouldn't be here. And for those of you who refuse to enjoy wrestling the way you used to, well, I feel sorry for you. But if you ever want to relive it and focus on the good instead of the bad, stop by a "Best of the 90's" thread or the WrestleZone Tournament. Show some love.

 

[Skullz Crack'Em]

I understand what you are saying Sly, most of the IWC praise wrestlers like Bret Hart, Chris Benoit, and Kurt Angle(just to name a few) because they are technical masters and that is the traditional way wrestling has been since it was created, thus meaning to some people, the right way to wrestle. It wasn't until Hulkamania started before the brawling style of wrestling became so popular in the WWF/E because Hogan was great at connecting with the fans due to being one of, if not, the most charismatic wrestler ever. Vince knew he had to take advantage of Hogan's popularity, but he also knew that Hogan was no mat technician, so that is when I believe "Brawling" became an established/official art of wrestling. This paved the way for superstars like Stone Cold, The Rock, and most recently, John Cena.

The love/hate reaction that Cena usually gets from an audience is mostly due to IMO, Cena being in the wrong place at the wrong time. If Cena debuted in 1998, he wouldn't get half as many boos that he gets today, because fans were still "into" the brawling style of wrestling, evident by Austin and Rock's success because Cena is not doing anything differently compared to what those two did.

Today, fans(IWC in particular) are sick of the Brawler "good guy", it lasted nearly 25 years, but it is time for a change, which is why ROH(and even TNA) is very popular because they have styles of wrestling(mostly a mix between technical and high flying) that you will rarely see on WWE programming.

I do agree with your post Sly, we have been worked, if John Cena is shown on TV as a brawler, then that is what we believe, even though he can probably do a lot more than what he is showing us(same goes for other wrestlers). I am not a fan of John Cena because I don't like his character and the way he was made to look indestructable, it has nothing to do with his style of wrestling, but many people has a problem with his in-ring work.

In conclusion, every guy in the WWE has their role in the company, Batista is a powerhouse, Rey is a high flyer, etc. It all comes down to personal preferences, some people may think technical is a boring way to wrestle while others think it is the best. The truth is, there is no best style of wrestling, whatever is your favorite is the only thing that matters IMO.

 

[HBK-aholic]

World Wrestling Entertainment. Therefore it is obvious entertainment is a big part of the WWE. However so is the world Wrestling.

The WWE needs both to continue. It needs the wrestlers who are going to make the money and sell and work the audience. Because without them there is no WWE. People like John Cena who even though I dislike him, I have huge amounts of respect for him because if it wasn't for him, and others, there wouldn't be a WWE.

The WWE also needs wrestlers who are that, atheletes who can perform in the ring to the highest standards. They don't make the money or draw as much of the audience. They may not look the part, or have the gimmick or mic skills to be 'the one'; the champion, but they are still a big part of the WWE. Without them it would just turn into a parody almost.

I know I'm in a minority when I say this, but I think the proper wrestlers are more pleasurable to watch. I love seeing this side of things. I love watching the proper matches though where it's all about talent.
However I am also entertained by the entertainers. Some promos and matches have me in tears of laughter, and they are just great.

The WWE needs both of these things, but most people like the matches with the champion better which is understandable. It's what the WWE wants, and it's great the WWE makes money. The wrestlers such as the champions get paid to make money more than to put on a wrestling talent filled show. And they are amazing at this job, the skill level just gets higher, and these wrestlers can't be put down for not doing their jobs. Hoever they can be put down for not having great in-ring ability.

Before I used to look at the champion of the company to see the height of talen in that company, but I can no longer do that. because there are different jobs in the WWE.

 

[Slyfox696]

World Wrestling Entertainment. Therefore it is obvious entertainment is a big part of the WWE. However so is the world Wrestling.

The WWE needs both to continue. It needs the wrestlers who are going to make the money and sell and work the audience. Because without them there is no WWE. People like John Cena who even though I dislike him, I have huge amounts of respect for him because if it wasn't for him, and others, there wouldn't be a WWE.

The WWE also needs wrestlers who are that, atheletes who can perform in the ring to the highest standards. They don't make the money or draw as much of the audience. They may not look the part, or have the gimmick or mic skills to be 'the one'; the champion, but they are still a big part of the WWE. Without them it would just turn into a parody almost.

If John Cena isn't a wrestler, what is he?

I'm thinking that "You've been worked!".

I know I'm in a minority when I say this, but I think the proper wrestlers are more pleasurable to watch. I love seeing this side of things. I love watching the proper matches though where it's all about talent.
However I am also entertained by the entertainers. Some promos and matches have me in tears of laughter, and they are just great.

Wait, wait. What is a "proper" wrestler? What is a "proper" match? Describe what you mean when you say the match is about "talent"? What constitutes talent for you?

The WWE needs both of these things, but most people like the matches with the champion better which is understandable. It's what the WWE wants, and it's great the WWE makes money. The wrestlers such as the champions get paid to make money more than to put on a wrestling talent filled show. And they are amazing at this job, the skill level just gets higher, and these wrestlers can't be put down for not doing their jobs. Hoever they can be put down for not having great in-ring ability.

If a champion has great crowd reaction in his match, and makes people want to pay to see him, how can you say he doesn't have great in-ring ability? What is great in-ring ability, if it's not the ability to make people care?

Before I used to look at the champion of the company to see the height of talen in that company, but I can no longer do that. because there are different jobs in the WWE.

The champion isn't always the height of talent, but the main headliner usually is one of the top talents. If you are not talented, you will not be the main headliner. It's simple really.

 

[Father:_Polley]

It's fun.

i agree whole-heartedly. as a kid i remember loving watching people get thrown about, hit with chairs, thrown off stages etc. yeah, it's fake, they always conveniently land on rigged objects... but it doesnt make it less enjoyable.

Go back to some old videos where Jesse Ventura is commentating. Numerous times you can hear him say something like "For Rude to win this match, he'll have to out-wrestle The Warrior" or you may hear something like "Hogan is just a puncher, a brawler if you will, while Mr. Perfect is a wrestler and will have to use his abilities as a superior mat technician to take down Hogan". And, it's not just Ventura that says it, as almost all commentators have used some form of this expression. For example, see Wrestlemania 22, HHH vs. Cena and Jim Ross's comparisons.

So, why is this important and why do I bring this up? Well, because Jesse Ventura and Jim Ross both know that wrestling is not a real competition. However, in their broadcasts and through their announcing, they are trying to make you believe that what is going on in the ring is actually a real contest between two men, and are analyzing the strengths of each man and what they have to do to win the match. They are literally trying to work the audience. And, over the years, decades even, as commentator after commentator has said things like this, wrestling fans have bought into this type of thinking and have been worked to believe that those who wrestle a technical style are superior in-ring workers, while those who have big muscles and use power moves are less skilled and get by for reasons other than skill. All the while, wrestling fans lose sight of what REALLY makes a professional wrestler skilled in the ring, and what truly makes a wrestler have good in-ring ability.

IMO, the commentators do a great job working the fans. they build up the characters of the wrestlers and make the match seem as if it matters, instead of it being rigged. and yeah, i agree that we probably have been worked to an extent to believe that technical is more skilled when success isn't solely measured on technical ability (see charlie haas as a prime example). however, i disagree in the sense that it takes a lot less effort to simply throw punches, clotheslines or splashes than to perform a standing backflip side slam, and for some that's just the way their character is.

Take Lashley - sold by the commentators as a power wrestler and all you have to do is look at parts of this forum to see people are sold on that view of him. not his amateur background, but power. it doesnt make him less talented because he can still do the moves and i think for a lot of people, because Cena DOESN'T operate technically, he cant. Big Show vs Kane is another example, where these two big guys were using drop toe holds on each other to the 'shock' of the commentators and crowds...simply because of how they've been sold as brawling wrestlers.

it's also part to do with the different classes of wrestler, promoting their 'weaknesses' and the best way to beat them (though if i hear michael cole talking about 'trading soup-bowls with the deadman' again i may be forced to sit and write on a forum how much it irritates me)

excuse my rambling comments but it's after 1am and i'm tired.

 

[Kliq]

I actually agree with Sly on this one, which is why I might not like the guys who are booked as 'great technical wrestlers' better, and why I do like guys like Kevin Nash while still loving Shawn Michaels. For me its about character, not ability.

 

[crazy88]

Sly, you've posed a fascinating question. It's the paradox that is professional wrestling. We know that it's a " work ", but still get sucked in by the show. It's the same as your favorite movie, favorite book( for the kids who might be reading, books are those rectangular objects with words in them. People a long time ago would put stories, ideas, etc in them. Many trees died. Sad.) or favorite RPG. You know it's not real, ( or someone took dramatic license if it's non fiction.) but the story, the laughs, the drama, the "What the Hell" moments draw you in. Why, because you enjoy it.

Technical, mat-based wrestling( a stylized extension of amateur wrestling) has been around since pro wrestling was founded. But, eventually, crowds got tired of plunking down their cash to watch 2 guys grapple on the mat for 10- 60 minutes. So, eventually, different styles of wrestling evoled ( such as power, brawling, harcore, high-flying and all points in between.) And the masses were entertained.

The question I saw earlier was a good one: Is there a " right " style of wrestling? IMO, no. The purpose is to entertain. There are no style points in wrestling. Yeah, guys like Cena and Hogan don't have a vast arsenal of moves, but really, neither does Ric Flair! And Flair is considered one of the greatest wrestlers in the business ever. Now, I am far from a Cena mark, and he gets on my last nerve, but he can put on a fairly good match, uses what he has effectively, and always gets a reaction from the crowd, good or bad. Same as Hogan and Flair.

The guys I enjoy in the ring, personally, are the ones that are highly adaptable. The ones who can hold own in almost any kind of match, ie Taker( a "brawler" who can use submission moves and can occasionally take to the air), Edge( who seemingly can adapt to whatever match he's in.), Shawn Michaels ( Nuff said), Kurt Angle( Is there anything that guy can't do in a ring?) They are great at getting over, gimmicks are top notch, and are considered amongst the best in the business.

 

[MattButcher]

I think we've all been worked to a certain extent. Fans of professional wrestling are able to suspend their disbelief and enjoy the show. I don't know specifically that fans have been historically worked to appreciate mat technique over other kinds of performance. I would think, if anything, that fans have been conditioned to appreciate size and perceived power over anything else. When I was a kid no match seemed quite as exciting as Hogan vs. Warrior for the title. These were the kinds of guys who were fan favorites. I see what you are saying with announcers equating "wrestling" or the ability to "out-wrestle" an individual with mat technique, but by that same token the clash of styles often got top billing in any match. The high flier vs. the cagey veteran or the powerhouse vs. the crazed brawler. That's just sports commentating 101. Also, consider how many talented performers, who are competent in mat-based technique, have jobbed to larger, less technical opponents. There isn't one "right" way to perform in the squared circle, but I think it is natural for long term wrestling fans to look for something more involved than slugfests and shoulder blocks. It's a matter of keeping that "holy shit!" factor alive. Having watched untold amounts of wrestling having nothing to do with WWF cartoon era, I think I would be fairly unimpressed going back and watching that Hogan/Warrior match now.

 

[Marquis]

if we are being worked it just shows how influential a commentator can be. Yes i use to think that technical ability was the only way to show skill but then i realized no matter what there all wrestlers from khali to cena to hart just different methods of wrestling you cant expect khali to wrestle like aj styles because of his height and mass. Now in most cases people complain well why cant cena wrestle better well to me the answer is his style goes with his gimmick and persona that brawler style just like how kurt angle has that mat style wrestling gimmick this is entertainment its not real if this were real they should be tested by there skill you don't ask why does the joker kill so many people cause you know hes insane it should be the same for wrestlers why does orton attack legends cause hes the legend killer why do cenas punches and shoulder tackles hurt more the other wrestlers cause he's been built as powerhouse brawler.