Matt D

Two slightly different questions here, and I'm not always introspective about this, so bear with me. I'll be brief. This might be unsatisfying and I'm sorry if it is. I had a long response going into why I watch what I watch, but to put it far more simply.. When I was young I liked spotfets, then workrate, hunted four and five star matches. As I got older, I started to like whole shows, and then whole YEARS. I started to really like seeing things in context and how everything fit, the broader scheme of all that wrestling entails. Some of it was because I became a more passive watcher for various reasons and couldn't hyper focus on matches ALL the time I could devote to wrestling. Some of it was more availability of things like 80s Memphis and Mid South and even seasons of Superstars and WCW SN, some was just nostaglia blossoming out as I learned to appreciate things. I think the end result is this. I like really good matches. Absolutely. (and I'll get into Loss' question on what I consider good in a second). And I love when I'm emotionally invested, sure, but I'm not sure A GREAT MATCH FULL OF EXCITING WORKRATE is what really draws me anymore. I like to see things over time. I like to see patterns. I like to see how a wrestler deals with different situations, how he interacts with other wrestlers and in other feuds. I love old Event Centers where guys are cutting promos on each other, or the old Worldwide promos where a wrestler will talk about all sorts of stuff happening on the show that has nothing to do with him. I love battle royales where a heel suddenly finds himself in against another heel he's not used to working with, and just how both guys manage that situation. I started watching what was actually there instead of trying to hone in on exactly what I thought I wanted to see and I found a lot to really like and appreciate. I think when you're watching something at the time, you have more of an emotional stake in it being "good" and well-received than if you're just watching something old on your own. The argument isn't nearly as pressing. I was never the sort of guy to come up with a theory and then try to find evidence for it. That's not how I did my thesis either. I looked at a lot of data and then I tried to make sense of it. That's how the Demolition Project happened. I just happened to watch a number of matches in my general chronological late 80s WWF watching, and I started to see patterns and then tracked them down and found more, and I decided to write about what I found. I wasn't looking for anything at all. I'm usually not, but I almost always find SOMETHING. I guess my answer to you is that I love it when things are done well or are done interestingly. That could be a great build for what might be a pretty piss poor wrestling match or it might be a great match that just happens to have a terrible build, and if I had to choose, I'd have a bit of A and a bit of B, to be honest. I GOT the Bryan vs Punk match I wanted. I loved that match. I'm good for now. They gave me everything i wanted from that match up right now. I don't think they could add a ton with a rematch right now. I'd watch it, sure, and probably enjoy it, but they scratched my itch. I might want to see them go at it again in a few months if situations change a bit, but for now, I actually dig the idea of Kane being thrown into the mix. It changes things 180 degrees, just like that. They gave us EXACTLY what we expected from them before, and it was great, but now, Kane's tossed into the mix and I have no idea what they're going to do with him and that's exciting to me in a way a rematch wouldn't be. I get why people are upset about this, but I'm not. Will it make as good of a match? Probably not. I'm still more interested to see the three-way than a rematch, since I have no idea what it's going to look like and am really curious with how they're going to pull it off. So yeah, my cop out answer is that if I had to pick either or, I'd want the variety of a little of both. I enjoy good build. And I'm open to a lot of matches and even a lot of builds. A lot of what I thought was terrible as a kid was just not to my specific tastes. It doesn't mean it didn't accomplish what it was meant to or that there wasn't both skill and knowledge involved. I'm not sure I would have put it this way. I'm not sure I'd argue either. I like the sound of it. In general, I want story, not action (or workrate as I saw it in 2000). Now, if someone can give me both story and action, that's great. They're not mutually exclusive, except for of course that they kind of are. One element of storytelling is knowing when to hold back, is knowing when to rein in the action. I just want every little thing that happens in a match to have consequence and to have meaning, to happen for a logical reason, and to ultimately make sense. If it's simple, that's better than it not existing at all. If it's subtle, even better than simple. Wrestling is fiction. I do want to watch guys convey the big picture stuff really well. And more than that, I want there just to be a big picture! Sure it's exciting watching guys pinball and bump all over the ring for each other, but I've seen hundreds of those sort of matches. I'd rather see a simple match that makes sense and has meaning and resonance, than a complex match that goes a mile a minute but has no meaning and doesn't hold up. That said, I do appreciate cool little things: leverage moves, holds, reversals. I love the building blocks, don't get me wrong, but when they're used poorly or without meaning, it bugs me. That's the only thing in watching wrestling that really bugs me right now. Wrestling doesn't have to be simple, but a lot of times it's better when it is, because so few wrestlers seem to be able to be able to manage complex without losing coherence. So few wrestlers seem to even WANT to try.

Presentation matters. Especially over time. Guess who worked a main event on a PPV this year? Guess who got the expensive repackage? Who won at Mania. Not the guy who was booked as a vulnerable heel champion, lost in 17 seconds at Mania, lost his rematch in a match with stips he wanted, lost his first shot at Punk. Size doesn't hurt, but booking matters. They've been trying to rectify that a little bit in the last month, but I don't think DB has been protected well or presented all that well. They weren't planning on going with him long term before the Yes stuff picked up and changed his life, so it's been a slow course change and while all of that works when he HAS the belt, it's a little wonky when he's chasing it. And Kane's a good worker in the right situations, and a lot smarter than he was in 95. He's been at this for a while and he's worked just about every good wrestler they've had for 15 years.

You are the grumpiest guy ever. I bet it'd be way more fun to watch wrestling with Johnny Sorrow than with you. Hey, guess what? Kane is a pretty good worker. He just works a style that you don't like, and you have very particular tastes, which is okay, but seriously I don't think you SHOULD watch WWE programming. You'll just cause yourself pain. Also, Kane in a World title match in 2012 is still more credible than Daniel Bryan in a world title match in 2012. We might rather DB be there, but I think it's a huge jump, both kayfabe and otherwise, to think that Kane isn't considered more credible in a ton of ways.

It's not like that at all. Studd was completely immobile in 88. There's a lot that Kane can still do and he's a pretty savvy guy. He likes matches with size differences quite a bit and I imagine that they'll be able to do something very self aware and smart if it becomes a three way. I'm interested to see how they put it together, probably more interested than I'd be in another Punk vs Bryan match because past building a little on the last one, I'm not sure how they could do something better than that right now. I think it would have been a lot more of the same, and while that's great, this is wildly different and I kind of want to see it.

To be honest, I don't actually think they weren't a national promotion, but I was really shocked to figure out just where they didn't run, especially since just assumed they did shows here and there and I never heard anyone talk about it before.

I'm just saying that national TV isn't the end all.

GWF was on ESPN. I watched it when I was a kid. I got pissed off during the baseball expansion draft because it was preempted. Definitely on National TV. On the other hand even where they didn't run at all, I was still able to buy WCW Magazine, trading cards, and action figures as a kid.

According to the site, they didn't work New York at all in 91 or 92 either. Think about that. For 91/92, how are you a national promotion without working either the Northeast (they worked Jersey and DE and PA of course) or the North-NW (I don't see anything in WA, OR, WY, IH, ND, SD). Also nothing in UT, NV, CO. Just to name a few. As best as I can tell, WWF worked all of these places (give or take the one where the wrestling commission was weird).

I still think it's crazy how little WCW ventured to New England between 90 and 96. I thought the regional promotion thing wasn't even worth talking about but I find that really striking.

Shouldn't we look more closely at 92 then? Also, as a kid really into WCW in 91, I was always bummed that they didn't come to my part of MA. Graham's site has once in Boston in 90, nowhere in the rest of New England. They didn't run New England once in 1991. Once in Worcester in 92 and nowhere else in New England. Nothing in 93. Nothing in 94. Geez! Nothing in 95 in New England either! And just one Hartford show in 96, nowhere else. Is that REALLY right?

I would like to see someone take an argument that Cena was influenced by Sting.

I also think Sting WAS regarded as a draw, even if he didn't actually draw. The Perception was that he was a draw. That's part of why this is a bit of a jarring thing for some people. It goes without saying for them. "He was Sting! He was the franchise in WCW. Of course he was!" Edit: Once you get past the first few there, I think Sting does surprisingly well with the Gordy List, actually. If you put his "class" as overmuscled strongman babyfaces, he does even better.

I'm biased on this match. It's the only thing I watched the day Randy died. I hadn't seen it before and it seemed like a really natural thing. I like what was there as they were really trying, but yeah, it's a pale reflection of what could have been I guess.

If the booking was good enough then he probably would have been. But then if the booking was good enough Yoshi Tatsu would be too. Obviously, there's a level of scope there, but yeah.

Again, we're not arguing objective truth here. We're arguing whether or not he meets certain criteria to get him into a certain hall of fame. There are normative elements here.

It's also worth saying that there's no reason we can't think highly of Sting or say that he did many things well. It's just that he doesn't match the general criteria for the WON HOF. I have to think stuff like this all the time, because it's my natural tendency to back Sting in most things.

Really, hadn't they turned a corner? Wasn't it just bad business decisions, a move away from focusing primarily on what they did well and an over-extension financially and otherwise because of that which doomed JCP?

It's not about pinning the failure on Sting. It's just about not rewarding him for it.

It wasn't a good long term business decision. I Think that's the best way I can put it.

Crap I might have to break my rule.

And presentation and protection is more important than look. Maybe not in the casual fan. If someone won't buy Big Show's punch as a finisher because they haven't seen the build, then yeah, they're not going to buy a 5 foot tall guy being a main eventer. But if people stick through a really effective build on a talented performer, they will believe anything.

I never bought Spike's giant killer gimmick. When he beat Bam Bam it was fine. After that it was done so sloppily, "oh look he kicked the guy in the nuts and hit the acid drop." and they did the same match for months. It always looked like that old Ren and Stimpy cartoon when they were wrestlers. "Its time to lose the match." Doing it to Big Guido and Big Sal is fine. Then they had him do it to guys like One Man Gang and they still did it in under a minute, when they could of gotten a good brawl out of them. Gang still could of lost, but not in such a stupid manner. Fine, what about Taz? Yes he wasn't scrawny, but he was still a relatively tiny guy. But he was super protected and the fans were conditioned to see him as the human suplex machine and he was both believable and over, based on booking and match layout alone. Perception is all that matters in wrestling. Sometimes you have to get over a slightly bigger hump, and sometimes it's worth it and sometimes the cost is too high, but the thing that puts wrestling over most real life sports is that you can orchestrate this stuff. It's fiction. That WWE is terrible at long term planning in 2012 isn't the fault of the genre itself.

It matters differently to different people. BUT you can condition the audience to just about anything. Spike and Rey both had giant killer gimmicks and they were put over a few huge guys and it put that doubt in people's mind when they went up against Awesome or Nash. Maybe they COULD do it.

To me, the Summerslam match is weird. It's got this strange pace and the theatrics are over the top compared to VII, not in the concept but just in how the two guys MOVE. It's not slow motion necessarily but they were wrestling really BIG. It might be for the stadium but no one else in the show was doing that. And the crowd eats it up SO much too.

Has anyone ever pointed out specific things that Hogan did like that? I'd be really curious in reading that level of in depth analysis of him. I think for decades our community disregarded him as a rule, and would NEVER do that, just based on his push, his lack of moves, and the superman comebacks. It wasn't "against the rules" to deep analyze Hogan matches, but I think it was more along the lines of "just unthinkable." No one would even consider doing it.