Wrestling Psychology

**retardo** · 04-07-2006, 07:55 PM

So, in a detailed way can someone please explain to me what is wrestling psychology and how exactly does a wrestler "tell a story" in a match? What is necessary to be done in wrestling psychology?

And, please don't link me to an OWW article because I've already read most of them.

**Nowhere Man** · 04-08-2006, 02:05 AM

Wrestling psychology is rather difficult to explain, but the best way to put it is simply knowing how to make the best out of what you've got. It's being able to take all things considered in a match (you and your opponent's moveset, staying in your gimmick, what's going on in the angle, what kind of crowd you're performing for, etc) and string together an entertaining and unpredictable match.

An example of using good ring psychology is, say, the heel taking advantage of a face's injury. By exploiting his weaknesses, the heel puts the outcome of the match into uncertainty, and motivates the crowd to root for the face.

As for "telling a story," that's a common analogy used to describe psychology. It usually means tying in the match itself with the angle that's going on.

Good psychology does not necessarily mean a technical wrestling masterpiece. You'd never mistake Jake Roberts or Raven for Chris Benoit or Dean Malenko, but both have had their share of classic matches. Why? Because they knew what moves and stunts to use at the right times. A wrestler with good psychology can make up for limited abilities by playing off of other strengths.

Anyway, that's about as well as I can put it. Hope that helped.

**Kane Knight** · 04-08-2006, 10:04 AM

Whereas you can be as acrobatic as fuck and still not put on good matches, because the moves have neither a logical progression nor a feel of "realism" or "impact."

Mostly, it's the ability to legitimately work the crowd to your advantage (Face or heel)

**hb2k** · 04-09-2006, 10:14 AM

There's a lot of ways to look at psychology. Shawn Michaels and Bret Hart are two very good examples of the variations of wrestling psychology.

Bret was very realism based, making everything mean something in the context of the match itself, and used that realism approach to bring the crowd in.

Shawn is very audience based, and actually very old-school. Even though he does things that that don't convey realism as strongly as Bret, he does the right thing at the right time to get emotion out of the audience. You'll never see a time when Shawn does the nip-up and it gets no reaction, for example. He knows how to convey things to the audience in a way that will drag emotion out of them, whereas Bret is more match based in terms of his psychology.

Kurt Angle is an interesting blend, because he does a lot of things that are unbelievably physical and intense, but at the same time knows when to do things, like all of a sudden getting up like nothing is wrong and running up the ropes, to get emotion out of the crowd and still have it add to the drama of the match.

It's a very multi-layered thing, and hard to truly describe as there's so much, and as you don't have a legendary wrestler on the forums, I guess there's only so much we can learn being on the outside looking in.

**Kane Knight** · 04-13-2006, 11:15 PM

Psychology is also subjective. I mean, the easiest way to put someone down is to say they lack "ring psychology." But what does that really mean?

All it means to me is believability. Whether I can suspend disbelief or not. Whether I buy injuries or fatigue or anger or whatever. There is no true formula for this.

**TerranRich** · 04-14-2006, 12:01 PM

When I actually start fidgeting in my seat, rooting silently for one guy, and actually marking out for certain parts of a match, THEN that's good ring psychology. It's not a definition, but it's a way to tell whether it's good or not.

**Chavo Classic** · 04-15-2006, 08:00 AM

I think it's easier to understand psychology by watching a match featuring someone who doesn't have psychology in their matches. It's easier to identify a "lack of" than an "abudance of" mostly because a good match flows well and draws in the audience.

I guess you've got to watch a CZW, backyard or AJ Styles match (ZING!) to understand what psychology isn't. Then when you actually get to witness a decent Malenko/Jericho/Benoit/Hart/HHH match you'll understand what was missing, and hence what it means to have that in your match.

**McLegend** · 04-15-2006, 01:25 PM

AJ has gotten so much better to

**Skippord** · 04-15-2006, 03:56 PM

Watch a Christopher Daniels match

04-07-2006, 07:55 PM	#1
retardo Posts: 32	Wrestling Psychology So, in a detailed way can someone please explain to me what is wrestling psychology and how exactly does a wrestler "tell a story" in a match? What is necessary to be done in wrestling psychology? And, please don't link me to an OWW article because I've already read most of them.

04-08-2006, 02:05 AM	#2
Nowhere Man Now. Here. Man. Posts: 8,370	Wrestling psychology is rather difficult to explain, but the best way to put it is simply knowing how to make the best out of what you've got. It's being able to take all things considered in a match (you and your opponent's moveset, staying in your gimmick, what's going on in the angle, what kind of crowd you're performing for, etc) and string together an entertaining and unpredictable match. An example of using good ring psychology is, say, the heel taking advantage of a face's injury. By exploiting his weaknesses, the heel puts the outcome of the match into uncertainty, and motivates the crowd to root for the face. As for "telling a story," that's a common analogy used to describe psychology. It usually means tying in the match itself with the angle that's going on. Good psychology does not necessarily mean a technical wrestling masterpiece. You'd never mistake Jake Roberts or Raven for Chris Benoit or Dean Malenko, but both have had their share of classic matches. Why? Because they knew what moves and stunts to use at the right times. A wrestler with good psychology can make up for limited abilities by playing off of other strengths. Anyway, that's about as well as I can put it. Hope that helped.

04-08-2006, 10:04 AM	#3
Kane Knight Ron Paul 4 EVA Posts: 152,467	Whereas you can be as acrobatic as fuck and still not put on good matches, because the moves have neither a logical progression nor a feel of "realism" or "impact." Mostly, it's the ability to legitimately work the crowd to your advantage (Face or heel)

04-09-2006, 10:14 AM	#4
hb2k Do Unto Others... Posts: 2,086	There's a lot of ways to look at psychology. Shawn Michaels and Bret Hart are two very good examples of the variations of wrestling psychology. Bret was very realism based, making everything mean something in the context of the match itself, and used that realism approach to bring the crowd in. Shawn is very audience based, and actually very old-school. Even though he does things that that don't convey realism as strongly as Bret, he does the right thing at the right time to get emotion out of the audience. You'll never see a time when Shawn does the nip-up and it gets no reaction, for example. He knows how to convey things to the audience in a way that will drag emotion out of them, whereas Bret is more match based in terms of his psychology. Kurt Angle is an interesting blend, because he does a lot of things that are unbelievably physical and intense, but at the same time knows when to do things, like all of a sudden getting up like nothing is wrong and running up the ropes, to get emotion out of the crowd and still have it add to the drama of the match. It's a very multi-layered thing, and hard to truly describe as there's so much, and as you don't have a legendary wrestler on the forums, I guess there's only so much we can learn being on the outside looking in.

04-13-2006, 11:15 PM	#5
Kane Knight Ron Paul 4 EVA Posts: 152,467	Psychology is also subjective. I mean, the easiest way to put someone down is to say they lack "ring psychology." But what does that really mean? All it means to me is believability. Whether I can suspend disbelief or not. Whether I buy injuries or fatigue or anger or whatever. There is no true formula for this.

04-14-2006, 12:01 PM	#6
TerranRich Herp a derp, and so on Posts: 8,830	When I actually start fidgeting in my seat, rooting silently for one guy, and actually marking out for certain parts of a match, THEN that's good ring psychology. It's not a definition, but it's a way to tell whether it's good or not.

04-15-2006, 08:00 AM	#7
Chavo Classic The Great Pink Hope Posts: 8,817	I think it's easier to understand psychology by watching a match featuring someone who doesn't have psychology in their matches. It's easier to identify a "lack of" than an "abudance of" mostly because a good match flows well and draws in the audience. I guess you've got to watch a CZW, backyard or AJ Styles match (ZING!) to understand what psychology isn't. Then when you actually get to witness a decent Malenko/Jericho/Benoit/Hart/HHH match you'll understand what was missing, and hence what it means to have that in your match.

04-15-2006, 01:25 PM	#8
McLegend Temporary Posts: 15,590	AJ has gotten so much better to

04-15-2006, 03:56 PM	#9
Skippord I'm Mr. White Christmas Posts: 44,526	Watch a Christopher Daniels match