Jump to content
DVDVR Message Board

March 2023 AEW Discussion


The Natural

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, Elsalvajeloco said:

The thing about wrestling though is it's not a popularity contest among the boys. Now you would like for the top guy (or gal) to be well liked, but there are several instances of that not being the case. We would like it to be this ideal meritocracy but that's definitely the one thing pro wrestling is not.

I get that. I personally think you had better candidates. I never believed Punk's best use was as an everyday performer. He's an attraction. Use him that way.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Log said:

Also, Punk is/was probably the last guy, besides John Cena, that was going to hopefully move the needle for them. I honestly don't care to follow the ratings news, so please don't correct me if he didn't spike ratings or whatever. I'm talking about guys who's signing could generate buzz. I'm sure Punk didn't come cheap, so you've got this guy who you're paying a ton for and he's getting huge pops everywhere you go, so yeah, you put the title on him.

I'm sure there were plenty of guys in the WWF locker room in 1984 that weren't happy that Vince Jr. was putting the belt on this muscled-up dude who couldn't hang in the ring the way someone like Backlund or Bockwinkel or Flair could, but that worked out great for the company. Now, I know that Punk not only didn't lead to that kind of success, and that the whole thing was pretty much a failure, but I think the logic of putting the belt on him was sound.

That's my long way of saying that @Elsalvajeloco is right that it shouldn't come down to who's popular in the locker room.

Hell, Vince could have said screw it and put the belt on Austin (who seemed to be universally beloved for his attitude and well ethic) in 1997 instead of juggling it around just to put it back on Shawn who virtually would have started the year champ having beat Sid at the Royal Rumble. However, that wasn't the end game creatively speaking.

44 minutes ago, just drew said:

I get that. I personally think you had better candidates. I never believed Punk's best use was as an everyday performer. He's an attraction. Use him that way.

I think that was a possibility but once he got that pop at the United Center, that was ballgame on him just being an attraction. I think it would be the same way if you had a John Cena or Dave Batista in the 1994 Hogan role in the * > 0% chance they would ever go to AEW. With Hogan it looked like he was just gonna be a part timer and then even on a rigorous TV and movie schedule, he ends up appearing more you than you actually expect. Even when they added folks like Savage and Luger, all those guys ended up with the WCW world title at some point. Now we're in the era where there are few names that unquestionably stand above all others. 

Vince tried to use Warrior as an attraction in 1996 (he got that one ridiculous pop at WrestleMania XII and then it was diminishing returns after that) and really got nothing out of it in that 3 months he was there. If you're going to work with someone who has already proven himself to be tough to deal with, you might come to the negotiation table with one role in mind and it ends being something entirely different.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, zendragon said:

one is that Tony needs to be a Boss, I’m all for democracy in the work place but every job need a buck stops here guy. Maybe Tony learned his lesson the hard way

I'm hoping this is indeed what he learned. The television since Full Gear seems to suggest as much, since other than MJF throwing drinks on kids he's mostly focused his singles title pictures on guys he knows aren't gonna go bananas (Danielson, Joe, Wardlow, Hobbs, Orange, Darby, Jungle Boy...Sammy would be the potential exception to the rule there although I'm one of those naive types who chooses to believe Kingston's apology after piefacing him was a genuine acknowledgement that Sammy wasn't really at fault). 

Edited by Belgian_Waffle
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Decided to give the Unrestricted with Jarrett a listen, and the way he's putting people over has me thinking about a potential feud -- how about Jarrett/Lethal vs Penta/Fenix? Aside from Fenix and Jeff briefly brushing up against one another when Jeff dropped the AAA Mega belt and a triple threat at an indie featuring Penta and Jay last year, there's not been much contact there. It'd be some fresh match and a different look for both teams and Jeff expresses a lot of respect for both of them. 

Edited by John from Cincinnati
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dolphman 3000 said:

Matt Jackson reportedly tore his bicep and is going to be out a while, so if Kenny is only getting this singles run as a fluke then lol

Can't wait for the impending 3-month tournament to determine Interim Trios Champions

Why, did something happen to the House of Black?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Craig H said:

He didn't really address it. He barely even wanted to talk about it. He talked more about how he worked without a contract the entire summer and tried to bend over backward to put Punk over. That was all that was said.

That and he thinks social media sucks and most people in the back just want to come to work and do their job, but instead you have one dickhead put out a tweet and that's all anyone talks about instead of how fucking rad Omega vs Vikingo was. And he's right. All of social media is a fucking pox. Stop being catty little bitches and get off this shit where you can vague tweet or hint at heat and whatever. That includes Punk, Dax, TK, etc. 

Basically, just show up for work, stop being a cunt, and do you job because it's the best job in the fucking world. Period.

I thought he addressed things just fine. I don't really pay a whole lot of attention to twitter outside of things posted here (most of what I see are Dean sharing clips), so I'm not sure what all is being referenced (Sammy? Andrade? Malakai? all fair). Has Dax had some dumb tweets? I don't really see much of what Dax has said on his pod as being all that shitty. Sure, his wanting Brawl Out parties to put things behind was idealistic and better served in a team meeting, but *yawn. His breaking down issues during his AEW run on his pod have been pretty fair, and rarely deserving of inciting anykind of heat. It's hard to expect 'news' sites not to post blurbs out of context tho. He seems to take responsibility for his shit, so it's fine by me. The attempt at working an angle over the WOR awards might not have worked, but was a totally fine try. I'm not a believer that Khan shouldn't be allowed to share his thoughts or respond to bullshit from time to time, and rarely if ever do I feel the anger or thrills over anything he's posted. All that said, I probably feel personally similar to you about social media (minus DVDVR), 'pox' sounds about right, but it is what it is. Egos and addicitons are at play.

Anyway, that was a fun interview. Easy to imagine a locker room consensus behind some of those shared feelings. I also loved hearing him champion Marina Shafir, and I like to think maybe a few more fans will give her unique talent a bit more of an opportunity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just listened to the Moxley thing, and I can't recommend it enough. I mean, you can skip the blah blah about social media and Punk (never says his name, by the way), and go straight to about 40 minutes in when he starts talking about his theory of wrestling, and how not being slavish to a formula makes things feel more real. I understand where @Matt D is coming from on Hangman's style, but Moxley does a great job of explaining WHY that style can be compelling, and I'd like to hear Matt's thoughts on it. 

He also has great things to say about what "story" in wrestling really means. Some of my younger friends who have really only ever known WWE don't understand that the match itself *IS* the story, or at least it can be. Moxley talks about a grappler vs. striker story and how that plays out, and acknowledges that every sports game has a story, no outside gaga (like throwing a belt in a river; his example) needed. 

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Dog said:

Just listened to the Moxley thing, and I can't recommend it enough. I mean, you can skip the blah blah about social media and Punk (never says his name, by the way), and go straight to about 40 minutes in when he starts talking about his theory of wrestling, and how not being slavish to a formula makes things feel more real. I understand where @Matt D is coming from on Hangman's style, but Moxley does a great job of explaining WHY that style can be compelling, and I'd like to hear Matt's thoughts on it. 

He also has great things to say about what "story" in wrestling really means. Some of my younger friends who have really only ever known WWE don't understand that the match itself *IS* the story, or at least it can be. Moxley talks about a grappler vs. striker story and how that plays out, and acknowledges that every sports game has a story, no outside gaga (like throwing a belt in a river; his example) needed. 

That was definitely my favorite part of it (the married couple jabbing back and forth was second, it was endearing and adorable)

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only made it 25 mins in this morning. Let me see what I can do tomorrow.

Edit: Listened. I'll go into more detail tomorrow but it's all very consistent to the Mox as Hansen stuff and implicit storytelling I've talked about a bunch but that I can't find a specific post on right now.

Edited by Matt D
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9AtXamh.jpg

Friend sent this to me.

I really hope it's true.

I have zero personal nostalgia for it...

But if it is true then hats off to Tony K for allowing his nostalgia and general human decency to trump business/competition/late-stage capitalist pettiness.

More of this, please!

Edited by Gordlow
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, John from Cincinnati said:

Don't know if The Beloved Attitude Era is a trustworthy source...

Ah heck, throw in Dustin and QT and Arn for Cody's celebration. 

With an account called The Beloved Attitude Era, how could it ever be wrong? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, HarryArchieGus said:

I thought he addressed things just fine. I don't really pay a whole lot of attention to twitter outside of things posted here (most of what I see are Dean sharing clips), so I'm not sure what all is being referenced (Sammy? Andrade? Malakai? all fair). Has Dax had some dumb tweets? I don't really see much of what Dax has said on his pod as being all that shitty

Dax can never, not for one second, ever, shut the fuck up. He has been teasing leaving AEW for months now, he's maybe a bigger vague tweeter than Keith Lee, a lot of what he's said on his podcast is designed to make you wonder if they're happy or not, and then he'll come out and say how he doesn't understand why people would think they're not happy. I like Dax, but he's always the first person I think of that needs to just delete all of his social media.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Craig H said:

Dax can never, not for one second, ever, shut the fuck up. He has been teasing leaving AEW for months now, he's maybe a bigger vague tweeter than Keith Lee, a lot of what he's said on his podcast is designed to make you wonder if they're happy or not, and then he'll come out and say how he doesn't understand why people would think they're not happy. I like Dax, but he's always the first person I think of that needs to just delete all of his social media.

I guess it's a matter of how you feel about a worked shoot. And fair enough if it's offputting when the man in question is adamant about being honest to his fans. Listening to Dax's pod it's pretty clear he's not going anywhere. Further, Dax is a overly sensitive guy with a big fragile ego - and it's an excellent example of the kinds of characters that make up a wrestling locker room. I feel grateful for both the insight he provides about specific topics, and the example. I had no idea Keith Lee's been online stirring things up. What's he been saying?

Edited by HarryArchieGus
Word!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Dog said:

Just listened to the Moxley thing, and I can't recommend it enough. I mean, you can skip the blah blah about social media and Punk (never says his name, by the way), and go straight to about 40 minutes in when he starts talking about his theory of wrestling, and how not being slavish to a formula makes things feel more real. I understand where @Matt D is coming from on Hangman's style, but Moxley does a great job of explaining WHY that style can be compelling, and I'd like to hear Matt's thoughts on it. 

He also has great things to say about what "story" in wrestling really means. Some of my younger friends who have really only ever known WWE don't understand that the match itself *IS* the story, or at least it can be. Moxley talks about a grappler vs. striker story and how that plays out, and acknowledges that every sports game has a story, no outside gaga (like throwing a belt in a river; his example) needed. 

Let's talk about structure. Structure is a tool. It's a framework. It's a way to create consistent expectations and to make a baseline. There is both a cost and a benefit to deviating from that baseline in every match. At some point you need to zig instead of zag and to play with the fans' understanding and expectation in order to create surprise and interest. That's fine. Every match does not need to be shine > heat > comeback. You can have AWA style tags with double heat. You can start with the heat. You can go back and forth with reversals and transitions. Despite what Tito Santana might tell you, shine > heat > comeback is not some law you have to adhere to, though it helps to have that baseline to give you something to deviate from and something to return to so you don't get lost.

Here's what I do think you have to adhere to: a shared sense of consequence. Selling creates meaning. You can't have storytelling without meaning. If the same thing happens in match 1 and match 3, it should have either the same consequence or an understandable reason for having a different consequence. There was a Moxley match not that long ago where someone hit a traditionally late match bomb in the first minute and then the other wrestler had to fight his way back from that for the next many minutes. That's interesting and appropriate. That creates a different sort of narrative but one that shares the emotional and narrative weight with everything else around it. There are a lot of Hangman matches where he hits a bomb in the first couple of minutes and the other wrestler is back in control a minute later. That's completely different.

I write a lot about how both Jon Moxley and Orange Cassidy drive someone to their absolute limit by pressing and pressing and pressing. Moxley has a sort of implicit Hansen-ian style of wrestling storytelling. He constantly drives his opponent with the violence of the moment, constantly forces the opponent to either fight back or get swept under. This creates its own sort of implicit narrative where it builds and builds to a moment of comeback, where the pressure heightens until everything boils over. The reason why the Yuta match worked was because Yuta sold and sold and sold, so that every little act of defiance and every tease of a comeback meant as much as possible. Everything was internally consistent, not just with the characters being presented, but with the moves and level of violence of the rest of the card and within the match itself. It was about creating the possibility of suspension of disbelief. And again, you can rationalize different things in different matches. So long as I can rationalize why something is happening, it's generally fine. Sometimes I can buy an early bomb not working like a late match bomb because the wrestlers are fresh, or a late match bomb not hitting as hard as it could because a wrestler is too hurt to make it work, or because the other wrestler had been in control for minutes and minutes, or even due to some specific built-up nature of a wrestler. It's not one-size-fits-all but it still has to fit in the moment.

Structure helps for a lot of reasons, including to tamper down bad habits, and also because it's time-tested and developed the way it did for a reason. It's sort of how car design advanced over the span of decades to be aerodynamic. You can create a car with a different size and shape for various reasons but there'll be benefits and drawbacks. That said, what's important is coherence, consistency, resonance, meaning. Mox can get away with it because he creates his own sort of inherent storytelling of what's logical in the moment, the endless press forward, the endless building of pressure. It's because his violence is of the kitchen sink variety. He escalates by biting someone's forehead, something that matches the needs of the moment, not necessarily by hitting them with a Zangief spinning pile driver at a time that doesn't serve the match and the overall universe the company is creating.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I was all in on Dax’s pod, but now I’m out. It’s just too much. I could listen to him break down wrestling forever but you have to wade through so much bullshit to get there. 

Dude should go the Cornette route and have a tequila and old school match breakdown show, and a current / personal stuff show. And cool for those that like the second one but it’s going straight in the trash can over here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Elsalvajeloco said:

The thing about wrestling though is it's not a popularity contest among the boys. Now you would like for the top guy (or gal) to be well liked, but there are several instances of that not being the case. We would like it to be this ideal meritocracy but that's definitely the one thing pro wrestling is not.

It occurred to me on the drive in to work this morning that the reason that happened so often back in the day is because guys had less agency. Don't want to work with Warrior? Your kid is going to public school. Don't feel like laying down for Hogan? Cool. Those mortgage payments aren't gonna make themselves. With guaranteed contracts and performers having more say-so over what they're doing on tv, there's less reason to force guys who don't like each other to work together. Although, in Phil's case, if he only worked guys that liked him, he'd be tagging with Britt Baker against FTR every week in perpetuity...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Casey said:

You can add Ricky Starks to the camp that thinks highly of Punk.

No accounting for taste, I suppose. Although I wonder if that's changed. At one point Mox and Punk got along too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...