I'm thinking about starting a series of threads that cover the misconceptions of many aspects of the wrestling business and trying to clear them up as best as possible, things that most people don't think in detail about, things that are missing, etc. and I would do this thread only once a week, as it would take time to really make a good thread about the topic. Today, I want to talk to you guys about the term "put over". This has become a famous term amongst the IWC. It's seen on Facebook, on Twitter, on Instagram, on internet forums, just about anywhere on the internet where wrestling is mentioned, and even is talked about in person by various people amongst each other.
However, one thing that bothers me about it is when a PPV just finished, something happened at the end of the PPV that people didn't like and it then goes off the air is that there is a huge misconception surrounding the whole term. This is when they then take to the internet and say things such as "That was a burial", "Why did they bury him", "Why couldn't this person have been put over", etc. I've come to think "put over" has a lot more meaning to it than most people think it does, and one thing I have noticed is that it only seems to be "this person putting over that person" Yes, that is a good partial way of defining the term, but from really thinking about it, it's much more complex than that.
Let's say that the rumors of Kevin Owens vs Brock Lesnar at WrestleMania turn into the match actually happening. With the way Brock is booked, it could be a case of Owens being put over just by taking him to the limit (like Reigns should have been if Brock had just beaten him and not had Rollins steal the belt, which kind of ruined that story for the purposes of another). I don't think Owens is the man that should beat Streak-conqueror Brock clean, but you don't need to win to get put over or vice-versa.
And those last few words right there is really what this thread's point is. Putting someone over isn't only restricted to getting hit with their finisher and laying down for the one, two, three. If the person you're going up against looks good in the ring (getting good offense, near falls, etc), then you're putting them over, even if you're scheduled to win the match. Losing the match at this point means nothing. The person you won against looked good, got good offense, got most of their moves that they're known for, and you guys had a great match. Some of the guys that I feel have done a great job at pulling that off over the years are Triple H, Chris Jericho, The Undertaker, The Rock, Stone Cold Steve Austin, Kurt Angle, Sting, and most recently, John Cena with his Open Challenge matches. So what if these guys win? They're still putting their opponents over by making them look good against them in their respective matches, let the person get in the moves that they're known for, and put on a good match. Job done. Mission accomplished. You won the match, and on top of that, put the person you faced over by letting them look good.
I just want people to better understand that that is what I think "put over" all comes down to, and hope people find this to be an enjoyable read.
However, one thing that bothers me about it is when a PPV just finished, something happened at the end of the PPV that people didn't like and it then goes off the air is that there is a huge misconception surrounding the whole term. This is when they then take to the internet and say things such as "That was a burial", "Why did they bury him", "Why couldn't this person have been put over", etc. I've come to think "put over" has a lot more meaning to it than most people think it does, and one thing I have noticed is that it only seems to be "this person putting over that person" Yes, that is a good partial way of defining the term, but from really thinking about it, it's much more complex than that.
Let's say that the rumors of Kevin Owens vs Brock Lesnar at WrestleMania turn into the match actually happening. With the way Brock is booked, it could be a case of Owens being put over just by taking him to the limit (like Reigns should have been if Brock had just beaten him and not had Rollins steal the belt, which kind of ruined that story for the purposes of another). I don't think Owens is the man that should beat Streak-conqueror Brock clean, but you don't need to win to get put over or vice-versa.
And those last few words right there is really what this thread's point is. Putting someone over isn't only restricted to getting hit with their finisher and laying down for the one, two, three. If the person you're going up against looks good in the ring (getting good offense, near falls, etc), then you're putting them over, even if you're scheduled to win the match. Losing the match at this point means nothing. The person you won against looked good, got good offense, got most of their moves that they're known for, and you guys had a great match. Some of the guys that I feel have done a great job at pulling that off over the years are Triple H, Chris Jericho, The Undertaker, The Rock, Stone Cold Steve Austin, Kurt Angle, Sting, and most recently, John Cena with his Open Challenge matches. So what if these guys win? They're still putting their opponents over by making them look good against them in their respective matches, let the person get in the moves that they're known for, and put on a good match. Job done. Mission accomplished. You won the match, and on top of that, put the person you faced over by letting them look good.
I just want people to better understand that that is what I think "put over" all comes down to, and hope people find this to be an enjoyable read.
Last edited:
