Objectively great wrestlers you just... don't get!

[The Gaffer]

How do you actually define Rollin's general character arc in a sentence to a non-fan? I mean you can have a good go at guessing some of these without me even telling you who they are, inconsistent booking and all:

"Perennial underdog who tasted power and got his head kicked in for his troubles"

"Underdog's best mate, good at heart but in a constant battle with trust" 

"Destiny-bound son of a legend with a story to finish"

What's Rollins boilerplate? I mean...

"Wins titles every now and then, dresses like how you shop for your character in a Saints Row game, was in the Shield". 

Years of it, I tell you. 

Edited October 16, 2023 by Gay as FOOK

[air_raid]

On 10/15/2023 at 12:30 AM, garynysmon said:

The 'streak' is a complete accident of history they stumbled upon after a while. But what really does a streak matter when its constrained to a single annual event anyway?

No coincidence that it reached its peak of importance when Taker himself edged towards being constrained to a single annual event.

I much preferred it when "he's never lost at WrestleMania" was just a throwaway JR soundbyte than it becoming "a thing." Those 10 fingers he held up after beating Flair were very cool but that's as far as it should have gone. I wouldn't be saying this if the eventual ending of it had been followed through to the original planned conclusion and proper anointing of Reigns as THE MAN at Mania 31, but it wasn't. Although it did give us two of my favourite nearfalls of all time off the RKO at Mania 21 and Hunter giving him his own Tombstone at Mania 27.

[BomberPat]

One of my least favourite things about the latter days of The Streak is that they could never make their mind up whether Undertaker was a broken down "old gunslinger" fighting against time and clinging to the one thing he had left, or he was an immortal wrestle-wizard who was as good as he ever was. If they fully committed to the former, it might have actually made for some interesting storytelling, but more often than not it was just something the commentators would say in the build, and then 'Taker would go out and have basically the same match he always had, with Michael Cole screaming about he The Phenom Looks Better Than Ever.

 

In terms of great wrestlers I never got, there's some I came round to later than everybody else, and some current stars (L.A. Knight comes to mind) that I just get a bit of a "who, him?" reaction when I hear how much everyone's rooting for them to be a top star, but long-term it has to be The Rock. He was the WWF Champion when I got properly back into wrestling, and I was never really won over by "top guys", as I usually have more of a soft spot for midcard weirdos, but The Rock for me was the epitome of a style of WWF walk-and-brawl that, unless he had someone brilliant opposite him, never really made for an exciting match for me.

Above all, though, I never thought he was cool or funny or bad-ass or any of the things that he was presented as. His promos were real "hope your parents don't walk in the room while this is on" stuff, all threatening to shove things up other guys' asses, cheap jokes and gurning, and all the loud talking and daft threats that non-wrestling fans think make up 99% of wrestling. As I got more into how wrestling works, I hated how he hardly ever put people over in promos - they're trying to put Undertaker & Kane over as an unstoppable tag team, and he's talking about how "Undertaker wants to lick Kane's big red nipple". They're trying to establish Rikishi as a major main event heel, and he's joking about it in promos. When he's not doing that, he's bullying interviewers and backstage staff for no reason. I don't remember a single time where he made a match feel important, or that he felt threatened or endangered by his opponent, or that the upcoming match was something he had to take seriously. 

The Hollywood Rock run is probably the only time I found him consistently entertaining, and it's probably no coincidence that it's one of the only times that you were supposed to find him ridiculous. 

[LaGoosh]

4 hours ago, theringmaster said:

Seth Rollins for me. He is obviously very popular and one of the best wrestlers in the world

This is not true. Seth Rollins is not a very good wrestler at all. I think that him being considered by lots of people as being good only highlights how bad the in-house WWE match style has been for the past decade.

[garynysmon]

37 minutes ago, BomberPat said:

His promos were real "hope your parents don't walk in the room while this is on" stuff, all threatening to shove things up other guys' asses, cheap jokes and gurning, and all the loud talking and daft threats that non-wrestling fans think make up 99% of wrestling. As I got more into how wrestling works, I hated how he hardly ever put people over in promos - they're trying to put Undertaker & Kane over as an unstoppable tag team, and he's talking about how "Undertaker wants to lick Kane's big red nipple". They're trying to establish Rikishi as a major main event heel, and he's joking about it in promos. When he's not doing that, he's bullying interviewers and backstage staff for no reason. I don't remember a single time where he made a match feel important, or that he felt threatened or endangered by his opponent, or that the upcoming match was something he had to take seriously. 

The Hollywood Rock run is probably the only time I found him consistently entertaining, and it's probably no coincidence that it's one of the only times that you were supposed to find him ridiculous. 

Absoloutely. 

The Rock was terrible for punching down. I suppose we’re a bit more aware of this kind of thing by now, but constantly bullying interviewers and non-wrestlers isn’t exactly face behaviour.

Austin at least used to punch up at authority.

But second generation, good looking Dwayne Johnson always screamed perfect heel to me.

[gmoney]

Masahiro Chono. I've gone back and enjoyed a lot of Japanese stuff from the 90s that I didn't get on with when I was younger, and pretty much all of the main players I like to varying degrees, but Chono remains a bit of a mystery to me. A great deal of his stuff is a chore, and he looks like he can't be arsed for a most of it. I remember thinking he was dogging it when he was in WCW (that match with Rick Rude is unbearably dull) but actually he's not that much better when he's in the East. Looks cool though. 

Edited October 16, 2023 by gmoney
I wrote "a lot" about 6 times. That's a lot.

[air_raid]

1 hour ago, BomberPat said:

One of my least favourite things about the latter days of The Streak is that they could never make their mind up whether Undertaker was a broken down "old gunslinger" fighting against time and clinging to the one thing he had left, or he was an immortal wrestle-wizard who was as good as he ever was. If they fully committed to the former, it might have actually made for some interesting storytelling, but more often than not it was just something the commentators would say in the build, and then 'Taker would go out and have basically the same match he always had, with Michael Cole screaming about he The Phenom Looks Better Than Ever.

This is why the Mania 27 match with HHH was far better (for me) than the Mania 28 standard-issue-drama in a Cell with added HBK distractions. They played up to Taker being on his last legs, and when Hunter was stood over Taker on his knees I shouted "Put him DOWN!" at the screen, despite not even being much of a Triple H fan, because I was convinced he was about to beat him.

I mean, I've never been much of an Undertaker fan really but its the odd match here and there that have made him exempt from being my answer to this thread. I don't think I have one unless I go to Japan and open that particular can of udon.

[The Gaffer]

I still like him because for me between Nation, Corporate and Hollywood Rock there's plenty of good stuff there but face Rock is rubbish. It's a great shout, and one I've not thought about too much until this thread to be honest. Because he's proper rubbish. 

It pretty much starts when he becomes the guy in 2000, without Austin around competing for that spot. It's probably why the year's never gotten much of a watch back from me and I still feel the 2-3 years prior were the 'proper' Attitude Era years, warts and all.

Some of this is over analysing I know because he was becoming a massive cross over star and was doing gangbusters business as a result (though I still think WWE 2000 benefitted massively as well from WCW de-facto no longer being competitive in any way) but in hindsight him against the McMahon Helmsley era isn't particularly great foil. it comes off more as what you've ended up with rather than what you've always wanted to build around. 

Up against the McMahons he doesn't have quite the same fuck-the-system clout as Austin. Not only was he a part of that system in an on screen faction, in real life too he's the exact kind of act that looks like he was created from and would benefit massively from it. And up against DX...christ...what's the difference in their material? They both pretty much made the exact same crap sophomoric humour.  

He's pretty much the first guy to sort of come off like a package version of himself and it started as far back as that. Got ten times worse each time he'd come back from doing a movie. Honestly, by 2002 he was just going on autopilot and it felt much the same watching him. Rock shows up, looks overly like The Rock, goes through all the Rock bits that he says...it's like a machine slotted him in there and he'd blast through that shit regardless of the storyline, who he was facing etc. He stopped being a character on the show and just became this...thing...you called The Rock. 

Being proper into wrestling is mostly weird and rarely cool, so it's no surprise pockets of us would start to reject that character. I hate the whole hardcore vs. casual thing but he's the casual fan guy isn't he. Handled and packaged well enough that long-time fans who kept watching through the dross of the Ruthless Aggression era etc sort of just went along with the "Oh he's the greatest" thing where really so much of his character's sort of at odds with that misfit underdog thing invested fans typically love. 

Cena done it better, even when he was Super Cena. Sure he blew off the damage he took the next night on Raw, but there was that sort of fighting for what's right thing there going on. All the stuff Rock laid waste to and took the piss out of when he came back. 

Edit: Woah that was way longer than I was expecting and totally tripping on a fake character on a TV show but hey, that's what we're here for right? 

 

Edited October 16, 2023 by Gay as FOOK

[Surf Digby]

Getting ready to duck........

Dusty Rhodes. I just never saw a star, or someone that couldn't have been replaced by any other name of that era. I keep wondering if I've not seen his best work, but I've seen him against Flair, against Harley Race, against Dory Funk, so if his best matches aren't among those, which ones are?

[westlondonmist]

8 hours ago, Nostalgia Nonce said:

Getting ready to duck........

Dusty Rhodes. I just never saw a star, or someone that couldn't have been replaced by any other name of that era. I keep wondering if I've not seen his best work, but I've seen him against Flair, against Harley Race, against Dory Funk, so if his best matches aren't among those, which ones are?

My guess is that he was the everyman, the person that southerners especially could get behind in the 70s and 80s. I dunno, I don't see it myself but maybe he's just an act that was very much of its time.

 

I think The Rock as a face was very much of its time too. It was a time where you had cheap comedy movies coming out all the time such as Sandler or Schneider movies or American Pie movies with dodgy humour to say the least. People latched on to this cool looking bloke being a bit of a cunt.

[air_raid]

9 hours ago, Nostalgia Nonce said:

Dusty Rhodes. I just never saw a star, or someone that couldn't have been replaced by any other name of that era.

 

34 minutes ago, westlondonmist said:

My guess is that he was the everyman, the person that southerners especially could get behind in the 70s and 80s.

This is one of those instances where being a "great wrestler" just comes down to getting people to invest, care about the result, and make noise, which generates the memorable "great matches." It was the same with Hogan, and on the flip side, Ric Flair getting to be hated. He was just as much a "formula" wrestler as Hogan was, except he used wrestling holds instead of punches and a big boot. But he got you to hate him and want him get beat. With Dusty it may have been a time and place thing, I too struggle to "get it" though I understand why people did. I'd love to say there's none of his matches that come to mind for ones I'd watch again but... there's War Games.

34 minutes ago, westlondonmist said:

I think The Rock as a face was very much of its time too. It was a time where you had cheap comedy movies coming out all the time such as Sandler or Schneider movies or American Pie movies with dodgy humour to say the least. People latched on to this cool looking bloke being a bit of a cunt.

I think it's true that he came around at a time when "funny" really resonated. Prior to Rock becoming "The Rock" tail end of 1997 (where it was his delusions that made him funny, not being a cunt to lesser human beings) the only previous comedy in the company had been Shawn and Hunter amusing themselves by acting 15 or prior to that, the embarrassing "wrestling humour" stuff like what ended up on the Funniest Moments tape. Bushwhackers, Gobbledy Gooker etc. Or Huckster vs Nacho Man and other weird "this is just for Vince" type shite. As the company slowly veered away from wrestling people doing wrestling things to precipitate wrestling feuds and wrestling matches and more towards the "something for everyone" variety hour (or two) type show, it was right time, right place for someone that could make you laugh, as another box they could tick - as well as hardcore violence, a few nice pairs of tits etc - to get everything that male viewer aged 18-35 could find entertaining into one show.

[BomberPat]

1 hour ago, air_raid said:

 

This is one of those instances where being a "great wrestler" just comes down to getting people to invest, care about the result, and make noise, which generates the memorable "great matches." It was the same with Hogan, and on the flip side, Ric Flair getting to be hated. He was just as much a "formula" wrestler as Hogan was, except he used wrestling holds instead of punches and a big boot. But he got you to hate him and want him get beat. With Dusty it may have been a time and place thing, I too struggle to "get it" though I understand why people did. I'd love to say there's none of his matches that come to mind for ones I'd watch again but... there's War Games.

I think Flair and Hogan are really interesting comparisons as formula wrestlers, as an indication between the different style of the WWF and NWA/WCW, and why they were perhaps incompatible in Flair's WWF run.

Both men's formulas were about selling, but Hogan's was built on babyface selling to build sympathy leading into the superman comeback, and Flair's was about begging off and heel selling to facilitate the babyface's shine. You say that Flair's formula was built around wrestling holds, but 99% of it isn't - it's begging off, the Flair flop, the Harley Race corner bump, the top rope cut-off, which is all structured so that Flair can basically wrestle himself, and only has to rely on the actual wrestling when in there against an opponent like Steamboat or Funk. Even when Flair's on offence, it's knee drops, chops, punches, and leg work - all stuff that doesn't rely on his opponent controlling their bump or really having to cooperate at all, all stuff that he could perform on anyone, and that's where the "Flair could have a good match with a broomstick" stuff comes from.

That was an odd fit for the WWF of '92, though, because as a babyface territory the formula was of monster heels who got over with dominant squash matches, and then Hogan selling for all of their offence until it was time for the comeback and powering through it. A heel who did more selling than offence wasn't really a good fit for The Hogan Match, or to what audiences of the time expected, so while a lot of people look back and question how Flair/Hogan wasn't the money match back then, I can see why it fared badly on house shows.

 

Another one for me is Randy Orton. I know there's a general consensus online of him being maybe a bit boring and formulaic, but he's objectively good at just about everything. His timing and crowd work is second to none. He's recognised by so many of his peers as an all-time great. I can see all of that, but still find him incredibly dull to watch. Just the WWE style embodied in one man.

[air_raid]

11 minutes ago, BomberPat said:

Another one for me is Randy Orton. I know there's a general consensus online of him being maybe a bit boring and formulaic, but he's objectively good at just about everything. His timing and crowd work is second to none. He's recognised by so many of his peers as an all-time great. I can see all of that, but still find him incredibly dull to watch. Just the WWE style embodied in one man.

Orton's a really weird one for me. I think that I can never dismiss him as being in that category of "no matches I'd go back and watch again" because there are quite a few compelling ones from PPVs. I cross-examine myself and think "But weren't all of those between 2003 and 2005" and then remember I loved his match with Shawn at Survivors 2007 with the twist of "HBK can't use the superkick" and thought his turn as an utter psychopath in the Cena match at Breaking Point was brilliant. Then just when I think "OK, so he was only forgettable for a decade or so" I remember he had matches I loved with Rey and with Jeff Hardy inside the last 5 years.

[CavemanLynn]

3 hours ago, BomberPat said:

Both men's formulas were about selling, but Hogan's was built on babyface selling to build sympathy leading into the superman comeback, and Flair's was about begging off and heel selling to facilitate the babyface's shine. You say that Flair's formula was built around wrestling holds, but 99% of it isn't - it's begging off, the Flair flop, the Harley Race corner bump, the top rope cut-off, which is all structured so that Flair can basically wrestle himself, and only has to rely on the actual wrestling when in there against an opponent like Steamboat or Funk. Even when Flair's on offence, it's knee drops, chops, punches, and leg work - all stuff that doesn't rely on his opponent controlling their bump or really having to cooperate at all, all stuff that he could perform on anyone, and that's where the "Flair could have a good match with a broomstick" stuff comes from.

Kind of the opposite to this topic, but I'm sure it was something similar to this that you posted that suddenly made Ric Flair click for me. When you look at what he was doing, then all you can see is the limited moveset and clowning. But then you look at what he's doing when he's NOT "doing" anything, and you see how incredible he was. The positioning, the crowd working, the timing, the adapting to his opponent, the teaching he's giving them live right there in front of you. Every vet claims that all a rookie needs to do is follow them, but Flair is the only one I've seen that truly did that, the subtle body language combined with ridiculously simple cues for the young guy that gets both over as heel and face respectively without a single hold being exchanged.

On topic, I know they've both been massively influential to workers that I've actually liked, but it's Dynamite Kid and (winces) Owen Hart.

Dynamite Kid might have pioneered the breakneck light heavyweight style, but he always seemed to me to be nothing more than a vicious little cxxt, whose fragile masculinity refused to let him sell anything once he had an ounce of gassed-up muscle. Rocco had the viciousness but with the character and personality befitted his size. Bret had the technical skill and tank but with the regard for his opponent and ability to build sympathy through work. Davey Boy had the look with a bit of guileless charm. Billington was just a boring nasty bastard.

Owen was good, but I never found him as good as many apparently did. He never seemed to have that breakout performance, and a lot of his career seems to be other people advocating for him, or keeping him around because he was well-liked. He was definitely a great worker, but always a step behind Bret in terms of execution, with not enough fire to be a truly great face nor enough bile for a heel (where being a deluded goof will only get you so far, and being too entertaining in that way undermining any real sense of threat to generate heat for the face).

[air_raid]

15 minutes ago, CavemanLynn said:

nor enough bile for a heel 

You need to have your leg kicked out of your leg.