Jump to content
Pro Wrestling Only

What is the importance of mic work when assessing someone?


JerryvonKramer

How do you assess wrestlers?  

15 members have voted

  1. 1. Well?

    • Great matches
      2
    • In-ring ability
      2
    • In-ring ability + mic work, involvement in angles and so on
      3
    • Total package (as per 3 plus look, other intangibles such as X Factor, and drawing power)
      8


Recommended Posts

The WWF has always been booked to get over the people behind the scenes more than the people on camera. Never has that been more true than in the past decade, but it's always been true.

Great point. People think it started with the Attitude Era but I think you can go back to 84 at the start of the expansion. I think a lot of it has to do with Vince being a control freak. Plus his world view

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I watch US wrestling I want to see the big matches pay off all of the pre-match promos and angles. I think mic skills are worth considering in that regard. However, if you were to start judging workers on the total package I can't see people suddenly downgrading Kobashi or Toyota or Atlantis because they have poor mic skills. And you can't assume that just because a crowd was hot for Jumbo/Tenryu that either guy was that good at putting over their fight outside the ring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bobby Eaton is only going to get booed or cheered because of stuff that Jim Cornette has said and done.

Not even remotely the case. Bobby Eaton gets a reaction because he is a charismatic in-ring heel. Cornette helped him by giving him the opportunity to work some memorable programs. But he was not a passive part of what got the MX over by any means. Cornette's job was to heat up the issue before the match. Eaton's job was to keep them hooked during the match. He did that quite well.

It was the job of all the MX, including Cornette, to keep them hooked during the match. Jimbo was one of the very best managers at being a part of the match, without having to step all over the match. It truly was a three man team from the moment their music hit to the post match. There were some things that Cornette was more dominant in (pre-match and post match) than others. But even a short match like Clash I... he's very much part of a three man team, and not in the sense of someone being "The Fifth Beatle".

 

I agree that Bobby gets reactions in the ring because he's a terrific in-ring heel as part of a terrific trio. Just don't want to short change Cornette's role in the arenas, which was strong.

 

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People seem to be talking about the crowd as if they are in some way autonomous from the performers in the ring, they aren't. They are PRIMED by the guys in the ring beforehand through promos, angles, vignettes and so on.

 

The massive reactions The Rock used to get during matches are more to do with his amazing promo skills than they way he drops an elbow.

 

Bobby Eaton is only going to get booed or cheered because of stuff that Jim Cornette has said and done.

 

When it comes to crowd reactions, work is only one part of the picture, and I'd warrant less of a part than the other elements (although a GREAT match can turn a lethargic crowd around, this happens, for example, during Flair vs. Garvin at Starrcade 87 -- the crowd are way down Garvin at the start but the match is so good, they pop pretty well for both him and Flair in the final third).

 

I fundamentally disagree with the idea that you can separate these elements out -- the work, the crowd, the promo skills and so on. They are all part of the picture working towards a certain end, you can't take pieces away.

Okay... so Hogan is the GOAT. Whatever he did, be it promos and charisma and working the crowd to his entrance to the posing routine all combined drew the most for an epic length of time across two national promotions and one massive major territory while generating epic heat and completely changing the wrestling business from a territorial system to a national one.

 

Best fucking worker of all-time, end of debate, end of discussion.

 

I mean... seriously... that's the end result. Flair and Bret can take a flying fuck because they can't top Hogan.

 

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bobby Eaton is only going to get booed or cheered because of stuff that Jim Cornette has said and done.

Not even remotely the case. Bobby Eaton gets a reaction because he is a charismatic in-ring heel. Cornette helped him by giving him the opportunity to work some memorable programs. But he was not a passive part of what got the MX over by any means. Cornette's job was to heat up the issue before the match. Eaton's job was to keep them hooked during the match. He did that quite well.

It was the job of all the MX, including Cornette, to keep them hooked during the match. Jimbo was one of the very best managers at being a part of the match, without having to step all over the match. It truly was a three man team from the moment their music hit to the post match. There were some things that Cornette was more dominant in (pre-match and post match) than others. But even a short match like Clash I... he's very much part of a three man team, and not in the sense of someone being "The Fifth Beatle".

 

I agree that Bobby gets reactions in the ring because he's a terrific in-ring heel as part of a terrific trio. Just don't want to short change Cornette's role in the arenas, which was strong.

 

John

 

This is 100% true. I think I was so focused on making the point that Bobby Eaton was a very talented performer -- and not just because he was athletic -- that I glossed over Cornette's role. You're right. They were a unit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is 100% true. I think I was so focused on making the point that Bobby Eaton was a very talented performer -- and not just because he was athletic -- that I glossed over Cornette's role. You're right. They were a unit.

One of the reasons I've come to argue that the trio (Bobby & Jim & Dennis/Stan) should go in together: they all played their roles so well.

 

Also want to say again: Bobby was fantastic in the ring in the MX. He got heat, he was smart as hell in what he did, he brought both "cool shit" to the table but also tons of smart-solid work.

 

One of the things that I love about watching Jim at ringside in something like that Clash match is how Jim wasn't about "getting me" over, but the Unit. Heat on him meant heat on the Unit. But he didn't just work Distraction Spots where he got to wack the face, but loads of them where he was the one distracting the ref so that Bobby & Dennis/Stan could double team or preventing a hot tag from being seen... etc. Or he'd do things to make the faces look good. He was a worker *with* the match, not making it totally Look At Me.

 

There also was the role of the Ref, and the MX trio were terrific in making sure the ref was part of the match. Again, it wasn't Look At Me where the ref became part of the Storyline... but instead had to hit his que for Spots.

 

Beautiful thing to watch.

 

But Jim could do all the goofiness in the world at ringside and it wouldn't have meant a hill of beans if Bobby & Stan/Dennis, along with their opponents, couldn't work the match and their huge collection of spots.

 

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple of points, I may lock this thread because Loss's post is basically THE answer to the question.

This. :D

 

EDIT: And that's not me tapping out, it's me saying I've seen enough wrestling to know what Loss is saying is 100% true and very well thought out. I'll also mention that I love Bobby Eaton and think he was a great worker for all the reasons you mention; my point was that Corny helped to get him over and put him in a position where he would not be wasted. I don't believe that he would have had the success he did without a great manager like that -- as jdw says they were a great unit. But this is swings and roundabouts, I think we're on the same page.

 

EDIT 2:

 

The promo itself is not a commodity. A WM headlined by a Steve Austin promo would do a disappointing buyrate. This has long been a flaw of the WWF. Not so much the focus on the promo, but the focus on the attraction. The WWF has always been booked to get over the people behind the scenes more than the people on camera. Never has that been more true than in the past decade, but it's always been true. Writers write to get the value of writers over, and to downplay the value of wrestlers. The worst thing that can happen in the WWF is for fans to laugh at a locker room vignette. Suddenly, the WWF has decided that their wrestlers are disposable, and that the reason people watch is to laugh at locker room vignettes. So it starts getting force fed and ceases to be funny very quickly. In the late 90s, people sat through a lot of shit to watch Steve Austin and The Rock. The WWF takeaway was that the shit was a draw. They started calling themselves an action-adventure series. The shit was never the draw. The wrestlers were the draw.

I did also want to say that I know it can appear sometimes that I'm arguing that non-wrestling aspects are the draw too. I don't believe that. The in-ring element is the ONLY indispensable part. Promos aren't the be all and end all, for all the reasons you mention. Also, I have a tendency to overlook or temporarily forget some of the clusterfuck shit the WWF/E pulled after the Attitude Era. That "forced" quality is one of the reasons I stopped watching -- that, and the 15-minute HHH promos that go nowhere. By the time he's made his entrance, spat water everywhere, and then made material that would have been okay for a 1-minute insert promo last for an entire segment, I've had enough.

 

I am absolutely with you that wrestling and the wrestlers are the draw, not the shit. My point was only ever that "the shit" can help and shouldn't be overlooked, that it's part of a bigger picture and we should look at that bigger picture if at all possible. My mindset as a fan is stuck in the 80s and pre-attitude era 90s. That's all I've watched for a long time now. "The shit" can also be a hindrance if the bookers get the wrong-headed idea that that is solely what people are tuning in for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever he did, be it promos and charisma and working the crowd to his entrance to the posing routine all combined drew the most for an epic length of time across two national promotions and one massive major territory

Shouldn't be ignored that he got over in Japan too.

 

And re Japan or other foreign markets. It's not like things such as promos & charisma don't matter in those cultures either or that it's impossible to tell if someone has it even when not speaking the language. Inoki.... Onita or any number of guys & girls I could name.

 

I mean fuck, Onita's had some of the worst matches in the world the past couple years but he still manages to get me excited to see him wrestle again just by being the coolest fucker walking the planet. At this point i'd pay just to watch him scream into the mic, pound the mat and throw water around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple of points, I may lock this thread because Loss's post is basically THE answer to the question.

This. :D

 

EDIT: And that's not me tapping out, it's me saying I've seen enough wrestling to know what Loss is saying is 100% true and very well thought out. I'll also mention that I love Bobby Eaton and think he was a great worker for all the reasons you mention; my point was that Corny helped to get him over and put him in a position where he would not be wasted. I don't believe that he would have had the success he did without a great manager like that -- as jdw says they were a great unit. But this is swings and roundabouts, I think we're on the same page.

 

EDIT 2:

 

The promo itself is not a commodity. A WM headlined by a Steve Austin promo would do a disappointing buyrate. This has long been a flaw of the WWF. Not so much the focus on the promo, but the focus on the attraction. The WWF has always been booked to get over the people behind the scenes more than the people on camera. Never has that been more true than in the past decade, but it's always been true. Writers write to get the value of writers over, and to downplay the value of wrestlers. The worst thing that can happen in the WWF is for fans to laugh at a locker room vignette. Suddenly, the WWF has decided that their wrestlers are disposable, and that the reason people watch is to laugh at locker room vignettes. So it starts getting force fed and ceases to be funny very quickly. In the late 90s, people sat through a lot of shit to watch Steve Austin and The Rock. The WWF takeaway was that the shit was a draw. They started calling themselves an action-adventure series. The shit was never the draw. The wrestlers were the draw.

I did also want to say that I know it can appear sometimes that I'm arguing that non-wrestling aspects are the draw too. I don't believe that. The in-ring element is the ONLY indispensable part. Promos aren't the be all and end all, for all the reasons you mention. Also, I have a tendency to overlook or temporarily forget some of the clusterfuck shit the WWF/E pulled after the Attitude Era. That "forced" quality is one of the reasons I stopped watching -- that, and the 15-minute HHH promos that go nowhere. By the time he's made his entrance, spat water everywhere, and then made material that would have been okay for a 1-minute insert promo last for an entire segment, I've had enough.

 

I am absolutely with you that wrestling and the wrestlers are the draw, not the shit. My point was only ever that "the shit" can help and shouldn't be overlooked, that it's part of a bigger picture and we should look at that bigger picture if at all possible. My mindset as a fan is stuck in the 80s and pre-attitude era 90s. That's all I've watched for a long time now. "The shit" can also be a hindrance if the bookers get the wrong-headed idea that that is solely what people are tuning in for.

 

This post saved me from having to write a very long and angry screed about how you still don't get the point behind my objection to your argument after all this time. Apparently, you get it just fine.

 

Understand, my objection has never been that the non-wrestling parts of wrestling are unimportant or not interesting to me. I'd never say that. It's simply not true. What I object to is that you try to build up the importance of interviews/angles/etc. by tearing down the importance of matches. As you say, the match is the only indispensable part of wrestling. I'm sure you can understand why a lot of us prize some indispensable over something dispensable, even if we like the dispensable thing, too. At it's most basic level, it provides wrestling - as a medium of entertainment - with it's identity, and all the other cool stuff that gets piled on top of it really only works because it's backed by wrestling matches. So when you start saying things like "you can judge WWF DiBiase without looking at his matches at all," it's just not gonna stand up to scrutiny. But I think that, at it's heart, your opinion is a viable one, even if I don't subscribe to it. And if you will respect my opinion, I will be more than happy to respect yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SLL - my main argument was that you can't write off that part of Ted's career because it doesn't have any ***** matches in it. I see greatness in 3 big feuds that he had during that time (twin ref angle with Hogan, Jake feud, Virgil feud) and in the famous vignettes where he's kicking people out of swimming pools and making kids cry by kicking basket balls away, and none of those things produced a great match (I really like the Savage matches but seem to be alone in that). They don't add much to our assessment of Ted the worker, but I'd expect those things to come into play when assessing Ted the heel or Ted's career vs. any other guys career. If you suddenly say none of that stuff matters and that you'd rather watch Citizen Kane, then that's a whole chunk of what he did during his time in the WWF gone from your picture of his career. I respect the idea that in-ring work is important (and the MOST important thing), but I can't understand the view that simply dismisses the non-wresting elements out of hand in that manner.

 

----

 

There is a separate argument, one I think Matt D points to a lot, that says that great matches are not the only yardstick that you have to look at what guys do in matches. I'm towards that way of thinking too. It's probably a topic for a different thread, but again I still maintain that a guy could spend his entire career never having had a stellar ***** match but still be really good, excellent even. I think Ted in the WWF is really good, even if he never had a match better than **** in 6 years. Arn Anderson is like that in a lot of his singles matches -- it might not be an all-time classic match but Arn himself is always really good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People seem to be talking about the crowd as if they are in some way autonomous from the performers in the ring, they aren't. They are PRIMED by the guys in the ring beforehand through promos, angles, vignettes and so on.

One of the biggest reactions I have heard live was for Ice Train. Dozens if not hundreds of wrestling shows I've attended live and Ice Train got a top ten pop. Just sayin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The default position of GOAT and 'Who Is Better' type discussion seems to be in ring work only, which is the reason I don't get involved. If the voting in this thread included a "Total package (in ring, mic work plus look, other intangibles such as X Factor)" option that dropped 'drawing power' then that'll be closer to the way I would like to see wrestlers discussed. I guess what I'm saying is that I would enjoy reading a favourite of all time thread more at this point as opposed to another greatest of all time thread. Nothing wrong with the latter and I've discovered a lot of great things through this site as a result, but it gets to a point where all the lists look the same.

 

Including mic work when assessing Japanese or Mexican guys is of course problematic but it shouldn't stop them ol' intangibles being included. Plus you can get a grasp of a character through their mannerisms, facials etc.

I can't think of a single good reason to drop drawing power in a discussion like that. Seriously curious as to why that would be preferred method.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SLL - my main argument was that you can't write off that part of Ted's career because it doesn't have any ***** matches in it. I see greatness in 3 big feuds that he had during that time (twin ref angle with Hogan, Jake feud, Virgil feud) and in the famous vignettes where he's kicking people out of swimming pools and making kids cry by kicking basket balls away, and none of those things produced a great match (I really like the Savage matches but seem to be alone in that). They don't add much to our assessment of Ted the worker, but I'd expect those things to come into play when assessing Ted the heel or Ted's career vs. any other guys career.

A vignette informs character which informs ringwork. They're interconnected. There have been plenty of people who only watch wrestling for the angles and storylines and there are plenty of people who will watch the greatest of matches and ask what the backstory was, why the wrestlers were fighting, what angles occurred before the match. Personally, I think Ted's best performances in the WWF were his matches against the likes of Dustin Rhodes and Virgil where his character stuff truly came to the fore, and if I was making a "Best of the Million Dollar Man" comp I'd absolutely include the basketball vignette as being along the same lines as the best of Ted. I don't think people divorce that stuff from the matches nearly as much as they're claiming. It's all part and parcel of wrestling. People want a good angle, great promos and an all-time great match. On the other hand, I think you need to be honest and admit that Ted's matches in the WWF were a disappointment. As great as he was at playing the Million Dollar Man, he didn't have a single match that people would consider one of the great matches in WWF history let alone a MOTYC. And while there were limits on how good a match could be in the era he worked in, there were other workers who exceeded those limitations such as Savage. So while you could argue that Ted was a great character and that his ring work reflects that, ultimately his matches just don't hit the spot. Honestly, if there were a bunch of three star Ted Dibiase WWF matches I'd think more of his run than I actually do, but a lot of his stuff is turgid. And when you factor in that his work in Japan wasn't that great, you start to think that maybe Dibiase just wasn't that good at having matches, Midsouth work be damned.

 

Ted is a guy who everyone wants to like but have trouble with. In that respect, I think it's cool that you're a huge Dibiase mark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Understand, my objection has never been that the non-wrestling parts of wrestling are unimportant or not interesting to me. I'd never say that. It's simply not true. What I object to is that you try to build up the importance of interviews/angles/etc. by tearing down the importance of matches. As you say, the match is the only indispensable part of wrestling. I'm sure you can understand why a lot of us prize some indispensable over something dispensable, even if we like the dispensable thing, too. At it's most basic level, it provides wrestling - as a medium of entertainment - with it's identity, and all the other cool stuff that gets piled on top of it really only works because it's backed by wrestling matches.

This is basically what I think too. I have trouble finding entertainment in characters/angle/promos when I absolutely know beforehand I won't be able to enjoy the match that will derive from them, or if I'm positive nothing in term of actual pro-wrestling match will derive from them. That's why for instance I don't care about some legit funny promos and vignettes by Public Enemy or good intense promos by New Jack in ECW. because I know I won't get my good wrestling out of that eventually. On the other hand, me liking DDP as a worker makes me enjoy his funny little nouveau riche vignettes probbaly more than I should. Like I enjoyed Raven's goofy "rich kid" vignettes because I also enjoy Raven as an in-ring worker. That's also why in the end, as much as I enjoyed SMW TV, I have a little frustration about it because of teh lack of actual good competitive wrestling match on it, especially from 94 and on, and the fact it's such a promo and angle driven promotion without always being able to watch the actual matches (or watch them in poor conditions). I love promos and angles, but I don't love them as much when they are disconnected from the matches, and I feel a disapointment when the match don't resonnate as well as the promos that have been building it (for instance, the Jake vs DWB matches in SMW have been really disapointing to me, even more considering the awesome mic work those two delivered at the time).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People seem to be talking about the crowd as if they are in some way autonomous from the performers in the ring, they aren't. They are PRIMED by the guys in the ring beforehand through promos, angles, vignettes and so on.

One of the biggest reactions I have heard live was for Ice Train. Dozens if not hundreds of wrestling shows I've attended live and Ice Train got a top ten pop. Just sayin

 

The Cole Twins were frigging over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well like I said in the Hart/Flair thread, if were talking about US/Canadian wrestlers, then it has to factor into your comparisons. That's one reason I gave Flair the nod(personally I like Flair's wrestling skills better aswell) because Hart's promo work and character were not even close to Flair's. Flair has the timeless bleach blonde cocky heel character and he was far and away the king of that character. His promos going back to the TBS days were as entertaining as *any* wrestling match to me.

 

But if your going to do Jumbo vs Flair; who's better thread, you basically have to throw out all of the promos and character development of Flair over his 40 years. You're left with wrestling ability, # of great bouts and in-ring charisma, which is stuff that could be compared.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...