Storytelling vs Technical Ability: Which one is more imporant to you?

[PSachkovsky]

Basically, which one of the categories makes the match more watchable for you? The storytelling, or the technical ability inside the ring?

 

[Senhor Perfect]

I believe they're equally important. IMO it's hard to tell a good story without the ability to perform well technically in the ring.

 

[CrayJ Lee]

I only say the storytelling because if there's proper build-up with the rivalry and great promos then it makes the matches that much more exciting. Obviously the technical ability of the wrestlers is very important too but the storytelling can make the matches that much more exciting if you know they're fighting for something, whether it be for pride or something else.

 

[Stopspot]

They go hand in hand. It is possible to tell a good story in ring without much technical ability IF you have a fantastic and totally thought out character. But 9 times out of ten you need to also have technical ability as well as character and story.

 

[Pop Tatari]

Both

 

[seabs]

I prefer a story tbh, greatly executed wristlocks with no story won't entertain me but if you've got a story with some moves which aren't fully crisp I'll be hooked. The emotion makes wrestling great IMO.( Punk is an example of this kind of guy quite often tbh)

 

[Crayo]

Definitely a story.

 

[Alpa Chino]

AW: Storytelling vs Technical Ability: Which one is more imporant to you?

I prefer a good story also. Technical Wrestling alone just isn't enough to give me that whoa-effekt. But it is important to a certain degree.

Personally, I prefer a Mick Foley match to a Benoit match.

 

[Danielson]

I belive the best wrestlers are able to tell a story through their wrestling. So both combined makes the best. If I had to choose one? Technical ability. The guy has to be able to pull off the moves first and foremost for me.

 

[Dat Kid1]

I think both are as equally important. You can go in and strictly story tell, but be a shit wrestler and that isn't entertaining. At the same time you could have great technical prowess, but if you don't know how to put that skill into making great spots that add excitement then it's just an amateur wrestling match (which isn't very entertaining to me at all, not sure about you guys)

 

[Rysenberg]

I'd say storytelling. I usually find it easier to get engrossed in long matches if they involve guys like Cena or Punk than I do Ziggler matches for example, who, IMO, lacks the storytelling side at times. Although I imagine that will come in time.

 

[Snowman1]

From a simple WWE/TNA standpoint, storytelling is more important on a Raw/Impact. It gives the matches meaning, provides character development, and helps build to PPV's. On PPV it's better to deliver the best technical match they possibly can.

If you mean "in a performer"... can you say "Take the guy who can do all the moves he can and teach him how to tell an effective story"?

 

[Lockard 23]

For me, an equal healthy dose of both is best. That's what wrestling is, getting people emotionally invested in the characters and their conflicts with each other and THEN making us care about seeing them compete in the ring over it. Without both, I start to lose interest. I can watch a good old fashioned wrestling match without any backstory but only for so long before it gets boring. I actually tried watching the 1988 Survivor Series not long ago and almost every match (with hardly anything in between) was long ass elimination matches, and it started to bore me by the end of the second match. I actually could have sustained interest a lot longer if it was promos or whatever that went on just as long, I admit.

Objectively, gimmicks/personas (which ties into the storytelling aspect) is the main thing that draws a person into someone and makes you care about them. If you do that, you can automatically make people care about the match even if it isn't some five star technical classic. Look at Hogan/Andre as a prime example. It's original match set the attendance record in North America at 93,173 and it's rematch a year later drew a huge rating of 33 million people, a rating far above anything else ever on a wrestling program. This, despite the fact that both matches were poor from a technical level. But Hogan and Andre were larger than life characters and Andre even had a 15 year (I think 22 in real life) undefeated streak by pinfall and submission walking into the first match.

You can also have a 'great' match even if we're not gifted with a lot of technical wrestling prowess and have a very limited moveset. It all depends on how into it the crowd is and how the match itself is booked, spot for spot. Hogan/Warrior at WM6 was pretty damn good, and is a good example of this (brilliant booking on Patterson's part.)

 

[Dolph'sZiggler]

Technical wrestling baby. You could drop me off at ringside to a Ziggler/Daniel Bryan match and even if I'd never heard of either of them I would instantly be drawn in by what I was seeing.