Promos More Valuable Than Wrestling Ability?

Discussion in 'General WWE' started by Crayo, Feb 9, 2013.

  1. Has this become the trend now? I think it's painfully obvious to most now that WWE would definitely push someone with superb mic ability over someone with superb wrestling ability, even if the wrestler with superb mic ability was poor in the ring. So being able to act/perform verbally is now more important than wrestling in a business based on wrestling, right? Although that sounds absurd, I can definitely see the logic behind it.

    I think this would be a fun thing to debate though. Do you agree with it? Which one do you prefer?
  2. It largely depends on the organization in which you wrestle for, but i will answer this question in general.

    Cutting a promo will get you farther in your career, as wrestling is an individual sport for the most part, meaning that you must sell yourself in order to get yourself over, which is accomplished through cutting promos in wrestling. The majority of the wrestling fans in the united states I would argue are not as intamate with the facets of what makes a good wrestling match as some of us more informed "wrestling fans" who can voice our opinion on the internet. What I am saying is that Anyone can realize the greatness of mike skill. It is very easy to recognize when an wrestler has the crowd in the palm of their hand by boo or cheer, and those good on the mike can play to emotions to make a crowd ignite. Anyone can take offense to a heel comment or laugh at a witty putdown or get riled up by charisma without thinking. Since it takes no knowledge of wrestling to judge mike skill, this is oftentimes what decides if an wrestler is "over" or not, as the majority listen to a wrestler, and his words are what buys the t shirts and sells the tickets. Either fans will come in support of the wrestler or see if the cocky heel gets his *** kicked or can back himself up. The audience dictates the show and hence will be pushed accordingly, as like any business the WWE will push on performance level.

    Now for a wrestler's legacy, I will argue wrestling skill is more important. For instance, Shawn Michaels is great at generating heat with his pre christ dislikable attitude and ability to get under people's skin, and the edginess helped carve the attitude era with DX, yet it is Shawn's ability to put on a clinic of a wrestling match with charisma and storytelling that puts him in a truely special place among the greats in recent wrestling history. The undertaker is pretty good on the mike, but Taker's ability to adapt his character to avoid it getting stale has been achieved through storyline but in ring moveset and mannerism changes, and one of the largest reasons Taker is considered the potential GOAT is the amazing matches involving the likes of Shawn Michaels, HHH, Kurt Angle, Bret Hart, Mankind and so on. Taker is not remembered as much for say the promos he cuts before casket matches, but more for moments like throwing Mick Foley off a cell. No one cares about Taker's character promos to intimidate his wrestlemania foes, they anticipate the annual great match of the year canidate he puts on at mania, achieved through his IN RING sense of timing, storytelling and special moveset he mixes with his character. Chris Benoit is beaten by Santino Morrella in the mike department, but because Chris is such an fantastic wrestler, he has his place among the great storytelling and technical legends, as do people like Bret Hart and Dynamite Kid who all aren't great on the mike, but are fantastic in the ring and are legends accordingly. Wrestling is the name of the entertainment, and while it is easy to weed out those who can just talk and stick them in a midcard role, it is much harder to hold down those who can wrestle. My final point on this is that if you look at wrestling totality, many puroresu legends are seen as perhaps the greatest ever, not because of promo and segments, but because of their ability to wrestle.

    In closing: For career success, it is more important to cut a promo, but for legacy sake, it is more important to wrestle.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. U ruined my HQ post :upset:
  5. I did? :dafuq:?
  6. Look at john cena good on the Mic but not good in the ring
  7. Gohan's post is so irrelevant lol. It was not about which wrestler is best on the mic. But which is more important to become big in the business, the ability to talk or wrestle.
  8. This should be obvious by now. It's been this way for years. People want to see larger than life characters duking it out more so than a five star, technical wrestling classic. If you can get people to care enough about you and your rivalry, then they will mark out for the eventual match just by seeing you touch each other.

    A person's charisma and character, combined with a marketable look, is what ultimately gets a person over and makes people buy tickets to see them. That's how you truly measure success and legacy in the wrestling business - the ability to put asses in the seats. A true mega star like Hogan or Austin or Rock can do that without putting on a five-star classic match. In-ring ability is last on the list of things you need in order to succeed. If you're good enough in the ring, you can (as Rodrigo pointed out) carve out a nice niche for yourself in wrestling history - it has certainly worked for Shawn Michaels, Ric Flair and Bret Hart. But even these guys still aren't as remembered for their overall impact on the wrestling business as guys like Hogan or Austin or Rock or Andre. Flair had a huge influence because of his work ethic and his long, storied career, but he still hasn't transcended wrestling into mega star status the way the Hogans and Austins of the wrestling world have. He even admits this. And just to further make my point, it was Flair's "Nature Boy" gimmick and lifestyle and the ability to make people hate him (he's known as the dirtiest player in the game for a reason) that helped get him over in the first place. He's known as one of the best talkers ever, no?

    Being a great worker is more important than being a great wrestler. A great worker is someone who has mastered the art of pro wrestling - the ability to make a match look real enough that it allows the audience to suspend disbelief to the point that they can believe that what they're seeing is real, while not seriously injuring or stiffing the other guy. It's also the ability to use psychology and mannerisms in a match to get people emotionally drawn into it. Jake Roberts was a master at this, despite being a poor technical wrestler. (Some guys, like Flair, also say the ability to call a match on the fly is what helps make a great worker, but many wrestlers disagree with this.)

    Just look at the top stars who have drawn major money - Hogan, Austin, Rock, Andre, even Cena, etc. - and tell me which category they fall more into. Hogan/Andre was a borefest of a match, but their WM3 encounter drew a record 93,173 people, and their rematch drew 33 million people on NBC (in a poor timeslot, I might add) a year later. Let's see a Benoit/Malenko match, no matter how good, draw those kind of numbers. The Rock is the man who is drawing the huge Raw numbers nowadays, and is it because of his wrestling ability or because of his presence and charisma on the mic?
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Charisma is key, you can't become a true great without it.
  10. Marks don't care about in-ring skills. You hardly have to be decent, but if you have the mic skill, charisma and look you'll do well. The IWC probably won't love you, but that doesn't really matter. So to truly make your mark, the entertainment side ends up being more important, but I say this from an impartial point of view. I, of course, love watching some great matches with technical quality, but as far as success goes, match quality isn't the most important thing.
  11. IMO cutting a promo is slightly better than having good wrestling. The promo parts are the parts that sell the matches, get fans invested, but wrestling can survive without promos if the match is incredible. I think having a personality to attach to the wrestler is half the battle of entertaining. You can look at guys like Tyson Kidd & Jack Swagger who are good in the ring, but just don't have any personality, they're just people. I think that's a problem we see today with Cena, Sheamus, and Orton. They don't have the lure of Stone Cold or The Rock, because they're just people with nothing that stands out about them. After Stone Cold had his injury he didn't wrestle like he used to and Rock has ring rust now, but the entertainment value we get from their segments are better than most of the wrestlers today even if they might be better wrestler than them.
  12. Well this is not new in wwe tbh. Charisma/promo skills /looks/size are what wwe look for the most in when to push potential superstars. WWE main goal is sports entertainment so if you can wrestle like Dean Malenko or not is pretty irrelevant.

    To be a permanent main eventer then you need the charisma/mic skills and tbh a lot of fans do value this more then the wrestling.

    Certain companies like ROH you can get away with the charisma/mic skills as they are more about wrestling then the Sports entertainment factor.
  13. Promos are more valuable... see Sin Cara.
  14. Like most have said here. The ability to cut a good promo is more important than the ability to wrestle a five star match. It's the stories that drives wrestling forward and the ability to talk and tell a story is what gets the majority of the crowd hooked on said story, not ones ability to perform a flawless armbar.
  15. Well, Cena is the face of the company and after 10+ years he still comes off green as goosesh*t sometimes and is very sloppy, so I guess you can say that. But overall crowd reaction is the main valuable thing, just look at a guy like Randy Orton, his gimmick doesn't exactly allow him to cut an awesome exiting promo yet he's still one of the most over guys on the roster, as long as you can get the crowd to care about you one way or another then you're OK.

    Also having a good look is another thing that might just be seen as more valuable than wrestling ability now a days, sometimes people just can't take small guys seriously, Daniel Bryan is a recent exception though cause he's charismatic enough to get fans interested, and when they're interested they see just how good of a wrestler he is. Having a weird look can be good or bad it seems, if you somehow incorporate it into your gimmick then you can potentially get over, on the other hand if you just go out there looking awkward you won't get over.
  16. I'd choose wrestling all day. If you cut a great promo but suck it up in the ring, that's nothing to me. Especially if you're a noob and making an impression on me. I look for wrestling ability first to see if you can even stick around, not promo ability. Although, the promos do make the "stars" I'd much rather watch a match told in the ring.
Draft saved Draft deleted