Context and match quality

[Jingus]

Knowing the plays as well as you do would certainly have an effect on how you would rate a live stage performance, wouldn't it? You can't un-know all that academic knowledge about the works and their histories, of course it would influence your reaction to how someone stages those works. You view them differently, react to them differently, based on the prior knowledge you've got.

[JerryvonKramer]

Okay, I see where you are coming from.

 

What I'd say though, is the context for this thread is someone on this site reviewing a match. Almost everyone on this site knows more about wrestling and its tropes than 95%+ of the population of the world. That's not an exaggeration I don't think.

 

Everyone here has seen literally hundreds if not thousands of matches.

 

We know how to break down matches, we know what we are looking for in a good match most of the time, we know what we like, we know the sorts of workers who we dig, etc.

 

Do you really need the 20 minute history lesson to get 6/3/94 as a great match?

 

Yes, it gains from the knowledge. Sure, you can have a richer understanding of it by knowing twenty years of All Japan history. I get all that.

 

But I'm arguing that ultimately the match itself stands on its own merits, bell to bell.

 

And it does so because wrestling is not so irreducibly complex that we can't gain an understanding of what's going on in twenty or thirty minutes.

 

I mean, I haven't really been watching NXT, by the end of the match I was kind of rooting for Bayley. There was a hype package, but the match itself told the story.

 

This thread came out of people saying you can only "get" the match if you were invested in the storyline, I disagree with that. I think El-P said the same thing.

 

I dunno, I'm still working out where I stand on this, but I think ultimately I'm arguing for bell to bell being one category of analysis and out of ring stuff being another.

 

Like Jake vs DiBiase was a fantastic out of ring feud, but a really disappointing in ring one. There's an obvious difference in my mind.

 

Sometimes the two things coalesce and sometimes they don't.

[Quentin Skinner]

I'm not saying having that context will always make the match better because it can have a great build and disappointing or bad in ring, but I think when it all comes together with a great build and a great match, you get something special. Sure without really knowing the story it might be a very good match, but with that added meaning it can turn in to so much more.

[Mad Dog]

I actually just watched Hogan/Andre this weekend having watched all the TV leading up to it. It wasn't a ***** classic but the narrative of the match was much different and more satisfying with the TV and the promos behind it.

[Woof]

This conversation kind of begs the question "what do you see as the purpose of star ratings to be?". Pete and Steven got into it on the This Week In Wrestling podcast this past weekend and it seems relevant here. For those of you who choose to apply star ratings, are you just using them as a self-referrential tool to mark where it falls in your own personal viewing experience, or are you trying to truly grade every match as some sort of artistic endeavor independent of your own emotional ties to it?

[Loss]

I want to compare matches that happened in completely different times with completely different wrestlers working a completely different style. To me, that's the fun in star ratings -- comparing Funk-Onita to the Summerslam main event or whatever.

[Jingus]

For another example: it's kinda like trying to review a single episode of a long-running TV show. I could blab for hours about how the "The Body" was by FAR the best forty-three minutes of television that Buffy the Vampire Slayer ever gave us. (And in case you've never had the pleasure: yes, a show called BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER managed to provide a lot of shockingly intense character-based emotional drama over the years.)

 

A lot of my enthusiastic blabbing over this particular episode would definitely be about various artistic choices: the bizarre camerawork which ignored all the typical rules of composing and framing a shot, the soporifically muffled sound mix which made it sound like you were overhearing a conversation in the next room (in between occasional nerve-shattering screeches of loud noise), the hypnotic pacing wherein most of the shots and scenes were edited to stretch on just a little bit too long to the point where you're actively uncomfortable before it cuts away to something else, the brutally stark and uncompromising dialogue (in a show where the talking is usually very arch and cutesy and overwritten), and especially the slack-jawed dead-eyed performances from actors who doing an almost unwatchably tense portrayal of people who are all about three seconds away from a total nervous breakdown. I don't think I've ever seen any other show or movie ever quite nail that unique, excruciating feeling of drowning in shock after an unexpected trauma has shattered your world. It's like as if Cries and Whispers had centered around characters who strongly resembled archetypes of various people I've known in real life.

 

BUT: it wouldn't be the same if you share this episode with someone who had never watched the show before. So much of the emotional effect depended on our close knowledge of these characters, what they'd been through in the past, and where they were in life now. Buffy's ever-mounting exhaustion at being presented with ever-more-impossible obstacles to overcome (and currently dealing with a terrifying enemy who is seemingly invincible), Dawn's existential crisis about her identity and her place in the world, Joyce's various medical and social problems, Spike being so far removed from Buffy's daily human life (it's easy to forget he doesn't even show up in this episode!), Xander's insecurity about being the clownish weakling in a world of gods and monsters, Anya still trying to recover her sense of humanity after living so long without it, Willow's raw vulnerability to emotional trauma and her unpredictable overreactions to dramatic situations, and Tara's endless feeling of "what the hell am I doing here?" everywhere she ever goes... pardon me for fanboying out for a moment, but all that shit matters. Joss Whedon could've copied as much of Ingmar Bergman's stylistic playbook as he wanted (right down to a final shot which basically says "closure doesn't exist; and by the way, God's probably dead"), but it still wouldn't have given that episode such a shattering effect on the viewer if they simply weren't aware of the larger story surrounding the afternoon's worth of events in this single episode.

 

 

To drag it back to wrestling: Flair/Steamboat at Chi-Town Rumble '89 is as close to a perfect wrestling match as I've ever seen in my life. Even watching it for the first time and having no clue about any of the backstory, I was blown away by the first-rate athleticism and both men's seemingly effortless ability to tell a large story with tiny little bits of business. Like, early on when Flair drops down and rather than Steamboat doing the traditional "I jump over you, hit the ropes and come back" he simply puts on the breaks and snatches a headlock on his prone opponent. That says "the hero knows the villain very well, knows many of his standard moves, and has counter-attacks which he can apply with lightning speed". This trend continues throughout the match, right down to the finish. All that can be easily enjoyed by a first-time viewer who doesn't know diddly about Crockett-era NWA.

 

BUT, when they do the Anti-Dusty-Finish at the end where the original ref gets bumped and then a substitute ref runs in to count the pinfall: that's where the context pays off. A first-time viewer probably wouldn't know about Dusty Finishes, how prevalent they had been throughout the mid-80s, and how goddamn sick and tired the fanbase were of them. Longtime fans back then probably groaned in familiar contempt at the sight of the first ref being bumped and the second one counting the pin, because they'd seen that shit too many times. But amazingly, just this once, Lucy let Charlie Brown kick the football. BOTH referees raised Steamboat's hands in victory. This sent multiple unspoken messages: it said "Steamboat is now The Man, full stop" with a definitive finish. It also said "and by the way, motherfuck a buncha Dusty Finish" to the hardcore fans who knew that Rhodes had been canned from his job as head booker in WCW. That sort of thing, and various other history-reinforced details (like Steamboat pinning Flair with essentially the exact same move he pinned Randy Savage with at Wrestlemania III) are things that I found totally enhanced the overall experience of rewatching this match from a more educated and far-seeing perspective.

 

 

EDIT: and as time goes on, I've found I don't like using star ratings. I've certainly never been comfortable trying to narrow them down to the quarter-of-a-star level. A lot of my favorite film reviewers have a common problem, where people will only glance at their numerical rating of a movie and get mad about the score, while not really bothering to read the review and find out exactly what the critic did or didn't appreciate about this particular work of art.

[shoe]

This conversation kind of begs the question "what do you see as the purpose of star ratings to be?". Pete and Steven got into it on the This Week In Wrestling podcast this past weekend and it seems relevant here. For those of you who choose to apply star ratings, are you just using them as a self-referrential tool to mark where it falls in your own personal viewing experience, or are you trying to truly grade every match as some sort of artistic endeavor independent of your own emotional ties to it?

Part of why our argument got heated is Steven brought up that Becky vs Sasha match which is massive troll match aimed at me. So one I felt sucker punched which is why I went back to the argument later.

 

I do feel you can compare any match , but you'd have more benefits comparing similar bouts. Like the Lothario/Gordman bout compared to a Lawler/Dundee bout from 98. Or maybe the Becky match to the Roddy Strong/Sabre jr match since both are worked around working a limb . I use star ratings for my own reference. Plus it gives a value that words truly can't.

[Quentin Skinner]

Star rating are always about how YOU personally feel about a match and what's going on. I want to enjoy what i'm watching and if I do, my star rating will reflect that. That's why people's star ratings will always differ because not everyone will view matches the same way. I might give Tanahashi/Nakamura from the G1 Finals *****, but other people on the forum might give it ***1/2. I may personally love the match and get really wrapped up in to what they're doing, but not everyone will. It's all at your personal discretion.

[Grimmas]

 

This conversation kind of begs the question "what do you see as the purpose of star ratings to be?". Pete and Steven got into it on the This Week In Wrestling podcast this past weekend and it seems relevant here. For those of you who choose to apply star ratings, are you just using them as a self-referrential tool to mark where it falls in your own personal viewing experience, or are you trying to truly grade every match as some sort of artistic endeavor independent of your own emotional ties to it?

Part of why our argument got heated is Steven brought up that Becky vs Sasha match which is massive troll match aimed at me. So one I felt sucker punched which is why I went back to the argument later.

 

I do feel you can compare any match , but you'd have more benefits comparing similar bouts. Like the Lothario/Gordman bout compared to a Lawler/Dundee bout from 98. Or maybe the Becky match to the Roddy Strong/Sabre jr match since both are worked around working a limb . I use star ratings for my own reference. Plus it gives a value that words truly can't.

 

I stick with if you rate one match higher than another match, then you think it's a better match. Star ratings are essentially a ranking system, in my mind. Of course there is only so many stars, so some things will have to be put on the same level.

Star ratings tell me nothing when comparing two matches, except which one you thought was better.

[goc]

Star ratings seem like more trouble than they're worth for how much people argue over them. A simple "hey this match was really good you should check it out" from someone who has similar tastes is enough for me.

[Loss]

Sometimes, that needs to be quantified. Are you saying it's good or great? And is it great or an all-time classic?

[goc]

I would never sell someone on a match as an "all time classic" even if I felt it was one because when you do that it sends people in with giant expectations that almost never live up to the hype. The furthest I would go is great.

 

But I realize I'm an outlier on that. I don't even like to give away finishes when I write about a match regardless of how old or well known it is.

[shoe]

 

 

 

This conversation kind of begs the question "what do you see as the purpose of star ratings to be?". Pete and Steven got into it on the This Week In Wrestling podcast this past weekend and it seems relevant here. For those of you who choose to apply star ratings, are you just using them as a self-referrential tool to mark where it falls in your own personal viewing experience, or are you trying to truly grade every match as some sort of artistic endeavor independent of your own emotional ties to it?

Part of why our argument got heated is Steven brought up that Becky vs Sasha match which is massive troll match aimed at me. So one I felt sucker punched which is why I went back to the argument later.

 

I do feel you can compare any match , but you'd have more benefits comparing similar bouts. Like the Lothario/Gordman bout compared to a Lawler/Dundee bout from 98. Or maybe the Becky match to the Roddy Strong/Sabre jr match since both are worked around working a limb . I use star ratings for my own reference. Plus it gives a value that words truly can't.

I stick with if you rate one match higher than another match, then you think it's a better match. Star ratings are essentially a ranking system, in my mind. Of course there is only so many stars, so some things will have to be put on the same level.

Star ratings tell me nothing when comparing two matches, except which one you thought was better.

I agree that if you rate something higher you do like it better. I do like the Lothario match more. In the 2nd part of our argument I explained why. I also think all of that is subjective . I just thought the match you picked was about as different of a match as possible. I was furious that I had to talk about that match that had nothing to do with the topic.

[Woof]

Star rating are always about how YOU personally feel about a match and what's going on. I want to enjoy what i'm watching and if I do, my star rating will reflect that. That's why people's star ratings will always differ because not everyone will view matches the same way. I might give Tanahashi/Nakamura from the G1 Finals *****, but other people on the forum might give it ***1/2. I may personally love the match and get really wrapped up in to what they're doing, but not everyone will. It's all at your personal discretion.

I guess I'm not 100% sure that everyone has the same take as that. I often get the feeling that some people when breaking down a match and assigning it a rating are doing so from the perspective of "based on the technical merits of layout and execution, this match is of *insert rating here* quality", at which point they might add the qualifier, "but I loved the hell out of it and had a blast watching it", which to me are two separate views. I think there's value in each approach, but the difference is why there tends to be a lot of flame wars over "star rating" on boards like this. People go into it with different intentions.

 

I don't rate matches just because I simply can't get my head around it, due to the fractured nature with which I consume wrestling. I do it with music though, because I listen to so much stuff I need the reference points just for my own sanity. When I do it there, it's entirely within the context of my own personal taste. I might give a particular old school Rush album a 4 out of 10 simply because I have a lot of Rush albums and that one doesn't speak to me for whatever reason. I might then turn around and give 8 stars to some newer prog band that I've only heard one album from because their sound feels fresh to me. At no point am I making the argument that this newer album is twice as good as the old Rush album. It's more for me to know how necessary the album is for me.

 

To bring it back to the "context and quality" issue, my enjoyment of a match can be completely altered by the conext in which I'm viewing it. I personally LOVED the Bayley-Sasha match on Saturday in large part because NXT is the only current promotion I watch with any consistency, so I went into it looking for the payoff and was deeply invested in getting it. Conversely I watched some random All Japan tag match on YouTube the other day involving Jumbo and a partner who I forget versus an aging Pat O'Connor and Ken Mantell, and I loved that depsite having ZERO context. I could never really compare the two experiences because one them was just me enjoying a random match for the art of the craft, whereas the other one was completely influenced by an emotional connection that would not have been there had I known the outcome going in. Even if I revisit the NXT match years from now, it will be impossible for me to view it in a vaccuum, because it was always bring back the feeling I had watching it live.

 

 

[Quentin Skinner]

 

Star rating are always about how YOU personally feel about a match and what's going on. I want to enjoy what i'm watching and if I do, my star rating will reflect that. That's why people's star ratings will always differ because not everyone will view matches the same way. I might give Tanahashi/Nakamura from the G1 Finals *****, but other people on the forum might give it ***1/2. I may personally love the match and get really wrapped up in to what they're doing, but not everyone will. It's all at your personal discretion.

I guess I'm not 100% sure that everyone has the same take as that. I often get the feeling that some people when breaking down a match and assigning it a rating are doing so from the perspective of "based on the technical merits of layout and execution, this match is of *insert rating here* quality", at which point they might add the qualifier, "but I loved the hell out of it and had a blast watching it", which to me are two separate views. I think there's value in each approach, but the difference is why there tends to be a lot of flame wars over "star rating" on boards like this. People go into it with different intentions.

 

I don't rate matches just because I simply can't get my head around it, due to the fractured nature with which I consume wrestling. I do it with music though, because I listen to so much stuff I need the reference points just for my own sanity. When I do it there, it's entirely within the context of my own personal taste. I might give a particular old school Rush album a 4 out of 10 simply because I have a lot of Rush albums and that one doesn't speak to me for whatever reason. I might then turn around and give 8 stars to some newer prog band that I've only heard one album from because their sound feels fresh to me. At no point am I making the argument that this newer album is twice as good as the old Rush album. It's more for me to know how necessary the album is for me.

 

To bring it back to the "context and quality" issue, my enjoyment of a match can be completely altered by the conext in which I'm viewing it. I personally LOVED the Bayley-Sasha match on Saturday in large part because NXT is the only current promotion I watch with any consistency, so I went into it looking for the payoff and was deeply invested in getting it. Conversely I watched some random All Japan tag match on YouTube the other day involving Jumbo and a partner who I forget versus an aging Pat O'Connor and Ken Mantell, and I loved that depsite having ZERO context. I could never really compare the two experiences because one them was just me enjoying a random match for the art of the craft, whereas the other one was completely influenced by an emotional connection that would not have been there had I known the outcome going in. Even if I revisit the NXT match years from now, it will be impossible for me to view it in a vaccuum, because it was always bring back the feeling I had watching it live.

 

 

 

I think there is something to looking at it both ways, but for me, I account for everything, you'll see me give reasons WHY I enjoyed something or though it was great. That includes how the match was worked, layout, execution, etc as well as emotion, context, and how the match me personally feel. That will all factor in to my enjoyment. For me it turns in to one package. I'll say whether I like/dislike a match and what about it I liked/disliked that warrants my rating. If I enjoy the hell out of it, if it got some emotion out of me AND I think it was worked/executed in a great manner, you'll see me throw a high rating at it.

[jdw]

Context is useful and important, but it also can shift / change / morph over time.

 

Take this match:

 

http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?/topic/11075-shinjiro-otani-vs-el-samurai-njpw-new-year-special-012196

 

The context of why it was cool at the time, beyond the specific work, is that it came in the middle of the New Japan vs UWFi feud. Sammy and Ohtani were incorporating a lot of focused limb work and submissions into the match on the first card after Takada lifted the IWGP Title off Mutoh at the Dome. The fans in the building got it, and if you were watching at home, you got it. Cool stuff.

 

The New Japan vs UWFi feud fizzed out in the spring. Since this match was part of feud, when people look at the match and at the feud, they aren't really seen as linked now.

 

Instead, the later context of the match is in the continuum of the NJPW Juniors Division going backwards to Fujinami and forwards to where ever the heck it is now. This gets tossed into the context of all those other famous juniors matches of the 90s, and the not so famous ones, as the masses of them got and get digested by more and more gaijin as time passes. Very simply: the way it was worked relative to the bulk of juniors matches in the era.

 

If you look at the thread linked above, the NJPW vs UWFi context is mentioned twice in the nearly five years of discussions. It's not really required to enjoy the match, or to hit some puroresu nirvana with it. Most folks in the thread dug the shit out of the match. Even for those who get that part of the context, it doesn't have to be critical to enjoying it. When I originally watched it back in 1996, NJPW vs NJPW was at the forefront of my thoughts. The last time I watched it, my thoughts were similar in focus to what I wrote in the DVDVR 90's Ballot, which is the context of the match within that (at the time) beloved division.

 

* * * * *

 

Point?

 

Hmm... there might be one in there.

 

A good deal of "context" is what we bring to the table.

 

Half, or more than half, of my original "context" for Hogan-Andre was what I brought to the table in 1987. I was Crockett fan. I hated most of the WWF. I hated Hogan. Andre bored the shit out of me as a massive guy who could barely move and was extremely hard for anyone to do anything with given his bulk. I thought the match blew chunks.

 

My "context" for the match is different now. I'm much more accepting of Hogan's qualities as a worker now. I have less hate for chunks of 80s WWF than I did then. I can step back with a historical perspective after nearly 30 years, and have a different view on spectacles now than I did then.

 

Has the match changed? No. I have.

 

The point would be that even is the case with Sammy-Ohtani where a key context of the "moment" struck me/strikes me as being less important than the context over a longer period of time.

[ohtani's jacket]

This thread came out of people saying you can only "get" the match if you were invested in the storyline, I disagree with that. I think El-P said the same thing.

Well, we know that's not true, but it a match is considered good, I fail to see how a deeper understanding of the context can't enrichen the viewing experience.

 

I think of the Davies/Veidor match which was well received. Most people were quick to single out Davies for his performance but didn't seem to give as much credit to Veidor. I think if they'd seen more of his work, and understood the type of stylist he was and the lengths he went to in order to make his bouts more exciting than the typical heavyweight matches of the day, they'd realise he played a huge part in that being a classic heavyweight match. That doesn't mean they'd necessarily enjoy it any more than the first watch, but it would affect their appraisal or critique of the match, and oftentimes that's where context comes into play.

 

Context matters more when people are criticising a match they don't like. You've written a ton about the Funks in All Japan. If o watched one of their matches at random and criticised it reasons you felt were untrue or unfounded within the context of the Funks work in Japan or some other wider context like 70s wrestling, you'd probably be a bit irked. This type of thing happens all the time when people watch something new, or watch a match at random, and make broad comments about how the match made them feel. Context doesn't matter if everybody agrees that the match is good, but when there's differing views that's when it becomes prickly.

 

You can argue that context shouldn't matter and a great match is a great match, but not all matches are received the same and there's no guarantee that people will be able to enjoy a contextless great match on structural merits alone. I think that's particularly true of new or recent matches which haven't had a chance to stand the test of time. On the other hand, you could give me all the context in the world and I still wouldn't enjoy some matches as they simply do nothing for me.

 

Anyway, I'd say context is a great thing if everybody is singing from the same page, and a defence reflex when they're not that's sometimes justified and sometimes not. It helps to have more of it if you're going to stick the knife into a match, but it's unlikely to change your views much unless your criticisms were specifically to do with a lack of backstory or info about the wrestlers. The majority of the time people complain about more mechanical flaws like pacing, structure or execution than storytelling and characterisation.

 

I also think there's a big difference in people who try to provide an objective analysis of a match and those who simply share their gut feeling. Context is likely to have more impact on the latter rather than the former. The former may come around in time, but based on their own mood and whims and not necessarily additional information and supplementary viewing. Some people may be bothered that they're missing out on someone and want to understand the context and others simply won't care because it didn't hit them in the gut. Both seem like typical responses to me.