S.L.L.

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. 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.

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. 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.

If I misinterpret you, it's only because you're not stating things very clearly. Hmmmmm...."Victory Through Guts"? I suppose. It was still only part of the equation. I will not deny you your opinion.... ....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. Good for you. Just stop assuming your opinions are universal truths. 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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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.

If Res wants to point to a match that's great due in large part to "fighting spirit" shown through big moves, that would be a great match for him to point to. 1-2-3 Kid, clearly the underdog, pulls out all the stops with his high-flying to gain the advantage, to overcome himself in a manner of speaking. There's even that great stretch near the end, where he busts out a God damn powerbomb of all things, just trying to find something to put Bret away. So yeah, matches like that definitely exist, and some of them like Bret/Kid are awesome. Bingo. One of the things I wanted to point out in my last post, but couldn't really find a good spot for, was that even tropes that have worn out their welcome can still be compelling in the right hands. For example, the "Evil Commissioner" trope is one of the most played out things in wrestling today. I fast forward through Vickie Guerrero interviews when I watch Smackdown. I'm not interested in what she has to say. But as tired as the trope is, how much of my disinterest is because the trope is played out, and how much is because Vickie Guerrero just isn't a very compelling screen presence? By contrast, I don't even watch Raw regularly, but I was going out of my way to see what Regal as doing as Raw's evil GM the last few weeks, and there were a lot of other people praising his work, too. Is the "Evil Commissioner" role still played out? I think so. Does that not mean it still can't be entertaining in the hands of someone who really knows how to do it well? I don't know, because I'm kinda thrown by the double negative I just wrote, but Regal was awesome, and Vince McMahon is still one of the most compelling characters they have whenever he's around. But I've always believed that the idea isn't as important as the execution. It's not what you do, it's the way that you do it.

The entire premise of professional wrestling as a genre of fiction is that a large assortment of people compete in an organized combat sport for fame, fortune, personal pride, and presumably, fun. A number of these characters are portrayed as uneasy or unsatisfied with themselves, because everyone is uneasy and unsatisfied with themselves to some degree. No professional wrestling show in the history of the world has ever made this it's focus. How you came to this conclusion is a mystery to me. Is it a tool that they have at their disposal that they use from time to time? Certainly. Has it ever been the foundation of the show? No. Never. Not even in Japan. You didn't say it, but you strongly (perhaps inadvertently) implied it, and never thought to mention any other method. You also drew a direct correlation big moves and match quality, and while I'm no mathematical genius, I'm pretty sure drawing equal correlations between other methods and match quality would screw up the equation in such a way as to make big moves less important than you were making them out to be. Which means you placed a higher premium on big moves than any other possible method of showing fighting spirit. But I hate talking about wrestling like it's a math equation. Point is, I don't think you thought this through all the way. Kobashi had that match with Marufuji, and he had a match with KENTA the month prior, and I loved one and hated the other, and for the life of me, I can't remember which was which. That said, worth noting that I liked Kobashi a lot during this period, expressly because he had become less focused on big moves, and more focused on chopping the fuck out of people while generally carrying himself as the man. But late 90's-early 00's Kobashi was someone I did not care for at all. And while that's a minority opinion, I don't know of anyone who thinks Kobashi was at his best when he was at his most moves-heavy. Marufuji is a guy I've always had mixed feelings about. One match of his from that period that I know I loved was his match against Taue, a somewhat awkward dude not known for his moves, where the big memorable spot was Marufuji pinning his larger opponent with a small package. That was probably the most memorable single move Marufuji has done in his entire career. What about the other great classics from Japan? Well, what about them? Mitsuharu Misawa's big move was an elbowsmash. He found plenty of ways to do it, and of course, he had bigger moves than that that he busted out with regularity, but is that really what we think of him fondly for? Toshiaki Kawada's big move was a kick. He had a lot of cool ways to kick you, and he also had a powerbomb, the Stretch Plum, and he even did the Ganso Bomb in a couple of matches. Do we really praise him because he's a moves guy? None of the great heavyweight gaijin were really moves guys. Jumbo Tsuruta is considered the greatest worker ever by a number of folks. He had some moves that were pretty darn big for his era. But people today, who have seen far more advanced moves, still think really highly of him. If what you were saying was true, would it not logically follow that Tsuruta and everyone else from his era or before should be brushed aside in favor of the Marufujis and KENTAs of the world? Jushin Thunder Liger had some big moves. Then he got injured, got cancer, otherwise got broken down, and couldn't do those moves anymore. He kept being great. And personally speaking, my favorite Liger memories aren't about shooting star presses or moonsaults to the outside. They're about him getting pissed off and beating the fuck out of El Samurai, Masao Orihara, Dick Togo, Tsuyoshi Kikuchi, and a host of others. Most of your better juniors are that way. The flashy moves were nice, but there are much, much bigger factors at play. The first time I watched joshi, I was let down, because the moves-heavy stuff didn't interest me the way I thought it would. I became an Aja Kong fan real fast because of that. When I started watching 80's stuff, I generally liked it better, because it felt more psychologically sound. It was still moves heavy, but that wasn't exactly a bad thing. There were just more important things to me. Your better death match workers naturally relied on big, impressive spots. So did the shitty death match workers. The difference between the two usually wasn't how impressive the spots were. Hashimoto and the better New Japan heavyweights weren't exactly move guys. Your better worked shooters were more about impressive execution than high-end offense. Some of them had it, but again, it's not as big of a factor as you make it out to be. I'm not seeing it. The moves were there, but they're not what made the matches great. A person eating apple pie every day may get sick of apple pie, but they won't get sick of food. There are cliches we get tired of when overused, and there are those that are so deeply entwined in the fabric of our storytelling language, that we really don't ever tire of them. On the surface, the tag formula does strike me as something that we, as wrestling fans should be tired of by now. But I can't deny the evidence to the contrary. It's been 25 years - at least - and it still drives crowds into a frenzy. It still works for me. It doesn't work for you, and I can't force you to like it, but that doesn't mean you get to project what is clearly a very small minority opinion onto the masses. Sure, but as much as it pains me to say it, I probably wouldn't have them do it any differently. Even though I enjoy a lot of what they do, I'm no longer really part of ROH's target audience. Their target audience likes what they're doing just fine. I'd like to see it done differently. I think most wrestling fans, if exposed to it regularly, would be impressed at first, but soon tire of it. And for what it's worth, a lot of that is because of big move overkill, which makes the formula grow old far quicker than the tag team formula, which seems timeless to most and requires no such big moves. But ROH is a niche product aimed at a niche audience, and they're happy with that. It's the only answer you're giving me. It's the one you drew a direct correlation to match quality with. It seems to be the answer you feel strongest about. Hulk Hogan is the most popular wrestler ever, so, yeah, there is. It's actually really apparent, and has been bemoaned by workrate fans for years. If you really can't see it, I'm inclined to question your sanity. I don't necessarily dislike it, but I certainly wouldn't say I need it. The simple fact that there are people who aren't wrestling fans at all, and people who don't like to watch violence - even of the simulated variety - shoots down the notion that it's part of human nature. And I don't exactly have a high opinion of humans, but we're not that low. No, they'll be the better matches in YOUR eyes. I'm sure some of them will be better matches in other fans' eyes, too. Some might even be better in the eyes of the majority of fans. But as a whole, they will be the better matches in YOUR eyes. I won't deny you your opinion. I'd hope you wouldn't deny me my reality.

I disagree. While self-conflict is present in some degree in pretty much every dramatic story ever, it's not always the focus, it's not often the main focus of a genre based around a combat sport, and it's almost never the main focus of said genre to the exception of a conflict between two people. "Fighting spirit" is an aspect of wrestling storytelling. It's not the entirety of it. Bullshit. Dusty Rhodes had fighting spirit - as you define it - coming out the wazoo. Where were his fancy spots? Where was his innovation? Where is the direct correlation between "fighting spirit" and fancy moves? Is it not possible that there are other effective ways to convey that, as Dusty found? Again, it's one tool they can use. It's not the only tool they can use. Where is the direct correlation between increased match quality and increased fancy moves? You're certainly within your right to feel however you want to feel about the standard tag match formula. Just be aware that you're one of a select few who feel that way. I'm not saying that should be the only way to run tag matches, mind you, but it's compelling for 99.9% of wrestling fandom, and to subvert it for the sake of subverting it is pointless. That WCW match didn't give credibility to anything. By wrestling standards, the standard tag formula has always been credible to the vast majority of fans. It didn't need a minor bout averting one of it's standard tropes to prove anything. And I would assume it was a minor match, because to do it in a higher profile match would come off as anticlimactic to most everyone walking the Earth, unless they liked seeing tropes averted for the hell of it. Then again, it was WCW, so who knows with them. I guess on a lower level, it could actually be seen as funny, like a parody of the face-in-peril section. But it seems like the nature of it would make it funnier in concept than in practice, and I'm not exactly laughing my head off right now. But my point here is that you should understand that most of the world doesn't think about these things the way you do, and while you're allowed to disagree with the majority, you should at least understand where they're coming from, and that they aren't and shouldn't drastically change the world to cater to you. They didn't use our standard tag formula too much, but they had formulas of their own. Just because something didn't fit into one formula doesn't mean it wasn't part of another. You mentioned getting into anime because it was different and innovative, but does anime not have it's own formulas, tropes, and cliches? Every work of fiction has to make you "believe" on a certain level. Wrestling isn't any more or less different in that regard than any other genre, except that wrestlers seem more self-conscious about it than other artists, and that's not a good thing. Suggesting that big moves are the only answer is the kind of self-destructive line of thought that I was talking about before, and you should know that as well as anyone, WildPegasus.

Okay, so as it happens, I'm actually in the process of writing an article on storytelling that I'm looking to get published, and the central matter of the article actually stems from an argument I had on DVDVR over John Cena. I need to polish it up a bunch, but here's what I currently have in my files. Some of you with sharp memories for useless junk might notice that a lot of this is actually taken verbatim from a post I made in said DVDVR argument.

It's kinda late over here, so I can't go as in depth on this as I'd like to right now. For now, I'll say this: I fancy myself something of a narratologist, and I think on a certain level, one of the big reasons wrestling appeals to me as much as it does is because it's probably the simplest form of storytelling in existence, appeals blatantly to our most basic emotions with almost no subtlety whatsoever, and yet, it's still incredibly captivating and the genre is still incredibly diverse. I think a lot of people have certain ideas about art and storytelling that are actually self-defeating, eschewing the fundamentals of storytelling because art is supposed to be "different" and "original" and "innovative", forgetting that art is really just supposed to be "good", and that all that other stuff is gravy. When you apply that kind of logic to wrestling - where fundamental storytelling is all they have - you get the kind of problems that you have with certain indy wrestling, or that I had with WWE workrate style matches earlier this decade, or that just about everybody had with Vince Russo over the years (and yes, they are basically the same problem, they just manifested in different ways). You take that away, and you break the back of the whole medium.

Well, that sucks. And here I was getting all psyched up at the prospect of William Regal: Main Eventer. Way to pull a Jeff Hardy and cut yourself off at the knees at the height of your push, guy.

I don't think you could say it was well-built, strictly speaking, but The Undertaker's face turn remains the definitive moment of my formative years as a wrestling fan, and that's good enough for me. Also, kinda surprised DiBiase's face turn in Mid-South hasn't been mentioned yet. It's the stuff of legends for a reason.

I always thought it was just shorthand used by people who don't take him seriously. Never thought it was meant as an insult itself. That's what "Scooter" is for.

I hear Dave Meltzer isn't very fond of him. LOL! The more I think of it, the more I think he uses too many rest holds. What's the chicken wing thing, anyway? Would it kill the guy to throw in a standing moonsault or a half-nelson suplex now and then (or is that a suplait)? Sheesh. . . Frankly, I'm starting to think that they should've left the belt on Superstar Graham. I mean, he was drawing so well, whereas Backlund is only drawing well because of his opponents. I mean, yeah, he sold out MSG against Bobby Duncum, but where hasn't Bobby Duncum sold out the house? Graham managed to draw big attendance numbers against nobodies like Dusty Rhodes and Mil Mascaras. Big mistake on Vince McMahon's part. I hope when his son takes over, he'll replace Bob with a similarly charismatic star of questionable workrate. You'll never see me complain about that!

...and creepy You wouldn't be saying that if they let him call Ben a nigger like they would in a fair and just world. But instead, he's forced to conform to the standards of a corrupted society thanks to Ben and his kind, and thus he comes off as the crazy one. See "Birth of a Nation" for further details on Jim Brambilla's latest plight.

Envy is a sin, Jim.

Internet PM Theater, starring Benbeeach (a cool guy who may o may not post here, I forget) and multi-time WON Booker of the Year winner Gabe Sapolsky:

Personally, I see it as Russo's way of having his cake and eating it, too. The Arquette Title run was a smash hit....but just in case you think it wasn't, it was totally this other guy's fault. Russo's whole "Forgiven" thing was that he would go around claiming that he was going to make an honest appraisal of his life and career, and that he wasn't going to go easy on himself, but then proceeded to blame everything that went wrong under him on everyone but himself, often playing down it's significance at the same time. His treatment of the Arquette thing is consistent with that.

Could someone elaborate on this? It's a theory I've never heard before. Orndorff was an agent/writer/booker of some kind at this time? Taylor in particular is a guy whose work as an agent I've been wondering about after seeing his heel turn on the Watts set. I heard the Orndorff claim a million years ago in the RSPW FAQ, and believed it until I wised up to a lot of Scott Keith's bullshit. Now, who can be sure? Never heard the Taylor claim before. Never thought of him as a major player until later in the decade. Of course, the correct answer to the question is "Riki Choshu". Who in WCW decided to steal it is another matter entirely.

You probably are. 70's Steamboat underwhelmed me, and sometimes struck me as actively bad. I'd need to go back and rewatch the first disc of the set to remember which ones really stood out to me as bad, but I generally remember a lot more comically exaggerated martial arts moves that didn't look like they were actually doing anything than he would use throughout the rest of his career. By the end of the decade, he's dialing that back, and the ones he keeps start to look more effective, but his 70's offense felt very gimmicky in a way that didn't translate to quality wrestling.

Wow. Wow. Wow. Interesting piece of history here. . . Well, at this point, it's pretty hard to deny that Benoit is over, and not just in that sense of the word.

I've been watching your awesome Ricky Steamboat set, and I really dug this match as well. I've written elsewhere about how some wrestlers have all the skills they need to be good/great, but don't know how to put them together until they find the right foil. Watching the early parts of the set, Ricky struck me as somewhat carryable at best, and downright silly at worst. I don't know if he was doing kung-foolery that ridiculous in his WWF run when it was the major selling point of his gimmick. And he kinda stays that way until '81, when he has the tag with Youngblood against Snuka and Ray Stevens, and then the singles matches with Snuka, and after that, he's aces. So I really came away with the sense that it was Snuka who was the foil Steamboat needed to become the superworker he became. That itself was kinda interesting to me, since I had never thought much of Snuka, but then, my main exposure to him was his post-face turn WWF work, where he was legitimately pretty terrible. But heel Snuka rocked, apparently. Go figure. So, yeah, this match was pretty boss. Hope it makes the set.

Yes, but that was pretty much the formula all the NWA champs worked, going back at least to Thesz, and I wouldn't be shocked if someone like Strangler Lewis was doing similar stuff before then. It's a good formula, and I can get behind a good formula. That said, just because something fits into a proven formula doesn't make it good, or doesn't mean there aren't much better things you could do that fit the formula just as well, if not better. The fact that making his opponent no-sell/undersell a piledriver on the concrete may have fit his formula doesn't mean we have to accept it when we have other wrestlers throughout history who work the same formula without doing that, or when comparing him to other wrestlers working other formulas/styles on a really high-end level like Lawler who don't have equivalent flaws. I mean, there's certainly a lot of stuff that Race does very, very well, I just don't see how his formula requires us to gloss over the things he doesn't do so well.

I'm hardly arguing that people shouldn't think about it, jingus. Quite the contrary. I'm arguing that people need to think about what the actual purpose of Harley's psychology was. You hit on the most important point there: Lawler's matches require an entirely different psychology than Race's because they were generally playing quite different roles. One of the most important things to consider when comparing their matches is that a lot of the Lawler matches that you are going to see come from one territory, Memphis... where Lawler was so well known that people have compared his celebrity, straight-faced, with that of Elvis Presley. Being the local hero or the hated local villain is an entirely different scenario than being the visiting world champion (A role that Harley filled for ten years). Of course their psychology was different. You're missing a key point in both this and your response to Jingus. Yes, we should consider the role Harley was playing. Yes, we should factor in what the purpose of his psychology was. That doesn't mean he always did it well, or that there weren't better ways for him to do it. Flair filled the same role with the same aims and never made anyone no-sell/undersell a piledriver on the concrete. So Lawler either has to be deliberately putting together a five-star workrate classic, or we're just enjoying his work due to pure randomness? There's no middle ground? Context is important, of course, but quality is quality. Lawler's work standing up isn't a happy accident. Lawler's work stands up because Lawler was awesome. Fuck, Warrior worked the crowds in the arena, too. I guess we can't question his work, either.

I haven't turned against Harley yet, but.... How does any of this necessitate making your opponent no-sell/undersell a piledriver on the concrete. This is Harley Race we're talking about. This is a guy who's legendary for his big bag of moves. It's not like the piledriver on the concrete was his only option. If it was, does that not call for a serious re-evaluation of his work? Honestly, this reads like a more damning statement than anything any of the actual anti-Race guys in this thread have written. Suggesting that Harley was this limited really seems like putting him on the same level as Angle. Ric Flair had to fill the same role that Race did. Flair may have had certain flaws in his game, but he never had to make someone no-sell/undersell a piledriver on the concrete in order to achieve the same aims as Harley. Was this Flair revolutionizing the wrestling playbook the way Race couldn't? Or was Race simply flawed in a way that Flair wasn't? Why not? It's not as though Lawler wasn't meeting the requirements that his audience demanded of him. Not the same requirements Race had, since they were playing different roles, but he was meeting them. Some might even say he was meeting his requirements better than Race was meeting his. But if they're both meeting the requirements of their intended audiences, and Lawler's work stands up to further scrutiny and Race's doesn't, how doesn't that prove Lawler was the better wrestler?

I don't know. That's like saying a 300 lbs. dude isn't fat when he's standing next to a 500 lbs. dude.