September 2024 Wrestling Discussion

[Yo-Yo's Roomie]

Bret the professional wrestler had a game plan that he used to win matches, built around signature moves many of which targeted the lower back to weaken his opponent for the sharpshooter.

Bret the person criticises Flair (or whoever) for falling back on a series of signature spots that, not only don't represent in any meaningful way a game plan or tactical attack, but a lot of the time aren't even coming from a place of agency. Things happen to Flair in matches, whereas Bret makes things happen in matches.

[The Natural]

1 minute ago, Yo-Yo's Roomie said:

Bret the professional wrestler had a game plan that he used to win matches, built around signature moves many of which targeted the lower back to weaken his opponent for the sharpshooter.

Bret the person criticises Flair (or whoever) for falling back on a series of signature spots that, not only don't represent in any meaningful way a game plan or tactical attack, but a lot of the time aren't even coming from a place of agency. Things happen to Flair in matches, whereas Bret makes things happen in matches.

Agree with all this. Good seeing you here, mate.

[Stefanie Sparkleface]

3 minutes ago, SirSmUgly said:

I think this is a rigid definition of "routine" compared to the point Bret was making. Bret did moves and spots across matches, but those moves were worked in without seeming illogical, which I think is the point Bret makes.

On the other hand, (for example) Flair still working in his heel stooge spots as a babyface against heel Sting is illogical. It's an immersion breaker.

Bret going to the side Russian as a setup makes sense from a pro sports logic. You run your best plays in crunch time. To make a pro sports analogy since Bret's philosophy is to embody realism as much as possible within the confines of a worked sport, that's like calling Steph Curry looking for a three while down two late in the fourth "routine" rather than "logical."

Flair going up top when he hit a top-rope move once every couple years at most is illogical. He's supposed to be one of the finest wrestlers of all time. That's a defining aspect of his gimmick. Consistently going for a low-percentage move every match works against that gimmick. It explains why as a kid, I far more easily and quickly bought into Bret's matches than Flair's: Flair stuck moves and spots in as a routine without thinking about how they fit the logic of the match.

Flair's philosophy about why he did the same spots no matter whether he was face or heel makes sense from a certain standpoint, but it reinforces that he has certain spots that he is doing specifically as part of a routine to give the crowd the spots that he thinks they expect to see, first and foremost. The psychology of the thing is entirely different than Bret taking a chest bump every other match or whatever.

I'm not saying Flair is objectively wrong in his approach (obviously he's not, considering his level of stardom and success). However, I think Bret makes it fairly clear in his book/interviews that he defines "routine" as "contriving spots into a match because you want to pop a crowd whether or not that spot fits the logic of the match," not the broader definition you're using.

I can understand the talking point here, but think about it from this perspective; if Flair's doing the spots because it's what the audience wants, and they still buy into his gimmick even though doing those spots runs counter to his gimmick, is it wrong? Not what you bought into, but the audience as a whole. If the majority of the audience isn't buying into it, then clearly it's an issue, but if people paid for 40 years to see Flair get thrown off the top rope in spite of that move only ever working for him two or three times... maybe Flair's not the one who's wrong.

And like I said, there's nothing wrong with doing "logical" or "routine". It clearly works. But the problem is to say that this guy's routine is wrong - and considering Flair's success over multiple eras, it's not - while this other guy's formula is right.

[SirSmUgly]

I think Bret's critique of Ric was from the perspective of what he thinks makes a great worker, and "drew in the South every night for decades" simply doesn't enter that equation for him. YMMV.

[twiztor]

20 hours ago, Death From Above said:

God, the Rock's prime stuff has aged so fuckin' bad. His promos are total ass. Shit that 14 year old boys think is clever with so much misogany they can't even air half of it anymore because it will damage his standing as a B action guy now.

ok, so i am in late 2005/early 2006 TNA. Christian Cage just debuted. I remember this happening, i remember KNOWING that he'd be a major superstar, that WWE was holding him back, and that he was one of the best talkers in the company.
now? his promos are juvenile and fine, i guess? the audience is engaged, but there's just no nuance or actual humor. i am jack's eternal disappointment.

18 hours ago, SirSmUgly said:

That's a lot of what makes up modern wrestling in America: Cirque du Soleil performed by a bunch of cosplayers.

there was a big backlash in the comic book world in the '70s because the characters weren't being written by their original creators. it was "fan fiction" because this was the first crop of writers who grew up reading comics and wanting to write them, instead of being relegated to writing comic books. 

Now, would 2024 pro wrestling be ENTIRELY UNRECOGNIZABLE to a 1924 pro wrestling fan? absolutely. As a fan since the late 80s, pro wrestling from the '70s is almost unrecognizable to me. it is SO. SLOW. the storytelling is completely different. the movements, presentation, action, characters, and ephemera have just evolved and shifted so much over time that it is insane.

Harley Race was said to be too fast and didn't let things breathe by the previous generation. Gorgeous George was a mockery of the sport. It's OK to not enjoy what is currently being presented. But professional wrestling has always been "Cirque du Soleil performed by a bunch of cosplayers." The matches are and always have been scripted. The wrestlers are and always have been masquerading as characters. 

23 minutes ago, Stefanie Sparkleface said:

So here's a question I'm curious about, based on the "don't get it" topic... how do you folks watch wrestling? Do you watch matches in and of themselves, do you watch them within the context of the shows in which they occurred, do you watch live, do you watch after the fact (and if you do, how soon after it happened do you watch)?

i watch complete shows, but try to consider each match as stand alone (or within the context of that specific feud). I don't think i'm conscious enough to be able to look at an entire show, in real time, and analyze the pacing of this vs. that, or anything along those lines. The best i can usually muster is "there's been a lot of talking, they should've broken this up with a match" or "the heels have been winning all night, they must be setting up a babyface title win in the main". but i think i've rewired my brain to think that way due to years and years of watching the UFC: each match (and round within each match) needs to be viewed as a separate thing. 

i don't watch LIVE, but i try to view in a single sitting, spoiler-free, within a day or two. AEW PPVs usually take more than one viewing entirely due to length.

[NikoBaltimore]

50 minutes ago, Stefanie Sparkleface said:

So here's a question I'm curious about, based on the "don't get it" topic... how do you folks watch wrestling? Do you watch matches in and of themselves, do you watch them within the context of the shows in which they occurred, do you watch live, do you watch after the fact (and if you do, how soon after it happened do you watch)?

For me, I always try to watch whole shows because I find I appreciate things better within the context in which they took place. I liken it to watching the entirety of a movie, not just a scene. A match might be slower paced than expected because it immediately followed a sprint, so the people involved decided to slow things down a bit as a result. There might also be moves that you'd expect to be used that aren't because they were used elsewhere (for example, you might see a superplex not be used in the fourth match when it's a signature of the participants because it's a big spot in the main event). That's always why I find it hard to watch matches by themselves outside of their context.

I rarely if ever watch live, but that's a product of what I watch (mostly joshi and DDT, which is usually running when I'm asleep). Even if I am watching wrestling in North America, it's rarely appointment viewing for me, but I'll try to watch within a week of airing.

How about you?

With my fever kicking my ass I hope this makes sense.

Because it's something to watch on Monday I tend to watch Raw live and Dynamite is appointment viewing.  I try to watch Smackdown and NXT the next day if possible though I usually watch Rampage and Collision whenever I get to it the following week.

Of those shows I tend to watch all of the AEW shows the whole way through.  But depending on how I watch them I may have some matches on 2x speed (for example I don't like Saraya so the sooner I can get through her stuff the better)  With Smackdown and NXT I skip the body of the matches and see the results and how it plays out.  It feels kind of wrong yet since I'm familiar with how most of the wrestlers are I would skip to save time.  But if there's a match that catches my interest I'll watch it the whole way.  For example the Carmelo/Andrade series has been exciting given how great their chemistry is.  So while it's not technically a best of 5 it is interesting to see how each match is different.

Does this factor into why I don't care for Joe Hendry?  Maybe.  I saw maybe one or two matches of his in NXT and they weren't grabbing me so I just skip his stuff now.

EDIT:  Oh, right, context.  Yeah, if I watch a whole show I tend to think about how everything works to make a show either good, bad or eh so context can be key.  That's why if a Dynamite has one or two great matches if there's something that feels off elsewhere it may or may not be enough for me to go "Eh, it was alright"  How one flows into another tends to matter which might be why I thought Collision was overall really great yet if they changed the order around on or two matches it would have left me with a better impression in the end.

Edited September 5 by NikoBaltimore

[Log]

I don't think Koko B Ware gets enough credit for his versatility. Was a very good heel in his PYT days, and a great babyface later on. He was great at feeding babyfaces and bumping all around for them. He has one of the best local hero vs. NWA champ matches, imo, vs Flair in 85. And then he goes to the WWF and is mostly a caricature, but gets over. He's sort of become the baseline "This guy is in the HOF!?!?!", but he had a hell of a career.

[Stefanie Sparkleface]

7 minutes ago, Log said:

I don't think Koko B Ware gets enough credit for his versatility. Was a very good heel in his PYT days, and a great babyface later on. He was great at feeding babyfaces and bumping all around for them. He has one of the best local hero vs. NWA champ matches, imo, vs Flair in 85. And then he goes to the WWF and is mostly a caricature, but gets over. He's sort of become the baseline "This guy is in the HOF!?!?!", but he had a hell of a career.

Koko was great, full stop. He absolutely doesn't get enough credit for how good he was, or how good he made others look.

[RIPPA]

Just a public service announcement

 

[BobbyWhioux]

Koko B. Ware is an early victim of his WWF/Vince persona overwriting his overall persona/career body of work.

and The Ghostbuster is in the running for Raddest Finisher Of All Time.

[The Natural]

13 minutes ago, NikoBaltimore said:

With my fever kicking my ass I hope this makes sense.

Because it's something to watch on Monday I tend to watch Raw live and Dynamite is appointment viewing.  I try to watch Smackdown and NXT the next day if possible though I usually watch Rampage and Collision whenever I get to it the following week.

Of those shows I tend to watch all of the AEW shows the whole way through.  But depending on how I watch them I may have some matches on 2x speed (for example I don't like Saraya so the sooner I can get through her stuff the better)  With Smackdown and NXT I skip the body of the matches and see the results and how it plays out.  It feels kind of wrong yet since I'm familiar with how most of the wrestlers are I would skip to save time.  But if there's a match that catches my interest I'll watch it the whole way.  For example the Carmelo/Andrade series has been exciting given how great their chemistry is.  So while it's not technically a best of 5 it is interesting to see how each match is different.

Does this factor into why I don't care for Joe Hendry?  Maybe.  I saw maybe one or two matches of his in NXT and they weren't grabbing me so I just skip his stuff now.

EDIT:  Oh, right, context.  Yeah, if I watch a whole show I tend to think about how everything works to make a show either good, bad or eh so context can be key.  That's why if a Dynamite has one or two great matches if there's something that feels off elsewhere it may or may not be enough for me to go "Eh, it was alright"  How one flows into another tends to matter which might be why I thought Collision was overall really great yet if they changed the order around on or two matches it would have left me with a better impression in the end.

Get well soon, mate xxx.

[The Natural]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9l5_4BaswSM

Wrestlers reunited with the WWE Intercontinental Championship. I miss that classic design. Never should have gone away.

[SirSmUgly]

23 minutes ago, twiztor said:

 

there was a big backlash in the comic book world in the '70s because the characters weren't being written by their original creators. it was "fan fiction" because this was the first crop of writers who grew up reading comics and wanting to write them, instead of being relegated to writing comic books. 

Now, would 2024 pro wrestling be ENTIRELY UNRECOGNIZABLE to a 1924 pro wrestling fan? absolutely. As a fan since the late 80s, pro wrestling from the '70s is almost unrecognizable to me. it is SO. SLOW. the storytelling is completely different. the movements, presentation, action, characters, and ephemera have just evolved and shifted so much over time that it is insane.

Harley Race was said to be too fast and didn't let things breathe by the previous generation. Gorgeous George was a mockery of the sport. It's OK to not enjoy what is currently being presented. But professional wrestling has always been "Cirque du Soleil performed by a bunch of cosplayers." The matches are and always have been scripted. The wrestlers are and always have been masquerading as characters. 

 

This is, of course, entirely correct.

And I do think that it's important to note that wrestling, like everything, changes.

Let me update my statement, having seen only one Cirque du Soleil show in my life: Modern pro wrestling isn't even Cirque du Soleil because Cirque du Soleil performers don't stop their performance every few minutes because they're trying desperately to get a THIS IS AWESOME or FIGHT FOREVER chant for their work.

As a member of the in-depth wrestling fandom club, and therefore as part of the problem, maybe the issue is with fans. Most modern wrestlers grew up as fans and are now fans working for other fans. And not just "fans working for other fans," but "fans working for an increasingly monocultural and ever-smaller niche of wrestling fans."

[dragonzombie]

Rich Swann pleaded no contest in disorderly intoxication case, and was found guilty. Sentenced to 6 months probation and he was fined $203.

 

In other wrestling news, WWE's old Titan Towers headquarters is now up for sale. 

[AxB]

There's nothing wrong with being a wrestling fan. Well, there is, if you're a certain type of wrestling fan, but that's true of all fandoms.

[The Comedian]

I don't hate FTR, but to add to the criticism, there is literally nothing "old school" about their finish. Any move that involves any variation of "taking a fetal position back bump while pulling your opponent down onto your knees" reeks of 21st century indyness...

[SirSmUgly]

30 minutes ago, AxB said:

There's nothing wrong with being a wrestling fan. Well, there is, if you're a certain type of wrestling fan, but that's true of all fandoms.

Of course there isn't.

However, I do think that wrestling fandom has become something more, hmm, limited in cultural scope, maybe, since the territories died and WCW closed down. As much as WWE and AEW fans online go at one another, they basically like the exact same product: compelling storylines, big characters who they can identify with and root for, long matches full of cool moves and maybe a bunch of 2.9s and false finishes depending on how big the match is. 

Yes, these are all broad tropes related to pro wrestling, but WWE is basically Vegas or Times Square after their corporate cleanups, and as much as Tony Khan thinks differently, he's doing pretty much the same product except with more 2.9s and blood. 

Ted Turner was a Southerner who actually liked Southern-style wrestling, and once he lost control of his company, it was over for that style. That was the last style that was different in some appreciable way from the wrestling we have now. 

It took a while for me to get comfortable with its presentation, but I turned around on Lucha Underground after I stuck with it. Now I sorely miss it; it was the first U.S. promotion with national television since WCW died to actually feel like a different product from the major competition. 

I think this is a common story with a lot of modern American pop culture, though, not just wrestling. Between corporate consolidation, more corporate scrutiny of their popular IPs, and narrowing fandoms who are loud and visible enough to get creators to cater to them and their constantly-flowing dollars toward the product, quite a bit of pop culture feels blandly similar to me. 

There's a reason that I watch more modern-day English-speaking television from other countries than I do from the U.S. at this point...though that's probably beyond the scope of this thread. 

[Technico Support]

The problem with being a wrestling fan is that the people in charge of the business held on to kayfabe and “protecting the business” way too long.  So that led to non-fans’ assumption that wrestling fans must all be simpletons who think it’s real.  The people who should have had some stewardship over the art form could have shepherded it into the mainstream by publicly letting the cat out of the bag long ago instead of fervently keeping up the con long past its sell-by date.

[southofheavy]

51 minutes ago, SirSmUgly said:

However, I do think that wrestling fandom has become something more, hmm, limited in cultural scope, maybe, since the territories died and WCW closed down. As much as WWE and AEW fans online go at one another, they basically like the exact same product: compelling storylines, big characters who they can identify with and root for, long matches full of cool moves and maybe a bunch of 2.9s and false finishes depending on how big the match is. 

Yes, these are all broad tropes related to pro wrestling, but WWE is basically Vegas or Times Square after their corporate cleanups, and as much as Tony Khan thinks differently, he's doing pretty much the same product except with more 2.9s and blood. 

Ted Turner was a Southerner who actually liked Southern-style wrestling, and once he lost control of his company, it was over for that style. That was the last style that was different in some appreciable way from the wrestling we have now. 

I think this is a common story with a lot of modern American pop culture, though, not just wrestling. Between corporate consolidation, more corporate scrutiny of their popular IPs, and narrowing fandoms who are loud and visible enough to get creators to cater to them and their constantly-flowing dollars toward the product, quite a bit of pop culture feels blandly similar to me. 

I've been waiting to see a post like this for a long time. 

For as much as the death of the territories is blamed on Vince in mainstream media, the writing was on the wall by the early 80s. Cable and syndication were huge factors, but really, the territories wouldn't have survived neoliberal capitalism at all. The deregulation that started with Reagan led to Ticketmaster, Live Nation and other corporations of that nature having a stranglehold on live event production. A lot of the territories were responsible for making and distributing their own tickets, and with venues being independent entities, it was far easier to keep prices down. 

You hear a lot of stories from those days that include ticket prices, and often you hear $10 for ringside, $5 for general and kids in for free, as an example. Ticket prices now, for the most part, are higher than the inflation rate. Considering that the cost of living (a disgusting phrase, as an aside) has skyrocketed since the 80s and wages are wildly suppressed, a lot of people are simply priced out of live events on the whole. The same salary that enabled a family to go to weekly wrestling events in their town from the 50s through the 80s has turned into a salary that gets you through the gate once a year. Frankly, I think there are a hell of a lot more wrestling fans out there than we think. It's just that it's impossible to meet them where they're at. 

Also, for as awesome as YouTube, streaming and downloading is, it has a large responsibility for how homogenous wrestling has become worldwide. I would've killed to have those options when I was a kid, even though wrestling was all over the dial in the 80s, anyway. But, do I wish that the cat could be put back in the bag? Most definitely. I love Japanese wrestling as much as the next guy, but I don't think that most wrestlers and fans really consider that those styles came into being through a very specific booking philosophy AND a completely different culture, especially All Japan. You can do the moves all you want, but doing a tope doesn't make it lucha, ya know?

The sameness of wrestling is really, really similar to the commodification of the American suburbs. They ALL look the same and it's so depressing. Our big cities are old enough that they can retain a lot of their character, but if corporate America had its way, they'd look like the suburbs on steroids. 

What really sucks is that capitalism is so pervasive in our lives, we do it to ourselves. Take, for instance, Giulia's entrance on NXT this week. Not a knock against her, but she's already got her "entrance" and it's all branding, even if it means that she had to something illogical like turning her back on Chelsea and Roxy. Almost EVERY wrestler does this, and even though it largely started in 2000's WWE, workers are doing this in their first match in front of 27 people. It's just become the thing you do, whether you should or not. One of the many reasons why I love Eddie Kingston is that he powerwalks to the ring looking to kill the motherfucker in front of him, rather than pausing on the apron to do some pose. So many wrestlers can't turn the branding off, even if they're about to walk into a War Games or a barbed wire match. 

I could go on and on, but I'll stop here. 

Capitalism sucks and needs to die. 

P.S. - As capitalism dies, it turns to fascism. If you seek its monument, look around you. 

[AxB]

1 hour ago, The Comedian said:

I don't hate FTR, but to add to the criticism, there is literally nothing "old school" about their finish. Any move that involves any variation of "taking a fetal position back bump while pulling your opponent down onto your knees" reeks of 21st century indyness...

Did Old School wrestlers think Jake the Snake Roberts was exposing the business by taking a back bump in the process of hitting the DDT?

They must have hated it when wrestlers started doing the Superplex.

[ExcellenceofAirPollution]

If anyone is following the DOJ/Russia/Tenet Media/Tim Pool/Dave Rubin drama I'm getting STRONG Olu Oluiami vibes from the saga of Eduard Grigoriann

[Sublime]

Thinking on the wrestlers you “don’t get” topic and reading these responses I think this is the time to say that Chris Benoit may be the most overrated wrestler ever. Now I haven’t watched any of his work since he did what he did but even then his work doesn’t leave a strong memory of it. I was certainly a fan before but I don’t think he was ever as good as the internet insisted he was. If he’s the second generation Dynamite Kid, he wasn’t as good as DK (and turned out to be an even worse person but that’s beside this) and if he’s the precursor to Bryan Danielson he pales in comparison to him. His best friend Eddie Guerrero was more versatile and more charismatic than him. The other Canadian Chris, Jericho was all around better too. The internet talked him up so high due to many factors but he was over inflated to a degree 

[YouHaveUntil5]

8 hours ago, The Comedian said:

I don't hate FTR, but to add to the criticism, there is literally nothing "old school" about their finish. Any move that involves any variation of "taking a fetal position back bump while pulling your opponent down onto your knees" reeks of 21st century indyness...

This is how I felt when they had “#TopGuys” on their ring jackets in NXT. What kind of “we love the old days” people would ever use a hashtag?

[The Comedian]

6 hours ago, AxB said:

Did Old School wrestlers think Jake the Snake Roberts was exposing the business by taking a back bump in the process of hitting the DDT?

They must have hated it when wrestlers started doing the Superplex.

This literally has nothing to do with anything I said

[zendragon]

Ron Funches (@ronfunch) • Instagram photos and videos

Ron Funches on why Wrestlemania is better than church