|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Jan 23, 2014 3:12:28 GMT -5
The proposal that being "The Man" is anything besides the proof that coporate supports you, & exemplifies your capacity to play puppet master with the airheads holds no water. Wrestling is all about "playing puppet master with the airheads" as you put it. And you know who is good at doing that? Daniel Bryan. That is what makes him such a talent.  It's a section of the foundation. To work crowds in forms separate from your in-ring ability is an extension of the core concept. Creating the illusion of an authentic wrestling match. This concept has evolved due to the "Suspension of disbelief" concept being taken to such outlandish, & innovative places to where it's now a matter of creating the illusion of a believable struggle. Secondly, being considered "The Man" is not always a direct reflection of your ability. Bruno Samnartino is a great example. When he first won the WWWF title, he wasn't as ready as he should've been for the responsibility of being the focal point of the promotion. He later grew into it, but the positioning of him as the man wasn't supported by his ability until five years into his tenure. I'm not disagreeing with you on anything besides an issue of context. It's similar to the adage "The title doesn't make the man, the man makes the title". The reasons for a wrestler getting a push can be based on dozens of things, & somehow in WWE your in-ring ability is often considered secondary to your astethetic appearance/marketability, along with colloquial relatability. You & I both know that Daniel Bryan came into the company with a reputation for not being "An interview" as the 50s era shooters would say. He went through short periods of comical storylines periodically, but his popularity is built upon the passionate sincerity for the fans & victory, that erupts from every pore of his being with each moment of fulfillment. I understand how my writing would make someone think my testicles' color matches my prose for the man, but he's an advocate for the genuine article in a sea of transparent mannequins in tights with repertoires to match. To conclude, the best workers work the crowd from the ring with everything else built upon that or build to it with supplementing elements, but sometimes politics gets in the way of artistic justice. |
|
|
|
Post by Next Manufactured’s Sweater on Jan 23, 2014 6:01:39 GMT -5
To work crowds in forms separate from your in-ring ability is an extension of the core concept. Creating the illusion of an authentic wrestling match. This concept has evolved due to the "Suspension of disbelief" concept being taken to such outlandish, & innovative places to where it's now a matter of creating the illusion of a believable struggle. Secondly, being considered "The Man" is not always a direct reflection of your ability. Yes, it is. Being "The Man" in wrestling is an absolute reflection on your ability to sell tickets, and in the modern era, to also sell pay-per-views, sell merchandise, and draw TV ratings -- as judged by a man who has many, many years of experience at promoting wrestlers who do those things. Any wrestler who can't do those things is not a top tier wrestler, regardless of how many wristlock variations they do or do not know. Wrestling is not about being the best guy in a dirtsheet review. It's about being the guy who people desperately want to see win/lose. It's about being the guy whose matches people care about the result of. |
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Jan 23, 2014 12:22:53 GMT -5
To work crowds in forms separate from your in-ring ability is an extension of the core concept. Creating the illusion of an authentic wrestling match. This concept has evolved due to the "Suspension of disbelief" concept being taken to such outlandish, & innovative places to where it's now a matter of creating the illusion of a believable struggle. Secondly, being considered "The Man" is not always a direct reflection of your ability. Yes, it is. Being "The Man" in wrestling is an absolute reflection on your ability to sell tickets, and in the modern era, to also sell pay-per-views, sell merchandise, and draw TV ratings -- as judged by a man who has many, many years of experience at promoting wrestlers who do those things. Any wrestler who can't do those things is not a top tier wrestler, regardless of how many wristlock variations they do or do not know. Wrestling is not about being the best guy in a dirtsheet review. It's about being the guy who people desperately want to see win/lose. It's about being the guy whose matches people care about the result of. I hope you don't apply this to your taste in music, because I highly doubt anyone's dumb enough to classify Bach, Barkly, or Marsalis below Miley Cyrus in terms of talent because she was able to sell more tickets. Secondly, I never read spoilers or the alleged "News sites" to build my observations. I will always turn to the library of Congress's site along with articles/footage from the 60s & further back, along with interviews of the veterans & professional historians first.. (Mike Chapman being my favorite) I do this in order to study the original school of thought on it. To wrap this up. I agree that Professional Wrestling is not merely about movesets in the traditional sense The same way a house isn't just it's foundation. If you would read my posts entirely, you'd see such statements made. Jack Brisco taught Bob Orton Jr. & I quote "You can know everything, but it won't mean nothing if you don't know when & how to use it". Selling, Timing, Putting over the moves of your opponent are all recognized facets of the modern wrestler's repertoire. I still can't understand why you only admire people who sell tickets. Goldberg sold major tickets, but he could barely survive 12 minute matches unless the better men in the locker room carried him, had terrible speaking prowess, no real talent in selling or match calling etc. Your disdain for the idea of wrestling being artistic in any way is straight from the late teens/early 20s when the business was predominantly authentic, but was outed thanks to Jack Pfeffer's snitch calls to the press. This leaves me with the idea that you only like wrestlers who can make people care about them regardless of their other talents, but that would mean you only like wrestlers who are popular with the majority for the sake of their popularity. I don't believe this or claim to be true, because it would mean you're a pot trying to call me black, when I'm not a kettle in the first place. Because in case you haven't noticed. I argue far more with the fans best described as "Internet fans" than I do casual fans. I give them a break due to their ignorance, I won't take this nonsense from people who claim to know what they're talking about". I'm not referring to you, just diehards in general. |
|
|
|
Post by Next Manufactured’s Sweater on Jan 23, 2014 13:16:55 GMT -5
I hope you don't apply this to your taste in music, because I highly doubt anyone's dumb enough to classify Bach, Barkly, or Marsalis below Miley Cyrus in terms of talent because she was able to sell more tickets. I don't apply it to my taste in music, because it's apples and oranges. The difference is that wrestling doesn't have a Bach. Music isn't a genre. Wrestling is a genre. It's trashy entertainment, it's a genre that's all Miley Cyrus. The difference is whether someone's actually Miley Cyrus playing huge concerts and selling millions of records, or whether someone's doing a Miley Cyrus style act in a dive bar in front of thirty people. Some of those thirty people would think the dive bar act has a better voice than the real Miley Cyrus, but impressing thirty people is small potatoes compared to the real one's audience. |
|
|
|
Post by Next Manufactured’s Sweater on Jan 23, 2014 13:34:45 GMT -5
I still can't understand why you only admire people who sell tickets. Goldberg sold major tickets, but he could barely survive 12 minute matches unless the better men in the locker room carried him, had terrible speaking prowess, no real talent in selling or match calling etc. This leaves me with the idea that you only like wrestlers who can make people care about them regardless of their other talents, but that would mean you only like wrestlers who are popular with the majority for the sake of their popularity. No wrestler is "popular for the sake of popularity." That is what you fail to realise. Goldberg sold tickets for a reason. Do not let snobbery blind you. Goldberg might not have got all the star ratings in the dirtsheets, but he kept Dean Malenko's cheques high because it was Goldberg who had the qualities that people were paying to see. Charisma. Magnetism. The it factor that makes people want to watch what you're doing, and makes people care about whether you win or lose. The ability to have ten thousand fans or more on their feet, booing or cheering you. The ability to have them chanting your catchphrases with you and copying your signature hand gestures. The ability to have them counting along as you're pinning or being pinned. That's what makes a great wrestler. Without it, a wrestler is just a warm body making up the numbers and living off the scraps of a Hogan, Rock, Austin, Cena, Goldberg, Sting, Warrior, Batista etc. |
|
