"Anti-workrate"

[supremebve]

 

Because frankly, why the hell not a this juncture, I'm dropping in Bill's article about workrate, the most interesting bit being the idea of a physical workrate and a mental workrate as two separate but invaluable elements (my summing up of what I saw there):

 

http://wrestlingwithwords.com/workrate/

This lacked a clear thesis in my view. And I didn't really buy its conclusion that his brief and anecdotal exploration of a few different people's take on what workrate means that "there is no definition of workrate".

 

There is a definition of workrate. It is Meltzer's one. The other people are stretching the word to mean something else.

Here is Meltzer's definition.

 

 

People who claim workrate isn't a commonly used wrestling term within the business are so far out of touch with the business. It signifies how much effort a participant is putting into their match. It doesn't signify high spots, or signify not using rest holds, but having to do with lazy guys and hard working guys. It's not a term made up by newsletters, because I learned it from conversations with wrestlers going back 20 years ago. In the 80s, it was a term that the stallers used to laugh at because their idea of wrestling was making fans react while doing as little as possible. It was a term the harder working wrestlers used to differentiate themselves, at least as I first learned it. When the former style, for better or worse, went out of vogue as younger wrestlers came in with the idea of working hard as opposed to the old fashioned cutting corners or shortcuts, the term became more popular, and it is commonly used among pretty much everyone in wrestling today.

I think the problem with this as a definition isn't the definition, but how we all define "working hard" as individuals. A lot of people that we don't call workrate guys, are working just as hard as the guys that we do describe as workrate guys. Just because you are doing more stuff doesn't mean that the person doing less isn't working just as hard to get the match over. Stan Hansen isn't someone usually described as a workrate guy, but his matches are basically all action all the time. He isn't doing a bunch of suplexes and topes, but he clearly isn't being lazy. If I work in an office and you work in a coal mine, you can call me lazy because I'm not doing manual labor. Despite the fact that you could be a lazy ass coal miner, and I could be the hardest working desk jockey in the world. My point is that the kind of work should not matter as much as the work, when we define workrate. I judge workrate on how much effort, physical, mental, emotional, or otherwise goes into putting on a good match. I don't think Tully Blanchard's stalling should be a hit to his workrate, because that crowd interaction is important to the storytelling of his matches. I don't think Earthquake not bumping around like Vader should be held against him. In my mind the whole concept of anti-workrate is more of a issue with how we limit the definition of workrate, not the fact that I don't believe workrate is important.

[thebrainfollower]

Is Scott Keith really as influential as you guys think? Meltzer I can see but him?

[JerryvonKramer]

I don't think Earthquake not bumping around like Vader should be held against him.

I continue to be interested by this because I do think it is held against him. Why aren't we seeing Earthquake in top 10 lists? "Because he didn't have great matches". Okay, well why didn't he have great matches?

 

You see the point?

 

It is held against him. He was limited. And correspondingly there's a limit to how good his matches could have been.

 

Let's up the stakes and make the case more extreme. I can think of a MORE limited guy who had a much better match than any Tenta match I've ever seen:

 

I put Bill Watts and JYD vs. Midnight Express in my top 100 matches. That was a match all about smart booking, working smart, maximising strengths, telling a great story, etc. etc. It wouldn't have been possible without a superworker like Bobby Eaton to execute it.

 

Bobby Eaton will be in my top 100, JYD won't.

 

JYD played his part in that match perfectly. But I do hold it against him that he was limited.

[The Man in Blak]

 

I don't think Earthquake not bumping around like Vader should be held against him.

I continue to be interested by this because I do think it is held against him. Why aren't we seeing Earthquake in top 10 lists? "Because he didn't have great matches". Okay, well why didn't he have great matches?

 

You see the point?

 

 

This is sort of circular, though, isn't it?

 

"Why is Tenta's approach to not bump as much as other big men (Vader) held against him?"

"Because he wasn't in great matches."

"Why wasn't Tenta in any great matches?"

"Because he didn't bump enough to make them great."

[JerryvonKramer]

It is circular, but does that mean it's wrong?

[Childs]

I've found this thread consistently baffling, but it seems that some of the problem is people falling back on the term workrate when it would be better just to describe, specifically, why one worker is better than another. Vader was better than John Tenta because his power moves appeared more impactful, because he used movement to generate more excitement in his matches, because he hit harder, because all of that added up to give him an aura or presence Tenta never carried, because he used his tools to have many, many more great matches. Do we really need a catch-all term for that?

 

Also, forgive me if I'm misreading, but I get the sense some people are suggesting Tenta could be on the same level as Vader because he maximized his innate tools as much as Vader maximized his innate tools. If that is the argument, I'm sorry, it strikes me as bonkers. Talent obviously isn't the be-all and end-all, but it does matter. If you give me a choice between a 95-percent performance from Tenta and a 95-percent performance from Vader, I'm going to take Vader every time because he was better at almost every aspect of pro wrestling. His input was better and his output was better.

 

If that means I'm penalizing Tenta for not being able to do what Vader did, well, yeah, I am.

[Grimmas]

I've found this thread consistently baffling, but it seems that some of the problem is people falling back on the term workrate when it would be better just to describe, specifically, why one worker is better than another. Vader was better than John Tenta because his power moves appeared more impactful, because he used movement to generate more excitement in his matches, because he hit harder, because all of that added up to give him an aura or presence Tenta never carried, because he used his tools to have many, many more great matches. Do we really need a catch-all term for that?

 

Also, forgive me if I'm misreading, but I get the sense some people are suggesting Tenta could be on the same level as Vader because he maximized his innate tools as much as Vader maximized his innate tools. If that is the argument, I'm sorry, it strikes me as bonkers. Talent obviously isn't the be-all and end-all, but it does matter. If you give me a choice between a 95-percent performance from Tenta and a 95-percent performance from Vader, I'm going to take Vader every time because he was better at almost every aspect of pro wrestling. His input was better and his output was better.

 

If that means I'm penalizing Tenta for not being able to do what Vader did, well, yeah, I am.

Not my argument. However saying that Vader is working harder is silly.

[supremebve]

 

I don't think Earthquake not bumping around like Vader should be held against him.

I continue to be interested by this because I do think it is held against him. Why aren't we seeing Earthquake in top 10 lists? "Because he didn't have great matches". Okay, well why didn't he have great matches?

 

You see the point?

 

It is held against him. He was limited. And correspondingly there's a limit to how good his matches could have been.

 

Let's up the stakes and make the case more extreme. I can think of a MORE limited guy who had a much better match than any Tenta match I've ever seen:

 

I put Bill Watts and JYD vs. Midnight Express in my top 100 matches. That was a match all about smart booking, working smart, maximising strengths, telling a great story, etc. etc. It wouldn't have been possible without a superworker like Bobby Eaton to execute it.

 

Bobby Eaton will be in my top 100, JYD won't.

 

JYD played his part in that match. But I do hold it against him that he was limited.

 

This is a different argument in my mind. Earthquake isn't an all time great worker, because he wasn't an all time great talent. Earthquake didn't fall short, because he was lazy, he pretty much reached his peak as a worker. Vader is an all time great talent, who also put forth an all time great effort. A difference in talent isn't the same thing as a difference in effort. He could have worked twice as hard as Vader, and never been Vader. Tenta was a really good athlete for someone his size, Vader was an exceptional athlete for anyone at any size. Some guys are just better at wrestling than other people, that doesn't mean the less talented person was working less hard. According to Meltzer's definition of workrate "It doesn't signify high spots, or signify not using rest holds, but having to do with lazy guys and hard working guys." Tenta wasn't a lazy guy, so it is unfair to say he wasn't working as hard because of his limitations. I don't think anyone has said that Tenta was as good of a wrestler as Vader, but don't agree with the criticisms of his workrate.

[GOTNW]

Is Scott Keith really as influential as you guys think? Meltzer I can see but him?

Him mattering is a part of the ridiculous DVDVR/PWO bubble. Move on fellas.

[Childs]

 

I've found this thread consistently baffling, but it seems that some of the problem is people falling back on the term workrate when it would be better just to describe, specifically, why one worker is better than another. Vader was better than John Tenta because his power moves appeared more impactful, because he used movement to generate more excitement in his matches, because he hit harder, because all of that added up to give him an aura or presence Tenta never carried, because he used his tools to have many, many more great matches. Do we really need a catch-all term for that?

 

Also, forgive me if I'm misreading, but I get the sense some people are suggesting Tenta could be on the same level as Vader because he maximized his innate tools as much as Vader maximized his innate tools. If that is the argument, I'm sorry, it strikes me as bonkers. Talent obviously isn't the be-all and end-all, but it does matter. If you give me a choice between a 95-percent performance from Tenta and a 95-percent performance from Vader, I'm going to take Vader every time because he was better at almost every aspect of pro wrestling. His input was better and his output was better.

 

If that means I'm penalizing Tenta for not being able to do what Vader did, well, yeah, I am.

Not my argument. However saying that Vader is working harder is silly.

 

OK, I get that.

[Matt D]

More Talented Wrestler who uses his talents well > Less Talented Wrestler who uses his talents well

Less Talented Wrestler who uses his talents well > More Talented Wrestler who uses his talents poorly

[Childs]

More Talented Wrestler who uses his talents well > Less Talented Wrestler who uses his talents well

Less Talented Wrestler who uses his talents well > More Talented Wrestler who uses his talents poorly

 

That's an equation most of us could probably support, but there's so much damn gray area in the particulars

[JerryvonKramer]

 

Is Scott Keith really as influential as you guys think? Meltzer I can see but him?

Him mattering is a part of the ridiculous DVDVR/PWO bubble. Move on fellas.

 

I think he's basically just shorthand for the sorts of reviews you'd read in the late 90s / early 00s.

 

The experience of many people first coming online and reading about wrestling was the same. Whether it was Keith in particular or any of the other ones is immaterial. They were all of that particular mindset, the influence of which -- if you venture a tiny bit outside of the "ridiculous bubble" you refer to -- is still in evidence everywhere.

 

Meltzer influenced them, they influenced lots of random people who found them when they first came online.

 

jdw might come in and say "oh well, back in the 90s", but jdw isn't 99% of people. People who actually received the newsletters by post account for a fraction of the people who got online during the Monday Night Wars to read Keith Scott's rants or The Rick or CRZ or any of those dudes. Let's not try to write them out of history. Most "normal" fans didn't even know what the Observer was when they first got online.

[The Man in Blak]

I wonder how Chris Hyatte feels about John Tenta and the definition of workrate.

[Death From Above]

Trying to compare other big men to Vader is hopeless because Vader is a legitimate freak that could do things literally no one else in wrestling history could do. When you combine that with him having a really great mind for building matches, he's really very special. I know some people actually critique that if anything, Vader is TOO giving in some matches letting other guys get offense in, but to me that's part of what makes him so compelling and exciting. He could just destroy people in squashes, he could show ass, he could brawl, he could do power moves, he had a little high flying, he could do UWFi... Vader has basically everything.

 

There's not really much point to comparing people to Vader to me, because there simply are no comparable superheavyweights to Vader. He's a truly unique figure in a 100 year history in the business.

 

I'm not saying I'd vote Vader #1 all time. But he'd probably be in my top 10 if I still did Listmania. The range of his material is amazing.

[funkdoc]

 

 

Is Scott Keith really as influential as you guys think? Meltzer I can see but him?

Him mattering is a part of the ridiculous DVDVR/PWO bubble. Move on fellas.

 

I think he's basically just shorthand for the sorts of reviews you'd read in the late 90s / early 00s.

 

The experience of many people first coming online and reading about wrestling was the same. Whether it was Keith in particular or any of the other ones is immaterial. They were all of that particular mindset, the influence of which -- if you venture a tiny bit outside of the "ridiculous bubble" you refer to -- is still in evidence everywhere.

 

Meltzer influenced them, they influenced lots of random people who found them when they first came online.

 

jdw might come in and say "oh well, back in the 90s", but jdw isn't 99% of people. People who actually received the newsletters by post account for a fraction of the people who got online during the Monday Night Wars to read Keith Scott's rants or The Rick or CRZ or any of those dudes. Let's not try to write them out of history. Most "normal" fans didn't even know what the Observer was when they first got online.

 

 

this is a point i v. strongly agree with you on. scott keith was in something of a unique position in the 90s because he reviewed EVERYTHING - well, just all the american big 3 PPVs/clashes, but that *was* everything to us back in the day. we weren't reading the observer because fuck paying for things online, so the writers who had all their stuff out there for free became the important ones.

 

i think you can still see the influence of guys like keith today if you watch, say, OSW Review - they share a lot of his workrate dogmatism and even repeat some of his BS rumors (i think mr. perfect winning the royal rumble was one of those, for instance). i suspect you'd see a similar character flowing through places like wreddit.

[funkdoc]

I wonder how Chris Hyatte feels about John Tenta and the definition of workrate.

 

must...avoid...trish stratus joke...

[Microstatistics]

I've noticed the definition of workrate varies depending where you go. Here I guess the general definition is emphasis on spots, athleticism and offense compared to basic psychology/storytelling/character work.

 

The GWE list was posted on other sites and the main question people were asking was "is this a workrate list or a drawing list"? So to many others anything and everything related to in-ring work and matches comes under workrate. There is no differentiation like there is here. I thought that was interesting.

[Matt D]

That is, very much, because of the tradition of workrate primacy. It's not "anything and everything related to in-ring work." It's that workrate is basically the only thing that matters when it comes to in-ring work elsewhere. That's a simplification, but I think it gets at things more than you'd think. It's just taken as a given (or close to it) many other places.