Matt D

I also want to put my comments in context. They don't come from a point of whether the match was really good or not (it was). They come mainly from the response of the "top ten WWE ever" talking point. I think the match earned the main event spot and justified the cell.

Benoit's going to beat Lawler, right?

Sure, but there's her landing that way on EVERY subsequent move. Like the monkey flip, or the suplex into the corner, creating some sense of diminishing return. Those bumps, all horribly nasty and contorted should have had an escalating effect. Instead, they all paled to what happened at the very start of the match. I'm not sure what sort of layout I would have liked more in that regard, maybe if the stoppage tease happened mid match instead? I think they were trying to copy the 98 match but that might not have been the best narrative choice for the entirety of the match even if ... ... the moment of Sasha getting up from the stretcher ultimately DID work because the crowd popped so big. As a moment, it worked BECAUSE of the crowd. Within the match as a whole it was a little wonky, maybe?

Just watched. Charlotte's commitment to her character is beautiful. Sasha's intensity was something else and there was such a sense of danger which had NOTHING to do with the cage, necessarily, and everything to do with the stakes and the setting. It's like the difference between knowing you're going to a movie theater to see a RomCom and going to see a Horror movie. Pratfalls in a RomCom are funny. You're in on the joke. If someone falls in a Horror movie, it's a lot more worrying. So there was a definite sense of mood to the match, which they more than earned. I had two major issues, one textual and one contextual. Contextual first. Even with Sasha's injury history, the actual spot where she gets hurt early on isn't enough to warrant what happens next, not in a company where someone goes through the announce table in bigger ways every main event. Maybe we're supposed to feel like it was a bigger deal because they were the females. We WERE supposed to feel like it was a bigger deal because Charlotte caught her off the cage first, but even symbolically that was a stretch. They still popped huge when she shot up and Sasha hitting the official really sold it, so I don't ultimately have a problem with how long they let it go with the stretcher, but the move itself wasn't believable to put her in that state. That's not necessarily the fault of the match in a vacuum, but this isn't' a vacuum. And yes, I would have liked just a little more back selling while on offense throughout the match from Sasha. She hit the three amigos and the announcers asked how she did it, and it would have been great if she indicated that there was anything wrong there. I buy adrenaline at the start of the match, during some comebacks, but it was a bit much since it was both the beginning and the finish. If something's going to be the finish it should be represented more in the middle as well. When her back gave out, I completely bought it, after the fact, a few seconds later, but not in the moment, because I had sort of forgotten that was an element of the match at that point. I have one other thing to say, relating to the danger of the match indicated up top and it has to do with Blade Runner Rock, but I'll get to that later.

I think it's very important to ask yourself why you're doing this too. That's not something I've seen mentioned yet. What is the metric for success. Why? Are you doing it to try to make some extra money? On some far-fetched (but I suppose not impossible) dream of making a living in wrestling this way? Are you just trying to give back to the small subsection community that you're a part of with entertainment? Are you trying to get a specific point of view across? Are you trying to teach people something? Are you just doing it for yourself and for fun? Do you feel unfulfilled in your life and need to have thousands of hits to feel important? Are you looking for interaction and feedback? Even if you're trying to fill a niche, why does that niche need to be filled? I think we did the Parejas Increibles limited run because people requested it, but we were aimed at the people we knew at PWO, primarily, not to have a wide appeal. It was a way to get our lists out and to talk to each other and have a back and forth on what we loved about wrestling because we thought it'd be interesting, to ourselves most of all. I started writing at Segunda Caida because I had a hole in my life at that point. There was a gap. Something was missing and an outlet would help. Moreover, I kind of liked the idea to be part of that as I always enjoyed the site. And it'd give me a reason to dive into lucha. Apparently, we're doing well on hits but we never hear a lot about what we do. When I started writing those smaller columns to go along with WTBBP, it was because I knew I couldn't fit in a regular podcast, but I felt like I was being a little bit left behind within the community. Everyone else was, and I thought a written piece could mesh well with what Parv and Chad were doing. Both work (which has increased hugely over the last few years) and SC picked up and I ran out of time. But I think I just wanted to be part of the wave any way I could. So I do think you need to figure out what you want specifically and why. Success is a relative term with this sort of thing. Maybe you can change your style, have a much larger reach, but ultimately compromise what you were trying to do in the first place.

You're not wrong. In over her head as a babyface when called up but she's been the standout heel performer since turning. Perhaps since Punk as a heel with Heyman or the Shield before they were getting babyface pops? She's a real highlight of TV. I'm going to play the Miz card.

What's the best Loss lucha match of the 90s?

Let's cut out the insults then. Glad to do so from my side. Some of this was thinking out loud for me, and I think where I've ended up is more of an Athleticism vs Acting divide as the top level one, which does, amongst other things, separate bumping and traditional selling as I agree these things should be separate. As for character work, I'd like to say a few people here have been vocal about not finding it satisfying (OJ, maybe?). I've seen it enough that it feels like an issue. It's only problematic to me when people dismiss it upon reading it which is something I've seen.

My entire philosophy of wrestling analysis is to look for patterns over matches and try to identify them so I don't disagree. I just think it's skewed at the top right now.

I think, ultimately, and this is a compromise of sorts, I want to cordon off the reactive elements of character work as you've listed them, tie them under a large umbrella with the reactive portrayal elements traditionally in selling, call this now "selling" and make hard subdistinctions under that new umbrella. I think that would be a more accurate classification than what we already have. Edit: what I might be trying to make a distinction between athleticism and acting as two of the three major umbrellas.

Just from that list alone, I would say that character work is closer to selling than it is to bumping.

Yeah. I'm still leaning towards "not speaking entirely the same language and responding to that by talking more slowly and more loudly like an American in another country." But you're writing entertaining and hostile posts about it so I'll continue on it anyway. Couple of actual things: for Transparency sake, it's very well possible that I'm making this distinction because I think offense (not physical selling) has been heavily overvalued over the years and I think it's because people make an artificial distinction between selling and reaction. I get that it would invalidate this poll (again, sorry). That's sort of the point though. I'm not 100% sure there but I want to at least admit it as a possibility. More importantly, we already do it. I'm not sure if it was on an older BtS or Marty and Kelly's podcast but I heard at least one instance yesterday where a wrestler was described as "selling" the crowd interaction with him. That's how we describe the Mongolian Stomper putting his hands over his ears when it comes to the crowd or Paul Orndorff dealing with Paula chants or someone bitching to a ref about a two count. We already call that selling. Why? Because that's exactly what it is. It's literally trying to get the crowd to buy that something had an impact upon you through a physical reaction. That's the term we already use. It's just when we try to categorize it, we put it in "Character work" or something, which no one is satisfied by, but the very term we generally use to describe it is already selling. We just drop that when it comes to this classification. I don't think we gain accuracy at all. I think we lose it.

I was going to respond with a quip about how Johnny Sorrow could tell you about the stooges and leave it at that, but I'm not mobile anymore. I think expanding the definition selling is the way to go. I understand why you don't, to some degree. I disagree, namely because your post didn't really show an understanding of what i was saying. It's not anything. It's any physical reaction to stimulus. There's a difference. I suppose we can further hone in from that point on, but I think that misses the distinction that's different than how we have traditionally looked at things before.

No commentary, so I think so too. Probably my favorite moment of the match was Murdoch goading Williams when Dibiase was down by making faces at him. I can't really describe it but it was awesome. The whole match was really good and the post match was great.

In the smaller, more traditional sense, selling is the idea of "registering the effects of physical damage." Why would you cordon that off as opposed to "registering the physical or emotional effect of anything that happens in the match." It's using your body to register consequence. It feels like a really artificial fabrication to only look at how a wrestler responds to the effects of physical damage, even if that's the traditional metric. I don't care if if invalidates the debate(though I mean, I do appreciate that concern. And I think it can be mitigated if we extend offense/selling to "action/reaction."). I'm arguing that we, as a critical community, don't define or examine the idea of selling correctly and frankly never have.

There was an attempt to start a Moolahtruth hashtag back during her mention on Holy Foley but it didn't much traction and Sasha mentioned her in her "retirement" speech a few weeks later anyway.

I'm not willing to go on this ride with you, at least not to the end. All wrestling can be looked at with a framework: 1. What are the tools used? 2. How are they used? 3. What is the effect/impact of their use? If you look at things that way, you can judge across styles. Thumbtacks can be a tool. A long headlock sequence can be as well. (Maybe elements would be a better term)? I agree with you in that you almost have to be subjective on the first question. Admit that you prefer one toolset over another. Try to understand and seperate out and organize the tools in the match you're watching regardless of whether it's a style you like. I think you can be far more objective in a comparative sense when it comes to the second and third questions.

I don't think it's meaningless at all. I think narrowly cutting off a chunk of "reacting" and calling it "selling," thereby undervaluing the rest, as has been done for almost the entirety of the history of wrestling analysis is far more meaningless. I think that the fallacy here might be limiting offense in the same way. We should probably be shifting to an "action/reaction" duality instead of "offense/selling," as heel stalling that draws heat with the crowd or that frustrates a heel are just as valid as an action as a suplex.

re: Elliott. I'd say selling is about creating meaningful consequence to everything that happens in the ring. It's reaction to every new bit of information. And that's to more than just "offense."

Even the UK in the 70s where there were so many matches that absolutely would never make TV all around the country on any given night. It's an element of British wrestling I feel like we don't have the least bit sense of. We're the blind man touching the elephant with WoS.

If a wrestler's offense is strong enough (Vader), no one's selling can ruin it. If a wrestler's offense is weak enough (Raja Lion), no one's selling can save it. Were I to grant that as true (and I'm not feeling inclined to), it would be highly exceptional.

Strong selling makes poor offense not poor. Weak selling makes great offense meaningless.

I like the word connection. I'd toss in symbolism and consequence in there somewhere.

I'd want to see all of those Tuesday night shows when Portland was hot.

Bruce, Did you get a chance to check out the Atlas/Stomper/Gino/Slater matches and the Guerreros/Sheepherders one? Really special crowd reactions. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts.