WingedEagle

Or in just about any other company.

That's my understanding as well, with the Joe/Aries types getting paid differently than truly developmental workers, and folks like Nak/Balor getting different money to come in as well. Nak reportedly got legit upper card money, whatever that may mean, while Balor is undoubtedly making more than developmental but perhaps not "big" midcard money. I will happily dismount my unicorn and bend the knee when someone making developmental money says no thanks to the WWE brand and associated pay raise so they can continue enjoying tapings at Full Sail University.

Brock's lower legs do look unusually small given how massive he is otherwise.

Which few have turned down a pay raise? Not inquiring about those who are happy in NXT and not in love with the idea of leaving, but rather the wrestlers who said no thanks to being called up and the bump in pay that comes with it.

Entirely possible that she's making more than the latest signee, and hopefully so. Especially with merchandise money. I don't believe its been reported that anyone other than Balor & Nakamura were given deals commensurate with those on the main roster, but a couple names could be escaping me. If they're not on a psuedo-developmental deal then its potentially a very different decision.

Its cool, everyone in NXT is a virtuous purist who only cares about the art of wrestling. They're all going to seek out those opportunities that maximize their personal and professional satisfaction, except for what they earn. If that makes sense to you that's really great.

People in NXT have said they would rather stay down, because of what happened to guys like Tyler Breeze. Not buying it for a second. They want to earn a living like everyone else does. So... they are lying then? Ok?? Like Matt said, Bayley would probably make more in merch working for NXT then when she goes on the main roster and that goes away. I'll believe the starving artist bit when they walk from the perpetually danging carrot that exists with employment at NXT. They may very well be happier working in NXT, but get back to me when one turns down a call up and pay raise.

People in NXT have said they would rather stay down, because of what happened to guys like Tyler Breeze. Not buying it for a second. They want to earn a living like everyone else does.

I can't imagine for a minute that anyone wants to stay in NXT. As great a time as they may be having, its still the minor leagues regardless of the politics and other issues in the majors. That whole paycheck thing also comes into play.

Just watched his match from the '85 Young Lions Cup. Don't know how many official matches he had under his belt at that point, but my god was he really good even that early. It still amazes me how someone that small and fast often wrestled so big. At no point in his career as the preeminent junior heavyweight did he feel like a stereotypical flyer.

Fair enough, will limit it to the post-Joe stuff. No appetite for the snuff film tributes.

How much of his work is crazy brawling as opposed to death match stuff, with which I associate light tubes, glass panes or similarly homicidal foreign objects? Could be completely off base there but my impression has been he primarily works in that sphere and am curious if that's accurate. If not, definitely someone to look into more down the road.

It seems like there are a handful of Necro matches people tout. Maybe 5-7. Are there other standouts? Joe, Super Dragon, Ki, a couple others cited in the thread so I'm curious if he's ranking for people on the basis of top-shelf material or if there's a greater depth supporting it.

Really enjoyable read. Could read a much longer version as well -- never gets old seeing interesting folks talk about wrestling.

No question that familiarity enhances viewing and is important with any serial, but I do not equate familiarity with watching a ton of something at once. If that's required to appreciate WWE, AJPW or any other program then I'd contend the people behind creative are doing a poor job.

I think this is at least partially a function of deference to the wrestling canon. If one removes the widely accepted hardcore fan notion of the artistic genius and depth of AJPW from the equation, it is very difficult for me to see any reason why Kawada and Misawa would care about something like "learned psychology" more than Cesaro and Kofi Kingston. I suppose you could make the argument that truly great wrestlers will sort of innately gravitate toward those sort of more subtly intelligent ways of working, but I think that's more of a stretch. To my eyes there are really two different arguments at play in this thread. One is a sort of denial-ism and seems to be led by Parv. Here the argument seems to be that much of what hardcore fans see as "learned psychology" is just an exercise in narrative creation on the part of the viewer. I think there is some truth to that, but much less truth to it than I would have believed as recently as two years ago. There are two reasons for my changed opinion on this. The first is my obsessive/immersive wrestling habits. I find that when I jump in and watch a ton of something at once I find these connective tissues more often. No doubt some of that is narrative creation, but in many cases I will see a spot from one match that is countered in a unique way in another that seems to clearly signal "you aren't going to do that to me again." In many cases it is so explicit that I think it almost defies common sense to see it as accidental, or lacking in intent. The other factor that changed my thought on this was getting to know more people in the wrestling business. I have zero interest in turning this thread into an "I'm an insider and know how things really work!" stroke fest. I'm not an insider and I don't think knowing people in the business makes me a "better fan" or some dumb horseshit like that. That said several performers I know have volunteered to me examples of things they have done in matches which explicitly played off of previous matches. This was not done in the context of a discussion on "learned psychology" and in more than one case was presented as something that they see as separating great workers from good workers. Now you might think that take is bullshit, and you might think it points to a less authentic way of performing (I'm sort of anticipating potential arguments from Parv here), but the theme of "learned psychology" as a deliberate practice among people I know is too consistent for me to be a denier, particularly as it pertains to modern wrestling. The second position - or the Loss position if I may - seems to be that even if "learned psychology" is a common trait of certain modern WWE performers, it's not really psychology in the traditional pro wrestling sense because it isn't catered to the correct target audience. I assume he would take any performer who engages in this practice in the WWE as being self humoring at worst, or playing to the wrong crowd for the wrong reasons at best. The deeper argument seems to be that psychology is largely about controlling the crowd, and this sort of inside baseball is ultimately ineffective at doing that. In that sense it seems to be a variant of denial-ism which argues that "learned psychology" cannot be real psychology in the WWE because of who their target audience is. I admit that I reject this argument in part because I see it as the Bush v. Gore of pro wrestling critical debate. While I am of course a believer that different crowds want different things, I am deeply suspicious of the idea that only WWE crowds are incapable of grasping these things, and thus "learned psychology" is not real psychology solely in the confines of the WWE. It is possible that this is a leap I've made and Loss is not actually arguing this, but it seems to be strongly implied if nothing else so I don't feel wrong questioning it. Here I would argue that A. I don't think the target audience is exclusively 8 year olds and B. Even if it is, true immersive/obsessive viewing of the product (which is unquestionably what the WWE wants) is going to result in people catching many of these things even if they are 8 years old or even younger. To the first point, while there is no doubt a struggle between Vince's vision and the vision of others, I don't see much evidence that Vince sees his core audience as young children. I think it is absolutely fair to say he wants to hook people as children and maintain them as lifelong fans, but he is not in the business of promoting a live action Spongebob Squarepants. He is very aware of the fact that he has adult fans, and I think his product is generally presented in an attempt to appeal to many audiences. Beyond that it seems obvious to me that being a good worker has never meant more than it means now when it comes to being pushed as a core attraction, and the WWE's own strategy seems to indicate that they understand that online/hardcore fans represent a substantial portion of their fanbase. To the second point even if Vince were promoting a product explicitly targeted to third graders, I don't think it means that working matches that play off other matches would the wrong move. In fact I think that working matches for an audience that is likely to be more obsessive in their viewing habits (as children seem to be from my own experience as a parent) is actually quite smart, especially when it comes to someone working within the context of a weekly television product. I know from my brothers that they seemed to pick out these things when they were younger and I don't think they were exceptions. I can also recall occasions sitting next to kids at wrestling shows where they had to explain to their disinterested parents why a certain move was attempted and failed and why it was significant. All of this suggests to me that this isn't over the head of 8 year olds by it's very nature whether they are the core audience or not. The fact is that Cesaro was one of the two or three most over guys on the entire roster when he went out with injury. I think there are valid arguments about whether or not he could be a top guy, but he was over. Christian was the ace of a lame duck brand, and his long title matches seemed to be worked specifically to get the crowd very invested in him and his work. He remained over despite being booked in a position that was ultimately destined to fail. Were these guys over because of their use of "learned psychology" (which I annoyingly keep putting in quotes)? That seems a stretch. But the point is that they weren't drawing critics when they were using it. So at worst those traits were embedded Easter Eggs for fans who were paying attention in performances that were connecting on a broader level. And to that end I think the critique of it fails. At the end of the day I think the real divide here is between those who immerse themselves in a product and those who watch less consistently and/or cherry pick. I don't think this is restricted to this debate either. I think similar things can be said about those who don't "get" lucha, or myself as it pertained to Joshi before I decided to just dive right in. I may write about this more later, but one of the things I've learned about myself through this project is that immersion is really critical to understanding certain aspects of various wrestling products. Would be very interested to hear more on the bolded paragraph. If this psychology requires watching a ton of something at once is it realistic to expect even a significant portion of the paying audience to pick up on it? In WWE, is that possible on top of all the commentary and noise that is often explicitly geared to take your attention away from the actual in-ring? If the point is that it requires studious, obsessive viewing then that seems to collapse the entire point.

I don't want to be the cranky old guy, but there is absolute validity to an absence of stickiness today. Its very easy for things to get lost in the shuffle of a 3+ hour Raw that is followed by a 2 hour Smackdown and a 3 hour PPV and and a 3 hour ROH show and an Arena Mexico show and then another Raw followed by a 60 minute NXT and then a 2 hour Takeover and then a 3+ hour Raw and 4 pages of discussion on some, and sometimes all, of these things, at least in these parts. Yes, that sentence went 26.2 miles for a purpose. Its why the opportunity is there for a Reigns/Lesnar to stand out because its in the spotlight position at Wrestlemania, or for a match with a build of more than a few haphazard quarters hours to stand out in our minds for more than a couple days. I think its a disadvantage for the current product as the burden to become memorable is that much greater. This isn't to comment -- at all -- on the quality of today versus yesteryear, but there was much more room for things to breather in prior eras.

Barring a spectacular turn of events mine will be coming on Mania day.

Highly inappropriate to bring up Nickelback here unless its specifically for the purposes of denigrating a Canadian wrestler.

Not defending the current state of creative, but the injury situation is pretty devastating for Mania season. I hope they examine whether its a whole lot of fluky injuries or a result of training/style because you do not want a repeat of this.

Anyone read Big Gold?

If the news doesn't make me break the TV, wrestling sure isn't. But it can be muted or left alone while I check on business elsewhere around the house. Much like if the Jets don't resign Fitz and actually trot out Geno again this year I'll spend Sundays on Red Zone or the other games. TV must live!

If the 'Birds come out and tar & feather New Day I'll give up the Network and commit to buying every show on PPV forever.

That's pretty much where I am as well. Not sure how many other wrestlers were more fun to watch, and if I can find room for some people who didn't have the advantage of working classic main events he's right at the top of the list. Best thing I can say about Muraco is that when I was growing up and watching with my babysitter, she said we had to like him because at that time he was with Superstar Graham. As always she was right. About Graham.

Been watching a bunch of WCW on the Network lately, and I really want to include Goldberg. The matches aren't great, but they are great fun. Based on the criteria that have been guiding my thinking he doesn't stand a chance, but there's always the exception to prove the rule. Or some nonsense like that.