Context and match quality

[JerryvonKramer]

Do think this deserves its own discussion and I've been thinking about it all day.

 

Obviously this conversation could be its own thread, but when it comes to rating matches (as I've started doing - please check out my blog as I recently posted ratings for hundreds of WCW and WWE matches), I'm definitely willing to admit that I give "bonus points" for the full presentation, production, etc.

 

I, personally, couldn't look at any match as only what happens between the sound of the bells. To do that, you'd have to ignore the crowd's investment or post-match shenanigans or the commentary. I'm not saying I put huge weight on those things, but, to me, that's why I would say Outsiders/Luger & Sting & Savage at Bash at the Beach 96' is a "must watch" for contemporary wrestling fans even if there isn't a single actual wrestling sequence in the whole thing that's memorable.

 

With that in mind, I see Bayley/Banks as an easy 3.5 if you look at just the story told by the performers in the "meat" of the matchbut factor in the effectiveness of the pre-match video, the "big match feel" that the crowd brought to it, and the post-match scene and I had no problem boosting it up a full point to a 4.5.

 

Some video games critic once wrote that the pinnacle of gaming design is when playing or completing a video game will make the user cry because bringing that level of emotion is incredibly rare for not only video games but any medium. We all might have movies or songs that make us cry - but how many wrestling moments are there that really draw that sort of reaction? Obviously, trolls will bring up the annual Hall of Fame ceremony, but I'm talking about "in the moment" examples that happen in the ring in the context of an actual wrestling show. There's Savage and Liz reuniting at WM7. There's the occasional retirement announcement/speech on RAW. There's been Daniel Bryan and Shawn Michaels and Eddie and Benoit finally living their "boyhood dream." That Bayley win and the "Curtain Call" ending achieved a similar feeling on a smaller level and I don't think one can overstate how remarkable that is when you also reflect on the history of women's wrestling in the WWE. I'm not going to call it a watershed moment because the momentum of the "Divas Revolution" could vanish in 6 months, but if it does all end, I could think of no better ending to the story of the NXT Divas than what happened last night.

Here are some matches I've been thinking about:

 

Jumbo vs Tenryu 89

Ted DiBiase vs Jim Duggan multi gimmick tuxedo match

Flair vs Vader 93

Flair vs. Lawler in Memphis.

 

The first two of these matches are five star in my view, which are enhanced by context, but the rating does not reflect that because the matches themselves tell their own story perfectly. Knowing the context makes them "better", but the rating is not affected.

 

Flair vs. Vader might be the match in wrestling history that has most affected me emotionally. I cried first time and then years later cried again. In terms of emotional hit in wrestling it is top for me, yet it's not even in my top twenty Flair matches.

 

Flair vs. Lawler has one of the all-time greatest studio confrontations and greatest build to a single match within a single show I've ever seen, it's a 5-star segment. But the match again wouldn't even be top twenty Flair.

 

So I guess I'm on the side that says the context doesn't feed into the rating. Discuss.

[goc]

I really don't think Duggan/DiBiase is a 5 star match if you go in cold and don't know any of the story. It absolutely benefits from context. I watched it a few years before the DVDVR Mid-South set and didn't "get" why it was supposed to be such a great match. Now having seen all the build I'd absolutely go 5* on it.

[Grimmas]

I think the fact you think 2 of those 3 matches are 5 stars means you take context into it.

Context being taken into account completely depends on what you mean by context. If by storylines then yes, it should be. If a storyline is blown off during the match, then it hurts the match.

 

If by context you mean divas have sucked for years and then there is a great divas match that should not be included. In my books.

[BillThompson]

I don't believe there is a way to separate context from what is happening between the ropes. Wrestling is one giant story, and that story doesn't just encompass what is between the ropes. Now, that doesn't mean that I'm going to say a match was great because someone gave a great promo heading into the match. For me what that means is that understanding the context and all the pieces that went into a match can and does give me a greater understanding of the match. This in turn enhances my enjoyment of the match, as well as effects the way I look at the in-ring aspects of the match. To divorce context from the match is to look at the match in a vacuum. No matter what we don't ever do that, I don't think. We may try to tell ourselves that we do, but in reality we're always working off of some storyline, some previous match-up, some previous experience with the workers, just something in general.

[Johnny Sorrow]

Of course context should be part of rating a match. Do you watch a scene from a play and just judge it on the skill of the actors without taking into account the story? No, because that'd mean you were a mental patient.

[funkdoc]

yea, i'm of the opinion that the match itself playing off the surrounding context in satisfying ways should be counted in its favor. basically what grimmas said

 

i'm not the english phd here, but this was how i was always taught to read literature as well...

 

EDIT: people do tend to abandon this line of thinking for projects like yearbook viewing, i will grant. i wonder if that's more what parv is getting at - that people will wonder what all the fuss was about when they go back and watch sasha-bayley years later. just look at the common consensus on misawa's big win over jumbo (a match i'm shocked wasn't mentioned in the OP)...i recall maybe a couple people who still talk about it as a MOTY, but most took a more detached approach and went "yeah this is really good but not special"

[goc]

It's true that people years later could look back at a match with a great build and watch it in a vacuum and not think it was as good as people at the time who were watching it in context. I was in that boat with the "Every stip in the world" Duggan vs. DiBiase match the first time I saw it. But that doesn't mean you should feel any obligation to try and separate the context from a star rating or your praise of a match.

 

I feel no need to be that analytical about wrestling and don't do star ratings anyway but if I did I wouldn't be worried about trying to judge it "only on technical merits" and ignore the fact that I got more out of the match because it was a great payoff to a long story.

[fxnj]

i'm not the english phd here, but this was how i was always taught to read literature as well.

English bachelor's degree here and I was taught that it's impossible to ignore context when talking about anything because the meaning behind the language of a text (or the wrestling moves in a wrestling match) is ultimately a direct product of context. Even when people claim to be looking at something "out of context," they're really just looking at it in a different context than it was intended to be viewed in. So it makes no sense to me to say that you rate matches while ignoring context.

[Grimmas]

 

EDIT: people do tend to abandon this line of thinking for projects like yearbook viewing, i will grant. i wonder if that's more what parv is getting at - that people will wonder what all the fuss was about when they go back and watch sasha-bayley years later. just look at the common consensus on misawa's big win over jumbo (a match i'm shocked wasn't mentioned in the OP)...i recall maybe a couple people who still talk about it as a MOTY, but most took a more detached approach and went "yeah this is really good but not special"

Jumbo-Misawa got huge praise on the AJ Excite Series for Parv and I. Both watching it for the first time in 2015.

[Loss]

It always matters unless it doesn't.

[ragemaster]

 

This one of my favourite matches ever due to the crowd reaction. I can't find the full version at the moment, which also has a fan being thrown to the floor before the match starts and a much longer celebration after the match as well.

​But to me this is a five star match and um yes it has big daddy in it.

[Slasher]

I have seen many cases of people being down on matches because of them wrestling a match that the story wasn't built on or told. Heavy mat wrestling sequences to start a match built on blood feud/hatred for example. Context totally matters. Even in cases where the participants chose to build the match with "Yo we are gonna put on a hell of a show for these people and I will beat you" there was an inherent story in it. Obviously not always done well but still.

[ohtani's jacket]

 

i'm not the english phd here, but this was how i was always taught to read literature as well.

English bachelor's degree here and I was taught that it's impossible to ignore context when talking about anything because the meaning behind the language of a text (or the wrestling moves in a wrestling match) is ultimately a direct product of context. Even when people claim to be looking at something "out of context," they're really just looking at it in a different context than it was intended to be viewed in. So it makes no sense to me to say that you rate matches while ignoring context.

 

 

People watch matches out of context all the time. I watch matches out of context most days of the week. The very first pro-wrestling match I watched was completely out of context. To say that I don't watch things out of context because I contextually understand how a pro-wrestling match works isn't really what people mean by context in this situation. If I encourage people to go watch a Brian Maxine bout, the majority of people on this site will have never seen him work before. No doubt they'll be able to judge the match based on whatever experience they have watching British wrestling in the past or indeed their collective experience of watching pro-wrestling, but aside from making loose associations to other wrestles or other styles (namely Jerry Lawler in the case of Maxine), they'll be forced to piece the context together through Maxine's behaviour and Walton's commentary and come to some form of understanding of the characterisation of the Brian Maxine character. But even then they have nothing to judge it on having never seen Maxine work before. Unless Walton manages to clue them in somehow, they have no idea whether he works like this all the time or if this is a deviation from his standard bouts. Context is something you piece together over time through repeat viewings of the same wrestler, the same promotion and the same style. It may be omnipresent, but that doesn't mean you can just tap into it. When I was a kid, I learned to understand and enjoy pro-wrestling by watching it on a week to week basis and I don't think that process changes simply because I have thousands of matches under my belt. You learn as you go and you piece things together.

[Zenjo]

Obviously this conversation could be its own thread, but when it comes to rating matches (as I've started doing - please check out my blog as I recently posted ratings for hundreds of WCW and WWE matches), I'm definitely willing to admit that I give "bonus points" for the full presentation, production, etc.

 

I, personally, couldn't look at any match as only what happens between the sound of the bells. To do that, you'd have to ignore the crowd's investment or post-match shenanigans or the commentary.

The 'crowd's investment' is mainly between the sounds of the bells so I don't get what you mean there. I personally believe that matches should be rated at the final bell. Post-match scenes can certainly add to the experience and the memory, but I wouldn't alter a rating because of it. It's also pretty easy to ignore the commentary to a large extent when it's in a language you don't understand. Many a commentator has made me wish I could switch off my understanding of English. But I don't totally disagree with you. Pre-match can be very important for setting the mood and thoughts of the viewer going in.

 

At times on the Yearbooks you can miss out on context. As the viewer you're piecing things together with every chapter. Most people who watch them know a lot about pro wrestling and its history over the last 25 years. So can come up with their own interpretations even without the specific knowledge.

[Mad Dog]

I'm a slave to context in wrestling. It's why I have so many blind spots and things I haven't gotten to. I can't just pluck a random match out of thin air and watch it. I have to see the entire show, the build up and the fallout. I just can't get into wrestling any other way.

[JerryvonKramer]

I do have a PhD in English and deem it to be utterly irrelevant to this thread.

[Jingus]

Old-school All Japan is a great example of context helping things. The first time I ever saw Misawa/Kobashi vs Kawada/Taue, I could already tell it was a great match, even if I didn't know the backstory and even if I found the finish to 6/9/95 to be oddly flat for such a dynamic match. But after I'd gone back and seen the various stuff which built up to it (12/3/93 is of course the main part, but having a commercial tape of the entire 1995 Champion's Carnival helped a lot, and seeing all those Misawa/Jumbo feud matches added its own dollop of psychological legacy), then it goes from merely "great" to damn near being a religious experience.

 

Or, for a completely different example of context's importance: Ultimate Warrior versus Honkytonk Man. To someone who's totally ignorant on the backstory, it's an utterly meaningless squash that doesn't even last a minute. To the fans at the time, it was the culmination of the year-long storyline of HTM being the biggest piece of shit to ever hold the Intercontinental belt, and FINALLY getting his just reward.

[Quentin Skinner]

I watch a lot of out of context wrestling, but watching something have a great build and then put on the great match is something else. You have qualities like emotional investment, crowd connection, sympathy, shock, nervousness etc all playing in to it when you watch it like that in the moment. You want to see the babyface finally get their big win (F.E Sami Zayn last December or Bayley last night) because if you've been following them you've seen all the trials and tribulations they get through to get to that point. You want to see the asshole heel champ finally be dethroned. Context can take a match from good to great to something special.

[JerryvonKramer]

Okay, for the people coming down heavily on the context side of this, I'd like you to consider the following and tell me if they are "great matches" or not ...

 

- Bruno Sammartino vs. Larry Zbyszko, Shea Stadium 80. This is one of the greatest feuds you'll ever see, featuing SUPERB all-time great promos from both guys, a money angle with Larry Z betraying Bruno after being his protege for YEARS. The storyline was so big that Zbyszko would live off it for practically the rest of his career. And ALL of these things feed directly into the match. So five-star classic?

 

- Ric Flair vs. Harley Race, Starrcade 83. Blow off match to a feud that had built into the very first Starrcade, with the bounty hunter stuff, some money promos from Race and Flair. Tremendous backing for Flair in Greensboro. Just an all-round tremendously booked and executed storyline. Is the match in which Flair cements himself as THE NWA champion in the Grandaddy of them all, an all-time classic?

 

- Ric Flair vs. Dusty Rhodes. Slick Rick, the 80s yuppie vs. the son of a plumber whose heinie just a little too big. HARD TIMES on Dusty Rhodes, daddy. All-time great promos by Ric. All-time great promos by Dusty. All-time great match then?

 

- Hogan vs. Andre, Wrestlemania 3, which featuring arguably one of the biggest heel-turns of ALL time, Andre ripping the cross, Heenan, Hogan feeling betrayed, the contract signing, the biggest live gate in WWF history, possibly the best booking in the history of the Vince / Pat Patterson team etc. etc. Is it an 5-star classic?

 

- DiBiase vs. Savage, Wrestlemania 4, a match that had been building for months, with DiBiase debuting with a series of superb skits, buying the swimming pool, basketball, etc. etc., culiminating in his deal with Bobby Heenan to use Andre to beat Hogan and buy the belt, all-time great angle with the twin refs, the whole deal resulting in the tournament at Wrestlemania 4, at which Randy Savage came from seemingly nowhere to win THREE straight matches to face Ted in the final and get his big moment in the sun. The context for that match is absolutely off-the-charts in terms of months of booking coming to a final pay-off. The image of Liz on Savage's shoulder is burned into the mind of every fan. All-time great match?

 

I could keep going, but I hope you are getting my idea here.

 

- Now, Garvin vs. Flair, Starrcade 87, Ron Garvin is already getting a rep possibly being the WOAT NWA champion, the fans had turned on him, he'd been booked atrociously and not had many title defenses and even fewer TV appearances. Terrible match then?

 

- Steamboat vs. Flair, Clash 6. The show is in a near-empty stadium in New Orleans. George Scott has completely botched the local promotion. Ricky Steamboat is being BOOed by the fans as an out-of-date family-guy babyface who is just isn't cool, and Flair is being cheered. Did the match stink then?

 

I could go on.

 

What would the people who are telling me so much about the importance of context say about all of these examples?

[Jingus]

I'd say that a match's buildup doesn't guarantee its quality. Hogan/Sting at Starrcade 97 had a truly epic storyline leading into it (which scored a huge buyrate for the show) but that didn't stop the match from sucking once they got there. A shitty match to finish a storyline isn't much different than a shitty finish to a match, it can retroactively ruin everything that came before it.

[JerryvonKramer]

Doesn't it also suggest that the match and the context, while intertwined, are not the same thing and can be judged serparately?

 

As a critic I am fond of once said: "the root is not the flower".

[Jingus]

Yeah, but the flower would be fucking dead if it didn't have a root. Bad analogy.

 

Of course you CAN review a match in a vacuum. I'm just of the general opinion that knowing the surrounding events (what the storyline was, where this match was on what card, various other variables that could alter the events during a match or an audience's reaction to it) tends to lead to a better overall understanding of what they were trying to do and what they managed to accomplish.

[JerryvonKramer]

Yeah, but the flower would be fucking dead if it didn't have a root. Bad analogy.

Hilarious.

[Jingus]

Look at it this way: you've got an English doctorate, so I'm sure you're at least passingly familiar with the works of Shakespeare. Now, let's pretend for a moment you weren't familiar with them, or with the current events of his time, or with the historical events he was writing about, or with four-hundred-year-old vocabulary words. How much of one of his plays would make any sense? Yes, of course the execution of the script by the particular performance you're watching makes a big difference. Good actors and good direction can imbue and imply storyline which would otherwise be denied to someone who doesn't understand the context of the script. (Heck, they can even supply extra storyline which is nonexistent in the script: hello, Asta Nielsen!)

 

But there's only so much they can do, without practically reducing themselves to blatantly pantomiming the meaning of everything they're doing with overacted gestures and maybe a Powerpoint presentation. Hamlet's legendary monologue about suicide is going to present a LOT of problems to someone who has no idea what "contumely", "bodkin", "fardles", "hew", "pith", or "orisons" mean. Being aware of those words' definitions (and also all the metaphors, references, and analogies Shakespeare constantly drops) is part of the extra education that goes into understanding the context of that play. It's not something that any average Joe-on-the-street would be aware about from their everyday life.

 

Or, to put it another way: isn't that work's entire subplot with the Players MUCH more interesting if you know how most of it was one long insider rant on Shakespeare's part about the state of the theatrical industry in modern England? None of that shit makes much sense in a context of 1200-era Denmark, but it takes on an entire new depth if you're remotely familiar with the context of 1600-era London. Polonius's weird digression about having played Julius Caesar doesn't fit his stodgy old character at all, he seems to regard stage acting as weird or boring. But the line's point becomes clear if you know that the original actor playing Polonius was the same guy who played Caesar when the same company did that play. That's an extra punchline which any viewer would completely miss if they weren't aware of the dreaded c-word that surrounded these subjects. Now, the actor delivering the line might just be naturally talented enough to do that "recite a phonebook and it's fascinating" deal, but it helps to know the motivation behind the words.

 

And in the exact same way, it's naturally thrilling when Kawada is kicking Misawa right in the damn face, but the action takes on a whole new depth if you're knowledgeable about the length and breadth of their feud (and the foundational storyline which took place even before then) which makes this particular kick have more meaning, based on when they did it and how Misawa sold it and what happened before and afterwards and just a thousand other things. (Or, in their shittier encounters, helps illuminate how this particular kick has no deeper meaning at all and just makes you wish they'd done it better.)

[JerryvonKramer]

Fun fact: I'm currently writing my fourth book on Shakespeare. Three out of those four books are specifically about the emphasis on historical context in criticism of the past thirty years, its strengths, weaknesses and ways of possibly moving beyond that approach. The other one is about way Sh's plays might speak across cultural specifics because of certain aspects of human cognitive thinking being universal, and so partly explaining why those plays continue to resonate with people.

 

But I do not believe any of this has anything at all to do with the issue of whether build, storylines and angles should affect our ratings of wrestling matches. I listed a lot of examples of great storylines with disappointing matches, and all-time great matches with disappointing storylines. I don't see the relevance of the Shakespeare example, to be honest.