Wrestling Binaries

[luckyshot]

I think a lot of wrestling taste can be broken down into binary preferences, sort of like those personality type quizzes.

Here are some binary preferences that I think can be identified.

1. Work rate vs. selling.
Pretty simple here, the more shit is in a match, the less time there is to sell it. I prefer selling.

2. Storyline vs. "pure wrestling match."
This is where I think I depart from some folks in the IWC. I prefer some sort of story over "just wrestling." I can appreciate a good "just wrestling" match. But I'll care more and enjoy something with a story more almost every time. For example, I enjoyed Punk vs. MJF more than Hangman vs. Danielson.

3. Character vs. Athlete
This is related to the above, but it has more to do with the guy themselves and not just the match they are in. For example, CM Punk is often involved in good story lines, but he doesn't really have a "gimmick" about himself; he's just a wrestler. Someone like Malakai Black, Darby Allin, on the other hand, have more all-encompassing characters. I'm sort of in the middle here, but I lean towards the character side.

4. Acrobat vs. ass-kicker
This is a strong preference for me. I want a guy who looks like he can kick ass, and I don't want any choreographed flippy shit. I want shit to look brutal, not smooth.

5. Comedy vs. Spooky
This has to do with suspension of disbelief. I have a strong preference for the "dark and spooky" over the "funny and goofy." I have no problem suspending disbelief when Malakai Black controls the arena lights, but Organge Cassidy's shin kicks piss me off every time.

Added:
6. "Safe" work vs. Risk taking

Put these preferences together and I think it makes a pretty good snapshot of what you like as a wreslting fan.

It explains for example, why I like Bray Wyatt so much (selling, storyline, character, ass-kicker, spooky) but I cannot stand the Young Bucks (work rate, pure wreslting, ahtlete, acrobat, comedy).

What are your preferences?

What other binaries should I add?

 

[Dead Spirit of MMA]

I think there's another one with some fans wanting pro wrestling to be so safe that there are practically no bumps ("With what we know now...." is their catch-phrase) and people who like pro wrestling to retain an element of danger. I'm an unabashed head-bump enjoyer.

So I'd offer:

6. Safety first vs Dangerous pro wrestling

If I'm picking one or the other:
1 - Selling
2 - Pure wrestling (a good story is the cherry on top)
3 - Probably more towards athlete, but they should have some kind of personality which shines through in some way
4 - Ass-kicker
5 - Comedy over supernatural powers, but I tend to just tell myself the lights go out because someone was paid off/intimidated/or went along with it because pro wrestling is a free-for-all where wrestlers can pretty much do what they want (including submit their own promo videos) so long as it makes the show more entertaining. If I can do that with it, I'll generally take it over comedy.
6 - I think pro wrestling should be dangerous and hard-hitting.

 

[Based God]

The problem with number 1 is, selling is involved with work rate, work rate is called work rate because the idea is how much you can work the crowd into believe the match is real, which involves selling.

If two wrestlers are having a match that's full of spot after spot where they're just busy, they're already failing at work rate.

 

[luckyshot]

I think there's another one with some fans wanting pro wrestling to be so safe that there are practically no bumps ("With what we know now...." is their catch-phrase) and people who like pro wrestling to retain an element of danger. I'm an unabashed head-bump enjoyer.

So I'd offer:

6. Safety first vs Dangerous pro wrestling

If I'm picking one or the other:
1 - Selling
2 - Pure wrestling (a good story is the cherry on top)
3 - Probably more towards athlete, but they should have some kind of personality which shines through in some way
4 - Ass-kicker
5 - Comedy over supernatural powers, but I tend to just tell myself the lights go out because someone was paid off/intimidated/or went along with it because pro wrestling is a free-for-all where wrestlers can pretty much do what they want (including submit their own promo videos) so long as it makes the show more entertaining. If I can do that with it, I'll generally take it over comedy.
6 - I think pro wrestling should be dangerous and hard-hitting.

Hmm... Interesting. See, I think pro-wrestling should be safe but hard hitting. Basically, I want people to lay shit in but do it in safe places and safe ways. Not a big fan of head bumps, crazy dives, or ladder match spot fests, so I guess I'd be safe over dangerous. I like guys who might bust your lip but won't break your neck.

The problem with number 1 is, selling is involved with work rate, work rate is called work rate because the idea is how much you can work the crowd into believe the match is real, which involves selling.

If two wrestlers are having a match that's full of spot after spot where they're just busy, they're already failing at work rate.

Hmm... really? I've always heard "work rate" used more or less as a synonym for doing a lot of moves during a match.

So, basically, "Getting a lot of shit in" means the same thing as "having a high work rate."

Now, in my mind, that's not the same things as "how much you can work the crowd"... that's just called "working" or "having good psychology," not "work rate."

 

[Based God]

Hmm... really? I've always heard "work rate" used more or less as a synonym for doing a lot of moves during a match.

So, basically, "Getting a lot of shit in" means the same thing as "having a high work rate."

Now, in my mind, that's not the same things as "how much you can work the crowd"... that's just called "working" or "having good psychology," not "work rate."

People in the IWC mistakenly took work rate to mean that in the mid 2000's when they started to compare their "getting a lot of shit in" indie guys with guys like Flair, Steamboat, Hart, Angle etc. and they kind of stole the terminology. When people call Ospreay vs. Ricochet's flippy shit match a "work rate" match they're dead ass wrong and using the term wrong.

It's like how people started mistakenly calling people from Gen Z "millennials" even though "millennials" are Gen Y. Term got mistakenly used, now a large portion of people that use the term use it wrong.

Work rate is guys like Flair, Bret Hart, Ricky Steamboat, Shawn Michaels. Guys who can have a great match, but make it look believable at the same time.

I remember the good ol days on the internet like 15 years ago when all of the ol 90's wrestling forum posters used to argue with the mid 2000's indie crowd about this because the indie people kind of stole the term and began to misrepresent it lol the indie people would argue that their "get their shit in guys" were the same thing as Flair vs. Steamboat, it was a wild time in the internet wrestling community.

 

[moonwolf]

I think a lot of wrestling taste can be broken down into binary preferences, sort of like those personality type quizzes.

Here are some binary preferences that I think can be identified.

1. Work rate vs. selling.
Pretty simple here, the more shit is in a match, the less time there is to sell it. I prefer selling.

2. Storyline vs. "pure wrestling match."
This is where I think I depart from some folks in the IWC. I prefer some sort of story over "just wrestling." I can appreciate a good "just wrestling" match. But I'll care more and enjoy something with a story more almost every time. For example, I enjoyed Punk vs. MJF more than Hangman vs. Danielson.

3. Character vs. Athlete
This is related to the above, but it has more to do with the guy themselves and not just the match they are in. For example, CM Punk is often involved in good story lines, but he doesn't really have a "gimmick" about himself; he's just a wrestler. Someone like Malakai Black, Darby Allin, on the other hand, have more all-encompassing characters. I'm sort of in the middle here, but I lean towards the character side.

4. Acrobat vs. ass-kicker
This is a strong preference for me. I want a guy who looks like he can kick ass, and I don't want any choreographed flippy shit. I want shit to look brutal, not smooth.

5. Comedy vs. Spooky
This has to do with suspension of disbelief. I have a strong preference for the "dark and spooky" over the "funny and goofy." I have no problem suspending disbelief when Malakai Black controls the arena lights, but Organge Cassidy's shin kicks piss me off every time.

Put these preferences together and I think it makes a pretty good snapshot of what you like as a wreslting fan.

It explains for example, why I like Bray Wyatt so much (selling, storyline, character, ass-kicker, spooky) but I cannot stand the Young Bucks (work rate, pure wreslting, ahtlete, acrobat, comedy).

What are your preferences?

What other binaries should I add?

your numbers 3 and 4 contradict one another when using darby as an example.

 

[luckyshot]

your numbers 3 and 4 contradict one another when using darby as an example.

I see what you are saying.

I would consider Darby more of a ass kicker than an acrobat. He does very little in terms of flippy or choreographed moves. He uses the ropes and his dives primarily to generate impact. It's like when Walter goes up to the top for his splash, he isn't being an acrobat.

I would also consider Darby more or a character than an pure athlete, but that is fuzzy with him because he is a skateboarder, which is both a sport but also a character element. But, basically, he's a straightedge, emo, skateboarding zombie with a guilt complex about his dead uncle. There's more character element there than with most guys. He's practically out of a comic book.


I will say, though, it is hard to categorize some guys.

 

[Wariowokecancel]

Undertaker is a spooky joke. He was more believable as Biker Taker. But all that shit with Paul Bearer and Kane…

The Brood were also a dark comedy act.

The more ‘for realist’ occult poses Wyatt got, the worse it was for his character. Cult leader sure but not supernatural bullshit for really - became laughable.

 

[D.R.H.]

People in the IWC mistakenly took work rate to mean that in the mid 2000's when they started to compare their "getting a lot of shit in" indie guys with guys like Flair, Steamboat, Hart, Angle etc. and they kind of stole the terminology. When people call Ospreay vs. Ricochet's flippy shit match a "work rate" match they're dead ass wrong and using the term wrong.

It's like how people started mistakenly calling people from Gen Z "millennials" even though "millennials" are Gen Y. Term got mistakenly used, now a large portion of people that use the term use it wrong.

Work rate is guys like Flair, Bret Hart, Ricky Steamboat, Shawn Michaels. Guys who can have a great match, but make it look believable at the same time.

I remember the good ol days on the internet like 15 years ago when all of the ol 90's wrestling forum posters used to argue with the mid 2000's indie crowd about this because the indie people kind of stole the term and began to misrepresent it lol the indie people would argue that their "get their shit in guys" were the same thing as Flair vs. Steamboat, it was a wild time in the internet wrestling community.

This. Just do shit is the exact opposite of having a good workrate.