BillThompson

It blew mine, because that's definitely not what I was expecting. It's not that Orton didn't try, but Hogan was on fire in that match and he took charge, carrying Orton's hand the entire way and producing a really good 6 minute match as a result.

I've always thoughtthat more Suplexes came about because of the advent of more TV. People needed to stand out and they needed moves that could end matches in a quicker fashion due to the restrictions of TV and thus power moves were born. As time went on the moves got bigger and bigger, as well as flashier and flashier with more and more variations. I'm not actually an anti-moves guy, as the array of moves that exist in pro wrestling is one of my favorite things about the sport. The proliferation of moves had to start somewhere, will be interesting to read what others have to say.

I'm in the Parv boat on this one, and I think that we're too narrowly defining spotfest and story/narrative. There are also some important elements that can go into a spotfest that are being glossed over. Across the board every art form has the style versus substance debate, and it's frustrating to engage in that debate at times. Art is malleable, and categorizing a spotfest as strictly "this" or "that" limits what the performers may have been trying for or even what they may have accomplished. I certainly do think a straight spotfest can tell a story without relying on selling, limb work, and the like. It all depends on the performers and how effective they are at spot placement, construction, execution, and flow. Innovation and inventiveness aren't indicators of a great match by themselves. Just because a team can do a 450 Splash Spike Tombstone Piledriver doesn't mean there's value to the move. However, inventiveness and innovation can be a great boon to a match and that's often the case in spotfests. One of the reasons I'm so high on the Hardy Boyz versus Edge & Christian from No Mercy '99 (as well as their series of gimmick matches in general) is how they were inventive and innovative in implementing their spots. Nothing they did felt shoehorned into the match, rather the spots they were hitting felt natural and like they flowed from what came before. From that presentation a story arose, and I'm not sure if the wrestlers intended for that story to be present, but it's still there and it's a damn fine story. The reason I made my initial statement is because I do believe a great spotfest is just as great as a great brawl, great mat based match, great garbage match, and so on and so forth. Wrestling isn't just one thing, just like movies aren't just one thing or books aren't just one thing. Substance isn't always needed for something to be great, sometimes all that is needed is tremendous style.

Aside from the last response I'm not sure if they are bring written off around these parts. But, in other sections of the online wrestling world there does appear to be the notion that spotfests are subpar wrestling.

This is a more concise, and better way, of stating my point.

I find Daniel Bryan or any number of others to produce more realistic looking pro wrestling matches than they do. I find a punch from Goldust more realistic looking than Thatcher's grappling.I literally just spent two hours on the mats watching far more realistic grappling. The most realistic looking pro-wrestling bouts historically have been catch-as-catch bouts. No matter what sport you train in that remains true. The problem with taking real submissions and actual grappling and applying them to a pro wrestling match is that you can't really put on the move with any sort of conviction......because if you did, that would be the end the match. So while you might find those more realistic, I find them more obviously not. It's why I hate moves like arm bars in pro wrestling. If you lock in an armbar properly, the other guy taps. In pro wrestling though, a guy can survive an armbar for two minutes and make a comeback. It makes a match look silly and (more) noticeably a work. When I watch Thatcher or the others in these 'realistic' matches, I see bad positioning and misapplied subs. And this is because they have to do that in order to let the other counter and survive. And beyond that, those matches are the grappling version of a match filled with pointless flippitydoos. Move, move, reverse, reverse, strike, strike, move, move, random finish that wasn't built up to at all. Finally, as Joe alluded to above, real grappling is boring as shit. Seriously. YouTube "most exciting jiu jitsu match" and see for yourself. That's why pro wrestling is worked in the first place....make it more exciting, not more realistic. You're asking for MMA, but pro wrestling isn't MMA. Real in pro wrestling isn't the same as real in a fight. We rave about the punches of Jerry Lawler, but if one wanted to they could easily say, "the problem with Jerry Lawler's punches is that they should knock a guy out, but they are thrown the wrong way and they don't." Looking at pro wrestling through real fight/MMA eyes is a lose lose situation, because pro wrestling is about looking and feeling realistic, not being realistic. As for the random finishes, that's a simple lack of understanding of the catch-as-catch style. The finish isn't random, it's a wrestling move, and thus from the beginning of the match until the end the finish can be any move because the style makes it where any move at any time could finish the match. Truth be told I enjoy that more than the "here's a bunch of moves, but don't worry none of them matter or should be taken seriously until I hit my signature finisher." Lastly, grappling most certainly isn't boring as shit. I watch the nationals, world cup, NCAA championships, go to local NAGA competitions and I enjoy myself. Grappling is a wonderful and exciting thing, both in real combat sports and in pro wrestling. There can most certainly be bad grappling, and there can be grappling that isn't exciting within the context of that specific match. But, grappling as a general concept is exciting as all get out and I'd much rather watch tremendous grappling than tremendous flippy-floppy every day of the week.

For a good chunk of it's run time Austin versus Rock from WrestleMania X-7 is a good match, edging towards pretty great. I can't really forgive such an overbooked ending though. It goes on way too long, Austin turning doesn't make much sense (I buy him doing anything to get the title but not him aligning with Vince who has a son-in-law who would also want the title, etc.), and is, for my money, a prime example of how WWF booking really let down their wrestlers for much of 2001-2003. However, the main issue I had was the obvious gig guffaw. You have Hebner visibly struggling with the gig, then dropping the gig, then Rock awkwardly stumbling to the floor, visibly picking up the gig, and then very obviously swiping that hand across his forehead a moment later. I know most people think of this as an all-time great match, or at least I think they do, but I can't say that for a match with such awful overbooking and a sequence as business exposing bad as the Hebner gig one.

This is where we mainly disagree, because I don't see this at all. I see them, and mainly Thatcher, applying as much pressure as possible and really wrenching in their holds. Everything is snug as can be and they make their opponent visually work for reversals and counters.

I disagree, as I think pro wrestling can be made to look very real. Pro wrestling involves an inherent suspension of disbelief, and part of that is understanding that what the guys are doing is a cooperative wrestling match. That doesn't mean however that they can't make the match look real, or at least real within the context of a pro wrestling match. I've spent most of life in "real" fighting, and I've never much understood the aversion some people have to pro wrestling that is more realistic. I mean, I get the subjective nature of something not being for someone, but most of the complaints levied against a more realistic style don't ring true to me.

The BOLA reaction was an anti-CZW thing. The past page and a bit are biased people criticising other people for being biased. Fact of the matter is Thatcher isn't the most charismatic wrestler in the World and you can't control a crowd (with reason) you are a poor professional. If the promotion and person were different people would be talking about how he was EXPOSED. Like how Tanahashi was exposed v. Mike Bennett? Tanahashi didn't get booed out of the building, so I don't understand the comparison. He worked a Mike Bennett match vs Mike Bennett. Everybody groaned when the match was announced because Bennett stinks, and I think we all got the match we thought we would, which was a typical 3-star Mike Bennett nothing match. There is a clear pattern of Thatcher, Gulak, & Busick not doing well in front of certain crowds. It isn't an easy style to adjust to. Many people (myself being one of them) find it extremely boring. It takes a while for new shit to get over sometimes. Maybe this eventually will. Gabe Sapolsky seems think it will. Who knows? Right now, it's over in Beyond Wrestling, which is mostly other wrestlers (I still don't really completely understand what Beyond is, with shows with no fans, "secret" shows, etc or how they make money). It sort of got over at EVOLVE in Florida, but the crowds were more polite than super into what was happening. I think for the style to work, the psychology has to be better. As it is, these guys sort of just chain wrestle, then work holds, and then somebody taps out of nowhere 20 minutes in. If they are working towards these submissions, then it's been lost on me and a lot of other people. Then again, i'm usually so bored that I zone out, so maybe i'm not paying close enough attention, which is entirely possible. They seem to be making the mistake of thinking that when people say that they want their wrestling to 'realistic', they actually mean really realistic, not "realistic within the bounds of pro wrestling which in order to be good kind of needs some not really real drama thrown in". That's why subs out of nowhere - which happen all the time in grappling- are kind of a dumb thing to do all the time in pro wrestling matches. Though, they fail on their "realistic" attempts on any scale, since they end up doing 3/4 speed flow roles with some European uppercuts thrown in for flavour. These are good points. Personally, I don't get the appeal of simulated grappling, and find it dry. I'm not saying it can't get eventually get over, but i'm someone who has put in a genuine effort and it just doesn't work for me. The other problem is there seems to be a limited amount of people who can do it. It's always the same three guys. We've seen Sabre, Hero, & James Raideen in the mix, but Raideen got mostly bad reviews for the EVOLVE matches (I actually like his the best, which makes sense since they contained the least amount of grappling and were the furthest from the style), and I've seen tons of Zack Sabre Jr and I just don't see how he's like somebody like Thatcher at all. Maybe i'm watching the wrong ZSJ matches, idk. I'm sure other people will come out of the woodwork, but how many times can people watch the same three guys wrestle each other? Who else is doing this style beneath the radar that i'm not aware of? There are a few other European guys, one I've heard a lot about is Jack Gallagher. I'm okay with others not liking their style, that's part of the subjective nature of wrestling. Can't say I agree with your points though Wiz, as I highly enjoy realistic wrestling and have greatly enjoyed what Thatcher/Busick/Gulak/a few others have been doing with a more realistic style. For my money Thatcher is the best wrestler in the world right now, and it's not even close. Obviously not everyone will agree with that, and that's fine. But for what I look for in pro wrestling those guys deliver it match after match and it makes me very happy.

The BOLA reaction was an anti-CZW thing. The past page and a bit are biased people criticising other people for being biased. Fact of the matter is Thatcher isn't the most charismatic wrestler in the World and you can't control a crowd (with reason) you are a poor professional. If the promotion and person were different people would be talking about how he was EXPOSED. Like how Tanahashi was exposed v. Mike Bennett? Tanahashi didn't get booed out of the building, so I don't understand the comparison. He worked a Mike Bennett match vs Mike Bennett. Everybody groaned when the match was announced because Bennett stinks, and I think we all got the match we thought we would, which was a typical 3-star Mike Bennett nothing match. There is a clear pattern of Thatcher, Gulak, & Busick not doing well in front of certain crowds. It isn't an easy style to adjust to. Many people (myself being one of them) find it extremely boring. It takes a while for new shit to get over sometimes. Maybe this eventually will. Gabe Sapolsky seems think it will. Who knows? Right now, it's over in Beyond Wrestling, which is mostly other wrestlers (I still don't really completely understand what Beyond is, with shows with no fans, "secret" shows, etc or how they make money). It sort of got over at EVOLVE in Florida, but the crowds were more polite than super into what was happening. I think for the style to work, the psychology has to be better. As it is, these guys sort of just chain wrestle, then work holds, and then somebody taps out of nowhere 20 minutes in. If they are working towards these submissions, then it's been lost on me and a lot of other people. Then again, i'm usually so bored that I zone out, so maybe i'm not paying close enough attention, which is entirely possible. They don't really need to work towards a definitive finishing hold/move/submission, though they often do. The style those guys are using is based very much on the catch-as-catch can approach of working over your opponents entire body as hard as possible until they are physically worn out and can't answer a three count. I can see why others need/want them to work towards a specific finish, submission, or whatever, but I don't think it's essential and if they did that all the time it would take away from the immediacy of their style.

Yeah, this is what I was talking about, and I made sure to emphasize that Thatcher has never worked PWG despite being right there for so many years and it probably has everything to do with that style not being preferred by PWG fans.

I think so, as the Thatcher/Gulak/Busick style is almost bereft of traditionally big spots. It's more of a grind em down style, with heavy emphasis on working over limbs, long term damage, and rough exchanges that hide the smoothness that is actually taking place. Anyways, my point wasn't that a PWG crowd has to like a match like Gulak/Busick. Rather, I was simply countering the idea that PWG crowds are great and open to anything. I love PWG, but PWG fans have a very specific style of wrestling they like and if you don't present that style they aren't very open to you. So more of a comment on PWG crowds than the actual match.

I just heard a PWG crowd completely shit all over a great Gulak/Busick match, they aren't exactly the most welcoming crowd I don't think.

It's not a get off my lawn situation, because era or age has nothing to do with it from my end. They're also still fans, just not fans I really want to associate with because they would ruin my enjoyment of the wrestling we're watching. It's no different than the idiots at baseball games who hurl personal insults at the players, they're still fans, but my hubris comes over the fact that they are only interested in making the event all about them.

That's similar to what EVOLVE has tried at different points in its existence. I think it can work, but I'm not sure if it can work as a mass appeal product but rather as a niche product.

Right, this whole discussion is pretty ridiculous and short-sighted. The modern "BOO" / "YAY" is chants. I don't chant when I go to shows but it doesn't bother me. People are paying money to go to a wrestling event, you can do and say whatever the hell you want as long as it's not vulgar. If that's what makes fans enjoy modern wrestling and the modern wrestlers gear their matches towards it, again, who cares? I can enjoy a match just the same if people are saying "This is awesome!" during a spot or cheering. Sure, you can go and chant/say whatever you want when you're paying money, but by the same token I can voice my displeasure for the distracting and self-serving chants taking place on an event I've paid to watch. Different people have different things that float their boat, grind their gears, etc. The chants are something that get to me because they have a clear beginning that can be traced and because of that I don't believe they are the modern equivalent of "boo/yay." They're attempts by fans to get themselves over instead of caring about the wrestling, and that can at times turn me off of a match the same way a dead crowd can, because they both are representative of fans not caring about what they're seeing.

I'm in the same boast as the anti-chant camp, heck I wrote an article about it for The Tag Rope. I like great wrestling, and I love crowds that get into great wrestling. The This is Awesome stuff is self-serving and not about the wrestling, but about getting yourself over. It's really all an offshoot of the ECW crowd mentality, and for me it produces some of the worst crowds. I'll take the crowd for Royal Rumble '90 over any smart crowd, they were so invested in what was going on they were nuclear, and they were putting the wrestling over, not themselves.

This we are in agreement on. I feel people write off spotfests way too easily. I don't want to live on a diet of them and they can be outright terrible, but when done well they can be great MOTYC matches.

Bill, you can post this feedback in the podcast folders. Wasn't sure since the episodes I listened to were a few years old, but duly noted.

I remember this story, just added more fuel to me not liking CM Punk the person.

I think so, as I tend to really enjoy their finishes. I love their back to basics approach, and the way they work so simply makes simple maneuvers/holds/sequences very viable as big time finishes.

Been catching up on old Place to Be podcasts, and man do I loathe Kevin Kelly now. Talk about a guy who just doesn't get wrestling. In his yearly recaps he talks about the Attitude Era as if everything was great, but my main beef is how he will gush over the stuff that even the most diehard of Attitude Era fans don't like. The final straw for me was the way he easily categorizes the DX Nation skit and the Kaientai choppy-choppy pee pee as funny and not racist in any way. It's not like WWF writers not getting pro wrestling or generally being terrible to listen to is anything new, but man is Kelly terrible when reminiscing about the WWF.

Yep, times a million. And Gregor, this ties into my point about his Hurricanrana. Although, for the sake of clarity Shawn does more of a Frankensteiner than a Hurricanrana. It doesn't bother me at all that it doesn't end in a pin. My issue is the awkward way he gets into position for it, how it looks like the victim is doing all of the work, how awkwardly and ugly he executes it once in position, and how when he finally lands it's so light that it feels like his opponent is a feather in the wind (who is forced to sell such a light move as if it did damage). I don't have a problem with fatigued selling, or even big comebacks where selling is put on the backburner. It all depends on the context, and with Shawn he shakes off the beatings he takes in a way I find annoying and that takes me out of the match.

I don't agree with this at all. To give an example, his selling every shot from Diesel like death in their 1996 PPV match is part of what makes that match as good as it is. I mean, yeah, he's flying around during his comeback, but as soon as he gets hit he drops like a shot again, like he'd just been running on fumes. He also did a good job selling Owen Hart's and 1-2-3 Kid's kicks when he was doing the concussion thing earlier in the year. The flying around is my main issue. Take the SummerSlam '95 ladder match as an example. Razor works over Shawn's leg something fierce; really going to town on his leg. Shawn does some token selling and then he's flying around as if nothing happened to his leg. That's a big MO for Shawn, and it's super annoying. When it comes to long term selling he very rarely decides to do it, because that would hamper him getting his signature stuff in. I wouldn't say that he ruined the Vader match with his tantrum. Hurt it, yeah, but I don't see how stomping on Vader and screaming at him for a couple of seconds is enough to turn a good match into a bad one all by itself. Other than that, what matches does he ruin/hurt in this way? When Shawn decided to throw his tantrum at Vader it took me out of the match, made me remember instantly that I was watching something fake. As a performer that's terrible and it instantly turned me off of the match. The Shamrock IYH match is another example, him calling spots as loud as he could to make sure that Shamrock looked like a putz. Or, there's the Hogan PPV match where he threw a fit the entire match because he was upset at the idea of even being in the ring with Hogan. This one just baffles me. How is his execution different from that of, say, Atlantis or Lizmark? The only difference I see is that they end theirs in a pin. Their versions look good. That's mainly what I'm getting at; whenever Shawn executes his it looks sloppy, ill applied, and half the time not even like a Hurricanrana. I'm struggling to think of 1996 Michaels matches with dodgy psychology. I guess it was weird that Owen Hart spent much of the February match working the back to set up the Sharpshooter when the big points of the match were the kicks to the head. Other than that, his psychology was pretty sound. Something like the Sid match - they did a good job of establishing that Michaels couldn't go toe-to-toe with him, so he had to resort to trying to work the knee, and by the end of the match he was just fighting on heart and will and all that stuff. My biggest issue with Michaels from his '90s face run is that his kip-up comeback doesn't work that well after limbwork-ish offense. He shouldn't be doing a moonsault after Razor Ramon spent the match busting up his knee, and he shouldn't be casually slamming Rad Radford after his inability to do so was a hope spot earlier in the bout. There aren't that many times when the heel works that way on offense, though, at least not in Michaels' matches from that period, so it's not something that ends up being a huge deal for me. For me it's nearly an every match thing with Shawn. His psychology is always dodgy. Tossing out random moves that are too light to do damage, making sure to set up his signature spots even if they don't fit within the structure of the match, etc.