Beginner's Guide to Analyzing Wrestling?

[tjones324]

Looking around the forums, I've seen various beginner's guides to different styles of wrestling and they are immensely useful. That got me to wondering if there's some sort of guide to watching wrestling analytically somewhere around. I'm a pretty much lifelong wrestling fan but I don't really have much experience in analyzing what I'm watching. Is there something someone could point me to that gives some tips on getting started in that process? Any help will be much appreciated.

 

Thanks!

[Grimmas]

I would think if you go through the section where their is individual threads on matches they break them down in a variety of degrees. Reading through those, watch the matches and read the comments. You can also check out the PWO-PTBN podcast network where there are a huge amount of podcasts where they break down matches.

 

I think if you watch a match, read comments and hear comments of people analyzing it you get a good idea about how people do it.

[JerryvonKramer]

When I review matches, these are the sorts of questions I am answering:

 

- Am I enjoying this? Why? / Why not?

- What particular moments did I like / not like?

- What is the story being told in this match?

- How well is that story being told?

- What is the structure of this match? Is it your basic tried-and-tested shine-heat-comeback-finish or something else? If something else, how effective is that structure?

- How well are guys executing their moves?

- What about the selling on display?

- And the bumping?

- How much stiffness / intensity is there in the action?

- What about the character work?

- Are the crowd into it?

- What about the length of the match? Too short? Too long?

- How do they fill the time? Is that work compelling?

- What are the transitions in this match and how smoothly did they get from point A to point B?

- Was I able to get emotionally invested into this?

 

There are other specific questions too that might come up depending on the match, but I think these are ones I almost always ask.

[tjones324]

When I review matches, these are the sorts of questions I am answering:

 

- Am I enjoying this? Why? / Why not?

- What particular moments did I like / not like?

- What is the story being told in this match?

- How well is that story being told?

- What is the structure of this match? Is it your basic tried-and-tested shine-heat-comeback-finish or something else? If something else, how effective is that structure?

- How well are guys executing their moves?

- What about the selling on display?

- And the bumping?

- How much stiffness / intensity is there in the action?

- What about the character work?

- Are the crowd into it?

- What about the length of the match? Too short? Too long?

- How do they fill the time? Is that work compelling?

- What are the transitions in this match and how smoothly did they get from point A to point B?

- Was I able to get emotionally invested into this?

 

There are other specific questions too that might come up depending on the match, but I think these are ones I almost always ask.

This is pretty much exactly the kind of thing I'm looking for. Thank you so much.

[supremebve]

One of the things I do is to watch a match without any analysis first, just to see how I feel about it. When I decide how I feel about it then I rewatch it to try to gain an understanding of what happened in the match to make me feel however it was I felt about it. I find that wrestling's #1 goal is to affect the audience, so I want to watch a match and see how I'm affected. Then I can look at the match and see what exactly they did or didn't do to make me have that reaction.

[tjones324]

One of the things I do is to watch a match without any analysis first, just to see how I feel about it. When I decide how I feel about it then I rewatch it to try to gain an understanding of what happened in the match to make me feel however it was I felt about it. I find that wrestling's #1 goal is to affect the audience, so I want to watch a match and see how I'm affected. Then I can look at the match and see what exactly they did or didn't do to make me have that reaction.

That's an interesting approach I hadn't thought about taking.

[Grimmas]

For me, I just watch the match and afterwards try to explain why it was good or bad.

[InYourCase]

For me, I just watch the match and afterwards try to explain why it was good or bad.

This.

 

I'd love to have the ability to breakdown things the way Parv or Dylan do, but whenever I try to go through a checklist like Parv's while watching the match, I end up finding myself disinterested in the match. I like to get caught up in the moment, and then afterwards, explain why I liked or disliked what I watched.

[Matt D]

I'm going to defend Parv here in that I don't think it works quite like that.

 

It's an ingrained function. He's not sitting there with a notebook. Those factors are just constantly present when he's watching a match. He can't shut them off. It's sort of a model overlaid upon a match where things that happen pull in one direction or another upon the grids.

 

And you can train yourself to think like that, or it can happen naturally over time, or it can just be who you are, but I'm not sure if you'll be happier if you train yourself to think that way.

 

A lot is gained in the process but something is lost.

[supremebve]

I'm going to defend Parv here in that I don't think it works quite like that.

 

It's an ingrained function. He's not sitting there with a notebook. Those factors are just constantly present when he's watching a match. He can't shut them off. It's sort of a model overlaid upon a match where things that happen pull in one direction or another upon the grids.

 

And you can train yourself to think like that, or it can happen naturally over time, or it can just be who you are, but I'm not sure if you'll be happier if you train yourself to think that way.

 

A lot is gained in the process but something is lost.

As I once told my friend, I'd be much happier if I didn't keep asking myself why.

 

I am just an overly analytical person, and trying to figure out the "why" is something that kind of drives me as a person. When I can look at something as trivial as a wrestling match and find something unique that sets it apart from everything else is really enjoyable to me. It is probably the single most important reason I watch wrestling. I can watch Raw with my brain turned off, but when I'm watching good to great wrestling, trying to figure out what makes it good is my favorite part.

[dawho5]

I am kind of an in-between everyone so far.

 

I do tend to watch a match with little to no note taking the first time through. I want to feel what is happening before I analyze it. That being said, I do have a checklist that will tick off as I watch.

 

How effective were the wrestlers in putting heat on the heel?

 

What were the reasons it was/wasn't effective?

 

Did the match lose me and/or the crowd?

 

Why?

 

Things like that. Then I'll try to remember things that would have stuck out, like structure, execution, selling, timing. But to me, a wrestling match is much more about the emotions it evokes both in myself and the crowd. If it gets the crowd going but I don't care for it, obviously I'm watching the wrong kind of wrestling. The whole idea behind it is that the workers want people to react to what they are doing. So my main focus is those reactions.

 

The more wrestling I watch, the more I can see the cause and effect nature of what the wrestlers are doing and how the fans react. So my best advice is to not force yourself into seeing this, that and the other if it's not coming easy. Just watch wrestling, enjoy it first and foremost, and try to keep the analytical part of yourself running in the background. That way you can connect what happened in the match with what you liked/disliked.

[delacroix]

When I review matches, these are the sorts of questions I am answering:- Am I enjoying this? Why? / Why not?- What particular moments did I like / not like?- What is the story being told in this match?- How well is that story being told?- What is the structure of this match? Is it your basic tried-and-tested shine-heat-comeback-finish or something else? If something else, how effective is that structure?- How well are guys executing their moves?- What about the selling on display?- And the bumping?- How much stiffness / intensity is there in the action?- What about the character work?- Are the crowd into it?- What about the length of the match? Too short? Too long?- How do they fill the time? Is that work compelling?- What are the transitions in this match and how smoothly did they get from point A to point B?- Was I able to get emotionally invested into this?There are other specific questions too that might come up depending on the match, but I think these are ones I almost always ask.

This is a good list, and I think the first couple things listed are a good starting point- doing this consistently will help you define concretely for yourself what you like and don't like, which will help you start to analyze why certain matches work for you and others don't, as well as to help you understand the opinions of others and measure their opinions against your own.

 

The next question, about the story being told in the match, suggests another way to approach things- what was the goal of the match, and how effectively did they accomplish that goal? Like, if it was a squash and the goal was to make Wrestler X look like a world-beater, how effective was it in accomplishing that goal? What did they do that helped accomplish the purpose and what detracted from it, and why? (This one seems more objective on its face, but it's still subjective, because it's all open to personal interpretation- what I see as a flaw that detracts from the match's goals, you may very well see as a strength, and neither one of us is wrong, because, again this kind of analysis is always based on what you value).

[drew wardlaw]

I guess this is kind of the exact opposite of what you're asking, but something that I always look for in a match is something that makes it unique. It could be the story, it could be the selling, or it could a certain camera angle used or even a botch that makes the match unique within a certain context.

[concrete1992]

Not sure why Parv needs "defending".

 

Question 1:

Did I enjoy the experience?

 

Question 2:

Why or why not?

 

Parv's list essentially is my "Question 2" in a lot of ways. I'll never ask those questions specifically but often those will be reasons that come to mind. So really, I think Parv nailed it on the head more or less.

 

ALSO, I always watch something twice if I want to do a write up on it for no other reason than shotty memory. Even if I have just finished a match things get jumbled or moments don't stick. I write it up while watching it the second time because I more or less know how I feel which gives me direction in my writing but I also might catch something that changes the way I view the match as a whole. Or it might force me to make note of something that I rather didn't like in something that made my brain hurt the first time. Actually putting words to Word Doc makes my opinion more rooted whether that improves on the first match viewing or not. It forces me to really think where it stands in the grand scheme of my wrestling watching for some reason.

[Ready_Willing_Gable]

My format for judging has a fair few external factors

obviously, the standard things such as psychology that makes sense + exciting/intense action + generally how much it moved me out of my seat whether with stunning moves or dramatic nearfalls (nearfalls that don't make me go 'oh, come on' anyway) + [if match is 'spot-fest' like a TLC, hardcore match or Ultimate X] how natural seeming, exhilarating and enjoyable were the spots/was the presumably immense risk worth taking

 

But also backstory + crowd reaction + finish all will give or take away a significant amount. No point having Ishii v Honma for example infront of 50 bored folk, but 40k going absolutely wild is an incredible viewing experience. i would actually say crowd is one of the most very important factors to me when judging a match, I just love a hot wrestling crowd - those are the matches I actually Want to watch back and analyse what got the crowd to that state

[Loss]

The more wrestling I've watched, the more I've gotten away from the idea of a good match being a collection of specific and tangible qualities. I tend to think more about the viewing experience as an entirety. If bad selling, as one example, is distracting, sure, that's a problem, but if you can acknowledge it but don't think it really took anything away from the match, then I don't really care. Sometimes matches can have endearing flaws just as they can sometimes satisfy every item on the proverbial checklist in such a calculated way that it's all too neat and sort of a turn-off. So with that said, my big four would be:

 

- Extemporaneous feel (I don't care if the match is carefully laid out ahead of time, but it shouldn't be obvious in the work)

- Emotional resonance and a strong crowd reaction (Punch me in the gut!)

- Convincing action and reaction (This includes offense, selling, transitions, etc.)

- A layout that makes sense considering their booking goals, card placement and other contextual issues

 

Those things matter. Except when they don't.

[JerryvonKramer]

Should note that I don't really have that list of questions in hand, I've come up with them post-hoc. Theory often comes after practice, more making sense of what we do after the fact, rather than dictating it, if that makes any sense.

 

And "Those things matter. Except when they don't" is something I'd co-sign.