Matt D

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0512590/ I await the Daniel Bryan: GOAT FULL OF DYNAMITE shirt.

I really do want to respond to you guys more about the psychology/logic stuff but i am swamped so much so that i'm barely even watching wrestling! That says something. I'll try to get you something next week.

I think we're not entirely on "bad wrestling" right now. I'm not sure where we are on but it's soemwhere between an etymology of wrestling moves and "suspension of disbelief" note. That's not really what I meant. I don't want things to be REAL, but I want them to do it for a reason. That reason can exist wholly within the "universe" that they're in where there is absolutely different laws of physics than the real world, thus the effectiveness of the irish whip. I love that wrestling has its own laws of physics. That's awesome. It makes it quasi-sci fi. I do want to know why wrestlers first started doing it and if it meant the same thing now as it did fifty years ago.

It's okay that you don't care! I'm kind of curious of the etymology of it (as part of the language of the normal match) though. Just because we take something as a given "this is what they do." doesn't mean that I don't want to know why they do it. It's cool that they do it. I'm okay with it, but I want to know why they do it and I want them to know why they do it too. That "rocker dropper position flip" thing bugs the hell out of me because a lot of times I think guys do it because it looks cool. I asked Rollins about it once and he said that he does it to get better positioning on his opponent, so I guess that's okay, but I don't know.

Hey, this is high level discussion, man. We're breaking down something fundamental and in every match and... I think i saw Buddy Rose do the trip once. Maybe. Anyway, one thing I love about lucha is that they do the cool sidestep instead.

A tiny, tiny minuscule fraction of people who watch wrestling watch it the way you watched that match (and there's nothing wrong with watching wrestling in the manner you described). And I still say you suspended disbelief on some level based on your description. If that's the case, then that tiny minuscule fraction is at least some of our group, I'd think. As for the rest, I'd like to hear more elaboration, not because I question it but because i'm curious about your definition. Now, let me try to find an animated gif for Charles on a dropdown.

I don't know. I think most of us loved Cesaro vs Cena. Did some of us want Cesaro to win? Sure. Did we get excited at Cena's clothesline? Yeah, but I think a lot of it was from a process level (yes! That Cena bump off the apron was great! Oh man! They worked so well together to do that suplex into the ring. Cena's huge! Wait, what's Cena doing with ... oh yeah! Roll through and there's the AA! Great finishing sequence!) and the rest was from a backstage level. (Come on! Elevate Cesaro! Elevate Cesaro!) I related to it. I thought of how cool it was that Cena was having another great match so many years into things with such a broad range of talent and how excited for Cesaro I was that he was getting the chance to do this. i WANTED Cesaro to win, sure, and to have a good showing if he didn't. I don't think I can separate "Is he going to be strong enough to get out of the STF or is the pain too much!" from "Is this the finish of the match? Where are they going with this?" though, even though I can be really into the match.

The dropdown thing is definitely supposed to be a trip. I've even seen it used as such in a match and I got really excited about it (like in the Demos vs Brainbusters match when Tully hits a double axe handle on a prone opponent who doesn't get his foot up). Now I'm not sure how many wrestlers even know that. EDIT: One cool thing about watching old wrestling from the 70s and back is that sometimes the announcers will matter-of-factly explain something that you've always just taken for granted, something that's become part of the natural physical language of wrestling over the years without really being understood anymore why it's done, when at some point it had a logical reason behind it. One of the most important things in wrestling to me is that a wrestler never does a move without realizing why he's doing it, without having some sort of meaning behind it. "Because it works" isn't enough. I want a wrestler to figure out why and how it works and how it might work better.

They're trying to drop down and trip their opponent. The opponent usually jumps over to dodge the trip and keeps going to increase velocity for their eventual attack. Sometimes they do drop an elbow or something but the idea is that the drop down is a trap and to try to do something would be walking into the trap.

You can relate to and have an emotional attachment to fiction even without suspending your disbelief.

"Who actually watched wrestling in 1994-5?"

I know my high school (Graduated in 99) did a terrible job of teaching us anything that happened after WWII. I'm not sure if it's better now but I kind of doubt it.

I only have two kids to teach and they're going to know so much more than their peers that they shall crush them underfoot with their cultural knowledge.

http://thedissolve.com/features/career-view/419-the-broken-down-grace-of-bill-murray/ Some people might be interested in this. It's a pretty good read.

Size matters. It's a lot easier to repackage/repush a giant/monster/huge guy than someone like Tyson Kidd. I bet that within a week or two they could have Khali presented as huge threat and Khali doesn't have nearly the talent of Show or Henry or even Kane.

The "youth movement" thing is a little weird to me. Cesaro is 33. Bryan is 32. Punk is 35. For comparison's sake, Orton is 33. Cena is 36. It's very much a New Generation thing when your new generation was a bunch of guys in their early 30s.

Apparently, post-show Cesaro got in on the "Everyone beats up Dean Ambrose" party including a 30 rotation giant swing.

I miss WOW. I don't think I would ever miss TNA.

It's based in truth though. He's mentioned Daniel a ton recently and he doesn't want them to chant him to come back. He just wants them to leave him alone. It's all stuff he'd plausibility say. It's not like he's asking them to chant for Batista.

I kind of wish Regal had been at one of the four Road/Hog Wild cards to see what he would have done in front of this crowd.

I think the best way to deal with Chicago is to have, as part of the terms of his release, Punk film a short thing beforehand letting people know that he's leaving on his own, that people can chant for whoever they want, and Punk always encourages that freedom of expression, but chanting for him won't bring him back right now and if they want to chant for someone who deserves it, then they should chant for the best in the world, Daniel Bryan. Something like that.

One of my favorite talking points lately is how John Tenta was the guy most negatively impacted by the love of workrate in the 90s-00s.

I think it was a blurry line?

The DVDVR Workrate reports very often didn't end up talking about the traditional idea of "workrate" either, especially the ones with the What Worked/What didn't work? categories.

Bunch of kids and southerners. Though, for the sake of amusement, I have an e-mail account I only use for wrestling. I have very few DVDs and I usually send them on to someone when I'm done watching them. Right now I'll buy the 80s projects because, given the way my life is set up, I really like the social aspect of watching them. I mainly watch stuff when I'm on the exercise bike or in the background at work since most of the time I'm home and not biking, I'm doing stuff with my family (and even when I am biking, I'm usually watching something else with the kid as well and I just have it on my tablet/laptop on the tv tray by my bike.