Emotion Vs. Physicality

[Coffey]

On a recent Jim Cornette Podcast on MLW Radio, with guest Lance Storm, they were talking about the pro-wrestling attitude era & how it did damage to the industry long-term. Short term, or as they called it hotshotting, it was super hot & was drawing big numbers but long term, well, we can see some of the lingering effects still to this day.

 

Anyway, one of the issues brought up that I thought was interesting & would make a good discussion was how they mentioned that pro-wrestling in general used to be more about an emotional investment. In the characters, in the stories. You would get drawn in by the story of the match & would care because you knew the characters. They compared it to wrestling of today where it's all about the physicality. The wrestlers have to do a lot more to get noticed because the bar has been raised so high. Jim Cornette even mentioned one of the Briscoe Brothers in ROH wanting to do a balcony dive (which he did) where Jim asked him why & no one else had bat an eye to that point. They also talked about the Moonsault as their example of things changing so much. When The Great Muta did it, it was insane, no one had seen it before & it was great. Then Big Van Vader was doing it & he was a super heavyweight, so it was insane. Then women were doing it, like Lita. Then midgets, etc. Eventually no one cares about the Moonsault anymore so guys have to "up the ante" and you start getting shit like double Moonsaults off of cages & whatnot. Which is a great "oooh & awe!" spot but you're kind of forgotten about afterward because you're just all about moves & no one really has a vested interest in your character or if you win or lose.

 

 

[Coffey]

Personally speaking, I think not having that emotional connection with a lot of the characters is why sometimes I feel a disconnect from pro-wrestling, WWE in particular. Thanks to the power of the internet, I still watch a lot of pro-wrestling in a vacuum. I'll pick & choose shows or matches & then watch them. After watching them, I'll say "that was good" or "meh, whatever" but that takes them out of context. If I pick a random show out of a hat, from a random week from a random year (this happens a lot on WWE Network) I don't really have any knowledge of the stories going into the match, or what all else was going on during that time period so it eliminates a lot of the potential drama that could draw me more into a match. This is a big thing in Japanese wrestling too, where over time moves mean more because of what happened to get from point A to point B. Making near-falls mean more & whatnot.

 

That's not to say that I can't see a good match & think it was a good match. I just view it like a sporting event, like an entertainment piece, no different than if I were watching a ball game that was really heated & close.

 

I do agree that wrestling nowadays seems to be more about the physical nature of things than the emotional investment. The bar has been raised world over. The deterioration of the DDT is one of the things that makes me the most sad nowadays. That's the natural progression of the industry, I get that. Maybe a lot of it is just nostalgia too. I grew up watching Jake "the Snake" Roberts win matches with the DDT. It was booked like death. Now I turn on RAW & see Miz doing a seated DDT, Randy Orton doing a hanging second rope DDT & Dean Ambrose doing a top rope Tornado DDT, all on the same show & none of them were worth more than a 2-count (which no one in the audience bought). When was the last time someone in WWE won a match without their finish or a small package/rollup/school boy?

[JaymeFuture]

Usos on Sunday?

 

I agree with this though, and its a shame. Part of it is simple evolution when it comes to stuff like the DDT, but the move itself never really matters big picture, its the context. A kneelift was a finisher in another time and place, and while that seems bizarre now, Bryan's running knee is over huge.

 

A lot of guys on the indies try that "Japan influenced" style with the emphasis on moves and the athletics and it doesn't resonate that much with me at all. And with WWE keeping guys on a treadmill, you can only emotionally invest for so long.

 

Promos are a big part of this too. Not to harp on scripting, but its hard to connect to somebody if its not their own words or emotions being presented.

[goodhelmet]

I don't want to be Attitude era defender but part of the reason it came to pass is because the entire industry was in a funk. The Attitude era and ECW & NWO were reactions to the state of wrestling.

[W2BTD]

RE: The DDT talk here.

 

It's almost as if standards in wrestling are constantly shifting & changing over time.

 

Still not sure why that basic point required a 20-page debate a few months ago.

[Dylan Waco]

Because I thought then and think now that standards for what makes a match good do not change.

[Mad Dog]

I think the Attitude era is an easy scapegoat. The problems in the WWE right now are booking related and a lack of effort put into building the next generation of stars. The effects of the Attitude Era were pretty much gone by the time 2003/2004 had rolled around. The big downturn in business for them was booking related.

 

As far as moves not meaning anything, again that's not true. The WWE actually did a really good job of scaling back their style and then letting guys like the Wyatts and Shield push the boundaries with a few riskier moves to great effect.

[Sean Liska]

Yeah, I don't agree that the Attitude Era had any long-lasting negative impact. Modern WWE is completely different from that time. The booking today moves more slowly than early 80s Memphis, so that aspect of it isn't a problem. The physicality stuff is a big problem on the indy scene, but you can find plenty of super heated Cena matches based around the crowd's investment in his character. And in terms of the moonsaults being an example of a need for constantly escalating physicality, shoot, look at 90s AJPW, it's just the nature of guys trying to top what's been done before. WWE has been smart about pulling back on a lot of the crazy spots. It's not like a RAW crowd is similar to a 96 ECW crowd where they won't pop unless someone's taking a big bump. Another negative of the Attitude era was the lack of focus on in-ring and crowds not caring about midcard matches, but that was fixed by 2000.

 

When you look at the positives of the Attitude era (WWE being more financially stable than any company ever) and balance it against the negatives (heel authority figures, although Bryan-HHH this year was amazing so how negative can it be), I don't see how it's a net negative. The real negative was ECW and WCW dying and Japan collapsing. The only problem I have with modern WWE is that there's too much product. Otherwise, you've got a company with lots of fresh young talent that can carry them for years to come, lots of good matches, and lots of good shows.

[Loss]

Phantom cameras that are unexplained, bad continuity in storylines that don't hold up week-to-week, overly scripted and contrite promos, too much stuff happening in the backstage area ... there's a lot about the Attitude Era that still lingers today.

[fxnj]

As I've said before, the separation people make between storytelling and workrate is a false dichotomy. Nobody would give a fuck about physicality if it didn't create a stronger emotional connection. I haven't listened the Storm/Cornette podcast so they may be deserving of a bit more credit but the only point I really see made in the OP after unpacking the buzzwords is that it's harder for US guys to get over based on ring work now that promotions are placing less emphasis on promos/angles/squash matches, and that just seems obvious.

[Matt D]

Obviously, no one would care about explosions in Michael Bay movies if they didn't create better storytelling.

[Coffey]

Phantom cameras that are unexplained, bad continuity in storylines that don't hold up week-to-week, overly scripted and contrite promos, too much stuff happening in the backstage area ... there's a lot about the Attitude Era that still lingers today.

 

Booking for TV ratings, heel authority figures, 20 minute show opening promos, crass humor (projectile vomiting, dropping shit on people, etc.), McMahon's all over TV (was Vince, now it's Steph & Hunter), etc.

 

They're definitely are a lot of them.

[Strummer]

RAW has basically had the same cosmetic look and setting since March of 1997. That's 17 1/2 years ago

[Shining Wiz]

Because I thought then and think now that standards for what makes a match good do not change.

 

Subjectively, maybe not. It is still getting emotionally invested in a match in whatever way it is that excites you.

 

Objectively though, a dropkick isn't exactly a killer high spot anymore. (Damn.....two days on the board and I'm already saying things like highspots).

[Sean Liska]

 

Phantom cameras that are unexplained, bad continuity in storylines that don't hold up week-to-week, overly scripted and contrite promos, too much stuff happening in the backstage area ... there's a lot about the Attitude Era that still lingers today.

 

Booking for TV ratings, heel authority figures, 20 minute show opening promos, crass humor (projectile vomiting, dropping shit on people, etc.), McMahon's all over TV (was Vince, now it's Steph & Hunter), etc.

 

They're definitely are a lot of them.

 

You can find crass humor going back to Dusty's intro vignettes in 89. You have to pay attention to TV ratings but WWE really doesn't give away many money singles matches on TV nowadays. I don't find the opening segment that sets up the show to be a big problem when you've got 3 hours to kill, and it's not like we're sitting through HHH's 20 minute promos from 2003.

 

I don't think WWE has gotten enough credit for how much they've gotten away from the phanton camera/backstage skit stuff. That was a rough part of the product for a lot of the 2000's. Nowadays on RAW you'll mostly get one or two skits in HHH's office and then maybe something else short, but it's *far* less of a problem than it used to be. It's been a long time since we've had something like DX visiting little person world or Carlito trying to run through a hole in the wall. The only backstage deal at Battleground was Kane and Orton talking for two minutes. MITB had Stephanie talking with the Bellas.

[Ryan Faulconer]

It all boils down to the fact that wrestling is overexposed. Moves would mean more and storylines would be more memorable if there were seven promotions with one hour of TV a week. In reality we have one promotion with seven hours of first run TV every week. How can anything mean anything. It is the same with news coverage. Everything is repeated over and over and the audience becomes apathetic towards what they are watching.

 

If Storm means that today's wrestlers do too many moves he is just speaking against the current generation not living up to previous generations' accomplishments. Every older person feels that way about the youth that don't follow in the footsteps of their predecessor's. The good ol' days were not as good as they seemed.

 

The last WWE angle I felt emotionally invested in was the night that Daniel Bryan turned back babyface against Bray Wyatt in that cage match on RAW. What led up to it didn't make a lot of sense but the comeuppance still resonated in ways that great moments are impossible to put into words. Actually the faceoffs between The Shield and the Wyatt Family before they fought at Elimination Chamber really felt meaningful...and they didn't even get physical. Before that was the reuniting of Goldust and Cody with their father and the subsequent chase for the tag team titles.

 

That was more than I thought I could use as examples.

[Dylan Waco]

 

Because I thought then and think now that standards for what makes a match good do not change.

Subjectively, maybe not. It is still getting emotionally invested in a match in whatever way it is that excites you.

 

Objectively though, a dropkick isn't exactly a killer high spot anymore. (Damn.....two days on the board and I'm already saying things like highspots).

 

 

I swear I'm not trying to be a contrarian, but I don't even agree with that.

 

Okada is one of the top two or three stars in Japan (at worst). Aside from his finish (which is a clothesline), I'd argue that his most effective highspot in terms of getting a reaction is his dropkick.

 

Dolph Ziggler is one of the most over guys on the WWE roster from week-to-week. He doesn't exactly have an expansive offensive arsenal, and is a guy most known for his bumping, but he's consistently been able to get compelling nearfalls and/or dish out compelling hope spots based around a dropkick.

 

Kyle Matthews is one of my favorite indie workers over the course of the last five years. He works primarily Southern indies, but is one of the best guys at the indie level at getting a crowd involved in his matches and building sympathy as smaller babyface. If you are someone who has watched him a lot (as many of those fans are), his comebacks are usually designed to build to his finish - a running corner dropkick to a standing opponent followed by a small package. While I have seen people criticize his finish online, it pretty much universally gets over huge live.

 

The point isn't that a dropkick is as athletically impressive as Ricochet vaulting over the corner post with a hilo, but rather that there is absolutely no reason that much "simpler" moves can't be hugely over and massively effect highspots.

[Steenalized]

Minoru Suzuki still gets a pop (at least as of last year) with a sleeper. You can use old or mundane moves as a high spot and to get a pop if you properly build them up. Execution helps too, like with the amount of height Okada and Ziggler get on their drop kicks. The issue is if you don't hold pat at certain moves being over yes, you'll see bigger and bigger high spots as a prerequisite for a pop.

[Matt D]

I agree with all that, but I do think there's something to the counter point: if you plotted every move being done in WWE on a graph, and tried to plot the level of reaction that move had gotten, I think you would see a move towards escalation over the years, but there's nothing innate that says it has to be like that.

[goodhelmet]

Dylan and I brought this up on the recent podcast but how many people would be upset if Daniel Bryan stopped doing the diving headbutt, the Manami toyota dropkick and the insane dives to the outside where he crashed into the railing?

[Shining Wiz]

 

 

Because I thought then and think now that standards for what makes a match good do not change.

Subjectively, maybe not. It is still getting emotionally invested in a match in whatever way it is that excites you.

 

Objectively though, a dropkick isn't exactly a killer high spot anymore. (Damn.....two days on the board and I'm already saying things like highspots).

 

 

I swear I'm not trying to be a contrarian, but I don't even agree with that.

 

Okada is one of the top two or three stars in Japan (at worst). Aside from his finish (which is a clothesline), I'd argue that his most effective highspot in terms of getting a reaction is his dropkick.

 

Dolph Ziggler is one of the most over guys on the WWE roster from week-to-week. He doesn't exactly have an expansive offensive arsenal, and is a guy most known for his bumping, but he's consistently been able to get compelling nearfalls and/or dish out compelling hope spots based around a dropkick.

 

Kyle Matthews is one of my favorite indie workers over the course of the last five years. He works primarily Southern indies, but is one of the best guys at the indie level at getting a crowd involved in his matches and building sympathy as smaller babyface. If you are someone who has watched him a lot (as many of those fans are), his comebacks are usually designed to build to his finish - a running corner dropkick to a standing opponent followed by a small package. While I have seen people criticize his finish online, it pretty much universally gets over huge live.

 

The point isn't that a dropkick is as athletically impressive as Ricochet vaulting over the corner post with a hilo, but rather that there is absolutely no reason that much "simpler" moves can't be hugely over and massively effect highspots.

 

 

Not taking that a contrarion point of view at all. Maybe I should have said as a finishing move rather than a *shudder* highspot.

 

I also was thinking (and didn't clearly state) that when a dropkick was an uncommon move, it would have a much bigger impact. Now that everyone and their dog does it, it loses it's impact. I think you can say the same for just about any move - powerslam, ddt, moonsault, etc, etc. You get desensitized to things over time. The typical mid-show Raw match right now would have been the most mind blowing match in the history of the show if it happened in 1994. Or, conversely, it might have been seen as awful - different tastes for different times.

[Timbo Slice]

I don't even think it's a different taste for different times. This idea that wrestling has to "evolve" (Ha.) to be all about highspots doesn't work if the highspots don't mean anything.

 

As has been repeated ad nauseum, a fucking fireman's carry has been the most over finisher for more than a decade in the WWE.

 

In Japan, a clothesline is considered a move of death.

 

In Mexico, a tombstone is basically outlawed.

 

It's never, ever solely been about physicality. It's about getting the crowd to buy into whatever you do. That was Dylan's point. It can be both, sure, but the idea of hard-hitting wrestling got fetishized with the idea of "American Strong Style" in the last decade as indy guys aped stuff from Japan and started stiffing each other in small arenas to get over. That's not conducive to the success of a product over the long-term.

[Steenalized]

Dylan and I brought this up on the recent podcast but how many people would be upset if Daniel Bryan stopped doing the diving headbutt, the Manami toyota dropkick and the insane dives to the outside where he crashed into the railing?

Only the dive would hurt, I think. The dropkick and headbutt get pops, sure, but not that big compared to the rest of his arsenal. I do think his dives get major reactions that something else will struggle to replicate, but I absolutely trust Bryan to find something else.

[southofheavy]

Dylan and I brought this up on the recent podcast but how many people would be upset if Daniel Bryan stopped doing the diving headbutt, the Manami toyota dropkick and the insane dives to the outside where he crashed into the railing?

 

I don't think anyone would really miss the diving headbutt. The crowd seems to love those dives, though. I'm not sure if the Toyota dropkick is part of what lead to his injuries, but I noticed a while ago that he pretty much dropped the subsequent kip-up altogether. That set me to thinkin' he was a little banged up.

 

He's a smart wrestler that can come up with other, safer spots and get them over. If he ever comes back, he really needs to.

[BillThompson]

It's all a question of whether or not WWE gives him the time to condition fans to accept his new style. If they allow him the time to present his mat based style the fans will come on board because they will be conditioned to like that style and to pop for the big moves that come from that style. If the WWE doesn't give Bryan time to recondition the fans to his new style, then he'll struggle to remain as over because the fans will still expect the old Bryan.