How come crowd reaction is important in WWE/wrestling?
I am a fan of WWE and fans always talk about which wrestler is the most "over" and gets the best crowd reactions. Example, Becky is the most over wrestler and the fan favorite so she's the best. While haters say charlotte barely gets any reaction so she sucks. But I rarely see the same mindset regarding movies/music, etc. I don't know of anyone who says their favorite singer is the best because they have the most fans or is the most popular. Example, Justin Bieber have millions of crazy fan girls screaming for him every show and lots of people say he suck. Basically my question, how come overness and popularity is important in wrestling but not so much in other aspects?
- Anonymous8 months ago
It is entertainment no crowd participation image what the viewers must be doing it thinking if a live crowd is bad.
- 8 months ago
I makes it harder for the fighters to be able to concentrate when fighting.
- Anonymous8 months ago
WITH OUT THE CROWD THERE WOULD BE NO SHOW DUMMY
- 8 months ago
Being “over” includes both negative and positive reactions. Becky is over as a fan favorite. Brock Lesnar is over as a villain. Someone who isn’t over would be getting absolutely no reactions. Bieber was insanely over. Some people might’ve hated him but he was beloved by girls.
Being over matters outside of wrestling too. It has happened in comic books several times. Stories have been dropped and characters have been killed off because fans didn’t like them. TV shows get cancelled all the time because fans don’t like them. The only difference is they don’t use the term “over” to describe it.
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- 8 months ago
It's simple. They enhance the sport. More people would be interested in a popular sport rather than a boring sport. The fans of wrestling are very important for the sport.
- 8 months ago
They can change a lot of things in wrestling. They can change the way a match is, a wrestler's career, a promotion and even wrestling as a whole.
Crowd reactions brings more popularity to wrestling and more popularity to the promotion that is pro wrestling. If there were no crowd reactions in wrestling then wrestling would be in the bottom scrap of sports popularity.
Many people say wrestling's fake but if wrestling is boring then it would be really bottom in the soccer popularity spectrum. Wrestling isn't really fake though.
- Amy FlowerLv 78 months ago
You are way off on that one, it’s important to have fans, no matter what the profession is, those wrestlers who are getting the most cheers have the most fans and are making the most money.
It’s the same way at a movie theater, if a movie is labeled as garbage, say like that new Charlie’s angels movies, less people will watch, if it’s labeled as good and has some buzz around it, like the joker, more people will go see it.
Of course you don’t know anyone who says their favorite singer is the best because they have the most fans or most popular, it’s the same way in wrestling, John Cena has millions of screaming fans but half the audience thinks he sucks, he is the same as Justin Bieber, there’s wrestlers who are nowhere near as popular as him but even less popular wrestlers have their fans who think they are the best, it all comes down to opinions.
- Nico RobinLv 58 months ago
I'll answer this.
There are multiple reasons for that. It is important to understand what is meant by being over. If a wrestler is over then it means that they are able to generate a reaction whether it's a cheer or a boo.
A face wrestler that is over can get cheered by the audience. The audience would want to see more of them in action and as a result, they would tune in more to the product where they are featured in which then gets more ratings.
A heel wrestler that is over can get booed by the audience. The audience would want to see this wrestler get beat up so they would tune in to the product featuring them which can get more ratings too.
Being the most over superstar in the company doesn't mean that superstar is the best superstar in the company but rather the most popular. I'm sure those fans who believe that being the most over means being the best, don't make up the majority of the whole wrestling fanbase. By that logic, one can state that Baron Corbin is better than Johnny Gargano because he is over and that statement can easily be proved otherwise.
There is a large difference between being popular and being unpopular. If you're popular, a considerable amount of people know you and hold you in a certain regard. Many people can be interested in what you can do as a wrestler. If you're unpopular, it's the opposite.
Getting crowd reactions is important, not only for the wrestler that happens to generate that reaction, but for the company. If you are failing to get any crowd reaction then you're clearly not doing well at all and there is what you can call "Fan Apathy". There are loads of wrestlers that are definitely talented however they receive apathy from fans. Fans just don't care about them and aren't interested in tuning in because of them.
Then you have those wrestlers who the fans consider boring and/or annoying. They can be a face or a heel. If it's taken to a higher level, ratings can drop down. More fans don't want to see them so it can change the channel and watch something else when these wrestlers are around. Baron Corbin is one of them.
On the other hand, you have those wrestlers who the fans considers awesome. Those kinds of wrestlers who get cheered significantly. If taken to a higher level, you have fans chanting their name or something related to them. This can uppen the ratings because more fans want to see them.
The wrestling matches too. Crowd reactions are absolutely important in a wrestling match. If a bad wrestling match is getting great reactions then that match is really interesting. If a good wrestling match is getting no reactions then it hurts the match. If there are "boring" chants then it's seriously bad.
Ratings are one of the most important things in the wrestling promotion that is WWE. They probably wouldn't be where they are if they had horrible ratings.
Crowd Reactions can change a wrestler's career. Look at Daniel Bryan. His "Yes Movement" led to a huge change in his career. He was so over that it would be a disastrous for WWE if he had a tedious scuffle with Sheamus. That would have turned Wrestlemania 30 into one of the worst Wrestlemania PPV's. That main event match between Randy and Batista would perhaps be the quality of rotten pie.
Same can be said for John Cena. He's a major reason why WWE's got a great relationship with many of child fans. Cena wouldn't be that "great guy" that many of the kids look up to if he wasn't over.
Now you can understand why they are so important.
- 8 months ago
I do not know why crowd reaction is important. This question is way too complicated
- CandleLv 78 months ago
For one thing, I don't think 'overness' is important to the WWE. Getting a reaction is good, but WWE doesn't really care what the reaction is as long as the crowd's making noise. I've never seen or heard of Charlotte getting an anti-pop, but I haven't been watching in awhile now so I could be missing something. WWE only cares about what you can sell for them, and so far Charlotte and Becky have both been branded along with plenty of merchandising and advertising venues for the WWE. They keep doing it, so it must get good results.
Now if the question is 'why are fans obsessed with whose 'over'?' then the answer is pretty self explanatory. They're the fans. The pop is their opinion, their voice, the vox populi, so of course they're going to be invested in how much someone is cheered. Like with the bands listed, there are two ways of measuring artists: there's by the artistic success of getting by on your own terms, influencing your peers, and leaving the world a better place because of your art regardless to if you die penniless and in a gutter...and then there's monetary gains, popularity, and appealing to a wider audience with something that might come off a bit less soulful and more generic. Wrestling fandom has critics and analysts of both lifestyles. For instance, I love Mike Quackenbush and think he's one of the more influential wrestlers of the past 20 years. He innovated a hybrid of UK and lucha libre wrestling that's being emulated to this day, he's trained some extremely talented wrestlers, a lot of which have had bigger spotlights and better careers than him, and he's earned the respect of men he idolized like Johnny Saint and Johnny Kidd. He even managed to get his foot in the door and do a few seminars at the WWE PC where he's influenced the likes of Chad Gable and more recently Alexa Bliss, but he probably weighs a little over 100 lbs soaking wet and the best years of his career are arguably behind him. He is below the average height of an adult male, doesn't look particularly like someone you'd think of as being a professional wrestler for a living, and has been throwing cash into a torrential tempest of a money pit called Chikara for the past two decades, and probably makes more money as a trainer than a promoter at this point. If you ask Al Snow, Hulk Hogan, Jim Cornette, or anyone who analyzes wrestling based on branding and marketing, odds are they'd think Mike Quackenbush is the single worst professional wrestler in the history of wrestling because he's not a millionaire, he's probably sold less than a few thousand t-shirts in his long and tenured career, I doubt the vast majority of people reading this have ever heard of him, as a promoter the best he can probably muster is breaking even, and he'll never headline in Madison Square Garden as a member of the highest grossing wrestling promotion in the world. Are those arguments valid? Yes. Are my arguments valid? Yes. It's all very subjective and based on how you look at things. You rarely find the middle ground where something's popular and also artistically valued. The closest we got as a society was probably the Beatles, and I've met plenty of Beatles haters in my day, so everyone's a critic.