When your critical of wrestling, do you get annoyed with creative or the wrestler?

CMpunked

As the title says.

I was reading through the thread i indirectly bumped (yeah, from 2 years ago. )
And it struck me.

Theres so many times that someone will say "Oh my, so-and-so were terrible at such-and-such a time".
But do you think bad wrestler/character or do you initially think bad creative?

To give it example.
Kane. He has always been a figure of much debate on the forum.
(and not trying to start any kind of kane specific thread, just using the example)

So if you were to believe someone like kane never drew money, never had a worthwhile career, who would you blame?
Kane, or the booker/creative team/writers?

In just a generalised way?

For me, when someone says "Oh Randy Orton is really sucking these days"
My original reaction is that creative arent using him properly in the way he should be.
Where as someone else will use Orton himself as the reason.
IE
"Oh he just sucks these days."

What way do the rest of you guys look at it?

Jayob10

In relation to Orton, I genuinely don't think he is the full package. He has the look, is a great worker but he lacks the charisma IMO. I think he has been booked strongly to give him credibility and now the notable feuds have dried up we are stuck with the same old good wrestling but boring Orton.

Kane has his limitations but he needed to be booked stronger than he was. WWE missed the boat with him in many ways. The push he has received in the last while should have come 10 years ago.

The worker can sometimes be at fault for sure, but the booking can be infuriating too. Creative isn't what it once was and it has nothing to do with it being the era of PG either.

jaykhunter

Here's my two cents : It depends on the situation, really. Let me explain -

Like Kane having a crap match - I blame Kane, because I know he's a crap wrestler, based on the 12+ years he's wrestled as Kane.

But when Kane says "whatever" and does some comedy lip-quivering (see the final 2 minutes of 10th Dec SmackDown); I blame creative.

Bear in mind though, if you're an established main-eventer, the wrestlers share more of the blame, since I reckon they could have more leeway with the character/matches if they wanted to (i.e. Kane could've fought to not say "whatever"; and even make sure to protect his character - which is in the toilet right now. Kane walks, talks and acts like a normal person, which is a huge no-no for me -- and I believe it's going on because Glen Jacobs doesn't care, he's happy to pick up a paycheck)

On the flip-side, frequent curtain-jerker and my #1 wrestler of 2010, Bryan Danielson : I bet Creative don't script his chain wrestling and transitions to different holds -- that's all Danielson. So he gets complete kudos for his matches. Creative can only be 'credited' for the spots in the match (the suicide dive, the finish). Having seen Danielson work the indies, I know what he's capable of. (Even though wrestling in the WWE means working at 40% work-rate, that's ok).

But when I see garbage like him doing this angle with the Bellas, or dancing in the ring, I blame Creative, not him.

So to sum up, I blame the wrestler less the lower they are on the card (although seeing them wrestle, you get an idea of how good a wrestler they are in a WWE ring/their WWE potential). Stupid storylines are all creative's fault. Delivery of promo, charisma and personality is wrestler's fault.

When it gets to the main event, whom Creative put their best work on and will give performers leeway, the onus is on the wrestlers to do what's best. Creative might book a stupid angle, but the wrestler can do their best with what's given to them, and push to change little things (that make all the difference) and deliver the best promos and matches. It's no small wonder why WWE's best matches are generally the main event -- it's like that on purpose. Everyone else is told to have a worse match. It also makes sense, as the crowd don't get tired, and it solidifies why wrestlers are main-eventers.

So how much I blame the wrestler is proportional to their place on the card. I hope that you're less confused now :pac:

P.s. A small point, but when people say "Punk has gotten much better this year" -- No, he's always been that good. Seeing him in 2006, you knew he was something special (of if you've seen his ROH work). WWE have done their best to suppress him, and have failed, and we can all bask in the awesomeness of the Straight Edge Saviour.

CMpunked

jaykhunter wrote: »

So how much I blame the wrestler is proportional to their place on the card. I hope that you're less confused now :pac:

Lol.
My confusion has been lifted!

BH, Lock this bad boy!! :p


No im not confused, its just the topic of "Oh this person sucks, they just suck, they deserve to be brought outside and shot.. " has been brought up before and when the counter argument of creative hypothetically p!ssing all over them, its retorted back to being the wrestlers fault.

Its just interesting to know where the standpoint of posters on the forum is in the here and now.


See, i took a stint at tv and film analysis a while back and loved it.
It's part the reason why i want to get into the production side of the film media.
Part of the module was looking at soaps, as the lecturer called it "practically the only form of weekly episodic tv show there is" :rolleyes:(michael cole wouldve hada fit!)
We looked at fair city and highly criticised the writing and directorial of the show. No one else was up for analysing an episode of the wwe much to my pushing.

It didnt stop me from thinking of wwe as a soap, or as movies as Vince put it in "beyond the mat" documentary.
So its how ive viewed wrestling as entertainment.


If you look back here (and in other forums) when someone would be criticised, not many people would find the booking team to be at fault.
I found that astonishing.


Im curious to know what mentality posters have these days i guess.


But great post Jay, you sum it up very well.

jaykhunter

me wrote:

I hope that you're less confused now

I meant that i've rambled incoherently for ~4 paragraphs and that one line sentence clears it up :pac:

Bounty Hunter

CMpunked wrote: »

Lol.
My confusion has been lifted!

BH, Lock this bad boy!! :p

Nah im enjoying this thread so far

Q.When your critical of wrestling, do you get annoyed with creative or the wrestler?

My Answer: Creative about 75% of the time

why?

cos I assosiate creative with who puts these wrestlers in the spot they have and tbh if the wrestler isn't up to it he shouldent have the spot in the first place.

Why only 75% ?

If its a first or second push it could be the wrestlers fault as creative
maybe gave him/her their best material and he/she just couldent deliver when they get their chance, after this if a wrestler is still not delivering you would have to think its creatives fault for either supplying poor material or for writting material that puts an unworthy competitor in that spot in the first place.

Think it was Paul Heyman who talked about a key aspect of booking being emphasising wrestlers strenghts and hiding their weaknesses because virtually all wrestlers have their weaknesses a well booked angle however should be able to get a wrestler over despite those weaknesses. Tommy Dreamer for example (thats probably another can of worms opened simply by using his name)

glenjamin

I'd say about 90% of the time I'd lay the blame at creative.

The likes of Kane and Show are booked terribly. I know that they're both been booked as strong lately especially Show as over the last few months he doesn't lose clean. For me they completely missed the boat with Show and in a way Kane. Show could have been his generation Andre but erratic booking (and not to mention his lack of wrestling skills) have made him just another big guy. At the moment he's made to look unbeatable but it's too hard to believe that anymore considering only a few months when he was heel he was getting beat more often than Mark Henry, another guy who keeps getting booked as a threat even though he loses more than he wins.

The another 10% of the time I'd blame on the wrestler. I can't bare to watch Cena anymore. I know the whole SuperCena thing is down to creative but I just can't stand his promos which are almost exactly the same every week, his move set is stale and the fact he only sells when he feels like it pisses me off.

The solution - bring back Heyman! :cool:

CMpunked

glenjamin wrote: »

The solution - bring back Heyman! :cool:

there was a time where i would agree with you.
But i think its passed.

Instead what i would like to hear of is some new creative member who has the same drive, passion, crazy out of the box thinking that heyman had and he has new ideas and really pushes the ideas.

jaykhunter

I don't think Heyman's time has ever passed. He has a different vision of what Vince does and his stints have always been successful from a creative pov. His influence makes everything better. Creatively ECW, the SD! 6 Era and the ONS 05 were all huge successes. He just needs someone else to manage the chequebook

Although i think his services are needed much more in TNA when Bischoff and Hogan get the boot

parker kent

I would say both. Sometimes I get annoyed at sub-standard wrestlers but the way I see it is that the booker should not have them on air in the first place.

I'll use my bête noire John Cena as an example. I am extremely critical of almost everything related to Cena. When he is doing his comical windmill punches I am annoyed with Cena. I fail to understand how after all these years he has not taken the time to improve his in-ring work. He uses about 5 moves in most matches and most of them are pathetic. The no pressure STF is the worst move in wrestling history (and that includes the worm and Mr Socko!). After all this time, Cena should simply have improved. Even somebody like Trish Stratus made massive efforts to improve her in-ring performances. Plus Cena is annoying in other instances. For example, taking too long in his "farewell" speech and thus vastly decreasing the time available to Bryan and DiBiase, his dreadful acting skills (the guy has about 2 facial expressions and the acting range of a delinquent Billy Barry kid.) So it is things like that make me annoyed with a wrestler.

However, none of this would happen if creative were working better. TNA are an example of where the booking is to blame for so many problems. I think most rational wrestling fans blame Russo and co for the weekly shambles that is TNA. Similarly, WWE creative are to blame for the worst elements of Cena. They book him like a superhero, they decide to ignore his fired angle, they write the crap that he has to say etc. The same way that creative were to blame for the lazy, easy way out booking that has left the WWE with a dearth of new main eventers (think of the abandoned Kofi Kingston push, ditto Evan Bourne and so many more).

So to conclude, wrestlers are my occassional targets of blame but creative really is the greater evil. Sometimes wrestlers drop the ball when a push is given to them and that is probably a different topic altogether. But when I see idiotic things in wrestling, the booker gets my ire!

CMpunked

jaykhunter wrote: »

I don't think Heyman's time has ever passed.

No your right it hasnt.

But i mean my expectation of him to rejoin wwe/wrestling has passed.

jaykhunter

CMpunked wrote: »

i mean my expectation of him to rejoin wwe/wrestling has passed.

That's true. I doubt Tripper would ever bring him back in; only to twart TNA but they didn't sound interested when he was in negotiations with Dixie, so I don't think he'll ever be with WWE again.

We can only hope Dixie gets desperate enough to give Heyman the keys

parker kent wrote: »

I'll use my bête noire John Cena as an example.

My wife doesn't speak french, but...je do :pac:

parker kent

jaykhunter wrote: »

My wife doesn't speak french, but...je do :pac:

Je suis désolé...eh I mean sorry I must have given too many grinds in French lately :pac:

Angron

I still love Kane But yeah, the push should have happened a long time ago, not in the closing years of his career (it has to be the closing years, surely). For that I blame creative, the poorer matches I put down to age, bigger guys will tend to struggle later on into their careers.

I agree 100% with jayk about Danielson, and I really don't like the segments with the Bellas..

jaykhunter

Ya Vince thinks Danielson's getting over due to the Bellas storyline, not his amazing in-ring wrestling....

parker kent wrote: »

Je suis désolé...eh I mean sorry I must have given too many grinds in French lately :pac:

If i may successfully derail this thread...

Tu ne peux pas imagine a quel point j'ai ete heureux de recevoir de ta lettre :pac:

damn idioms still burnt into my brain after most of a decade

CMpunked

J'ai deux frères et une soeur!:pac: