JerryvonKramer

Maybe an easier way of putting that is the difference between analysing the motivations of Hamlet, the character, the imagined real person in the world of the play, and the motivations of Shakespeare the actual playwright giving him words to say. We do the former, the latter is rightly frowned on and can't ever really be known. And even if he was sitting here now telling us why, it just wouldn't matter to our readings of the play. Same with a wrestling match.

Not really, you can analyse the work and read things into the match. That is the job of criticism. The actual intentions of the workers and what they say about the match themselves is not relevant. I don't just believe this of wrestling but also of something as complex as a Shakespeare play. We should also probably separate out the intention of the worker (shoot) and the intention of the worker (kayfabe). In the vast majority of these cases talking about psychology we are talking about the make-believe world of the kayfabe match and we measure psychology on that level of buy-in.

Dylan, the problem of intentionality as it relates to any sort of artist or writer or performer is that it could be post-hoc justification. We just have no way of knowing. Listen to Jack Brisco commentating over his own matches in the Florida stuff. Can we know he intended all the things he claims or is he making it up as he's watching it back with Gordon Solie? We just don't know. And wrestlers are the world's greatest bull shit artists.

I think Tim L said it on the recent podcast they did.

Why is the conclusion to all that not just "wrestling was way better then"?

@Jingus - Masterpiece feels a little strong. Take a look over my reviews of some of Angle's other 2001 matches and tell me if you think I'd still find it a masterpiece: http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?/topic/33658-where-the-big-boys-play-82-top-100-greatest-wrestlers-ever-special-part-2-top-40/?p=5734565

So Angle is basically a Steiner brother?

This post got a good little chuckle out of me.

I decided not to bother going further with Scoprio after he didn't impress me in quite a few to matches I watched when looking at other guys. To me he seems a wildly eccentric pick for best US worker of the 90s, but I know he has his backers.

Can you explain what that psychology is?

Some related reading relevant to OJ's post: http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?/topic/26542-do-standards-change-in-wrestling/

No, I'm not, but I've enjoyed the project a lot. I find that pretty strange you'd spend so much time but not put in a ballot. I don't think there's a single voter who wouldn't want to see it!

That's such a skewered view of things. Watching the Brisco/Funk match from Florida the football coach specifically mentioned that older workers didn't have the conditioning or athleticism of the modern worker. The increase in the level of action in pro-wrestling matches is primarily a matter of evolution and not related to skill level. And don't be knocking cotton candy or fireworks. They're bigger institutions than pro-wrestling will ever be and matter more to people than working ever will. Hell, in Japan it's the short-lived beauty of fireworks that make them a cultural institution much like cherry blossoms. You and Joe Lanza can push this evolution line together. Have fun watching your fireworks.

See discussion here: http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?/topic/28804-cesaro/?p=5735219 Serves as a decent continuation. I fully maintain and stand by what I've said.

Whereas live crowds tend to go apeshit for Shawn Michaels and Kurt Angle matches, despite the fact that a lot of people here think neither one of those guys "knows how to work". It's all in what you value as an individual. There is more to this. Workers since the days of Hackenschmidt and Gotch have understood crowds go wild for high spots and action. Lou Thesz knew it. Johnny Valentine knew it. The art of working was in controlling the crowd rather than pandering to them. Bringing them up and down. Working towards a high spot to maximise its impact rather than going straight to it. In other words, Kurt Angle is getting cheap pops with his go go style. He doesn't know how to build a match so instead he blindsides the crowd and works them into a frenzy with action. It's the wrestling equivalent of cotton candy or a firework display. Firework displays have a long history of dazzling crowds, but they are quickly forgotten.

Worth pointing out that the crowds are noticeably silent for the Regal vs Finlay matches.

OJ are you submitting a ballot?

This is also true of works much much more complex than your typical wrestling match. Imagine William Shakespeare somehow time traveled to here. His mind would be totally blown by the fact that there are 200,000+ books analysing his works and a full week of people gathered here to discuss them which has been happening every year for over four decades. If you look at intention half the time he was trying to draw a crowd to his theatre and not a lot else.

I believe a lot of that stuff is in the eye of the beholder and if you actually asked Cesaro about any of it he'd be like "huh? I was just working a ten minute match and going home". Not that it matters. There's a distinction between the artist, the work and the critic. A huge amount of the narratives we talk about in our analyses are pretty much just constructed by us. I fully believe that if you sat down with Kawada and talked him through the supposed psychology of most of his bouts he'd wonder what planet you are on. But the intention of the workers has no bearing on anything. Stuff might be done in the moment that works for a narrative someone is looking for, but which just happened at a sub-conscious level for the worker.

Psychology is subjective and context matters in every situation, so that's a pretty lofty claim that I don't find to be true whatsoever. Let's not continue this.

Beautiful post.

If you think Lawler was the best worker of the 80s, does that mean you have Angle ahead of all the other workers of the 80s?

^ and just to finish up on the computer game point. I do think it's all about branding and recognising that each guy does these signature spots and that's it. Like their character is basically incapable of doing things outside of that. I have become convinced that Vince has each worker make a move list and forbids them from going outside it. Also that Curt Hennig as a rib just wrote "Flying mare, drop kick, reverse knife edge, knee lift, perfectplex" not realising he was about to fuck himself over.

I think that's actually changed, Parv, maybe if only because Vince doesn't have as close a handle on things as he once did. It was on shows like the ignored WWECW in 07-09 where you really started to see this sort of thing rise up, or on Smackdown where it was obvious far less attention was being paid, or on the C-Shows, where you could tell just by the announcing that they didn't have that same level of "Adult Supervision". Then it bled into the three hour Raws as well. It's arguable that this had something to do with a generation of wrestlers coming in that were somehow different from the ones before, but there's a lot on the plate here.How about the PPVs? I felt Regal basically just did the same match over and over when I watched the stuff a few weeks back. I've noticed the same thing with Ted, same stuff, same order, same transitions. Same is true of Bret. Basically anyone I've done a dive on from any period between about 88 and now and I see that same basic TV match from each guy. The thing I am always put in mind of is a computer game. Where like each button does a set move and that's ALL they can do. WWF/E style seems to be all about that. Same moves, same transitions, same order, again and again and again. It is too regular to be a coincidence and we know the company is run by a control freak.

I thought one of the Cena vs Rock matches was a crime against wrestling. Think I gave it a minus rating. Pretty sure it was the rematch.