Jump to content
Pro Wrestling Only

What Does "Storytelling" Mean to You?


Kronos

Recommended Posts

Earlier today, I was watching Hart Foundation v Bulldogs in an early WWF match in the 80's (pre pink Harts). I found myself thinking that they were telling a good story, with Harts playing the bully heels doing everything they could to power and cheat their way to a win. The Bulldogs had the crowd in their hands, working the comebacks and getting huge pops.

 

It made me think about the concept of storytelling. We use that word all the time, and I decided I was curious what sorts of things it means to you veterans (I am a reasonably new fan, despite my 34 yrs of age, having only started watching rasslin in about 2006). I am working as hard as I can to catch up, though! :P

 

One of my favorite examples is Dragon/Storm at ROH "Better Than Our Best". In this match, which had little feud buildup, we have a perfect example of a cocky new guy who finds himself feted as best in the world trying to beat down the wily veteran who may or may not be past it. The nearly-30 minute pace is perfect for telling the story in a perfect old school manner, with the few semi-flashy spots used to great effect.

 

One of the issues I find frequently in watching Indy wrestling especially (and why I find myself drawn these days to classic stuff) is because so often you just get two guys in the ring trying to impress each other and the crowds. They have no real reason for doing it, no storyline is communicated, and the high spots have begun to fall flat for me.

 

So not sure what I am really asking in this thread now that I begin writing. I just thought it might be interesting to discuss this concept, in whatever direction it goes. [Plus, this board is kinda quiet and needs a few new threads! ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It's kinda late over here, so I can't go as in depth on this as I'd like to right now. For now, I'll say this: I fancy myself something of a narratologist, and I think on a certain level, one of the big reasons wrestling appeals to me as much as it does is because it's probably the simplest form of storytelling in existence, appeals blatantly to our most basic emotions with almost no subtlety whatsoever, and yet, it's still incredibly captivating and the genre is still incredibly diverse. I think a lot of people have certain ideas about art and storytelling that are actually self-defeating, eschewing the fundamentals of storytelling because art is supposed to be "different" and "original" and "innovative", forgetting that art is really just supposed to be "good", and that all that other stuff is gravy. When you apply that kind of logic to wrestling - where fundamental storytelling is all they have - you get the kind of problems that you have with certain indy wrestling, or that I had with WWE workrate style matches earlier this decade, or that just about everybody had with Vince Russo over the years (and yes, they are basically the same problem, they just manifested in different ways). You take that away, and you break the back of the whole medium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My short answer to storytelling: why does Wrestler #1 defeat Wrestler #2? Way too many matches tell the same story, "#1 hits his finisher on #2 and pins him". That's just intellectual laziness. It especially bugs me when the guy has one of those Out Of Nowhere finishers which he can hit from anywhere at any time; why doesn't he keep trying for it over and over again until he hits it? Why is the dude going for a pin after a bodyslam when he should just be trying to hit his finish instead? Randy Orton is actually a good example of a guy who explains how he hits his finisher when he does. He'll try to go for the RKO a bunch of times, and in between he typically uses a bunch of moves which target the neck and head so as to wear them down and make them more susceptible to it. On his good days Keiji Mutoh is the same way, constantly attacking his opponent's legs to make sure they spend as much time as possible down on the mat to set them up for shining wizards.

 

Of course it's more complicated than just that. Each wrestler out there has to show their character through their actions, and give us a sense of their gameplan. The Joe/Kobashi match was really fun along those lines; Joe starts marking out for who he's wrestling and uses some old All Japan spots and moves, so Kobashi gets pissed and steps up his offense, so Joe goes back to his faux-MMA stuff such to regain control, so in response Kobashi does... so forth and so on. Another was the Evolution vs. Rock & Sock match at Mania XX. Every guy had their own part very clearly defined by their actions: Orton was the opportunistic bully, Flair was the crazy old man, Batista was the badass backup who kept having to save his team when they got in trouble, and Rock was the godlike superstar who'd moved beyond wrestling and was just there to do his old friend a favor. Every guy had at least one moment where he got to look like Superman, and everyone made their opponents look like world-beaters too. Foley was the most complex one, weaving a tale about how he was trying his best, but he was too broken-down and rusty, and simply got overmatched by the numerical odds and his younger opponents. And this played into the larger storyline, with him deciding that he couldn't beat Orton in a straight wrestling match, so challenging him to the hardcore match, so forth and so on, storytelling.

 

I've got a slightly different perspective than most people on this topic, due to having spent the better part of five years as a play-by-play commentator for a small indy show. While we'd sometimes have some Memphis veterans or slumming TNA workers, the roster was mostly made up of various old guys who'd never gone anywhere and various young rookies whose future prospects weren't much good either. On a very southern show, in a building with a low ceiling which prevented any flippyfloppy, in a creaky old ring which always had something wrong with it, there wasn't a whole lot of workrate going on. That's part of why I sigh in exhasperation when some people praise the old Tennessee bullshit like endless stalling, punching someone with a chain, intelligence-insulting comedy spots, and stuff like that. Because I saw that shit every night by guys who were either unwilling or unable to do anything else. We'd see many of the same spots, sometimes even the same finishes, multiple times on every show. And there was generally very little Storytelling as I've defined above, it typically just boiled down to "babyface good, heel bad". So, when I have to call two or three hours of this stuff, sometimes without a color commentator, it was real easy to get real bored real quick. And I couldn't just constantly crack jokes to keep myself awake, or bury the talent doing the same "sleeper hold -> referee drops the arm twice -> elbow out -> duck two clotheslines ->sunset flip -> TWO -> clothesline -> back to the hold" spot which I sometimes literally saw three or four times per night. I had to try to say stuff which enhanced these matches, not further pointed out how lame many of them were. So I made a point out of calling the psychology. And if there wasn't and storytelling being done, I'd invent it. If one match was nothing but two non-working fatasses clubbing each other over the back and not selling, I'd make up some bullshit about how it was a war of attrition between two stubborn behemoths who were both using the same strategy, attacking the spinal column and central nervous system of their opponent, in a macho contest to see which one was tougher and which one dropped first. That's not a hypothetical example, I've actually done that. When the heel inevitably puts the babyface in a sleeper hold, I tried to state a reason why this guy would do it, and that reason had to be different than what I said about the guy who did the same thing in the previos match. If the heel is younger or more athletic looking than the babyface, he's trying to capitalize on his cardiovascular advantage by further tiring the other guy. If it's the opposite, the heel is trying to take away the other guy's wind advantage. If the heel is bigger, he's being a bully. If he's smaller, he's trying to chop the other guy down to his level. So forth and so on. Even if the wrestlers don't have a reason for what they're doing, the crowd wants to believe that they do, so I helped supply those reasons even if there really weren't any. (This is another reason I'm sometimes amused by the over-analyzers on the net who look at everything under a microscope in the assumption that everything was deliberately planned that way and has its own specific meaning: no, it often doesn't. Trust me, sometimes there's no there, there.)

 

Oh yeah, one last thing: Storytelling = Misawa/Kobashi vs. Kawada/Taue 6/9/95. God that match is so fucking awesome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, so as it happens, I'm actually in the process of writing an article on storytelling that I'm looking to get published, and the central matter of the article actually stems from an argument I had on DVDVR over John Cena. I need to polish it up a bunch, but here's what I currently have in my files. Some of you with sharp memories for useless junk might notice that a lot of this is actually taken verbatim from a post I made in said DVDVR argument.

 

I frequent a couple of internet message boards where people discuss pro wrestling. If that sounds like the kind of place where you wouldn't be likely to find intelligent discussion, well....well, you'd actually be right. It's not all bad, but the smarter boards do have a tendency to get dumber over time, much to the consternation of the few sane men who remain. Anyway, one of the big stupid debates that plagues the boards these days is whether or not John Cena - the man World Wrestling Entertainment has positioned as their top star in recent years - is any good, with opinions tending to skew to extremes.

 

Without wasting your time with all the sundry details of this argument - most people within the internet wrestling community are sick to death of it, themselves - I will say this: everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts. During the course of these arguments, the anti-Cena folks made frequent use of several talking points that they believed were their opinions, but that I believe violated facts.

 

Wrestling certainly isn't the only medium of entertainment that faced the problems I had to address. A lot of people have certain ideas about art and storytelling that are actually self-defeating, eschewing the fundamentals of storytelling because art is supposed to be "different" and "original" and "innovative", forgetting that art is really just supposed to be "good", and that all that other stuff is gravy. When you apply that kind of logic to wrestling - where fundamental storytelling is all they have - you're left with work so artless as to boggle the mind. And professional wrestling is a very, very, very low art to begin with.

 

To understand my conundrum, you must understand my basic beliefs about storytelling. And they are very basic, indeed.

 

Since the birth of humanity, the concept of "the hero" has been that of a person who works to help achieve the needs of society (and, ideally, themselves as well), and will do so even in the face of overwhelming odds, or if doing so requires a great sacrifice on their part.

 

That's it.

 

There's nothing in there about being 100% morally pure. There's nothing in there about having to follow the rules and laws laid down by their government. There's certainly nothing about the real-life basis for a heroic legend having to be as heroic as the legend that people idolize. All they have to do help achieve the needs of humanity, and to put this concern ahead of all other things.

 

The basis of all storytelling since the dawn of humanity is the underdog hero trying to help humanity (to some degree or another; it could be saving the world, or it could be saving yourself, just so long as it's not a greedy pursuit or done at the expense of other innocents) in spite of some kind of opposition more powerful than the hero. The opposition has always needed to be more powerful than the hero, because if it wasn't, there would be no reason to doubt the hero's chances of victory. No reason to doubt the hero's chances, no reason to rally behind the hero, no reason to emotionally invest in him, no dramatic tension, and no reason for celebration when (if) the hero overcomes the odds and triumphs.

 

At no point has this story ever "gotten old". How could it? Aside from being so damn emotionally compelling, it's really sparse enough to have infinite variations to it. Don't want a goody-two-shoes as the hero? You don't have to have one. Your hero can be gruff, can break the law, can be a little greedy, can even kill people. So long as deep down inside, he's motivated by a genuine desire to help others, he fits the part. Want the good guy to lose in the end? Cool. Just so long as he doesn't go down without a fight, that fits fine. Want a really, really powerful hero? That's OK, too. Just so long as his opposition is more powerful than him, or more resourceful, intelligent, connected, or otherwise has some kind of advantage that will make sure that there's some doubt as to whether or not the hero will pull it out this time. And when I say "doubt", I mean it in a strictly dramatic sense. Story-wise, is there reason to doubt the hero will triumph? You, the viewer, do not necessarily have to be in doubt about the story's outcome.

 

So that's how stories work. Within that very basic framework, you have room for limitless variation.

 

This brings us back to the internet and it's judgement of Mr. Cena. Some people wanted a different variation of the hero than what they were getting from John Cena. People suggesting they want to change the variation of the story being used is totally OK.

 

Then there were the people suggesting there was something wrong with the story itself, that the framework that has worked for everything from The Epic of Gilgamesh to 24, just kind of stopped working in the last few years - coincidentally, just in time for John Cena's rise to prominence.

 

"Cena is nothing, merely a 'babyface defying the odds', and that character is outdated as fuck."

 

"Bix, the people who have gotten on here to say that Cena is basically playing the same babyface character as the last 5,203 (I believe that was the number) are right."

 

For those not in the know, "babyface" is wrestling parlance for "hero", meaning that the first quote was from someone actually saying that the underdog hero character was outdated. To me, that's about as ludicrous of a statement as claiming that breathing air is outdated. They're both tied about as strongly to our nature as human beings.

 

Now, even if we were to assume that these statements are true - a rather far-fetched notion as I see it - no one making this claim is telling me when it happened, why, or most importantly, what's taken it's place.

 

Underdog hero fighting the odds is played out? What's replaced it? Hero vastly more powerful than his opponents defeating them handily?

 

As described above, I believe in a single, exceptionally bare-bones template that serves as the basis for every dramatic story ever. True, a story absent of conflict has no need to adhere to this format. But when we think of stories, how often do we think of something like, say, "Slacker", where there is no dramatic conflict of note, and how often do we think of....well, everything in the history of fiction other than "Slacker". Even in stuff like "Waiting for Godot" and "Seinfeld", where the whole point is that nothing happens, something inevitably happens.

 

In every story with a dramatic conflict, the structure applies. There is A LOT you can do within that structure, but if you screw with the structure itself, it all falls apart. In great art, everything looks right. Everything fits. When the structure is changed, things no longer look right to us, and they no longer fit. What if Superman was a greedy jerk? What would happen? Oh sure, you could still make a functional story out of it...but now you're going to have to bring in a new hero to oppose him, which would mean maintaining the structure while Superman's role within it changed. But what if you totally broke the structure and refused to repair it? What if Superman was a greedy jerk, but was still treated as the hero of the story? Not even in a satirical way. Playing it for laughs would place it outside the realm of dramatic conflict. What if they portrayed greedy jerk Superman as a hero, with no more heroic opposition, and played it all totally straight? It wouldn't make sense. It wouldn't look right. It wouldn't fit. It wouldn't work. That's what happens when you try to break the structure.

 

As the Cena argument wore on, it became obvious that the people making anti-structure arguments weren't really opposed to the structure, they just wanted variations within the structure that they described in a rather haphazard way. Their arguments seemed to suggest they were opposed to the structure simply because it was a structure - thus, it limited creativity, was predictable, etc. Problem is, the structure, as I defined it, was so bare bones and open-ended that all of the "alternatives" they came up with fit into the structure perfectly. Many people seemed opposed to the structure not on any real practical level, but on a purely emotional one. The word "structure" suggests restriction, formulaic, assembly line thinking, and shopworn clichés. Even if the structure in question is as minimalist and open as this one, many "intelligent" and "creative" people will oppose it, simply because it's a structure, and structures are universally bad.

 

One of the great fallacies of the art and entertainment world is that predictability, clichés, or a work otherwise being derivative and/or failing to buck convention is automatically a bad thing, and that unpredictability, creativity, and otherwise breaking from convention is automatically a good thing. This line of thinking is rooted more in an emotional attachment to certain ideals (everybody loves creativity, right?) than it is in practical application. It's riddled with logical flaws, not the least of which is the mental hoop-jumping required to complain about predictability, clichés, and unoriginality by spouting off a predictable, clichéd, and unoriginal line of thought such as this. But that's far from the only problem.

 

For one thing, there's the nature of clichés, and specifically, how they come to be. While it's certainly not true in every case, a lot of clichés become clichés because they work. If they didn't, there would be no reason for them to be used as often as they are. Yes, some of them get tiresome after a while, but some of them don't. Some of them are woven so deeply into the fabric of our storytelling language that they really can't get tiresome unless you're just opposed to all clichés on an emotional level. And even then, there will probably be exceptions that you make, either ignoring the hypocrisy or explaining it away with some flimsy excuse. Nobody is ever really going to get tired of the underdog hero fighting the odds. It's just not going to happen. Anyone who says otherwise is lying to you. Sure, not every story of an underdog hero fighting the odds is going to be good. But that doesn't mean a trope that's been working for over 3,000 years suddenly stopped working. It means somebody told a bad story. It happens all the time. It usually doesn't mean a monumental shift in human thinking the likes of which we have never seen before. It is possible for a story to suck without our very nature as human beings being shaken to the core. It's also worth considering that a lot of these clichés are ones that simply make the most sense dramatically in a given situation. Like I said above, people may complain about "underdog hero fighting the odds" being played out, but is anyone really interested in seeing the alternative? Do you want "hero vastly more powerful than his opponents defeating them handily" simply because it's different? Is that really entertaining to people?

 

And that's the problem with the other half of this equation, the one that says "unpredictability/creativity/originality is always good". First of all, I believe in Ecclesiastes 1:9 - "What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun". I'm not convinced that there's a whole lot out there that is truly "original". "Different", sure, but everything is influenced by the world around it and what came before it, so I can't get all bent out of shape because a storyteller shows this influence in his work. But putting that aside, it's silly to think that something unpredictable, creative, or different is automatically going to be good. A lot of things are predictable because that's what people want, and storytellers don't give them something else because they know they'll be disappointed. There are few things less satisfying than an arbitrary twist ending tacked on to "surprise" an audience without any concern as to how it fits in with the rest of the story or what the audience wanted out of it. You can surprise an audience, to be sure, but it must be done with care, and you must consider how they will feel about it afterwards. As for creativity and being different, I'm all for that, but not every new idea is a good one. If you paid $8 for a movie ticket, sat down in the theater, only to have a large hatch in the ceiling open up and dump halibut onto you, and than be charged another $8 by a man dressed as a cactus wearing a funny hat and sent on your way without ever actually getting to see the movie, well, that would certainly be creative and different (and unpredictable, for that matter). But would it really be more satisfying than just getting to see whatever predictable and derivative film you bought the ticket for? Even if the cactus guy's hat was really, really funny?

 

So, this is basically where I'm coming from as a writer and as a narratologist. As a writer, I feel it's important to learn what works and what doesn't when trying to entertain an audience. I think the structure pretty much defines what works in it's barest form with regards to dramatic conflict-based storytelling, and that's where I keep my focus. Too many people aim to be different and miss being good. If you aim to be good, you'll know when to be different, and you'll know how to make it work, and that's what matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When it comes to storytelling for me, something that is "simple and to the point" works best. Some people complain that "formulas" are boring and not creative, but they work.

 

Drowning fans in details through your booking or just tossing out a series of high spots for cheap pops doesn't equate to good storytelling. The matches I list among my favorites are those in which the workrate may not be the best, but the structure of the match works well and gets the fans to care about the match. And when the wrestlers are able to work the structure and make it that much more effective, that is where you find your best matches.

 

When done properly, I can really get into the simple tales of "big man vs. smaller man" or "tag team heels work over face in peril until hot tag is made" or "popular face overcomes the odds to make the comeback." Stuff like that works when done properly without a need to get into complicated details or highspots for the sake of popping the crowd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It especially bugs me when the guy has one of those Out Of Nowhere finishers which he can hit from anywhere at any time; why doesn't he keep trying for it over and over again until he hits it? Why is the dude going for a pin after a bodyslam when he should just be trying to hit his finish instead?

I think you're onto something here. Why doesn't Taker go for choke slams everytime? But sometimes they are constrained by dragging out the action a bit, which is not always a bad thing. This morning, I watched the first part of a Bret/Yoko cage match (the CHV version). In the first minute, Bret gets away from Yokozuna and climbs all the way to the top of the cage. He basically has to stop and wait for his slow opponent to catch up to him and pull him down so the match continues. That sequence reveals a major flaw in the match's pacing, which hurts the storytelling. If the story is that they are trying to escape the cage, then the fight should be believable and should include a hurried escape if possible. But because they needed a longer match, the obvious solution (like your finishers) has to be discarded. Still, better storytelling would have prevented that sequence from occurring.

 

Even if the wrestlers don't have a reason for what they're doing, the crowd wants to believe that they do, so I helped supply those reasons even if there really weren't any. (This is another reason I'm sometimes amused by the over-analyzers on the net who look at everything under a microscope in the assumption that everything was deliberately planned that way and has its own specific meaning: no, it often doesn't. Trust me, sometimes there's no there, there.)

Here's where a good play-by-play guy makes all the difference, though I have not seen it put so bluntly. Heenan started saying "Whose side is he on?" when Hogan appeared at the founding of the nWo. That's ridiculous. No one was questioning Hogan's allegiances at that moment. But take someone like JR at his best, and you get each match coming across as a epic while not sounding overblown.

 

Oh yeah, one last thing: Storytelling = Misawa/Kobashi vs. Kawada/Taue 6/9/95. God that match is so fucking awesome.

I gotta freakin get this one!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SLL, I like your article. I wrote something along similar lines for a course paper. The paper was called "Myth, Parable, and Professional Wrestling", and it dealt with the idea that wrestling -- as theater -- tells truths through its use of Story. Myths in this context are the things we want to believe or wish were true, while parables are the harsh truths of reality. Example:

 

Another common myth taught through wrestling is that a savior will come to rescue the weak or lost. One might call it deus ex machina; the gods come down from above when all hope is gone. Speaking about the same myth in superhero comic books, B. J. Oropeza tells us that “society cannot eradicate evil on its own; it needs the help of a powerful yet godly redeemer.” Wrestling agrees fully with this concept in many ways. We have a desire to be saved from calamity; but like Eugene, we often find ourselves too weak to fight back. In one memorable bout, fan-favorite Mick Foley finds himself handcuffed and bloodied. When all looks lost, The Rock appears from backstage and delivers a massive chair-shot to the head of Foley’s opponent. Foley recovers, gets uncuffed, and continues the match. The Rock has disappeared, his intervention complete.

I had opened the paper with Hogan's rescue of Eugene at Mania as one of my favorite stories in all of wrestling. I closed it with this one:

 

Just as I opened with two of my favorite wrestling stories, I want to close with one that makes me cry every time I even think about it. In 1991, Randy “Macho Man” Savage faced the Ultimate Warrior at Wrestlemania VII. The loser was to retire from wrestling forever. Savage’s onscreen wife was named Miss Elizabeth, but they had been on the outs for some time. She sits in the stands while the Macho Man approaches the ring accompanied by the Sensational Sherri, with whom he has been spending time of late. Elizabeth is visibly bothered, but she remains in her seat.

 

The match itself turns out to be quite good, a surprise since the wildly-popular Warrior demonstrated virtually no wrestling skills whatsoever for his entire career. Savage carries him, though. In the end, the Ultimate Warrior wins the brutal match, celebrates, and leaves the ring. Savage staggers about, apparently unsure of where he is. Sherri begins to berate Savage for being a loser and a weakling, eventually slapping and kicking him. Miss Elizabeth – whom you’ll recall has been fighting with Savage for awhile – stands up, hesitates for a moment, and then runs down to the ring to try and stop the abuse. The Macho Man is trying to protect himself without hurting Sherri. Unfortunately, he is still dazed because of the beating he just received. Trying to avoid and yet fight off Sherri, Savage accidentally knocks down Elizabeth; he hadn’t known she was there. The crowd gasps in shock.

 

Sherri runs off, disgusted with it all. Savage has regained his wits and seems to think it’s Elizabeth who attacked him; he angrily turns her way, glaring at her across the ring. Tears streaming down her face, Miss Elizabeth stands with her arms wide, begging Randy to forgive her and take her back. The Macho Man thinks about it for a few moments, and the sold-out arena goes silent. Everyone seems to be holding their breath. When Savage finally moves over and embraces her after an eternity of indecision, they both weep. And for the crowd, it is as if Christmas, New Years, and July 4th all happened at once. So much joy for two fictional characters.

I love this aspect of our sport because it shows that we can have so much more than just two super acrobats showing off (or is that jerking off?). When what happens in the ring and after the matches means something, then I find myself much more satisfied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Random thoughts time

 

The Japanese summed it up best with two words

 

Fighting Spirit

 

Wrestling is not so much about one person vs one person but rather yourself against yourself. It's the battle within oneself. The same battle we go through every day. The exact same battle you find yourself in the weight room. A battle someone can find themselves in if they're scared to go up a ladder but they have to do so to save a cat. Pushing yourself beyond the limits to achieve something. You against you.

 

 

 

I hear some talk about how people they don't like the same old, same old wether it's a ton of spots or a structure "that works".

 

The reason fancy spots or moves or innovation works is because they show the fighitng spirit of the wrestler. It's shows strength both physically and mentally that's superior to an opponent. In a match structure that's basically the same, the match with the fancy spots/moves/innovation will be "better" because of this.

The problem with this is that if fancy spots are used too much they can lose meaning and the effect of seeing strenght physically and mentally in the wrestler is nullified some. Believability can becomes less for some wrestlers doing this.

 

Which brings me to the true and tried face in peril structure of wrestling. In singles it's apparent but in tag team wrestling it's worse as you're beat over the head with it constantly. It grows tiresome. It happens every single time!!!! Within 2 months or less of watching this formula I grew tiresome of it. I cheered like mad for anything that deviated from it. For ex, one time the Brainbusters who were the bad guys struggled to get a tag to their partner in a match against Demoliotn. One time in WCW there was a tag match where the face in peril didn't make the hot tag and got pinned!! I marked out like crazy. Why?

 

Because it gave credibility to something that was tired out. When something happens all the time wether it's the movies/TV (one of the reasons why I took to Japanese animation years ago was because it was so different/innovative) or wrestling you don't buy it anymore. It's not believable. When a tag match follows that formula all the time it loses a lot of credibility/a lot of what it's aiming for. You don't feel as much for the faces in peril, you don't care if they make the hot tag as much and so on. That's why you need other tag matches that break that format. Even if those match structures don't happen to be "as good" they have to occur so they can help the main tag team formula. Not just to get the formula more fresh but to make people buy into it more.

I watched Furnass/Kroffat in a tag back in 96 when I was just getting into All Japan. It was a totally non face in peril match and it was a good but not great match. However, I looooved it because it was so different and it didn't insult my intelligence by automatically having to used a cliche tag formula. There was still enough of a "fighing spirit" battle to enjoy it. Speaking of All Japan I really think they did a great job of having matches that hit on the fans emotions without having to go to an exaggerated tag cliche formula that you often see in North America. Than when they do go somewhat into a formulat we're used to like in Furnass/Kroffat vs Kobashi/Kikuchi it means so much more. The matches never seemed forced there. They were buyable.

 

Wrestling is part make believe but believability is actually a big part of it. Storytelling in wrestling to be at its strongest has to make the individual person buy into what's going on. How much someone buys into something is different for everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Random thoughts time

 

The Japanese summed it up best with two words

 

Fighting Spirit

 

Wrestling is not so much about one person vs one person but rather yourself against yourself. It's the battle within oneself. The same battle we go through every day. The exact same battle you find yourself in the weight room. A battle someone can find themselves in if they're scared to go up a ladder but they have to do so to save a cat. Pushing yourself beyond the limits to achieve something. You against you.

I disagree. While self-conflict is present in some degree in pretty much every dramatic story ever, it's not always the focus, it's not often the main focus of a genre based around a combat sport, and it's almost never the main focus of said genre to the exception of a conflict between two people. "Fighting spirit" is an aspect of wrestling storytelling. It's not the entirety of it.

 

The reason fancy spots or moves or innovation works is because they show the fighitng spirit of the wrestler. It's shows strength both physically and mentally that's superior to an opponent.

 

Bullshit. Dusty Rhodes had fighting spirit - as you define it - coming out the wazoo. Where were his fancy spots? Where was his innovation? Where is the direct correlation between "fighting spirit" and fancy moves? Is it not possible that there are other effective ways to convey that, as Dusty found?

 

In a match structure that's basically the same, the match with the fancy spots/moves/innovation will be "better" because of this.

Again, it's one tool they can use. It's not the only tool they can use. Where is the direct correlation between increased match quality and increased fancy moves?

 

Which brings me to the true and tried face in peril structure of wrestling. In singles it's apparent but in tag team wrestling it's worse as you're beat over the head with it constantly. It grows tiresome. It happens every single time!!!! Within 2 months or less of watching this formula I grew tiresome of it. I cheered like mad for anything that deviated from it. For ex, one time the Brainbusters who were the bad guys struggled to get a tag to their partner in a match against Demoliotn. One time in WCW there was a tag match where the face in peril didn't make the hot tag and got pinned!! I marked out like crazy. Why?

 

Because it gave credibility to something that was tired out.

 

You're certainly within your right to feel however you want to feel about the standard tag match formula. Just be aware that you're one of a select few who feel that way. I'm not saying that should be the only way to run tag matches, mind you, but it's compelling for 99.9% of wrestling fandom, and to subvert it for the sake of subverting it is pointless. That WCW match didn't give credibility to anything. By wrestling standards, the standard tag formula has always been credible to the vast majority of fans. It didn't need a minor bout averting one of it's standard tropes to prove anything. And I would assume it was a minor match, because to do it in a higher profile match would come off as anticlimactic to most everyone walking the Earth, unless they liked seeing tropes averted for the hell of it. Then again, it was WCW, so who knows with them. I guess on a lower level, it could actually be seen as funny, like a parody of the face-in-peril section. But it seems like the nature of it would make it funnier in concept than in practice, and I'm not exactly laughing my head off right now.

 

But my point here is that you should understand that most of the world doesn't think about these things the way you do, and while you're allowed to disagree with the majority, you should at least understand where they're coming from, and that they aren't and shouldn't drastically change the world to cater to you.

 

I watched Furnass/Kroffat in a tag back in 96 when I was just getting into All Japan. It was a totally non face in peril match and it was a good but not great match. However, I looooved it because it was so different and it didn't insult my intelligence by automatically having to used a cliche tag formula. There was still enough of a "fighing spirit" battle to enjoy it. Speaking of All Japan I really think they did a great job of having matches that hit on the fans emotions without having to go to an exaggerated tag cliche formula that you often see in North America. Than when they do go somewhat into a formulat we're used to like in Furnass/Kroffat vs Kobashi/Kikuchi it means so much more. The matches never seemed forced there. They were buyable.

They didn't use our standard tag formula too much, but they had formulas of their own. Just because something didn't fit into one formula doesn't mean it wasn't part of another. You mentioned getting into anime because it was different and innovative, but does anime not have it's own formulas, tropes, and cliches?

 

Wrestling is part make believe but believability is actually a big part of it. Storytelling in wrestling to be at its strongest has to make the individual person buy into what's going on. How much someone buys into something is different for everyone.

Every work of fiction has to make you "believe" on a certain level. Wrestling isn't any more or less different in that regard than any other genre, except that wrestlers seem more self-conscious about it than other artists, and that's not a good thing. Suggesting that big moves are the only answer is the kind of self-destructive line of thought that I was talking about before, and you should know that as well as anyone, WildPegasus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll get back to ya but I have to play poker for awhile. I'm not too enthusiastic about you misinterpeting some of what I said. Perhaps some of it was my fault due as I was just writing random thoughts at the time. Fancy wasn't a good word to use there.

 

Edit -- Too much poker. I'll be playing for a long time. Jingus gets it.

 

 

 

Ok, I'm in a rush

 

"I disagree. While self-conflict is present in some degree in pretty much every dramatic story ever, it's not always the focus, it's not often the main focus of a genre based around a combat sport, and it's almost never the main focus of said genre to the exception of a conflict between two people. "Fighting spirit" is an aspect of wrestling storytelling. It's not the entirety of it."

 

 

-----------

 

It's the basis of it. The foundation of the house. Your own personal fighting spirit is why you fight. To solve the conflict inside you by fighting against others. If one wasn't uneasy and satistified with themselves than they they wouldn't fight.

 

..............

 

"Bullshit. Dusty Rhodes had fighting spirit - as you define it - coming out the wazoo. Where were his fancy spots? Where was his innovation? Where is the direct correlation between "fighting spirit" and fancy moves? Is it not possible that there are other effective ways to convey that, as Dusty found?"

 

 

Who said there's only one way to show fighting spirit????

 

Innovation or some hard to pull off devestating move or a well thought out sequence/spot/strategy in a match is a way to show intelligence which is a show of fighting spirit by demonstrating how hard someone is working mentally. It is a way to show fighting spirit just like there are other ways.

 

......................................

 

"Again, it's one tool they can use. It's not the only tool they can use. Where is the direct correlation between increased match quality and increased fancy moves?"

 

Take what I believe to a classic match -- Kobashi vs Marafuji. Or take a million of the great classics from Japan that have sound or better match structure. We all know they're filled with great fancy moves that weren't found elsewhere. You can follow the match structure and dumb it down with lesser offense and the result will be a lesser match in 99.9% of the fans eyes.

All things being equal, a match with higher end offense is usually better.

 

...................................................

 

 

"You're certainly within your right to feel however you want to feel about the standard tag match formula. Just be aware that you're one of a select few who feel that way. I'm not saying that should be the only way to run tag matches, mind you, but it's compelling for 99.9% of wrestling fandom, and to subvert it for the sake of subverting it is pointless. That WCW match didn't give credibility to anything. By wrestling standards, the standard tag formula has always been credible to the vast majority of fans. It didn't need a minor bout averting one of it's standard tropes to prove anything. And I would assume it was a minor match, because to do it in a higher profile match would come off as anticlimactic to most everyone walking the Earth, unless they liked seeing tropes averted for the hell of it. Then again, it was WCW, so who knows with them. I guess on a lower level, it could actually be seen as funny, like a parody of the face-in-peril section. But it seems like the nature of it would make it funnier in concept than in practice, and I'm not exactly laughing my head off right now.

 

But my point here is that you should understand that most of the world doesn't think about these things the way you do, and while you're allowed to disagree with the majority, you should at least understand where they're coming from, and that they aren't and shouldn't drastically change the world to cater to you."

 

..................

I think it's way more than a select few who think that way. We've seen complaints all the time about this over the top predicability thing in wrestling. This is one of the biggest problems in the WWE right now. People get tired of the same old, same old even if it's apple pie. Apple pie eaten every day 5 tmes a day will make you sick of it no matter how good that pie is. You have to divert from it. It's human nature and it applies to a lot of things in life. But when you do get away from that apple pie for awhile and than eat it a few months later you will love it. Probably even more so than before.

 

Same thing with tag team wrestling. I got sick in 2 months of the sterotypical formula. I know others who have too. Take that formula away some and come back to it later and it will work way better. Make people appreciate it. Make peope want it and not take it for granted. Make it more believable bynot having it happen all the time.

 

Think about the people who complain about ROH and how all the matches have to be classics. People get tired of it. Take away all the classic attempts and attempt a classic only now and than and people will dig it. It's the same concept. Don't you even think this way?

In life, a ot of things work the same way. This is actually a tired and true formula and is what should be applied to wrestling. How much is a debate that is open to well debate.

 

The WCW match was an example of how happy Iwas to see something different. WOrked correctly, this could be used to make an upcoming match more dramatic by making the fans think that hot tag may just not actualy be made.

 

................................................

 

"They didn't use our standard tag formula too much, but they had formulas of their own. Just because something didn't fit into one formula doesn't mean it wasn't part of another. You mentioned getting into anime because it was different and innovative, but does anime not have it's own formulas, tropes, and cliches?"

 

Of course. I completely agree and this is one of my points. The WWF could learn some stuff from them.

 

I got inot anime because it was different and innovative. Yes, I was actually into it before I knew the term anime. I'd think back and realise it was the Japan shows that really appealed to me. Of course it has its formulas. I wouldn't have it any other way. But they did a lot of stuff I didn't see in North America. It was kind of like the difference betwenn Japan and North American wrestling in some ways. People could die. Anything could happen. Imagination knew no bounds. BUT YET, they still how to tell a story or a formula if you may. They still knew how to suck people in through storytelling. This led to increased interest/emotion. If you were to compare it to wrestling it'd be like a well constructed match but a match where you don't know if x,y or z is going to happen so if x, y, z does happen it means so much more.

 

.......................................................

 

Every work of fiction has to make you "believe" on a certain level. Wrestling isn't any more or less different in that regard than any other genre, except that wrestlers seem more self-conscious about it than other artists, and that's not a good thing. Suggesting that big moves are the only answer is the kind of self-destructive line of thought that I was talking about before, and you should know that as well as anyone, WildPegasus.

 

.....................................................

 

Who's suggesting big moves are the only answer to wrestling's problems?

 

Big moves used in the right context (say for example the highflying in Bret vs Hakushi from Raw) add to the match. A crossbody over the top rope doesn't work as well there.

 

It is sef destructive to want big moves in wrestling but there is no getting away from the notion that people want it. They help matches and everybody wether they deny it or not wants it because it's human nature. Matches that have similar match structures but the ones that feature bigger moves done properly will always be the better match in the fans eyes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tag team formulas with the face in peril work because they get the fans to believe that the face in peril has obstacles to overcome. That's what it's all about... get people to believe the face has the odds against him and they'll get behind him.

 

It's the reason I generally roll my eyes at some of the latter stuff with Steve Austin in which he's able to overcome a three-on-one beatdown just by dropping people with Stunners... it may get the fans popping, but his long-term value is hurt because it's apparent that Austin almost never had the odds against him. Turn it around so Austin succumbs to three-on-one odds often and he gets his payback when he confronts one of these guys in a one-on-one match and you'll get both a louder reaction and his value extended.

 

Regarding John Cena, although I have not watched current WWE programming, it seems to me the real problem is that, when they start to stack the odds against Cena, he overcomes them a bit too quickly. I'm not saying he should drop the title every month and then regain it, but after a one-year title reign, if he drops it to somebody and has to spend some time chasing the guy who took it from him, that extends his value and gets more people to rally behind him.

 

I know people will draw the comparison between Hogan and Austin and how their charcters were different, but their ultimate goals were the same... do what they believe is best for humanity. In Hogan's case, it was standing for the American way. In Austin's case, it was standing up to a boss who didn't like him.

 

Compare Batman and Superman... people like to say that Batman became more popular because he was a "darker" character, but he was like Superman in that he wanted to do what was best for humanity. His approach may have been different from Superman, but the underlying motive was the same.

 

And if you think about it, the decline for both Hogan and Austin was the same. Hogan became perceived more as the guy who was stooping to the level of a heel (see 1992 Royal Rumble, with the ending clearly a spot in which he thinks more about himself ) and his popularity waned. Austin may have still been getting "What?" chants and pops for the Stunner, but when he's just dropping people with Stunners for no particular reason, people have less reason to go pay to see him because he's standing more for himself than anything else.

 

You can dress up your hero any way you want... but if he doesn't really act like a hero, the fans won't buy into it for long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do agree with Pegasus on one thing: I like to see the formula tweaked or subverted every once in a while. Of course formula is effective, but if every match rigidly followed it without deviation, even the dimmest fans would eventually find it predictable and boring. The babyface overcoming the odds, making the hot tag, and so on can only remain effective if you're not 100% sure that they'll be able to do it. Sometimes I like seeing the formula turned on its head and denied just for the surprise of it; why would you want things to go the exact same way every single time? Yes, in theory the heel should usually have to cheat in order to defeat a babyface of equal or greater stature, but if a heel can't ever possibly beat that guy without cheating, the crowd doesn't take him seriously as a legit physical threat to their hero. (Jim Cornette talked about that when he was managing the Midnights against the Road Warriors, describing how the crowd didn't get quite as mad at the heels as usual because they knew that the LOD were basically invincible and wouldn't be losing.) I think bucking the conventions should only be done on rare occasions because if you did it often it would quickly lose its shock value, but I don't see how it could be a good idea to mindlessly repeat the standard formula on every occasion.

 

That's sort of what I was talking about in my post above about my indy show experience; too often in wrestling, guys don't even attempt to think of doing anything different and just blindly rely on the formula to get the crowd into things. I cannot begin to even guess at how many matches I've seen which literally looked like the exact same thing played over and over again, usually to audiences which slowly dwindled over the months and years. There are plenty of older wrestlers and promoters in Tennessee who insist that old-school Southern style rassling is the only thing that the local crowds really want to see. Meanwhile, their old-school indy shows are usually drawing less than a hundred people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the basis of it. The foundation of the house. Your own personal fighting spirit is why you fight. To solve the conflict inside you by fighting against others. If one wasn't uneasy and satistified with themselves than they they wouldn't fight.

The entire premise of professional wrestling as a genre of fiction is that a large assortment of people compete in an organized combat sport for fame, fortune, personal pride, and presumably, fun. A number of these characters are portrayed as uneasy or unsatisfied with themselves, because everyone is uneasy and unsatisfied with themselves to some degree.

 

No professional wrestling show in the history of the world has ever made this it's focus.

 

How you came to this conclusion is a mystery to me. Is it a tool that they have at their disposal that they use from time to time? Certainly. Has it ever been the foundation of the show? No. Never. Not even in Japan.

 

Who said there's only one way to show fighting spirit????

 

Innovation or some hard to pull off devestating move or a well thought out sequence/spot/strategy in a match is a way to show intelligence which is a show of fighting spirit by demonstrating how hard someone is working mentally. It is a way to show fighting spirit just like there are other ways.

You didn't say it, but you strongly (perhaps inadvertently) implied it, and never thought to mention any other method. You also drew a direct correlation big moves and match quality, and while I'm no mathematical genius, I'm pretty sure drawing equal correlations between other methods and match quality would screw up the equation in such a way as to make big moves less important than you were making them out to be. Which means you placed a higher premium on big moves than any other possible method of showing fighting spirit.

 

But I hate talking about wrestling like it's a math equation. Point is, I don't think you thought this through all the way.

 

Take what I believe to a classic match -- Kobashi vs Marafuji. Or take a million of the great classics from Japan that have sound or better match structure. We all know they're filled with great fancy moves that weren't found elsewhere. You can follow the match structure and dumb it down with lesser offense and the result will be a lesser match in 99.9% of the fans eyes.

All things being equal, a match with higher end offense is usually better.

Kobashi had that match with Marufuji, and he had a match with KENTA the month prior, and I loved one and hated the other, and for the life of me, I can't remember which was which.

 

That said, worth noting that I liked Kobashi a lot during this period, expressly because he had become less focused on big moves, and more focused on chopping the fuck out of people while generally carrying himself as the man. But late 90's-early 00's Kobashi was someone I did not care for at all. And while that's a minority opinion, I don't know of anyone who thinks Kobashi was at his best when he was at his most moves-heavy.

 

Marufuji is a guy I've always had mixed feelings about. One match of his from that period that I know I loved was his match against Taue, a somewhat awkward dude not known for his moves, where the big memorable spot was Marufuji pinning his larger opponent with a small package. That was probably the most memorable single move Marufuji has done in his entire career.

 

What about the other great classics from Japan? Well, what about them?

 

Mitsuharu Misawa's big move was an elbowsmash. He found plenty of ways to do it, and of course, he had bigger moves than that that he busted out with regularity, but is that really what we think of him fondly for?

 

Toshiaki Kawada's big move was a kick. He had a lot of cool ways to kick you, and he also had a powerbomb, the Stretch Plum, and he even did the Ganso Bomb in a couple of matches. Do we really praise him because he's a moves guy?

 

None of the great heavyweight gaijin were really moves guys.

 

Jumbo Tsuruta is considered the greatest worker ever by a number of folks. He had some moves that were pretty darn big for his era. But people today, who have seen far more advanced moves, still think really highly of him. If what you were saying was true, would it not logically follow that Tsuruta and everyone else from his era or before should be brushed aside in favor of the Marufujis and KENTAs of the world?

 

Jushin Thunder Liger had some big moves. Then he got injured, got cancer, otherwise got broken down, and couldn't do those moves anymore. He kept being great. And personally speaking, my favorite Liger memories aren't about shooting star presses or moonsaults to the outside. They're about him getting pissed off and beating the fuck out of El Samurai, Masao Orihara, Dick Togo, Tsuyoshi Kikuchi, and a host of others. Most of your better juniors are that way. The flashy moves were nice, but there are much, much bigger factors at play.

 

The first time I watched joshi, I was let down, because the moves-heavy stuff didn't interest me the way I thought it would. I became an Aja Kong fan real fast because of that. When I started watching 80's stuff, I generally liked it better, because it felt more psychologically sound. It was still moves heavy, but that wasn't exactly a bad thing. There were just more important things to me.

 

Your better death match workers naturally relied on big, impressive spots. So did the shitty death match workers. The difference between the two usually wasn't how impressive the spots were.

 

Hashimoto and the better New Japan heavyweights weren't exactly move guys.

 

Your better worked shooters were more about impressive execution than high-end offense. Some of them had it, but again, it's not as big of a factor as you make it out to be.

 

I'm not seeing it. The moves were there, but they're not what made the matches great.

 

I think it's way more than a select few who think that way. We've seen complaints all the time about this over the top predicability thing in wrestling. This is one of the biggest problems in the WWE right now. People get tired of the same old, same old even if it's apple pie. Apple pie eaten every day 5 tmes a day will make you sick of it no matter how good that pie is. You have to divert from it. It's human nature and it applies to a lot of things in life. But when you do get away from that apple pie for awhile and than eat it a few months later you will love it. Probably even more so than before.

 

Same thing with tag team wrestling. I got sick in 2 months of the sterotypical formula. I know others who have too. Take that formula away some and come back to it later and it will work way better. Make people appreciate it. Make peope want it and not take it for granted. Make it more believable bynot having it happen all the time.

A person eating apple pie every day may get sick of apple pie, but they won't get sick of food. There are cliches we get tired of when overused, and there are those that are so deeply entwined in the fabric of our storytelling language, that we really don't ever tire of them. On the surface, the tag formula does strike me as something that we, as wrestling fans should be tired of by now. But I can't deny the evidence to the contrary. It's been 25 years - at least - and it still drives crowds into a frenzy. It still works for me. It doesn't work for you, and I can't force you to like it, but that doesn't mean you get to project what is clearly a very small minority opinion onto the masses.

 

Think about the people who complain about ROH and how all the matches have to be classics. People get tired of it. Take away all the classic attempts and attempt a classic only now and than and people will dig it. It's the same concept. Don't you even think this way?

Sure, but as much as it pains me to say it, I probably wouldn't have them do it any differently. Even though I enjoy a lot of what they do, I'm no longer really part of ROH's target audience. Their target audience likes what they're doing just fine. I'd like to see it done differently. I think most wrestling fans, if exposed to it regularly, would be impressed at first, but soon tire of it. And for what it's worth, a lot of that is because of big move overkill, which makes the formula grow old far quicker than the tag team formula, which seems timeless to most and requires no such big moves. But ROH is a niche product aimed at a niche audience, and they're happy with that.

 

Who's suggesting big moves are the only answer to wrestling's problems?

It's the only answer you're giving me. It's the one you drew a direct correlation to match quality with. It seems to be the answer you feel strongest about.

 

It is sef destructive to want big moves in wrestling but there is no getting away from the notion that people want it.

Hulk Hogan is the most popular wrestler ever, so, yeah, there is. It's actually really apparent, and has been bemoaned by workrate fans for years. If you really can't see it, I'm inclined to question your sanity.

 

They help matches and everybody wether they deny it or not wants it because it's human nature.

 

I don't necessarily dislike it, but I certainly wouldn't say I need it. The simple fact that there are people who aren't wrestling fans at all, and people who don't like to watch violence - even of the simulated variety - shoots down the notion that it's part of human nature. And I don't exactly have a high opinion of humans, but we're not that low.

 

Matches that have similar match structures but the ones that feature bigger moves done properly will always be the better match in the fans eyes.

No, they'll be the better matches in YOUR eyes. I'm sure some of them will be better matches in other fans' eyes, too. Some might even be better in the eyes of the majority of fans. But as a whole, they will be the better matches in YOUR eyes. I won't deny you your opinion. I'd hope you wouldn't deny me my reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I"m not really adding anything to this thread, I just wanted to point out that I really like that Taue v. Marufuji match, but the best spot in it is the Taue sunset flip nearfall, oddly because it was a strange role reversal spot with Taue using flashy offense (for him) to try and "steal" a win from the flippy upcomer.

 

Still, I agree with almost everything SLL has said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flashy offense has its place, but it really needs to mean something in terms of the match storyline. Look at Bret Hart vs. 1-2-3 Kid, which Loss broke down elsewhere and did a good job of doing so. The highspots Kid used were all about establishing that the aerial game is his domain so it's what he'll go to as much as possible.

 

And I have always found the notion that people who use more impressive moves in a formula match somehow makes it better. It's about the execution of the formula, and somebody who does fewer moves but knows how to execute the formula is going to get more reaction from the crowd... and likely a better match... than somebody who knows more moves but isn't as good at executing a formula or doesn't want to.

 

Or as I've often said about the wrestling business: It's not what you have that matters, it's what you do with what you have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some quick thoughts (haven't had time to read the whole thread):

 

-- Good topic. There hasn't been enough written about this, largely because the standard of wrestling criticism is weak.

 

-- Wrestling has a lot of "Story" elements, but doesn't tell great stories. A story goes something like this: a character has some desire. In pursuing his desire he faces greater and greater obstacles. The greater the obstacle, the greater the pressure, the more is revealed about his character. Wrestling does a good job with characters. The characters have desire. They pursue it & in good matches the pressure & obstacles mount. But a story is supposed to reveal "true" character, a revelation that changes the protagonist in some way. This is where wrestling falls short. Unless the significance surrounding the finish is dramatic in some way (retirement match, mask vs. mask match, heel or face turn, upsets, the odd title victory), the characters never change. If the characters don't change, then they're archetypes & it's not a real story. WWE, for example, is full of archetypes & not real characters. Rey Mysterio, Jr. is always the underdog & Cole is always babbling on about the heart and soul and determination of Rey Mysterio, Jr. His character never changes & WWE storylines get old because they lack character motivation.

 

-- If you're looking for story in wrestling then the best you can hope for is some type of arc. In a great match, the character (even if they don't change) ought to be in a different place at the end than he was in the beginning. In that sense wrestling can play off the emotion of winning and losing. If the wrestler is good at acting or selling, you might even classify it as a character piece. All wrestling really needs is great acting and selling to create a sense of story. The best matches have narratives -- some kind of theme.

 

-- What I look for in wrestling isn't stories, but rather pay-offs. Wrestling is good at creating set-ups (angles, feuds, promos), but all too often it lacks the payoff. Wrestling is shitty at blowoffs.

 

-- Wrestling is a live performance. Sometimes adlibbed, sometimes planned and rehearsed. Sometimes booked well, more often not. There's no retakes and no redrafts. Each performance is like a first take or a first draft. You can't expect too much. I don't think it's anywhere near being the purest form of storytelling (that would be oral storytelling), but it is direct & interactive.

 

-- Regardless of how well wrestling tells stories, people should look for "story" in wrestling. If sportswriters can do it, so can wrestling fans. There was an apprehension created surrounding looking for story that wasn't there, but the people who shouted loudest about that knew fuck all about storytelling to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The entire premise of professional wrestling as a genre of fiction is that a large assortment of people compete in an organized combat sport for fame, fortune, personal pride, and presumably, fun. A number of these characters are portrayed as uneasy or unsatisfied with themselves, because everyone is uneasy and unsatisfied with themselves to some degree.

 

No professional wrestling show in the history of the world has ever made this it's focus.

 

How you came to this conclusion is a mystery to me. Is it a tool that they have at their disposal that they use from time to time? Certainly. Has it ever been the foundation of the show? No. Never. Not even in Japan.

 

---- See, this is what annoys me. I like you but you misinterpet everything. I'm not saying there are promotions that are promoting with the words "This is you against you" Although now that I think about it , there actually have been a couple who promoted with different words basically saying the same thing.

But that's not the point anyway. Why do you think people wrestle? It's to clinch the thirst of the you vs you battle. Things are derived from that. Listen to the song "Burning Heart" from Rocky IV. It explains it as clear as day. "

Warrior's code there's no surrender. Knows it's you against you. It's the paradox that drives us all".

That's what wrestling represents to me.

To you too, I think it's what it represents as well. You're all justifiably about the hero overcoming the odds to stand triumphant at the end. To do that, he has to conquer himself more than his opponent. That's why I watch wrestling. For struggle that is within everyone, the villan included.

 

 

 

 

Who's suggesting big moves are the only answer to wrestling's problems?

It's the only answer you're giving me. It's the one you drew a direct correlation to match quality with. It seems to be the answer you feel strongest about.

 

-- Match quality is dependent on a ton of things. There are a lot of ingredients that go into a recipe. Believability is essential. You got to make the fans buy into it.

 

It is sef destructive to want big moves in wrestling but there is no getting away from the notion that people want it.

Hulk Hogan is the most popular wrestler ever, so, yeah, there is. It's actually really apparent, and has been bemoaned by workrate fans for years. If you really can't see it, I'm inclined to question your sanity.

 

---- Hogan's one of the most popular ever but how does that get away from the fact that people like and want dragon suplexes, powerbombs, superplexes and so on? People just don't want to see guys thumb wrestling. People like more speed in track, intense drama in movies, intense action in hockey, harder hitters in boxing and they want more hardcore action in wrestling. I'm not saying it's right or wrong. It's just the way it is. Just because one wrestler didn't do a shooting star press and was super popular doesn't mean the fans don't want some superior action in their matches.

 

 

 

They help matches and everybody wether they deny it or not wants it because it's human nature.

 

I don't necessarily dislike it, but I certainly wouldn't say I need it. The simple fact that there are people who aren't wrestling fans at all, and people who don't like to watch violence - even of the simulated variety - shoots down the notion that it's part of human nature. And I don't exactly have a high opinion of humans, but we're not that low.

 

--- There's a part of us as wrestling fans and humans that gets more intrigued when we see for example Sayama do a space flying tiger drop or someone else does something insane. We can't help it. It's the same concept (but on a different scale) as say the reaction people have to blood or doing surgery or helping giving birth. Some people don't like helping to give birth or stitching someone up. Some can but the point is intrigue and interest has to be present otherwise nobody would care about the situation and someone could have trouble giving birth or they could die if they're not given help. The strong reactions that are necessary can backfire at times but it can't be any other way.

 

Matches that have similar match structures but the ones that feature bigger moves done properly will always be the better match in the fans eyes.[/q

 

No, they'll be the better matches in YOUR eyes. I'm sure some of them will be better matches in other fans' eyes, too. Some might even be better in the eyes of the majority of fans. But as a whole, they will be the better matches in YOUR eyes. I won't deny you your opinion. I'd hope you wouldn't deny me my reality.

 

 

..... Good matches tend to build and build to a climax. Better moves in a similar blueprint structure allow emotions to be higher and the climax to be greater thus giving you a better match. A match can't exist without moves. As a bare minimum answer here -- If you have two matches that are basically the same but one ends with a superplex off the middle rope while the other ends with a superplex off the top rope than people are going to pick the match with the top rope superplex as better. Why wouldn't they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE, If you're talking about casual fans then yes, moves do make the man and the match. But most casual fans won't pick up on many, if any storytelling elements. Look at the early days of UFC. Most MMA or grappling enthusiasts loved Royce Gracie, but the popular fighters were guys like Tank Abbot and Don Frye, who just went there and fucked people up with their hands. It's the same reason they booed the hell out of the Shamrock/Gracie superfight, because it was 30 minutes of them having a chess match and circling each other with very little action.

 

I think the IWGP Title match between Hiroshi Tanahashi and Hirooki Goto is a great display of storytelling. Goto had been mowing down everyone in his path, but then he gave this interview about how much the title meant to him, and they showed a bunch of photos with a young Goto with Shinya Hashimoto and Antonio Inoki, and the crowd was totally behind him. Tanahashi added to that by doing a bunch of arrogant heel stuff and working over Goto's leg a bunch and really getting the crowd riled up. It had zero to do with big moves or anything like that. They reacted because the arrogant champion was being an asshole. Goto started busting out big moves toward the end and the crowd reacted, but not because of his bombs, but because he was finally handing it back to Tanahashi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SLL, I think you make good points about the enduring strength of simple narrative structure. I'm not sure I agree, however, that all dramatic tension stems from the morality play that you describe. I see at least two other major types of wrestling narrative.

 

One features the talented young performer, trying to carve out his place in a rigidly hierarchical world. The great All-Japan feuds, for example, never struck me as good vs. evil. There were underdog themes, but the guy everyone was chasing, Misawa, was the picture of grace under pressure, a hero in his own right. His efforts to defend his spot carried as much nobility as Kawada's dogged efforts to knock him off. Kawada was easier to identify with -- this dumpy little guy with no teeth who was never the chosen one but willed his way near Misawa's level. But those matches struck me as dramas about social position rather than quests to uphold ideals against great forces.

 

The other type of narrative that comes immediately to mind is your basic tactical battle. It goes back to childhood questions like: If an alligator fought a tiger, who would win? That can take on a moral component, I suppose. The UWFI guys really did believe their techniques were more "authentic" than those practiced by Inoki. But I think a lot of wrestling is just, "Can my method beat yours?" Granted, that can lead to a lot of unmemorable, empty feeling matches. But if you have two practicioners who are skilled enough, it can be a lot of fun.

 

None of that takes away from your overarching point.

 

I wondered if you considered addressing in the essay why, given the tried-and-true nature of his storyline, fans react to Cena with such ambivalence. Is it because he was pushed beyond his skill level and by the time he became really good, booing him was entrenched as the "cool" thing to do? Or are fans somehow less tolerant of the "against all odds" hero than they were in the Hogan era? I tend to think it's more the first reason. But I wondered if you thought about delving into that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flashy offense has its place, but it really needs to mean something in terms of the match storyline. Look at Bret Hart vs. 1-2-3 Kid, which Loss broke down elsewhere and did a good job of doing so. The highspots Kid used were all about establishing that the aerial game is his domain so it's what he'll go to as much as possible.

If Res wants to point to a match that's great due in large part to "fighting spirit" shown through big moves, that would be a great match for him to point to. 1-2-3 Kid, clearly the underdog, pulls out all the stops with his high-flying to gain the advantage, to overcome himself in a manner of speaking. There's even that great stretch near the end, where he busts out a God damn powerbomb of all things, just trying to find something to put Bret away.

 

So yeah, matches like that definitely exist, and some of them like Bret/Kid are awesome.

 

And I have always found the notion that people who use more impressive moves in a formula match somehow makes it better. It's about the execution of the formula, and somebody who does fewer moves but knows how to execute the formula is going to get more reaction from the crowd... and likely a better match... than somebody who knows more moves but isn't as good at executing a formula or doesn't want to.

 

Or as I've often said about the wrestling business: It's not what you have that matters, it's what you do with what you have.

Bingo.

 

One of the things I wanted to point out in my last post, but couldn't really find a good spot for, was that even tropes that have worn out their welcome can still be compelling in the right hands. For example, the "Evil Commissioner" trope is one of the most played out things in wrestling today. I fast forward through Vickie Guerrero interviews when I watch Smackdown. I'm not interested in what she has to say. But as tired as the trope is, how much of my disinterest is because the trope is played out, and how much is because Vickie Guerrero just isn't a very compelling screen presence? By contrast, I don't even watch Raw regularly, but I was going out of my way to see what Regal as doing as Raw's evil GM the last few weeks, and there were a lot of other people praising his work, too. Is the "Evil Commissioner" role still played out? I think so. Does that not mean it still can't be entertaining in the hands of someone who really knows how to do it well? I don't know, because I'm kinda thrown by the double negative I just wrote, but Regal was awesome, and Vince McMahon is still one of the most compelling characters they have whenever he's around.

 

But I've always believed that the idea isn't as important as the execution. It's not what you do, it's the way that you do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just want to say that "All American" Hogan slowly walking to the ring and playing to the cheers of the crowd while a retard is being smacked around by two terrorist sympathizers, strikes me as one of the worst "saves" in wrestling history.

You may be right. However, as I recall, Hassan and Davairi froze in fear when he appeared. Had they continued to beat on Eugene while Hogan preened, it would have been awful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...