Matt D

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.

I'm capped on my wrestling budget right now (though I do have some amazon buys I need to fess up to over the last few weeks like those kids' clothing labels; totally me) but I bet this is a really great show. It's exactly the sort of content that would drive me to support more directly were I currently able (and not, you know, two months behind anyway).

Ah if only the logistics of being in Australia and Baltimore worked out a bit better. They're already in from their GWE stuff should it ever happen. It's not the timezones so much as Matt and I specifically. He's exclusively available during the day at work, which is smack dab in the middle of the night for me, so it's just the worst kind of timing. I was so keen for GWE that I sucked it up and recorded through the wee hours, but it's not something I could do on a regular basis. Yeah, sorry guys, my wrestling/work/life balance isn't nearly as settled as a lot of you. I also have this awesome four year old always climbing on my head almost every second I'm at home. I didn't used to be so old. And here I was about to suggest BROCK TALK where I review every recorded match of Brock Lesnar ever. Stacey's right though. There's just no time. (But seriously, Stacey and Elliott doing something would be awesome. They are the great thinkers. Maybe looking at a variety of niche/underexplored on podcasts corners of wrestling from a match analysis POV. Something like "around the world...")

Sheepherders vs Guerreros is amazing. I have no idea how a riot didn't break out. So much heat, so much support. The very best jingoistic BS to start for the first five minutes before they even lock up, and when they do, the crowd is going absolutely nuts for every tiny bit of the shine. I should probably write more about this later. It's not a 5 star match. The heat's a little short. Everything's sort of sloppy (but in a good way, just not a great one) for the finishing stretch. Luke didn't entirely maximize the selling of his leg at certain points (Butch was selling the USA chants in his body language like only he could. He's hugely underrated in that regard). None of that matters though. There's nothing better in wrestling than a molten crowd during a tag match. Everyone should drop what they're doing and watch it.

For $20 a month they should also send a babysitter to the house so I have time to watch this crap.

I'm pretty sure it was shortly before 1980, but our footage is so scattered.

Pak Song vs Hito was a nice novelty. The Hart promo was very good. The match itself wasn't particularly good as a showcase for Pak Song. Hito took a lot from underneath and I wonder if they were seeing if the crowd might get behind him. Boesch had fun with it I think. On to Stomper vs Atlas. This was a really fun Clash of the Titans. The stuff with the hat was great. Atlas worked SO big and this match was meant for that. Stomper's body language played right into it. The post match was very cool and lead to the even cooler Atlas promo and Gino vs Slater. I won't spoil the end but it was a month and a half or so before one of them showed up again so the stip was met. Look, we don't always know the Houston context like we do with Memphis or Florida but there are special nights. This, to me, felt like a special night, much like the Mil vs Tully video from a while ago did. It felt like Buddy Rose losing his hair in Portland or the Midnight Rider winning the world title but refusing to unmask in Florida. The crowd was amazing in this and they were probably buzzing for weeks after it. I had no idea there was a moment like this just sneaking up on us

Here's my more or less final GWE thought on "working smart" (That was from the "What did you learn from GWE thread" there's a lot in the anti-workrate thread too from myself and others.

I don't want it! I want them to push Dustin again!

Goldberg's facing Brock at Survivor Series (likely to set up a bigger Brock vs Shane match, keeping in mind that Shane was the biggest draw at the last Mania, apparently). I think the business model is a little unstable currently, no?