What Does "Storytelling" Mean to You?

[Bob Morris]

Touching upon something that Res wrote about "fans want to see big moves," let me do this to put it into perspective.

 

Kurt Angle got criticized for doing his suplex off the top rope by popping up, running quickly to the corner where his opponent was on the top rope and then immediately suplexing him off.

 

Now what happens if the opponent goes to the top rope with Angle slowly coming to, then just as his opponent is up top, Angle lunges to the ropes and swats the top rope to crotch his opponent. Angle then pulls himself up and goes to the corner, climbs to the second rope, his opponent then fires a shot at him. Angle then exchanges shots with his opponent until Angle gets the better of him, then he hooks up the opponent and does his top rope suplex.

 

The second scenario makes the high spot more meaningful because you built anticipation to the spot taking place.

 

Fans may say they like high spots, but whether they admit or not, they are more drawn into matches in which anticipation is built and their emotions are tugged at, and the same fans who say "I want to see high spots" are likely the same people who are popping louder for the babyface who properly times his comeback and does it by throwing punches and then following it up with a clothesline.

[S.L.L.]

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.

I actually agree with most of this pretty strongly. I called wrestling the simplest form of storytelling for a reason: it breaks down all the major storytelling elements to their most basic form. Characters are mostly one-dimensional archetypes, reasons for conflict usually aren't that intricate, and said conflicts are solved in a single setting through direct competition between the opposing sides using that most basic of negotiating tools, violence.

 

What I disagree with here is the notion that because everything is so simplified, that means it's not a true story. It's still a story, just a very simple one. For something based around basic good vs. evil storytelling featuring larger-than-life characters and presented in episodic format, I don't think you could really say wrestling is on the same level of art as Wagner's Ring of the Nibelung, at least not with a straight face. No indy or Japanese match based around conflict between intense rivals who have mutual admiration for one another that's on the same artistic level as "Casablanca". But there's still something there. And as for aspects of it getting tiresome, as I've been saying throughout this whole thing, some aspects certainly do, and some are such a fundamental part of our storytelling language - and by proxy, so significant to us as human beings - that we'll probably never tire of them. "Underdog hero" is one of those aspects.

 

-- 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.

The problem with looking for stories that aren't there in pro wrestling is that the stories ARE there, and they're all very upfront. So in general, when you find a deeper meaning to a match, it's usually the product of an overactive imagination. Not that that's always bad. I love the Headhunter vs. Headhunter glass death match, partially because I saw a story there where A (I think) was dominating early, but had to put B away fast, or else his cardio would give out, and B just had to survive until that happened. I'm sure that was all in my head, but I enjoyed it. I just wouldn't go around calling The Headhunters masters of psychology for telling a story that they weren't even really telling.

[MikeCampbell]

SLL's story about the Headhunters and Jingus talking about what he does on pbp reminds me of that great thread on DVDVR about intent vs. interpretation.

 

I also seem to recall Chris Coey writing an excellent article defining psychology on TSM way back in the day.

[S.L.L.]

See, this is what annoys me. I like you but you misinterpet everything.

 

If I misinterpret you, it's only because you're not stating things very clearly.

 

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.

Hmmmmm...."Victory Through Guts"? I suppose. It was still only part of the equation.

 

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.

I will not deny you your opinion....

 

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.

 

....yet you continue to deny me my reality. I've said multiple times already that this is an aspect of wrestling, and an aspect of all storytelling, because it's a universal aspect of humanity. Whether or not it's the focus of any given work depends on how much the author chooses to emphasize it. Some stories emphasize it a lot. Some stories barely emphasize it at all. In professional wrestling, where the focus is always primarily on the conflict between two individuals, internal conflict is a much smaller focus than it is in other genres. Is it there? Yes. Is it actually played up to any significant degree? Sometimes, sure. Is it the focus of the whole damn genre? Fuck no, no matter how badly you want to believe it is.

 

That's why I watch wrestling. For struggle that is within everyone, the villan included.

Good for you. Just stop assuming your opinions are universal truths.

 

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?

 

Because they paid more money more often to see guys do leg drops, a crossface chickenwing, a figure-four leglock that never semed to work, punches, elbows, powerslams, iron claws, scorpion deathlocks, stunners, an especially goofy elbowdrop, and a big fireman's carry takedown than to see dragon suplexes, powerbombs, and superplexes.

 

In your vaunted Japan, they paid to see a kicks, lariats, elbowsmashes, and karate chops to the top of the head. They paid to see bigger moves, too, but I'm less than convinced that the popularity of Tatsumi Fujinami rode entirely on his doing the dragon suplex, or that the popularity of Jumbo Tsuruta rode entirely on his doing the powerbomb. Tiger Mask probably wouldn't have been nearly the star he was without his moves, but Sayama seems to have been a unique case.

 

In Mexico, where there allegedly is no psychology and everyone just does highspots, people were paying to see a camel clutch, a double stomp, a gorilla press, and majistral cradles.

 

It's very easy to get away from the fact that people like and want dragon suplexes, powerbombs, superplexes, and so on, because it's been demonstrated time and time again that they like and want other stuff a lot more.

 

People just don't want to see guys thumb wrestling.

 

Of course not, but there's a demonstrable middle ground that's existed as long as wrestling has. Why you can't see it is beyond me.

 

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.

With the exception of Jushin Thunder Liger, no wrestler who has done a shooting star press has been super popular.

 

As for your examples of what people like, one of those things is not like the other. Track, hockey, and boxing are sports. Movies are a medium of fiction. Professional wrestling is not a sport. Professional wrestling is a medium of fiction. Wrestling fans want more intense drama. The nature of the genre means that drama might come through more hardcore action. It also might not.

 

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.

 

Alright, you've just gone completely off the rails into certifiable insanity. We, as human beings, perform surgery because we like gore? We witness childbirth because of the gore? You know, I always thought you were an idiot, but I at least thought you were a harmless one. I pray to God that you're a gimmick poster, because if not, you need to be locked up far, far away from decent society. The rest of your post doesn't matter. You're a sick, sick man.

[S.L.L.]

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.

 

I would suggest that neither of those are really different structures than the one I put forward, just specific variations within it.

 

I define the basic narrative structure as "The underdog hero trying to help humanity to some degree or another in spite of some kind of opposition more powerful than the hero."

 

It doesn't actually require a good vs. evil dynamic, though that is very common. Just underdog hero vs. more powerful opposition. In the case of the first story, we have two ways of looking at it. One is with Misawa as the hero, trying to retain his spot against the rougher, more brutish and aggressive challenger Kawada. The other is with Kawada as the hero, a skilled competitor trying to unseat Misawa, who by this point is established as "The Man", and has the weight of that bolstering him. Both ways fit the structure, which I think was one of the more compelling aspects to their feud.

 

The other can fit the structure for similar reasons, although it really requires a strong emotional connect to one side or the other, and that often means injecting face vs. heel elements into it, or otherwise giving the fans a reason to pick a side, otherwise, those matches do tend to be kind of empty.

 

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.

There are a lot of things you could say about the crowd's reaction to Cena, but "ambivalent" certainly isn't one of them. But going into the inner workings of that would require going into the inner workings of wrestling fans, and wrestling really isn't the crux of my essay. It just provides the anecdote that sets up everything. An examination of the psyche of wrestling fans would be an essay unto itself.

[Resident Evil]

....yet you continue to deny me my reality. I've said multiple times already that this is an aspect of wrestling, and an aspect of all storytelling, because it's a universal aspect of humanity. Whether or not it's the focus of any given work depends on how much the author chooses to emphasize it. Some stories emphasize it a lot. Some stories barely emphasize it at all. In professional wrestling, where the focus is always primarily on the conflict between two individuals, internal conflict is a much smaller focus than it is in other genres. Is it there? Yes. Is it actually played up to any significant degree? Sometimes, sure. Is it the focus of the whole damn genre? Fuck no, no matter how badly you want to believe it is.

 

This is not what I'm saying. I'm not saying any promotion focuses on all their individual wrestlers having Raven like problems as a marketing tool which is what you seem to want to think or to believe.

 

I'm talking more about what at the very core drives a wrestler to wrestle. They wrestle for themselves. Bret sums it up exceptionally well here with one of my fav most truthful quotes of all time .

http://youtube.com/watch?v=MLso1dU0LDY

 

Good for you. Just stop assuming your opinions are universal truths

Aren't you guilty of this?

 

 

Because they paid more money more often to see guys do leg drops, a crossface chickenwing, a figure-four leglock that never semed to work, punches, elbows, powerslams, iron claws, scorpion deathlocks, stunners, an especially goofy elbowdrop, and a big fireman's carry takedown than to see dragon suplexes, powerbombs, and superplexes.

 

In your vaunted Japan, they paid to see a kicks, lariats, elbowsmashes, and karate chops to the top of the head. They paid to see bigger moves, too, but I'm less than convinced that the popularity of Tatsumi Fujinami rode entirely on his doing the dragon suplex, or that the popularity of Jumbo Tsuruta rode entirely on his doing the powerbomb. Tiger Mask probably wouldn't have been nearly the star he was without his moves, but Sayama seems to have been a unique case.

 

In Mexico, where there allegedly is no psychology and everyone just does highspots, people were paying to see a camel clutch, a double stomp, a gorilla press, and majistral cradles.

 

It's very easy to get away from the fact that people like and want dragon suplexes, powerbombs, superplexes, and so on, because it's been demonstrated time and time again that they like and want other stuff a lot more.

Too much to talk about here.

First off, I assume you think all those moves are silly as they're examples of how people got by without using great moves. Well, I kind of like the leg drop, the crossface chickenwing is awesome and beliebable, elbows are terrific, slams can be great, scorpion deathlock is an excellent move, stunner is ok. So a lot of those aren't good to use a point there. The elbow drop is a clear cut comedy move used in dramatic situations and the fireman's takedown has backlash against it to the point where it turns people off the product despite all the marketing hype behind it.

 

Moves don't make a wrestler complete. Of course not, but they help an awful lot and they're a big part of what wrestling is. That Dynamite Kid guy did okay for himself. You're downplaying the importance of moves in wrestling. If we just wanted charisma we'd be watching something else or hanging out with a charsmatic friend. Is charisma important?? Yeah you better believe it is as it's all important but there's a reason people watch wrestling. It's to you know -- watch some wrestling in a well constructed format that manipulates our emotions. Moves are a signifigant part of the equation.

 

 

Of course not, but there's a demonstrable middle ground that's existed as long as wrestling has. Why you can't see it is beyond me

And here I am trying to get you to realize that there is middle ground.

 

 

With the exception of Jushin Thunder Liger, no wrestler who has done a shooting star press has been super popular.

 

As for your examples of what people like, one of those things is not like the other. Track, hockey, and boxing are sports. Movies are a medium of fiction. Professional wrestling is not a sport. Professional wrestling is a medium of fiction. Wrestling fans want more intense drama. The nature of the genre means that drama might come through more hardcore action. It also might not.

Track, hockey and boxing fans want more intense drama too. Wrestling fans want more drama too. Everyone likes drama unless they just want to rest or somthing. What's your point there?

 

Wrestling is different than movies and it's different than sport. It's kind of its own thing. Anyway, hardcore action in wrestling just like in other sports is where the foundation of what everything else has to come from. So I don't see where else you're going to get the intense drama at because it all has to come as result of the sporting like action. Unless we just watch invisible WWE backstage cameras all day long. Maybe they'll have debates over what type of pop is best. That'd be fun.

 

 

Alright, you've just gone completely off the rails into certifiable insanity. We, as human beings, perform surgery because we like gore? We witness childbirth because of the gore? You know, I always thought you were an idiot, but I at least thought you were a harmless one. I pray to God that you're a gimmick poster, because if not, you need to be locked up far, far away from decent society. The rest of your post doesn't matter. You're a sick, sick man.

I'm using an extreme example here to make a point. I was just thinking of the times I've helped to give birth before.

 

Now you're saying I said we like to preform surgery because we like gore. You're also saying I said we witness childbirth because of the gore. Well, I wouldn't say I really said that but there is actualy truth to it.

 

Ok, for stuff like surgery, open wouds, gore, childbirth or other extreme situations out of the the ordinary. People have reactions to this. They have biiiig reactions to this and it has to be this way. If there was no big reaction to stuff like this, than how could a woman get help if she was having trouble delievering? How could someone have surgery preformed on them? Nobody would care if there was no reaction. The child or the person who needs medical help could die if nobody aissists them.

 

There is a very high interest levels from humans for extreme situations like this. Like is a tricky word. Can you call that high interest level "like"? I think you can call it both "like" and "dislike" to be honost. It depends on the person. But there's no doubt that some people like that interest level. If they didn't, than we'd have less surgeons.

 

While I'm talking here, I may as well take some more. Sometimes people like these high interest situations too much imo. There are actually a lot of people who like gore. Maybe you live in the city so you don't realize this. I live in a rural community. A lot of guys like gore. They like killing. Myself, I don't. I'm actually a vegetarian.

 

But yeah, when someone like Sayama does something extreme like a space flying tiger drop back in the day it gets the same kind of heightened reaction that other extreme situations do just obviously on a much smaller scale.

 

And now to finish. You of all people shouldn't be talking about gimmick poster stuff as you yourself can come off as one at times. I remember you backpedalling in one thread on this board, you getting caught on DVDVR in one thread or your Vince Wrestlemania haircut thoughts. A lot of your wrestling opinions are way out there compared to the average folk and can be very easily thought of as gimmick or trolling stuff. Some of your statements here to me feel like trolling. Not that I feel there's anything wrong with those opinions as I was the one who invited you elsewhere. It's just that you don't have any legs to walk on if you're going to bring out the gimmick card.

[Bix]

I'm not sure how someone bleeding as a signal that they need help is like big moves being attractive unless you're saying that people are drawn to hemmoraging vaginas because they get off on the danger or something. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you don't mean that.

 

Moving on, I don't get how you're for extreme situations but against the use of chokeholds.

[Resident Evil]

Touching upon something that Res wrote about "fans want to see big moves," let me do this to put it into perspective.

 

Kurt Angle got criticized for doing his suplex off the top rope by popping up, running quickly to the corner where his opponent was on the top rope and then immediately suplexing him off.

 

Now what happens if the opponent goes to the top rope with Angle slowly coming to, then just as his opponent is up top, Angle lunges to the ropes and swats the top rope to crotch his opponent. Angle then pulls himself up and goes to the corner, climbs to the second rope, his opponent then fires a shot at him. Angle then exchanges shots with his opponent until Angle gets the better of him, then he hooks up the opponent and does his top rope suplex.

 

The second scenario makes the high spot more meaningful because you built anticipation to the spot taking place.

 

Fans may say they like high spots, but whether they admit or not, they are more drawn into matches in which anticipation is built and their emotions are tugged at, and the same fans who say "I want to see high spots" are likely the same people who are popping louder for the babyface who properly times his comeback and does it by throwing punches and then following it up with a clothesline.

This is a good, interesting post.

 

A lot of truth written here.

 

I want to talk about the Angle pop up belly to belly suplex.

 

It works and it doesn't work for some people. If it's used at the beginning of the match, I think everyone would be fine with it with perhaps the only complaint being it's giving away a high end move too early on.

 

Now the problem for some people comes when it's hit later on in a match as the nature of the move causes someone to "no sell", get up and run up the ropes for a belly to belly suplex. It's exciting, a great visual and makes Angle look awesome. His opponent looks tough too if he survives it. Both guys look great.

However, some people don't buy into it.They don't think it's possible for someone to do that in the match. They don't buy into what's going on. Others can though and believe what's going on in the ring. They can buy into it. They buy into Angle being tough, still hurt but fighitng it out!, the fun action and get more behind him because of the superhuman feat he just accomplished. They don't really think of it as no selling (I tend to think this way too) For them it works wonders since they can buy into everything i since they're not thinking of what others think "someone shouldn't be able to do" and are accepting what happened in front of them.

 

 

The second scenario you write for the pop up (well not popup anymore!) belly to belly suplex would probably work for more people (as those people who didn't like the pop up version will buy into this) though some of the fans of the pop up version might miss that version. But yeah, building anticipation is pretty much always a cool thing. It's all about tinkering with people's emotions. The best way to do it is a never ending debate.

[Resident Evil]

I'm not sure how someone bleeding as a signal that they need help is like big moves being attractive unless you're saying that people are drawn to hemmoraging vaginas because they get off on the danger or something. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you don't mean that.

 

Moving on, I don't get how you're for extreme situations but against the use of chokeholds.

I don't like babyfaces using chokeholds if I'm supposed to cheer for them. That's a move for a heel.

[Jingus]

In theory, babyfaces shouldn't wrestle dirty. In practice, the audience doesn't give a crap what their heroes do as long as they're popular enough. Hogan used choking, eyerakes, biting, and other heel tactics all the time back during Hulkamania; crowd still cheered. Steve Austin acts like a sociopath, jumps people from behind, merclilessly beats defenseless people, Stunners helpless women; crowd still cheered. Any time any babyface hits a referee or theoretically neutral person; crowd still cheers. (Having spent some time as a referee too, some crowds get downright vicious with the weird hatred towards the official; if the heel cheated to win, the crowd usually yelled more at the ref than at the heel!) Essentially, if the audience thinks you're cool enough, you can get away with anything. Meanwhile, if Randy Orton showed a videotape of himself saving children from a burning orphanage, the best reaction he could hope for is a confused silence.

 

As for the "heels have got to cheat, babyfaces have to wrestle clean, it's the only way to get heat" argument, refer to Mick Foley's chapter about his time in Memphis in his first autobiography. He does a better and more thorough demolition of that theory than I could.

[Loss]

I'm not against big highspots, but I don't care at all for big highspots that aren't sold well. Hogan/Bossman was built around an insane suplex from the cage spot, but what made it work was that they took the time to sell its damage afterward, usually for 2-3 minutes.

 

I think it's great that lots of young wrestlers have lots of great ideas and want to try new things and try new moves. I think where the veteran wrestlers/road agents come in is in disciplining them. Instead of using all 12 of their great ideas in one match, use two new ones in six separate matches, and get some deserved mileage out of them. It would serve them better and it would keep them from recycling stuff when they finally do start killing their brain cells with the death-defying stunts.

 

I know Bret Hart always talked about asking his opponent what his three big moves were, and just using that to structure an entire match.

[Loss]

In theory, babyfaces shouldn't wrestle dirty. In practice, the audience doesn't give a crap what their heroes do as long as they're popular enough. Hogan used choking, eyerakes, biting, and other heel tactics all the time back during Hulkamania; crowd still cheered. Steve Austin acts like a sociopath, jumps people from behind, merclilessly beats defenseless people, Stunners helpless women; crowd still cheered. Any time any babyface hits a referee or theoretically neutral person; crowd still cheers. (Having spent some time as a referee too, some crowds get downright vicious with the weird hatred towards the official; if the heel cheated to win, the crowd usually yelled more at the ref than at the heel!) Essentially, if the audience thinks you're cool enough, you can get away with anything. Meanwhile, if Randy Orton showed a videotape of himself saving children from a burning orphanage, the best reaction he could hope for is a confused silence.

 

As for the "heels have got to cheat, babyfaces have to wrestle clean, it's the only way to get heat" argument, refer to Mick Foley's chapter about his time in Memphis in his first autobiography. He does a better and more thorough demolition of that theory than I could.

Not that I disagree, but I think Hogan, Austin, Rock (and even Bret Hart to a lesser degree) having moral authority in storylines is more Vince's ego and world view manifesting itself in storylines than it is the way I like babyfaces being built up. If you look at the most successful non-WWF babyfaces, people like Dusty Rhodes and the Rock & Roll Express, they weren't given that absolute moral authority. On the flip side, I guess Jerry Lawler was, piledriving and punching valets like Angel.

 

I'm contradicting myself, so I'll stop. Regarding the WWE babyfaces, I will gladly acknowledge that you can't argue with success. I also acknowledge that I think part of the reason a section of the fanbase has rejected Cena in that role is because he hasn't been given that moral authority, a chance to do something "wrong" and have no one call him on it. Even Batista got that when he tricked Melina into giving it up just to make a point.

[Bob Morris]

The real problem with Austin's heel turn was the way they built to it. They never hinted that Austin might side with Vince McMahon, they just did it out of nowhere and, the next night on Raw, Austin just told them he didn't have to explain his actions. So fans had no incentive to boo Austin.

 

Had WWE built to it better, it might have worked. Instead, it was a case of WWE saying "we want to do this and we don't care what the fans think" and the result was a heel run that failed because fans never bought it in the first place.

[Dylan Waco]

This is a tremendous thread.

 

Quick thoughts and questions..

 

- I'm a big fan of that Waltman v. Bret match, but that powerbomb spot is actually one of the only actively bad portions of the match. It is something that goes against the entire flow of the match and steps outside of the theme of the bout itself. Here is my review of it

 

"Context is key in that match. A big part of the reason the match works as well as it does is because of what was going on around it. Waltman was extremely green and looked it. He had upset Razor Ramon to get his break, and Ramon was a top echelon guy in alot of ways because of his size and finisher. Bret was in his own right still kinda of viewed as a fluke champion in some ways. He hadn't really had a run of beating "big" guys that would establish him as a giant killer, which has really been the previous trend for WWF babyface champs.

 

So the dynamic was interesting. Kid was a major, major underdog, but Bret was kind of the underdog champion, so the heirchial style of match they worked here was actually pretty tricky. When Bret gives that look at the beginning it is almost a signal that it is a match of underdogs and underappreciated guys. Waltman gets to hang with Bret on the ground and work him over with some speed and they sort of play that Bret isn't taking him serously. Then Bret starts almost heeling on him with beatdown tactics and wear down holds, before Kid starts busting out with the high risk shit.

 

The high risk shit is really important for two reasons. In alot of peoples eyes Kid was more of an underdog opposite Ramon, than he was opposite Bret because of size/strength. He beat Ramon with high risk, so when he starts unloading flip planchas and top rope legdrops the nearfalls are really hot because Bret isn't as big or strong as Razor. Also it's important to remember that these sort of things were exceedingly rare at that period on U.S. tv, espcially that high up the card. So it is something different.

 

Really the finishing stretch to the match is great. Bret actually eats a nasty boot off of his second rope elbow for a nice transition. They do a really smart Waltman escape from the sharpshooter that sort of subtley puts him over. The run of nearfalls is really well done. The finish itself is also something I have always loved and remembered exactly from the first time I saw it, as Waltman missing a top rope dropkick, leading straight to a sharpshooter and an immediate submission, is really the perfect end to a match like this.

 

This match has been compared to Windham v. Scorpio before and in some ways it works, but it's structurally different because Windham was working big dominant champ v. Scorpio, whereas Bret was working developing underdog champ v. Kid.

 

One other thing, and this may seem minor, but my main criticism of the match is that Waltman uses a powerbomb. It probably seems really nitpicking to some, but really it was a poor choice. Waltman as underdog, flippy young guy, really doesn't work if he is using heavily protected big tiime power moves as setup spots that aren't even getting hot nearfalls. I wouldn't go so far as to say that it was precursor to the X Division style trash we see today, but it was the "little guys are technical and no every move" concept that did give rise to that feces and this is an early and inappropriate manifestation of it. "

 

- Loss' point about building to highspots and the effect they can have in that context is a really obvious point, but one that really is ignored by a lot of modern fans, even though they respond to that sort of match development with more excitiment, then they do to the average spotfest. I just rewatched Austin v. Bret SS 96 and the way they build to a standard superplex is really incredible and one of the really bright spots of a tremendous match.

 

- SLL how does a match like DDP v. Goldberg fit into the simple structure you talk about? Obviously it can be seen as a variation of the existing standard formula, but as the saying goes is a difference in degree if big enough a difference in kind? After all, Page was clearly the underdog BUT his finisher was seen as a legit killer, more dangerous than the unbeatable Goldberg even. So how do these "clash of the titans" style matches fit (Warrior v. Hogan for another example)?

[S.L.L.]

This is a tremendous thread.

 

Quick thoughts and questions..

 

- I'm a big fan of that Waltman v. Bret match, but that powerbomb spot is actually one of the only actively bad portions of the match. It is something that goes against the entire flow of the match and steps outside of the theme of the bout itself. Here is my review of it

 

.....

 

One other thing, and this may seem minor, but my main criticism of the match is that Waltman uses a powerbomb. It probably seems really nitpicking to some, but really it was a poor choice. Waltman as underdog, flippy young guy, really doesn't work if he is using heavily protected big tiime power moves as setup spots that aren't even getting hot nearfalls. I wouldn't go so far as to say that it was precursor to the X Division style trash we see today, but it was the "little guys are technical and no every move" concept that did give rise to that feces and this is an early and inappropriate manifestation of it. "

I saw it less as that and more as Kid getting really desperate down the stretch and pulling out a move you really wouldn't expect from a scrawny, flippy guy at the time. Your mileage may very and all that.

 

- SLL how does a match like DDP v. Goldberg fit into the simple structure you talk about? Obviously it can be seen as a variation of the existing standard formula, but as the saying goes is a difference in degree if big enough a difference in kind? After all, Page was clearly the underdog BUT his finisher was seen as a legit killer, more dangerous than the unbeatable Goldberg even. So how do these "clash of the titans" style matches fit (Warrior v. Hogan for another example)?

Those actually fit in much the same way the Misawa/Kawada series fit, where the story works two ways depending on who you choose to look at as the hero, because each side has a distinct advantage and a distinct disadvantage. In Goldberg/DDP, for example, you could look at it as underdog DDP going up against the dominant World Champ...OR, you could look at it as Goldberg, who has been dominant mostly against jobbers and midcarders, making one of his first major defenses against a main event-level player, and one with a killer, out-of-nowhere finisher at that. With Hogan vs. Warrior, you could look at it as Hogan, who had been "The Man" for some time, taking on a dominant young up-and-comer who many thought posed his greatest threat since Andre...OR you could look at it as the young up-and-comer Warrior, who has been dominant, but now challenges for a title held by the established "Man", himself an extremely dominant figure, who's been on top for six years, and all the historical weight that that carries.

[Jingus]

I don't think Goldberg/Page and Hogan/Warrior had much in common, besides being ridiculously better than they had any right to be. (That is, the FIRST Hogan/Warrior, not the one that happened on the same show as Goldberg/DDP.)

 

H/W was a match which was specifically designed to make Warrior look like Hogan's equal in terms of being an unstoppable superhero. They spent most of the match in a back and forth struggle where neither guy had the upper hand for long; I know part of the endless test-of-strength spots was just to fill time and work the crowd, but it also had the effect of making the two of them look about the same in terms of kayfabe strength and ability. The finish sort of kept Hogan strong even while it put Warrior over; it had that feel of "if Warrior hadn't avoided the legdrop, he would've lost". So Hogan fans could believe it was just a fluke loss to a guy who got lucky, while Warrior fans could be happy that their guy won clean.

 

Meanwhile, G/P was much more of a mismatch. Page was a guy who flirted with the main event, but lost half the time and had never won the championship or had a truly decisive and dominant win over a top guy. Meanwhile, Goldberg was mowing down everyone in his path; to him, the only difference betwen Jerry Flynn and Hulk Hogan was that Hogan took a little longer to beat. They did admittedly do a brilliant job at portraying Page as knowing that this was his one big shot, and that he was giving absolutely everything he had in the greatest effort of his life. As previously mentioned, he did have the Diamond Cutter, which iirc nobody had ever kicked out of. Sort of like old babyface Jake Roberts, a lot of DDP's matches turned into him getting the shit beaten out of him for 80% of the match until he suddenly hit his finisher for the win. In its build, this match was no exception. Goldberg controlled the majority of the match, and really only looked to be in jeopardy twice; and both those times (ramming the ringpost and the diamond cutter) he came back and recovered soon enough anyway. Page looked strong because he'd given The Man a harder fight than anyone else and made him look vulnerable even if it was only for a brief moment, but Goldberg was still clearly the nigh-invulnerable top guy in on the totem pole and Page went back to the midcard afterwards.

 

I just rewatched Austin v. Bret SS 96 and the way they build to a standard superplex is really incredible and one of the really bright spots of a tremendous match.

Oh yeah, that's another match which really deserves to be brought up in this kind of discussion, a true classic which is often unfairly forgotten amidst the other flashier and better-known Austin/Hart matches.

[ohtani's jacket]

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 agree that inner conflict plays a part in wrestling narratives, and if a wrestler is good at selling or acting you can see that struggle play out. I also agree that bigger moves lead to greater climatic action, provided there's enough pressure. One of the reasons Japanese wrestling is popular is that matches go to the end of the line; a type of final stand, where the big move comes from some inner reserve. However, I don't think fighting spirit has much to do with winning or losing. I suggest you watch the anime Ashita no Joe for more insight into this. What I disagree with is the idea that inner conflict is the basis for all wrestling narratives. "Story" in wrestling is based on personal conflict. It takes a hell of a lot for a wrestling match to reach the level of inner conflict. It requires more than a hard, physical match. Your average match simply doesn't have enough at stake.

 

As for variations on formula, they're fine and good, but first you need to master the form. A lot of young workers borrow shit from here, there and everywhere, from guys who spent years "mastering the form." You have to understand the form. otherwise it's like reinventing the wheel.

[Resident Evil]

.

 

As for variations on formula, they're fine and good, but first you need to master the form. A lot of young workers borrow shit from here, there and everywhere, from guys who spent years "mastering the form." You have to understand the form. otherwise it's like reinventing the wheel.

Very true.

 

More random thoughts

 

Today I was thinking about how the audience picks up on the stories or a wrestler's intentions in the ring. Since I've seen and read a lot of people's different opinions on stuff it's become apparent that some people pick up on stuff and some don't. What is obvious for one person or even the majority may not be obvious for another or a signifgant minority. Also, a story will hit harder for one person than the other.

 

I would also think that from the wrestler's perspective that it can be difficult to protray exactly what they want to at times. When you're in the match you know what's going on and what you're trying to do. It can be difficult to educate the fans on that.

 

I've read that there've been times where the fans got something from a match that a wrestler never intended to do or what fans think a wrestler never intended to do. Some people will look down at a match for this. This doesn't matter me though. The outcome is the outcome no matter what the intentions were.

 

Body language is so important. This has to be discussed more. The best actors make the stories all the better.

[Guest robgomm]

Interesting thread. Just a quick few points on formula:

 

Once you discover it, it is easy to see a wrestling match in terms of the shine, heat, comeback, finish formula. But that is a device. It is not the story. Story is dependent upon conditions such as a receptive crowd. It is not dependent upon formula which, if it becomes a crutch, creates a soulless non-spectacle. It must be tempting for wrestlers starting out to find a "how to" guide to working a match, like how it is temping to find the relevant guides if you want to start playing the guitar. But the step by step approach has real weaknesses when compared to actually just playing a guitar and learning from your experiences. Personally, I have the Charlie Kaufman hang up expressed in his film Adaptation, that the more structure is imposed on art (screenwriting, in his case) the more limited one's output can become. I'd say similar for wrestling. The story comes from within the two men wrestling in a match. It is up to them to express it. They may have months of promos and angles to guide them or they may be put in the ring together 30 minutes after arriving at a show having never met before. Ultimately, run-ins aside, they are the story and their interaction with one another, crowd communication and, if they have it (and if they don't they will soon gain it), experience will determine their effectiveness (level of entertainment).

[Kronos]

I was just this week watching AL SNOW: SECRETS OF THE RING. His contention was that there's really only one story to be told: You are either trying to win (or else not lose). He argued that the fans know it's all worked these days, of course, the same way they know Tobey McGuire can't walk up walls, but they want to be given a reason to suspend their disbelief. So you have to make them believe that you really care to win.

 

That means no "rest holds", where both guys are just sitting on the mat in a headlock or the like. It means that if you are down on the mat, you must be trying to get up because you don't want to lose. It means that the heel shouldn't do something right in front of the ref because it could get him disqualified -- and he doesn't want to lose.

 

One other thing he said that was interesting is that you don't want to give all your heat to the ref. If you do something in front of the ref that should have gotten you in trouble but doesn't, then the ref now has your heat. And no one is there to watch the ref's story! So it comes back to the original story of winning or at least not losing.

[S.L.L.]

Interesting thread. Just a quick few points on formula:

 

Once you discover it, it is easy to see a wrestling match in terms of the shine, heat, comeback, finish formula. But that is a device. It is not the story. Story is dependent upon conditions such as a receptive crowd. It is not dependent upon formula which, if it becomes a crutch, creates a soulless non-spectacle. It must be tempting for wrestlers starting out to find a "how to" guide to working a match, like how it is temping to find the relevant guides if you want to start playing the guitar. But the step by step approach has real weaknesses when compared to actually just playing a guitar and learning from your experiences. Personally, I have the Charlie Kaufman hang up expressed in his film Adaptation, that the more structure is imposed on art (screenwriting, in his case) the more limited one's output can become. I'd say similar for wrestling. The story comes from within the two men wrestling in a match. It is up to them to express it. They may have months of promos and angles to guide them or they may be put in the ring together 30 minutes after arriving at a show having never met before. Ultimately, run-ins aside, they are the story and their interaction with one another, crowd communication and, if they have it (and if they don't they will soon gain it), experience will determine their effectiveness (level of entertainment).

For all my talk about the importance of structure and formula, it should be noted that this is the flipside of that issue, and is pretty important to keep in mind. Structure needs to be present, but structure by itself is just structure. Using a proven formula doesn't mean it will do all the work for you. Using structure and formula doesn't produce compelling art if you're just going to go through the motions with it. And, of course, the more structure you apply, the more limitations you put on your work, although for individual works, that's not necessarily a bad thing, and some artists with limited talents might be well-advised to hold themselves to a structure that will highlight their strengths and hide their weaknesses.

[Loss]

I was just this week watching AL SNOW: SECRETS OF THE RING. His contention was that there's really only one story to be told: You are either trying to win (or else not lose). He argued that the fans know it's all worked these days, of course, the same way they know Tobey McGuire can't walk up walls, but they want to be given a reason to suspend their disbelief. So you have to make them believe that you really care to win.

 

That means no "rest holds", where both guys are just sitting on the mat in a headlock or the like. It means that if you are down on the mat, you must be trying to get up because you don't want to lose. It means that the heel shouldn't do something right in front of the ref because it could get him disqualified -- and he doesn't want to lose.

 

One other thing he said that was interesting is that you don't want to give all your heat to the ref. If you do something in front of the ref that should have gotten you in trouble but doesn't, then the ref now has your heat. And no one is there to watch the ref's story! So it comes back to the original story of winning or at least not losing.

This is mostly correct I think but I take exception to the bolded part. Stationary moves aren't "rest holds" unless they're poorly worked. Just sitting in a headlock is an example of a headlock sequence being done wrong, not a case for headlocks never being used in matches.

 

I don't know that that's what you meant though.

[Kronos]

I was just this week watching AL SNOW: SECRETS OF THE RING. His contention was that there's really only one story to be told: You are either trying to win (or else not lose). He argued that the fans know it's all worked these days, of course, the same way they know Tobey McGuire can't walk up walls, but they want to be given a reason to suspend their disbelief. So you have to make them believe that you really care to win.

 

That means no "rest holds", where both guys are just sitting on the mat in a headlock or the like. It means that if you are down on the mat, you must be trying to get up because you don't want to lose. It means that the heel shouldn't do something right in front of the ref because it could get him disqualified -- and he doesn't want to lose.

 

One other thing he said that was interesting is that you don't want to give all your heat to the ref. If you do something in front of the ref that should have gotten you in trouble but doesn't, then the ref now has your heat. And no one is there to watch the ref's story! So it comes back to the original story of winning or at least not losing.

This is mostly correct I think but I take exception to the bolded part. Stationary moves aren't "rest holds" unless they're poorly worked. Just sitting in a headlock is an example of a headlock sequence being done wrong, not a case for headlocks never being used in matches.

 

I don't know that that's what you meant though.

 

You are absolutely correct. The issue is not using a headlock. It's using it badly. If you are trying not to lose, then you should be struggling. You should all the time be fighting to get on top of the guy to pin him, and you certainly don't want yourself to be pinned or submitted. Snow was clear on that point -- I just described it poorly!

[Guest robgomm]

The problem with looking for stories that aren't there in pro wrestling is that the stories ARE there, and they're all very upfront. So in general, when you find a deeper meaning to a match, it's usually the product of an overactive imagination. Not that that's always bad. I love the Headhunter vs. Headhunter glass death match, partially because I saw a story there where A (I think) was dominating early, but had to put B away fast, or else his cardio would give out, and B just had to survive until that happened. I'm sure that was all in my head, but I enjoyed it. I just wouldn't go around calling The Headhunters masters of psychology for telling a story that they weren't even really telling.

This was a point I planned on making too, but it's said well here. I wrote a bit about a Michaels-Hardy match from earlier this year where I was convinced the whole story was based around counters to create the idea that they were on the same level (this was February when the Hardy push to Wrestlemania was on) before Hardy went on to win, giving him an edge but keeping both men strong. I read a lot into little moments but I've no factual basis for it. Analysing wrestling is so interpretive that, as SLL says, one can see what may not be there. Although, I believe in everything Dick Murdoch does.

 

Edit: Quoted the wrong date here originally (did it manually and messed up).

[Indikator]

This is mostly correct I think but I take exception to the bolded part. Stationary moves aren't "rest holds" unless they're poorly worked. Just sitting in a headlock is an example of a headlock sequence being done wrong, not a case for headlocks never being used in matches.

 

I don't know that that's what you meant though.

When I got into old school (Pre WWII) wrestling and World Of Sports I was suprised how fast they always returned into the standup position. I got used to it quite fast and now I can really appreciate it, although it is not a thing you can do in todays normal 10 minute US-style match . On the other hand it could really improve a 60 minute match.