Jim Cornette was recently on Killing The Town. He and Lance Storm had a fascinating discussion on how the art of wrestling has changed over the past few decades. Central to the discussion was the definition of a "great worker".

When kayfabe was alive, the components of a great worker are, according to Cornette:

• Have a good match without hurting the opponent.
  
• Get both yourself and your opponent over.
  
• Make the audience believe something. This may only be that both wrestlers are trying to win the match (and hence not cooperating to work a match), but it's often more than that.
  

Nowadays, in the post-kayfabe world, where most fans know outcomes are predetermined and the wrestlers aren't really hurting each other, the goalposts have changed. In addition, the in-ring product has evolved. There's a much greater emphasis on moves, athleticism, and false finishes than there was in the 80s. This means that matches are evaluated differently in the eyes of fans and critics.

Does this mean that the definition of a great worker has changed? Do the bullet points above no longer apply, or apply to a lesser extent than they did a few decades ago?

In this day and age, considering kayfabe is dead. It's, the ability to suspend belief. 

And that's a combination of a lot of things, that's storytelling, psychology, motive, emotion, reaction. Which is heightened by the ring work. Now, that's not necessarily all down to athletic ability or being Mr. Strongstyle McStiffshot - it's the how, why, when - making it mean something.

The audience needs to forget they're watching a " wrestling match " and even for a brief few moments, believe their seeing a fight, however that's achieved. 

They get paid.

Feb 5, 2018 7:31:18 GMT NATH45 said:

In this day and age, considering kayfabe is dead. It's, the ability to suspend belief. 

And that's a combination of a lot of things, that's storytelling, psychology, motive, emotion, reaction. Which is heightened by the ring work. Now, that's not necessarily all down to athletic ability or being Mr. Strongstyle McStiffshot - it's the how, why, when - making it mean something.

The audience needs to forget they're watching a " wrestling match " and even for a brief few moments, believe their seeing a fight, however that's achieved. 

Now that I think about it, some of the very recent modern classics feature more traditional storytelling done very well over a bunch of flashy high spots.

Johnny Gargano vs Cien Almas is the story of the never-say-die constant underdog/underachiever who has worked his way to the top after numerous setbacks and tries to beat the guy who beat him twice before. They told that story really well, without an over-reliance on high spots and meaningless false finishes.

Tanahashi vs Suzuki from a recent NJPW show was really heavy on storytelling. The latter part of the match saw Suzuki killing Tanahashi, but Tanahashi refusing to stay down. Suzuki hits his finisher, the Gotch Piledriver, which nobody kicks out of. Instead of going for the cover, he grabs a leg submission, but Tanahashi refuses to tap out, even in the knowledge that there is no way he can escape the hold. A desperate attempt to hold onto his legacy. Suzuki, being Suzuki, doesn't give a fuck and keeps ripping the leg apart until the referee stops the match.

The flashier matches tend to be well-received at the time, and get big reactions, but they won't stand the test of time or receive the magical five stars like the two matches above. Perhaps the conclusion is that, although wrestling has changed a lot, it hasn't really changed at all, in that the core components of making the audience suspend their disbelief and believe in the story and the characters sells more. Just that it's much harder to make the audience believe in a post-kayfabe world.