Matt D

Because frankly, why the hell not a this juncture, I'm dropping in Bill's article about workrate, the most interesting bit being the idea of a physical workrate and a mental workrate as two separate but invaluable elements (my summing up of what I saw there): http://wrestlingwithwords.com/workrate/

Don't give in to Parv Pressure.

I gave my breakdown earlier in the thread when you were all talking about Sid and no one touched that post. It's mainly a primacy issue.

I'll break down some matches at some point, give you specifics, but others have done it as well and that's out there. I can't promise this before the GWE vote.

That former style was pretty awesome.

I once tried to explain PWO and the sort of podcasts we had here to my wife by stating that a Strip Club DJ was on a podcast with a British Shakespeare professor. One of these two is fairly, laid back, calm and composed. The other carries himself like a sweating, swearing, belligerent version of this: We live in a strange, topsy turvy world.

I will take a look. Cortez vs Breaks I've seen, but early enough in the process I might have to revisit. I watched Veidor vs Tony Charles the other night and I really enjoy how much effort Veidor puts into getting out of every hold. He's a very interesting defensive wrestler. In this specifically I like how they balanced the sportsmanship with the competitiveness, especially Charles' reactions as he was flummoxed. There were a couple of times that he held onto a headlock off the ropes or locked in a really complex reversal that were just great. Some of the fall teases were really solid too. I'm going to keep watching Veidor. (Well after Saint vs Breaks of course).

I'd probably appreciate Atlantis more if I made a concerted effort to look at his work in trios over the years. He's been a tecnico glue guy in so many and that might be his best calling card, even if he's more famous for his run of recent apuestas matches. But I haven't really done that, so to me, he's a technically skilled worker with tremendous longevity who has rarely blown my hair back in singles matches. I don't blame Atlantis for my qualms with the recent mask matches; I just have trouble getting into them because of the lack of blood and grit. The Ultimo Guerrero and Sombra matches would probably be significant feathers in his cap for some voters. For me, they mostly just help his longevity case. Did you see the Silver Fox match that dropped last week? Was that out there previously? I haven't seen anyone talk about it. It's not a blow-away match by any means, but if you haven't seen it, you should.

To start, I'd say that the argument I've been making over the last few years is one of "working hard" vs "working smart" with the former generally what I consider the traditional Meltzerian definition of workrate to be. I think the words that we're gravitating towards instead of logic are narrative and storytelling. 1. Can you find the throughline of a narrative within a match? 2. Is that narrative compelling? 3. Is that narrative consistent? If not, does that inconsistency lead to an eroding of the overall narrative? (Do moves have meaning? Are they sold appropriately? etc.) 4. Do the wrestlers contribute to that narrative utilizing various character and tone-driven decisions on pacing, crowd control, reactions, etc? If not... 5. Are the moves within the match executed so as to enhance the narrative? If not... So there are what I would consider workrate elements in 2, because boring isn't compelling, but a match can not be worked particularly hard and still have a compelling narrative if the effort is put in through selling and creating perceived meaning. For me, that last element is the primary workrate one, though, and it's really the last element, the least important one, though, of course, still important, as all of them are. I think people think it's an argument of 3 vs 5, though, consistency for the sake of consistency vs action for the sake of action or execution for the sake of execution. That's not the case at all.

Your clarification is clear, yes. Thanks.

That's an interesting statement. Could you go into more detail on what you mean by that?

I really like 05-06 Guerreros oversized athletic bully Olimpico. I've seen very little (maybe none?) of his 90s tecnico work though, which I imagine is extremely different. I also like jerk heel Psicosis a lot, but not enough to get him on, I don't think.

I feel like I sort of have to have Terry/Navarro but it'll be guesswork. Likewise, VIII. Solar I feel stronger about for some reason.

I'm not really a classical, traditional tecnico sort of guy but I have Atlantis relatively high. What's the downsides on him? I sort of get the sense that he does everything well but he doesn't stand out in one specific area like other people who do everything well (such as Santo). I do think he garners sympathy very well. I'm kind of high on his rudo run, as I think he embraced the role more than Santo did, for instance. I know I'm an exception there though.

I've got a lot of the same as everyone else, including Fiera, MS-1, Chicana, Fuerza, etc. Park is towards the end of my list. I'd love to include Wagner, Jr., since he's so charismatic but he's too detrimental to far too many matches. I don't have a strong enough sense of Navarro/Black Terry to rank them as things are now. I'm closing in on Morgan. I don't feel confident on Perro, Sr. I'm not there yet on Villano III either. I need to give Espanto another look. We have a lot of him but it feels scattered to me. I've got Hector Garza on there, mainly on the strength of his two 00s rudo runs. I'm seriously considering putting Brazo de Oro on.

If this doesn't result eventually in a Jericho heel turn based on what I said then I'll eat my hat. The same hat that has faced being eaten before and remains uneaten. Unfortunately, I don't think the hat ends up eaten this time around either. One of these days though...

How do people feel about Flair's retirement run in WWE?

I go exactly how far I think he is good with it. I'm not voting on a curve. I'm also not praising because other people previously have underappreciated him. I'm not trying to be daring and provocative. Maybe you do things like that and thus you are happy to attribute such behaviors to others? Maybe you're just so used to such mindsets in academia? I don't do this, though. What I do instead is look at a wrestler and try to decide how good he is based on the metrics that I think are important. And I have decided where those metrics are not based on a desire to be different and shocking and revisionist. I promise you, Parv. I don't spend my days thinking "well, how can I frustrate Parv today by saying that 1991 Berzerker is better than 1991 Ted Dibiase in WWF," or, "It's time to really show those Scott Keith followers a thing or two by going really far the other way!" You seem to be reversing the causality. I came to the conclusion that there were things far more important than "workrate" through watching matches and noticing patterns. I didn't come up with a theory that it was important to overturn what other people thought first and then tried to seek out the evidence. I honestly don't think you realize how insulting you're being when you go after someone's motives instead of taking them at face value. If you did, we wouldn't come around to this again and again. I do believe that you just lack the empathy to understand why someone could possibly value Big Bossman's matches more than Ted Dibiase's, or what not, so you think we're having a lark or playing a character. And I try not to fault you for it, but I found how you chose to put that insulting. On a slightly less angry and offended note, you can't just throw around "ring general" like you do. I'd argue that Earthquake is a ring general since he knows how much to give and when to give it, for instance and thus he can make babyface comebacks mean all the more, etc. You apparently wouldn't.

Completely agree with you 100% on the general points but Tenta is an interesting case. He was actually an excellent athlete, not just an excellent athlete "for his size". Besides being a college wrestler, being a sumo pro requires a lot of dexterity, balance and explosiveness. Also interesting that he got bad as a wrestler when he started losing his athleticism. I'm far from a Tenta timeline expert but he was looking pretty good up to maybe 93 or 94 during WAR tours but one day he just showed up looking facially old and much slower. So having the ability to execute that knowledge and understanding of timing and making the crowd react and making things have meaning is important too. That's something I don't get across well, that knowing what to do is half of the equation. Doing it is the other half. Both are important but knowing is the prerequisite. If you don't get past knowing, then doing isn't going to get you very far in my mind.

More general thoughts later (narrative and storytelling would be better words than psychology and logic), but in specific the main thing you're doing wrong in that last paragraph is underselling what Tenta does well. It's not just "He works to his limits," but instead that he uses the tools that he has, which are different than Dean's tools, to create a greater overall effect. He's excellent at interacting with crowds, very good at creating a mood by knowing how long to take priming an elbow drop before hitting it. So not only does the elbow drop look devastating, but it means all the more because of how he set it up. He has a very strong sense of when to give and when not to give. He's athletically limited? Maybe, but he has tools he can bring to the table that Dean can't. You look at his lack of traditional athleticism as a automatic detriment relative to Malenko, but it's something far more complex than that.

I most prefer "The pernicious fallacy of workrate dogmatism," actually. You weren't too far off in summing up my general thoughts, but I'll add some precision at some point in the next couple of days. Curious to see what people have to say first though. (Also, it's late).

That screws heavily with all of my anti-workrate shift rhetoric.

I watched Veidor vs Davies. There's only the one, right? I thought it was top notch stuff. Davies was obviously somewhat (but only somewhat) more subtle than Hayes as a heel, but I liked his cutoffs and attempts at control whenever Veidor started to get fiery upon him. When he finally did manage to pick up the pace, that first fall may have made me do a fist bump into the air. May. I have my emotionless work-the-arm reputation i need to hold on to here or something? Davies really held himself as the aloof, mostly controlled champion well, so whenever something didn't go his way, it meant something when he reacted. If you're going to have a finish like this which makes everyone look pretty good but still sort of screws the fans, this was as solid a way to do it as anyway. Veidor's selling as the match goes on is by far the strongest thing I've seen out of him. It's tremendous. There's a sense in these matches that I hate calling "Real sports feel" but it's the closest I can get to, things like the way they use the round system to tell stories as the match progresses, just the way they structure things with them, that there can be offensive or defensive wrestling if someone gets a fall up or down, the chance for a draw, and something that reminds me of soccer, the way that someone can press an advantage. It doesn't really feel like shine or heat to me so much as it feels like someone pressing the offense and having the ball continuously on the opposite side, with the occasional breakthroughs and goal attempts by the defending team. Does that make any sense at all?

You know, I really haven't given Adrian Adonis enough thought. Both the babyface run in Portland and the fat movez run in AWA help him.

As an aside, I think that every match reviewed is good for the community as a whole since it's another bit of the map covered. I'll say that. It's another data point for people to draw upon if they need to. Another resource and another reference.