How long does it take for you to evaluate a wrestler's ability

Discussion in 'General WWE' started by seabs, Mar 7, 2013.

  1. Been pondering this one for a while after Bara(I think it was you, if not then apologies) who said he knew Dean Ambrose was a better worker than Cena based upon the 3 Shield tag team matches, now I found this an outlandish claim as I have to see a guy in a 1 on 1 none gimmick match which last 25+ minutes to know if he's got it to be a main event guy. So what does everyone else think?
  2. Not even sure if I need to see a match to know if someone will be main event material. If they cut as awesome of a promo as Austin did with the Austin 3:16 speech, then you can almost tell right away if they're gonna be a big deal or not. As far as me deciding whether I like or dislike someone's work in the ring, I'd have to watch at least three or four of their matches before knowing for sure if they're gonna be entertaining me with their ring work or not.

    With all due respect to Baraa, he has a clear (and admitted) bias against Cena. No way does someone tell that Ambrose is gonna be (or already is) a better worker in the ring than Cena just based on three matches, all of them tag team matches.
  3. 3 bigger matches and two good promos, to be short.
  4. One good storyline , 2/3 nice promos , 1 outstanding promo , 1 awesome match , a few decent matches
  5. If it's a guy on weekly TV I'd usually say a month to make a base assumption, then a couple of longer matches (can be old ones) to evaluate him fully as an in ring wrestler. If the dude isn't on a weekly tv show then I'd increase the amount of matches I'd want to see, just to get to see as much of him as possible.
  6. As many as it takes for that one wrestler to wrestle a range of different wrestlers. If Ambrose went up against Punk, Bryan and Tyson Kidd, would he be considered a great wrestler if he had three great matches?
  7. True. For a full spectrum study I guess you would have to watch the wrestler in a couple of matches against both great and bad wrestlers, to see where on the spectrum he himself ends up.
  8. He'd not be viewed as a bad one as he's meshed with three completely different styles there, Kid is a high flier / technician, Bryan is alot more technical and Punk is more of a striker than anything now a days. I'm not talking a full evaluation btw just as a fair justification to say if X is better than Y.
  9. Yeah I understand that, but I sort of meant like would he suddenly be considered as one of the best in the company? I guess you can tell in three relatively long matches whether someone is decent. Ryback is good at squashing people and making it somewhat entertaining, but his first match against Punk at HIAC was poor because of how long it was, and how gassed he was.
  10. Debut match is important in my opinion because it's when most wrestlers try to show off what they have to impress the crowd. I could care less about tag team matches to be honest as far as displaying skills if you're meant to be a singles competitor like all three members of The Shield probably are. I'm like judging wrestlers on what they were made to do. @Crayo brought up the point about Ryback at HIAC. Ryback's not the kind of person who is suppose to have they long matches especially if he's going to beat on someone for the majority of the match, which I felt that what it was. Plus Ryback's style doesn't really compliment Punk's so that match was bound to be a flop. My point being is that certain superstars are meant to do certain things and although it would be nice to have well rounded wrestlers it's better IMO to judge a superstar based on what they're supposed to do. So as far as The Shield goes (except for Ambrose because I've seen him face Regal) I reserve my judgement.
  11. I definitely think guys have to have at least 10-15 matches against a wide range of competitors before you can say they're properly good. IMO it is much easier to detect a bad worker (Ryback), than it is a good one in a short period of time.
  12. In that case, my answer is completely dependent upon how much I've seen of the wrestler I'm comparing "X" too.

    However just in general, it only takes me one single ten-fifteen minute match to be able evaluate a wrestlers ability. Unless said wrestler is spending that match getting his ass-kicked that much will normally tell whether or not I'll be able to enjoy the wrestler and give me a basis for what my feelings towards most of their matches will be. I know it may seem too quick to a lot of you guys, especially based by looking at the answers here but it's worked out well for me. Except for the when people obviously take the time to further develop there skills into something greater, it pretty much always work. I feel the same way about Del Rio's ability that I have when I saw his first match against Rey during his Smackdown debut, average with one really good move. It also doesn't always mean that I have to like the first match, because within the time-frame I've supplied enough time to get a good feel of the wrestler and what he could bring to the table. The first Benoit match I saw wasn't that great, however it allowed me to get a good feel for his style, his selling, and other little things that would allow me to rate him higher than I actually would rate the match. Now I didn't project him becoming one of my all-time favorites, but based off my initial opinion it's also not very surprising.

    Okay, now I understand the flaws. John Cena for example. My first impression on him based off the first match I've seen that fits my little model there, was an average wrestler. Nowadays, after experiencing and viewing more of his matches, I can safely say he is an average wrestler who when pitted against the right person can excel into something better. So yes, it doesn't lead into the most developed and founded evaluation on someone but I can often get a very good base for my opinions and usually it's proven right. It's in the same vein of how you really only have to watch one Seth MacFarlane show to get a decent grasp on all of them. Even American Dad! which is fairly different from Family Guy, and The Cleveland Show, still has several trademarks of MacFarlane's work. Although it's much easier to get a feel of a wrestler based off one fifteen minute bout than it is to get one of an author since certain changes in style is common. What I mean is Triple H isn't going to suddenly wrestle one match as high-flyer focusing mostly one aerial maneuvers but a writer whose body of work is mostly comprised of [humorous in tone] sailor stories can write a horror story called The Monkey's Paw.

    In conclusion, I normally have only needed one singles evenly fought ten to fifteen minutes match to be able to evaluate a wrestler's in-ring ability. My answer is derived from the fact that typically the first match I see of a wrestler that fits those conditions tends to form the opinion I have about that wrestler years later. Yes, it has it's flaws and it doesn't always turn out that way (even not counting when wrestlers don't just work their ass off and improve) but most of the time it does. I wasn't answering this question based off how to compare them to someone else or how to tell if they're going to be a main event player, Lockard covered that already. Just answered this subjectively.
  13. Its usually hard to tell in the beginning if a guy "has it" or not. When Ziggler first appeared as Nicky in the Spirit Squad, I doubt many took his skill seriously. When he came back as Dolph in 2008 (I believe it was) people began to take notice and say he has skill and is a great wrestler. Having a good gimmick is more important now then it was before. If you have a bad gimmick or character, it over shadows your wrestling ability and almost makes it look worse then it really is. Many people think Cena is a bad wrestler because of his gimmick, not his actual skill though they argue other wise.

    Since you used Ambrose as an example... His character is being built around a leader of a group. He has skill and has a great gimmick right now, but what will happen when the group splits up? I can honestly see Seth Rollins going further than Ambrose. Not because he is "better" in any aspect, but he has more depth than Ambrose and seems like he can play different characters to appeal to the wwe's current/future wants and needs.