JerryvonKramer

Made this thread in honour of Ian McShane's recent antics spoiling Game of Thrones willy nilly. I haven't read the spoiler, but I loved the heel promo he cut on internet nerds: Tremendous heeling.

It's from one of my 80s faves, Time Bandits.

This is probably my favourite ep of BTS yet, and also one of my favourite single wrestling pod episodes ever. I saw some people on FB giving Beau stick for being "too southern", but honestly, the dude is just absolutely awesome and the real deal. The Memphis portion of this show was brilliant. I mean the stuff on its own speaks for itself, that entire feud is some all-time promo work and storytelling. But I loved how you guys guided us through it. I also wanted to put over just how awesome this episode is from start to finish. You should have Beau back like every 4-5 eps I reckon. With everything we've put out in the past couple of weeks, even if I say so myself, March 2016 so far has got to be one of the better months that any wrestling feed has put out.

I preach this regularly. Context matters. Selling and psychology are different for every promotion. Dragon Gate is different from 80's New Japan. Most wrestling is great, it's just different. I do agree that everything -- and I mean everything (not just wrestling) -- can be great if you get into it enough and understand it from the inside out.

I don't know if I had one beyond pointing out that the flip does give him different options.

I'm not sure I'd lean on the options argument if I wanted to defend it, that was really something I just pulled out of my arse bored during a Terry Taylor match (but being Flair, he then went on to have a 4.75 with Taylor in the next one, so y'know). My main defence would be to look instead had how much MOTION Flair creates in his matches -- Flair flip is just one such way. This is the biggest thing that stands out if you move from watching 70s footage to watching Flair. Where your 70s match might have a bit of rope running or a few throws, for the best part, the guys are static in the middle of the ring. This is even more marked if you go back and watch a 1950s match. They just stay in one area for most of the time. Flair, though, he's here, there, everywhere, up on the turnbuckle, outside the ring, over on the other turnbuckle, there's just so much damn movement. And if the aim of a wrestling match is to keep the audience engaged and from getting bored, that's what he's doing. It's not just a cheap pop, it's keeping you awake and engaged. And if we really want to talk about Flair's intentions and Flair the man and what he says in shoots, he's consistently been down on guys like Johnny Valentine or Dory Funk Jr for just laying in headlocks. Flair believed in action. He was an all-action all-the-time wrestler. And the Flair flip is just part of that "all-action" effect his matches have.

How about Randy Colley? For a guy who was in a lot of very good matches.

I think I'd probably co-sign all of this. I think WingedEagle and I have a lot of similarities as fans.

I can't see how you won't think it's like ... a masterpiece. I'm not even being snarky. Straight shoot.

I think this was an intelligent point well made. Believe it or not, I agree with it. I think I agree with all of this too.

I still think this way of looking at things comes out with Mr Fuji vs. Chief Jay Strongbow as the best match of all time. And if that is the case, surely something has gone wrong. In terms of "efficency and effectiveness", I cannot really think of a match that touches it.

I thought this thread needed more of this picture. I am actually going to read it properly now from the start.

Intentionality is a slippery slope. Analyse the work, not the man. I also wonder -- and this is just wondering aloud -- if the "working smart" stuff is a lot of Johnny logic. I am not specifically having a go at Matt or Steven, but the concept still feels nebulous and fuzzy to me and I like clarity. That stuff I mused on about the Flair flip is just a test case.

Just wanted to mention that Gordon Solie and Coach Heath teach me a shit load about wrestling psychology any time I hear them on old Florida footage. In terms of a pure colour analyst Heath might be the best there ever was. If you have even a passing interest in the topic I'd encourage you to seek out matches he calls just purely to LEARN stuff.

Well, the evidence would be the four different things he does from the spot. Intention has no bearing either [/barthes]

I guess I'm looking at it less as a piece of kayfabe strategy and more from the point of view of giving him creative options for transitions as a worker.

The mugging for the camera line comes from my recent viewing of Tanahashi vs Suzuki in which that seemed to fill in for actual selling. I think Cena might be guilty of it too on occasion.

I'd like someone who is an advocate of "working smart" to comment on this bit of analysis of the Flair flip as him actually "working smart" because it gives him multiple transitional options as a worker: I see that spot brought up a lot as a way of knocking Ric.

We've talked about the general idea plenty but not the term. Kinda funny cos in 1998 Misawa knows no one is gonna be put away with the Tiger Driver, so he doesn't even wait for a one count.

Here is the single highlight of Strongbow's career: It's a clip of Ernie Ladd shoving feathers down his stupid fake Indian epileptic fit mouth. The only good thing he ever did was that and getting his leg broken by Greg Valentine, and even then fucking Wahoo did it better.

Chief Jay Strongbow. I wish he'd never been born.

That is 100% what I meant when I said this... I can analyze matches to death, but some wrestlers just work because they work. Trying to figure out why every little thing matters is kind of ageainst the point. My process is to do a first watch and to see whether or not I like a match before doing a rewatch and figure out why I did or did not like it. There are plenty of matches I've enjoyed and thought, "wow, that was great," and then realized that it doesn't really lend itself to further analysis. Somethings are just good because they are good, and I'm fine with that. To me this would be fine if we were rating matches, but that's not the question GWE asks.

Separate the shoot trainees from the worked trainees.

I think it's a cool concept.

I'd probably circle the phrase with a red pen and write "can you develop this?" in the margin.