CM Punk: Greatest Promo Ever

[El-P]

I have been to three live WWE shows in the past two years, sitting no further than third row and never got the idea that the impact in the matches was a production trick.

Good if the match look good on house show, but it doesn't change the fact that it is a production trick to cover for any mistake or weak shot, and it makes the matches unbearable to watch to me. It's an epileptic directing that keep the brain from concentrating on anything. I hate movies who do the same shit of editing a thousand shots in a minute because things have to move "fast" so the audience doesn't get "bored". I can watch and enjoy a good wrestling match without a frame change every two seconds.

[Victator]

I haven't really noticed. They have been changing angles for years. At least since the mid 90s.

[NintendoLogic]

It could be a language barrier thing, but for me, "not very good" has always been a euphemism for "shitty."

[khawk20]

I haven't really noticed. They have been changing angles for years. At least since the mid 90s.

 

...and it's been as annoying as hell since they started it.

 

This has always been a pet peeve of mine, probably because my viewing of "arena matches" was forged from the stationary camera that the AWA used to use at the Civic Center in St. Paul. 1 camera, 1 angle on everything. I liked that.

[El-P]

I haven't really noticed. They have been changing angles for years. At least since the mid 90s.

Yes, but not to the point of the directing getting totally crazy. That came with the 00's.

[FLIK]

The camera thing has bothered me forever too.

It's weird in that I don't always notice it but any time I do it becomes unbearable to watch with them literally never going more then a few seconds without switching.

 

It could be a language barrier thing, but for me, "not very good" has always been a euphemism for "shitty."

Yeah, I always take that as being a nice way of saying "fucking sucks" myself

[jdw]

Execution may not be completely irrelevant but I think it is easy to exaggerate it's importance and/or cherry pick where it is relevant. Watching the AJPW set some of the untouchable messiah figures of internet markdown were far from crisp even in their best matches. Didn't hurt those matches much either.

Tenryu blew shit all the time, and the Tenziguri is generally an article of faith. And it's hardly like Jumbo never was sloppy, Hansen could get sloppy as well, and Kawada could be all over the place.

 

I think we all are more than happy to ignore sloppiness in our favorite, or see sloppiness in our non-favorites that isn't quite there to the degree we're railing about. I'm still really interested in all the blown spots that Phil saw in Race-Backlund that I missed when watching it above and beyond the one(s) I noted. In turn, I loath going back and rewatching early 90s AJPW in full to see all the times where Misawa looked not-so-good-at-all in spots / segments / matches that we all pretty much ignored / missed / accepted back then.

 

On the other hand, we're reaching the point of removing everything from the match. Moves don't matter. Execution doesn't matter. Sustained selling doesn't match. Things adding up in a sensible fashion don't matter.

 

At which point we'll be left with:

 

Did the crowd pop? Did the crowd enjoy the match?

 

Which obviously is really important... the most important thing.

 

But we do all grasp where that leaves us with as the GOAT?

 

See... the thing is... even as we remove all the stuff like Moves and Execution and Sustained Selling, etc, etc... we are still pointing to elements of those things:

 

Lawler's punch's are executed better than X

Fujiwara sells damage better than X

 

It's Cake & Eat It territory, knocking off just enough to benefit our favorites while trying not to go too far down the slippery slope so that we end up with:

 

The GOAT: Hulk Hogan

 

Yeah, we're not terribly far from the "Keep The Government Out Of My Medicare" zone where you look over at some of the GOATiness arguments and think, "Wait... how doesn't that apply to Hogan?"

 

John

[Ditch]

There's a rainbow of botchedness, if you will.

 

The Tenryu enzuigiri is a classic example. NEVER executed crisply, not once. But most of the time is made contact, and given Tenryu's build it looked like it had to hurt the opponent. Heck a lot of the time it looked more painful than your average 'barely brush the back of opponent's head with your foot' enzui; Tenryu is belting the other guy with his whole lower leg! Most of all it looks like he's pushing himself to his physical limits. It certainly doesn't bring the match to a screeching halt and make you think "well he blew that one", killing the suspension of disbelief.

[El-P]

On the other hand, we're reaching the point of removing everything from the match. Moves don't matter. Execution doesn't matter. Sustained selling doesn't match. Things adding up in a sensible fashion don't matter.

Come on John, you know that in 2011, the only thing that matters is "playing your role well".

 

See... the thing is... even as we remove all the stuff like Moves and Execution and Sustained Selling, etc, etc... we are still pointing to elements of those things:

 

Lawler's punch's are executed better than X

Fujiwara sells damage better than X

That made me chuckle a bit.

 

Also "Takada's execution of shoot moves is not as good as X".....

[NintendoLogic]

On the other hand, we're reaching the point of removing everything from the match. Moves don't matter. Execution doesn't matter. Sustained selling doesn't match. Things adding up in a sensible fashion don't matter.

Don't these tend to be mutually exclusive, though? Aren't those who pooh-pooh the importance of selling and things making sense the ones placing all the emphasis on MOVEZ and execution, and vice versa?

[Dylan Waco]

Come on Jerome everyone knows "playing your role well" only matters if you are the ace of a Japanese promotion.

 

Ignoring the fact that I absolutely did not say "execution doesn't matter," I find it curious that the new accusation is that we are dangerously close to doing away with any and all ways to analyze and discuss matches other than the reactions they get. I literally do not know of any one who advocates that or anyone who advocates doing away with analyzing things based on stuff like selling, timing, offense, et.

 

It strikes me that what is actually happening is some people think certain things matter in wrestling more than others. As a result certain sacred icons are losing their stature as consensus "best ever" guys. The end result is a split in opinion that leads to hyperbolic denunciations of opposing viewpoints and the mass production of strawmen to knock down.

[jdw]

There's a rainbow of botchedness, if you will.

 

The Tenryu enzuigiri is a classic example. NEVER executed crisply, not once. But most of the time is made contact, and given Tenryu's build it looked like it had to hurt the opponent. Heck a lot of the time it looked more painful than your average 'barely brush the back of opponent's head with your foot' enzui; Tenryu is belting the other guy with his whole lower leg! Most of all it looks like he's pushing himself to his physical limits. It certainly doesn't bring the match to a screeching halt and make you think "well he blew that one", killing the suspension of disbelief.

I never go the sense that Tenryu was belting anyone with something painful. Not that you really want people punting opponents in the back of the skull stiff... but it didn't really come up to the level of even Inoki's in Inoki's prime... and it's not like Inoki was going stiff ones. Just decent theatrical ones.

 

Tenryu's enzuigiri was usually as light as Baba's Northern Chop. Except that the Northern Chop was suppose to be delivered to the top of the dome, and that was the visual Baba gave. Tenryu's enzuigiri was suppose to be to the back of the head... and is was instead in the neighborhood of the head... neck... upper back... sorta.

 

Tenzuigiri = People's Elbow

 

Except the People's Elbow was cooler.

 

If you want painful and physical limits, keep an eye on Baba's chops to the "chest" in the Carny '94 matches. I kept getting the feeling that too many chops were sliding up past the chest and into the *throat*. People weren't selling them to the neck, but I got the sense it was because they were *suppose* to hit in the chest and you have to sell for Baba where he "intends" not where he hits. I can't remember which match it was that it caught my eye, but it was one of the early tags, and it kept being noticable... and sort of made my throat all achy every match he was in.

 

So there's an example of suspending disbelief.

 

John

[jdw]

On the other hand, we're reaching the point of removing everything from the match. Moves don't matter. Execution doesn't matter. Sustained selling doesn't match. Things adding up in a sensible fashion don't matter.

Don't these tend to be mutually exclusive, though? Aren't those who pooh-pooh the importance of selling and things making sense the ones placing all the emphasis on MOVEZ and execution, and vice versa?

 

No. Seriously... no.

 

John

[jdw]

Ignoring the fact that I absolutely did not say "execution doesn't matter,"

Didn't say you did. I said we're moving in that direction.

 

What you said:

 

Execution may not be completely irrelevant but I think it is easy to exaggerate it's importance and/or cherry pick where it is relevant.

It's not completly, but... mostly irrelevant? Largely irrelevant? Quite a bit irrelevant?

 

 

I find it curious that the new accusation is that we are dangerously close to doing away with any and all ways to analyze and discuss matches other than the reactions they get. I literally do not know of any one who advocates that or anyone who advocates doing away with analyzing things based on stuff like selling, timing, offense, et.

I suspect that you'd admit that it's rather stripped down / minimalist now.

 

 

It strikes me that what is actually happening is some people think certain things matter in wrestling more than others. As a result certain sacred icons are losing their stature as consensus "best ever" guys. The end result is a split in opinion that leads to hyperbolic denunciations of opposing viewpoints and the mass production of strawmen to knock down.

Hell, I don't even think it's Best Ever guys. These discussions have gone on over people like Mark Henry and Taker and Cena, let alone the top guys. I'm willing to bet that more words have been spent online about whether Henry or Cena are any good that on people defending Jumbo or Kawada or Kobashi as a consensus Best Ever. Seriously... is anyone spending anywhere near the words to defend Jumbo against any sacred cow criticism as compared to people going on benders when Cena gets knocked?

 

Just looking at the Yearbooks threads for an example: there's criticism of AAA in the 90s. Is there anyone running in to defend the honor of AAA as the best lucha of the 90s? You're on more boards than I am, and I certainly don't spend any time posting regularly about 90s lucha. But I'll take a wild ass guess that the overwhelming majority of posts in circles you roam in are putting over the stars of CMLL and poking nice holes in AAA. People are coming up with strawmen to defend AAA?

 

On the other hand, knocks of AAA even in the Rey thread include that it was sloppy / botched / spotty.

 

The point of my post was two fold:

 

* We raise complaints to knock down the wrestlers we want to knock down, then ignore them if applicable to the wrestlers we like.

 

I gave the example of All Japan guys, and it's pretty well known that of the four guys I listed, I REALLY love at least four of them. It was an admission that even wrestlers I like are sloppy at times and warrant it being pointed out.

 

* we are stripping back analysis

 

Some of that is perfectly good. I've even joked in a post that the worst thing I ever did was point out the Misawa's Bad Neck storyline in a match because I then had to read another two years of similar comments that ran it into the ground. I'm pretty confident that the spawn of the spawn of the spawn of *my* spawn are still carrying the curse around the net.

 

Some of it is... frankly pretty laughable. There are times where it reads like a self parody, no doubt like some of my posts by 1999 (and beyond) read like a self parody. I could point to one on these boards where I was tempted to ask:

 

"You're working parody post, right?"

 

But thought better of it because reading another post made me think, "No... that's just him."

 

So I ran with the laughable tangent to it's hyperbolic conclusion:

 

We really are heading in the direction where someone can make an very easy move of just a couple of degrees and end up with Hogan being reasonably argued as the GOAT.

 

I actually think far fewer words are being spent defendng Old GOAT Candidates (with two very obvious exceptions... and they ain't Japanese) who are now criticised than:

 

* offering up New Sacred GOAT Candidates

 

* defending those New Sacred GOAT Candidates when people don't instantly march lock step

 

 

John

[NintendoLogic]

On the other hand, we're reaching the point of removing everything from the match. Moves don't matter. Execution doesn't matter. Sustained selling doesn't match. Things adding up in a sensible fashion don't matter.

Don't these tend to be mutually exclusive, though? Aren't those who pooh-pooh the importance of selling and things making sense the ones placing all the emphasis on MOVEZ and execution, and vice versa?

 

No. Seriously... no.

 

John

 

What?

[Jingus]

I thought "not very good", while certainly polite, is certainly not the same thing as "fucking sucks". A negative-star match fucking sucks; a 1.5-snowflake affair is not very good.

 

I haven't really noticed. They have been changing angles for years. At least since the mid 90s.

Yes, but not to the point of the directing getting totally crazy. That came with the 00's.

 

They've been gradually getting more and more impatient with the camera switches over time. It happened occasionally back in the 80s, first became somewhat common during Attitude, and then over the past half-dozen years got turned up to ludicrous speed. TNA is even worse about it, changing camera angles even faster than Kevin Dunn could keep up with.

[FLIK]

The point of my post was two fold:

 

* We raise complaints to knock down the wrestlers we want to knock down, then ignore them if applicable to the wrestlers we like.

Meh, that's human nature period, you can pretty much apply that to life itself.

[Strummer]

according to PWI Punk and Nash will be feuding which will lead to a match on PPV (probably at Night of Champions) The general point is that Nash is back as a full time character and it wasn't just a one shot angle deal. The thought it is that will help Punk because the office views Nash as a big star who will put him over (umm..). Although they were worried about his lack of reaction on Monday. I would guess they will go back to Punk/Cena around Survivor Series when Rock is returning

[Ditch]

So there's an example of suspending disbelief.

One would hope that prime Cena is held to a higher standard than '94 Baba, who was capable of being fun/entertaining but was not in legit MOTYCs (WON ratings aside).

[goodhelmet]

What you said:

 

Execution may not be completely irrelevant but I think it is easy to exaggerate it's importance and/or cherry pick where it is relevant.

It's not completly, but... mostly irrelevant? Largely irrelevant? Quite a bit irrelevant?

 

 

I want to point out that this cut and paste misrepresents Dylan's post. He was responding to a post above that used the term "completely irrelevant". I didn't read that Dylan was even implying that execution was irrelevant.

 

 

I thought "not very good", while certainly polite, is certainly not the same thing as "fucking sucks".

They are not the same but the very use of the word "not" implies negative connotations. Someone mentioned the words 'solid', 'ok', etc. earlier. If that is what you were implying then say those words.

 

"This lasagna is not very good"

"This lasagna is ok"

 

One is clearly a negative and one is clearly neutral/positive.

 

 

Sorry if I sound like a bitter old man, but there's nothing for me to watch on these shows I haven't seen before done a shitload better without the terrible WWE taste.

You do sound like a bitter old man. I would honestly prefer to hear about what you do like because most of your recent posts are all about your hatred for WWE. Create a thread of awesome matches El-P would like us to watch.

 

Good if the match look good on house show, but it doesn't change the fact that it is a production trick to cover for any mistake or weak shot, and it makes the matches unbearable to watch to me. It's an epileptic directing that keep the brain from concentrating on anything. I hate movies who do the same shit of editing a thousand shots in a minute because things have to move "fast" so the audience doesn't get "bored". I can watch and enjoy a good wrestling match without a frame change every two seconds.

PPV, SD! and RAW. They were not house shows. Live TV! (except for SD!). No one is really disputing the over-production of WWE TV. For Dylan, myself and others, it isn't a dealbreaker. I mean fuck, how many tapes of shit VQ did tape traders own back in the day but they accepted it so they could watch a match? You hold the WWE production values against the wrestlers, I don't.

 

On the other hand, we're reaching the point of removing everything from the match. Moves don't matter. Execution doesn't matter. Sustained selling doesn't match. Things adding up in a sensible fashion don't matter.

None of this applies to Punk-Cena except to people who are already predisposed to hate the current product anyway. Honestly, I don't know the answer, have you even seen the match?

 

according to PWI Punk and Nash will be feuding which will lead to a match on PPV (probably at Night of Champions)

As long as that isn't the match-up for the October Uprising PPV, I am ok with this.

 

One would hope that prime Cena is held to a higher standard than '94 Baba, who was capable of being fun/entertaining but was not in legit MOTYCs (WON ratings aside).

He is. Tomorrow, while my student teacher is doing all the work setting up my classroom, I'll try and finish this comparison of Punk/Cena and Austin/Hart I am working on. Maybe that would be a better comparison to work off of.

[El-P]

I thought "not very good", while certainly polite, is certainly not the same thing as "fucking sucks".

They are not the same but the very use of the word "not" implies negative connotations. Someone mentioned the words 'solid', 'ok', etc. earlier. If that is what you were implying then say those words.

 

"This lasagna is not very good"

"This lasagna is ok"

 

One is clearly a negative and one is clearly neutral/positive.

Linguistic. I love this board.

Well, I had to balance things a bit because I hear so many times that Cena is that really good worker. Well, he's not. So yeah, I had to be be a little bit negative here. Cena is ok. Lasagna rules though.

 

Sorry if I sound like a bitter old man, but there's nothing for me to watch on these shows I haven't seen before done a shitload better without the terrible WWE taste.

You do sound like a bitter old man. I would honestly prefer to hear about what you do like because most of your recent posts are all about your hatred for WWE. Create a thread of awesome matches El-P would like us to watch.

I know, I realize that. Blame me stumbling on MitB and having my brain trying to get around the fact people actually enjoy this stuff. I shouldn't even try to watch it, WWE does no good for me, and then I'm playing an unviable role.

I did contribute to the yearbook threads with positive comments though, although not as much as I would like to for various reasons.

[jdw]

So there's an example of suspending disbelief.

One would hope that prime Cena is held to a higher standard than '94 Baba, who was capable of being fun/entertaining but was not in legit MOTYCs (WON ratings aside).

 

I'm not sure what Cena is in reference to since I didn't mention him. But to run with that, yeah... I agree that Tenryu when he was on top should be held to a higher standard of execustion than 1994 Baba. I think that's why Tenryu's sloppiness tends to jump out at people.

 

John

[S.L.L.]

Sorry if I sound like a bitter old man, but there's nothing for me to watch on these shows I haven't seen before done a shitload better without the terrible WWE taste.

You do sound like a bitter old man. I would honestly prefer to hear about what you do like because most of your recent posts are all about your hatred for WWE. Create a thread of awesome matches El-P would like us to watch.

 

If not that, I'd at least settle for some actual specific criticism. I'm seeing a lot of complaints about the WWE house style, but they're all really vague. Lots of complaints about "simplification", for example, but nobody wants to tell me what's been simplified. And it's not even like I don't see problems with the style, it's just that - with a handful of exceptions - I don't really see how current WWE is unique in those problems, and, more specifically, how current WWE is unique or worse compared to past W/WWF/E. You want to tell me that WWE's in-ring style is simplified, well, I can certainly see that. You want to tell me that's something that wasn't the case in the company before 2005...I start to wonder if you've ever even seen wrestling before.

[Loss]

I think El-P is being unfairly picked on. The guy says plenty of positive things about wrestling and plenty of critical things about wrestling. He doesn't care for the modern stuff. Check out the yearbook threads.

[MJH]

I agree with Loss.

 

We're all prone to shitting (often overly so with hindsight) on things we don't like. Do some of his posts come off as (perhaps) overly-negative with regards to modern WWE? Sure; and he's made it abundantly clear that he doesn't like it, so that's to be expected. But the idea that he's vague about what he doesn't like about it? I've never found that at all. The whole "self-conscious epic" term is one I got right away. Is it the most "concrete" way to criticise the match? Probably not, but it sums it up. Hell, it's not as if he called Cena/Punk bad, I'm pretty sure he referred to it as "good" in one of these threads, and I think he said the same for HBK/Taker. I mean, it's probably something we should drop and agree-to-disagree on because both sides are pretty much set and have stated their respective cases. I might not always agree with Dylan, for instance, I mean we've gone back-and-forth over various stuff, but I've never questioned the backing-up of his arguments; I'll always give his arguments the light of day as it were. And the same for Jerome. Whilst I support the idea behind the yearbook sets completely, and viewing matches in context is how they're intended to be seen, BUT, if anything, the perspective of someone who doesn't watch WWE as regularly as myself/Dylan/Will/whomever is to be encouraged because they'll have that different perspective on it. They won't be seeing it in relation/by the standard of WWE in 2011, and it's important to have both angles.