Do you need to know your history before you can wrestle?

[Xero]

Vault frequenters know what I'm talking about here. For those who don't, there's a female wrestler who visited the Vault the other day and kept asking the DUMBEST questions (she also somehow injured her leg taking what she called a running powerslam, and no one could figure out how she did this, but this is irrelevant). (It's also irrelevant that she felt the need to explain that you don't squeeze the genitals while preforming a move.)

This girl didn't know that the War Games shows involved two rings at all times (I suppose she thought they set the other ring up just for War Games). And she thought the promotion she worked for made up the fatal four way elimination matches (the ones with tags, name escapes me right now). Also didn't know the year of the WCW/WWF merger, which was arguably one of the most important dates in wrestling history.

But here's the kicker, she claimed you didn't need to know the history of the business to become a wrestler. To an extent, I guess she's right. These are not things you NEED to know. But I completely lost faith in the new generation of wrestlers coming in if any percentage of them think like this. If you're in this business and love it (IE: you don't do it just to have work, which is how she came off) you should have the respect to learn the history and not just brush it off.

Am I off here? Does she have the wrong attitude or am I just being a bit over-reactive?

[Nark Order]

I don't think it's completely necessary to know the history of the business to become a wrestler. However, I do believe you need to know the history of the business to become a SUCCESSFUL wrestler. I think it's needless to say that we probably won't be seeing that particular woman on our television sets anytime soon. Professional wrestling is an activity of passion; It has passionate fans and passionate participants. Most people do not get into it for the money but get into it because it is something that they love and respect. You earn this love and respect by first being a fan, there's no way around it. I would say most all successful pro-wrestlers of today are successful in part due to the fact that that they know their history. By keeping up on the history of the business you know what has been done, what hasn't, what works, what doesn't work, what the "no nos" of the business are, what the safest way to execute certain moves are, what is dangerous, etc.

Being a fan before you participate is absolutely invaluable.

[McLegend]

You don't need to know the history.

There are a lot of successful professional athletes that do not know a thing about their sport except how to play it.

Goldberg didn't know a thing about wrestling, and he was pretty successful.

[FourFifty]

Goldberg didn't know a thing about wrestling, and he was pretty successful.

I disagree.
Yea, he made it farther and made more money than a guy like Nick Mondo, but 5 years from now we won't be talking about him. We'll still be talking about Hogan, Savage, Flair, HBK, etc.
For his time period he was a draw that could put a few asses in a few seats. In the long run, he's a flash in the pan.

[Nark Order]

Goldberg was "successful" because he was booked like an unstoppable monster in WCW that never lost. When he came over to WWE where he couldn't rely on always winning, he couldn't handle it for very long. Also, if he had known a little bit about the business before getting into it maybe he would've known not to pick fights with Chris Jericho.

[CSL]

Nah, you don't really need to know anything if you have good teachers. I know quite a few able workers who don't really have a clue about anything besides recent-ish WWE stuff and I know some fucking terrible guys who are like encyclopedias. However, the majority of the guys that aren't really 'in the know' tend to not really have a clue about match structure and need leading (like everybody at first but these guys don't really ever seem to learn) But there are guys who are capable of being very good whilst being led. It's pretty much down to the individual.

[McLegend]

But he was still made more money in wrestling then like 95% other wrestlers. Almost any wrestler would take Goldberg's career over their own. Its really been like 10 years since Goldberg was at the height of his popularity, and we are still talking about him.

Five years from now he will still be talked about.

[Nark Order]

Actually McLegend, you're talking about him. We're responding to you.

Goldberg was large athletic guy #456. Nothing more, nothing less. His booking is what got him over. His gimmick was that he won every match. I'm sure many guys would kill for a gimmick like that, however; the more educated guy would know that such a gimmick could not last forever.

DON'T GET ME STARTED ON HOW AWFUL GOLDBERG WAS!

[CSL]

Not just anybody could have been successful with that gimmick. Goldberg's look, intensity, power, facials, mannerisms etc played a BIG part and he was capable of having red hot matches with the right guy. However, he was not exactly 'Superworker' and was very much in the right place at the right time

[Nark Order]

He was also capable of one of the most famous wrestling botches of all time that ruined Bret Hart for the rest of his life.

[Ruien]

Maven proved you do not need to know anything about wrestling. And for his short time he was a successful wrestler.

[CSL]

He was also capable of one of the most famous wrestling botches of all time that ruined Bret Hart for the rest of his life.

And Droz is still in a wheelchair because of (the very talented) D'Lo Brown. Not seeing your point.

[road doggy dogg]

What are you talking about, ask any "casual" fan and they probably know who Goldberg is.


Anyway, like someone else said, many sports athletes don't know the history of their sport and are still great. Many musicians probably don't know their history entirely and are successful as well.
crossrine

[Nark Order]

I don't know. I don't really like to give Goldberg much credit for anything really. Maybe it's unfair but I always hated him and thought he was a huge waste of space. More importantly, he was an insult to guys that were actually talented that deserved a push much more than he did. Of course he had to have some sort of charisma but he still only had a fraction of the charisma that most in WCW had at the time he was big. Pretty impressive growl he had I guess. However; he was known for being stiff in the ring, was told multiple times to soften up, and then injured one of the greatest of all time due to said stiffness.

Sure I'm bitter but my bitterness does not come without proper justification.

[Xero]

Can't believe anyone is defending Goldberg, to be honest.

[road doggy dogg]

I'm not saying Goldberg deserves to be remembered, but it's downright silly to say he will never be thought of again.
crossrine

[Nark Order]

Yeah, for real. I thought Goldberg being awful was just a fact of life.

[road doggy dogg]

Can't believe anyone is defending Goldberg, to be honest.

Can't believe you're too stupid to think that Goldberg will never be thought of ever again just because you think he sucks.
crossrine

[Xero]

Can't believe you're too stupid to think that Goldberg will never be thought of ever again just because you think he sucks.
crossrine

Flash in the pan.

[Ruien]

Goldberg basically carried WCW for awhile. People would watch a whole Nitro just to see him. He will always be remembered.

[CSL]

Flash in the pan.

If Goldberg had been with Vince from day one, he'd be far from it. Goldberg was more over than most wrestlers will ever be

[Nark Order]

If Goldberg was with Vince from Day 1 then he wouldn't have won every single match and wouldn't have gotten anywhere near the following he had for being "unstoppable".

[Juan]

I never liked Goldberg when I was younger because I thought he was Stone Cold rip-off.

[Theo Dious]

As far as the actual question goes, I think you don't need to know the history of the business to be a wrestler. However, when you look at the success stories of wrestling, it seems that many more of the biggest names knew and respected the history of the business. However I'd say this goes hand in hand with whether you have a passion for the business. People without that (Re: Goldberg, Warrior, even Lesnar to an extent) just don't seem to care enough about knowing the history, and, surprise, don't really last too long.

My answer to the question "what do you need to be a successful wrestler" would ultimately be "passion for the business." And if you have passion, you're going to know and respect the history. Goldberg and Warrior succeeded for a while without it. Guys like Michaels, HHH, Edge, Matt Hardy, and yes, even Cena are where they are because of passion for the business, and the knowledge and respect for its history that came with it.

[Testicle]

While I do believe that having a knowledge of your profession's histroy is benefitcial, it is by no means neccisary.

This is not exclusive to the wrestling industry, many atheletes have no knowledge of there sports history, it can be disturbing. Another issue is that many atheltes do not follow their sport at all, many WWE wrestler don't know what is going on in TNA, ROH, Japan and vice versa. Again does that mean they won't be succesful, no, but I do think it would be to their benefit.

[CSL]

If Goldberg was with Vince from Day 1 then he wouldn't have won every single match and wouldn't have gotten anywhere near the following he had for being "unstoppable".

Vince knows how to build somebody properly when he can be bothered, he could have easily given him the Kane/Brock-esque push he got in WCW. Goldberg was booked brilliantly for his first year or so. Vince wouldn't have shit all over him with piss poor booking because he (mostly) does what's best for his business and with the amount of money Goldberg would have been generating for him, I doubt he'd have been in an rush to make him look like an idiot

[Volare]

Xero, I say yes. I mean you talk about people growing up being wrestling fans then wanting to do it themselves, they were able to from learning from the past and paying dues for it. I feel that same feeling is there in WWE's newer talent, knowing that if it wasn't for people paving the way, the industry wouldn't be where it is today. Hell even Cena started in the minors before becoming what he is today, same with Edge and Orton.

[NeanderCarl]

Goldberg's charisma and intensity got him over long before the streak actually took off. The streak only worked because the crowd got behind him, and they got behind him because he connected with them and worked very exciting short squashes. Yes, he benefitted from flattering booking... is that a crime? That's the fucking point of wrestling, isn't it? You build guys up to look good.

Would he have gotten over if he came out and lost every single week? Nope, but then neither would Hogan or Austin have gotten over if they hadn't been able to pick up wins over top opponents. Charisma and intangibles can get you over, but being a winner is what keeps the fans in your corner. You can't just knock Goldberg on the basis of how well he was booked... every top star in the business has been booked flatteringly at some point in their career, and usually that's what got them over to begin with.

[Nicky Fives]

It should be necessary, but I got doubts about the majority of the WWE roster could name some of the great feuds from the past, great moments, etc.

[Steveviscious89]

It amazes me how many of you said that you don't need to know it. That is completely WRONG. I can imagine a handful of people here saying that though just because they don't have the brain capacity to pack it in there, but the history is important. Granted I do not know much about it pre 80's, but it's not like there's an unending amount of information there. Not to mention, some of the wrestlers may end up in creative positions eventually, and they say that those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it. You have to know the history in order to come up with something that hasn't been done before.

[road doggy dogg]

You're saying that as if wrestling hasn't been largely repetitive and boring for years now. Get over yourself.
crossrine

[DrA]

I do believe that you need to know the history, and all of the infamous wrestlers and moments that make wrestling what it is today. Moments like when Big Boss Man stole Big Show's father's casket and dragged the Big Show with it, or wrestlers that have respected their past occupations by wrestling as garbage men, repo men, voodoo masters, tugboat owners, and evil clowns.

[Dorkchop]

It should be necessary, but I got doubts about the majority of the WWE roster could name some of the great feuds from the past, great moments, etc.

I'd be fairly certain that they know more about that stuff than me, you, and everyone on this board. There may be a couple of people on this board who are almost like an encyclopedia when it comes to pro wrestling so I could be wrong about the last part.

This is leaving out the stupid bimbos WWE hires... and guys like Adamle. I'm talking about the people who worked to get into the company.

[Fox]

Goldberg was "successful" because he was booked like an unstoppable monster in WCW that never lost. When he came over to WWE where he couldn't rely on always winning, he couldn't handle it for very long. Also, if he had known a little bit about the business before getting into it maybe he would've known not to pick fights with Chris Jericho or any other famous Canadian that has even seen the Hart Dungeon.

You make it sound as if Goldberg is entirely at fault for his run in the WWE. You don't think it might have been the shitty booking that ruined it? The inability to book Goldberg based on his strengths (killing people) and hiding his weaknesses (comedy, talking, skits that don't involve killing people)? Cause that's what I think.

[road doggy dogg]

No, Goldberg was unsuccessful in the WWE because he didn't know Chris Jericho trained at the Hart Dungeon.
crossrine

[Nark Order]

lol, yeah yeah yeah. I'll give you this. However. Jericho's best friend were Lance Storm and Benoit. Close enough :shifty: I also never said he trained there. I edited it for you though.

Bottom line: Goldberg had his moments but in the grand scheme of things will not be remembered for anything more than just being a flash in the pan.

[Destor]

Vault frequenters know what I'm talking about here. For those who don't, there's a female wrestler who visited the Vault the other day and kept asking the DUMBEST questions (she also somehow injured her leg taking what she called a running powerslam, and no one could figure out how she did this, but this is irrelevant). (It's also irrelevant that she felt the need to explain that you don't squeeze the genitals while preforming a move.)A running powerslam would be done over the shoulder. If you put your leg down too soon you would run the risk of pretty much bumping on it and breaking it.

This girl didn't know that the War Games shows involved two rings at all times (I suppose she thought they set the other ring up just for War Games). And she thought the promotion she worked for made up the fatal four way elimination matches (the ones with tags, name escapes me right now). Also didn't know the year of the WCW/WWF merger, which was arguably one of the most important dates in wrestling history.

But here's the kicker, she claimed you didn't need to know the history of the business to become a wrestler. To an extent, I guess she's right. These are not things you NEED to know. But I completely lost faith in the new generation of wrestlers coming in if any percentage of them think like this. If you're in this business and love it (IE: you don't do it just to have work, which is how she came off) you should have the respect to learn the history and not just brush it off.

Am I off here? Does she have the wrong attitude or am I just being a bit over-reactive?It's def a rare thing to find someone interested in wrestling that doesn't have a fair knowledge of the buisness, but it's not like wrestlers sit around in training talking about stuff not pertaining to the training exercise. History is in no way requiered or even needed tbh. Though studying is definitly helpful.

Given what you've told me I don't think you cant disprove she's a worker, albiet a very dumb one.

[Destor]

I disagree.
Yea, he made it farther and made more money than a guy like Nick Mondo, but 5 years from now we won't be talking about him. We'll still be talking about Hogan, Savage, Flair, HBK, etc.
For his time period he was a draw that could put a few asses in a few seats. In the long run, he's a flash in the pan.Goldberg was successful. Saying any different is absurd. Hell anyone who worked in WWE or WCW =sucess. Yes even the jobbers. You guys don't realize how big this industry is, how many guys are scratching their way to the top never to make it. And Goldberg? He was known by EVERYONE, even non fans, as the face of wrestling at it's highest peak in history. Yeah, successful he was.

[Destor]

It amazes me how many of you said that you don't need to know it. That is completely WRONG. I can imagine a handful of people here saying that though just because they don't have the brain capacity to pack it in there, but the history is important. Granted I do not know much about it pre 80's, but it's not like there's an unending amount of information there. Not to mention, some of the wrestlers may end up in creative positions eventually, and they say that those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it. You have to know the history in order to come up with something that hasn't been done before.
LOL

Doing something that hasn't been done before? 98% of wrestling is giving the people what they expect which would be a better argument to why you need to know history. That way you know what they want in these scenerios. Shocking usually isn't what you're after in wrestling.

But again, you in no way have to have it. Now the bookers need to know history imo. But not the workers. We just need to know how to work.

[Mr. Nerfect]

I don't know. I don't really like to give Goldberg much credit for anything really. Maybe it's unfair but I always hated him and thought he was a huge waste of space. More importantly, he was an insult to guys that were actually talented that deserved a push much more than he did. Of course he had to have some sort of charisma but he still only had a fraction of the charisma that most in WCW had at the time he was big. Pretty impressive growl he had I guess. However; he was known for being stiff in the ring, was told multiple times to soften up, and then injured one of the greatest of all time due to said stiffness.

Sure I'm bitter but my bitterness does not come without proper justification.

I completely agree with you, but just because he sucked doesn't mean he wasn't successful. Destor, CSLi Manning, Fox and road doggy dogg have all pretty much summed it up. Goldberg made a lot of money, and is more famous than so many of the "top stars" the company has seen.

You can call him a one trick pony, a horrid worker, and even a flash in the pan, if you want. But to say that he wasn't successful and that he won't be remembered for that success is ridiculous.

[Mr. Nerfect]

As for the intended topic of the thread, I actually agree with Tedious on this. But another thing I'd like to throw out there: Keep in mind that professional wrestling is still a carny business. Politics still run wild.

Let's say a great wrestler shows up in the WWE, and he's just supernaturally talented, but knows nothing about the business. I can't see guys like The Undertaker and Triple H liking him too much if he doesn't respect the shit they have done for the industry. To respect who The Undertaker and Triple H are, you need to be able to go back a fair way. For The Undertaker's streak to matter to you, WrestleMania needs to matter to you. For Triple H being such a great heel in your mind, you need to be able to compare him to other great heels.

I think a young guy with all the talent in the world, but no understanding for how the business works is going to run into too many walls. They'll get an initial push based on their talents, before they get jobbed out, then saddled with a ridiculous gimmick, before they get fed-up and quit.

[Destor]

As for the intended topic of the thread, I actually agree with Tedious on this. But another thing I'd like to throw out there: Keep in mind that professional wrestling is still a carny business. Politics still run wild.

Let's say a great wrestler shows up in the WWE, and he's just supernaturally talented, but knows nothing about the business. I can't see guys like The Undertaker and Triple H liking him too much if he doesn't respect the shit they have done for the industry. To respect who The Undertaker and Triple H are, you need to be able to go back a fair way. For The Undertaker's streak to matter to you, WrestleMania needs to matter to you. For Triple H being such a great heel in your mind, you need to be able to compare him to other great heels.

I think a young guy with all the talent in the world, but no understanding for how the business works is going to run into too many walls. They'll get an initial push based on their talents, before they get jobbed out, then saddled with a ridiculous gimmick, before they get fed-up and quit.
Noid, I think you just proved that you don't understand how the buisness works.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Well, I just see too many guys "tested" for their dedication to wrestling today. MVP has been through a period like that, and Jack Swagger is going through it right now. Plus, doesn't FCW make its students watch tapes from the past? I think wrestling history knowledge is at least somewhat important to a wrestler's success.

[ministrychick77]

thank you for bringing this up xero.. lol

this chick made me wanna bang my head against a wall..
she was confusing names of moves.. with the way she was talking she made linda miles look like mike tenay.