Are psychology, "logic" and storytelling within a match overrated?

[JerryvonKramer]

Some of may not know that as well as being a wrestling enthusiast, I'm also a doctor of English with a particular interest in literary theory -- just completed two books looking at literary approaches being published next year. So I'm always interested in methods of assessment, aesthetics, notions of value and so on.

 

In wrestling fandom, the so-called smarts have always valued psychology, logic and storytelling within a match over pretty much anything else.

 

I've been thinking about this of late and wondering why. Two questions:

 

- In real life, do fights follow any particular logic? Would a bloke in a barroom brawl think about softening up a leg in order to apply a hold? What happens in UFC? Seems to me that the idea of a fight telling a story is purely the invention of pro wrestling. Most fights in real life are scrappy, disjointed, all over the place and so on.

 

- When assessing other narratives, do we apply the same sort of standards? Seems to me that a match that moves from A to B to C in a logical fashion is almost always praised for that fact. But if we watch a film that moves from A to B to C in a logical fashion, would we praise it for that? Or would we criticize it for being unadventerous, conventional, predictable and derivative? Are the best books those that advance their narratives logically from A to B to C? John Grisham does that very well, is he a better writer than James Joyce? Or Shakespeare? His works are a lot more "logical" on a narrative level. But typically, we don't judge books or films in this way. We EXPECT narrative simply to form part of its fabric and tend to focus on other things: style, themes, characters, whatever. So why in wrestling is the fairly mundane and unremarkable fact of basic narrative seen as being the be all and end all?

 

Short version:

 

1. Is a match structure with a logical story realistic? How?

 

2. Is it in and of itself something that makes a match good? Why?

 

Posters on this board do a very good line in challenging received wisdom. Reassessing sacred cows like Dynamite Kid vs. Tiger Mask, or rehabiliting the reputations of people like Ken Patera or Buddy Rose.

 

But this is one assumption that seems to have gone unchallenged. In every writeup I read it is an implied part of the assessment criteria. I am looking to ask some critical questions about that assumption.

[Matt D]

Wrestling isn't realistic. It's wrestling.

 

That said, you should find an example of a match which has a compelling and complete non-linear storyline. I think with movies/other forms of fiction, you can jump around time-wise and reveal things out of order, or what have you. With wrestling, you don't quite have those tools at your disposal.

 

I don't quite get what you want here? CHIKARA to do a MEMENTO match?

[khawk20]

I'm also a doctor of English

..and you can't spell "Psychology" right?

[JerryvonKramer]

I'll give you an example: The Sheik vs. Ricky Steamboat from the 80s All-Japan set. Everyone else has ranked that bottom 10. It's still in my top 10.

 

But I'm not NECESSARILY arguing for chaos here, I'm asking whether logic and storytelling always praiseworthy.

 

So I'm not saying matches should be like Memento, I'm asking whether the simple fact that wrestler A used "psychology" or worked a match that moved from A to B to C is in and of itself enough for us to think that the match is a good one. It's a very mundane and unremarkable thing if you think about it.

 

You see my point?

[JerryvonKramer]

I'm also a doctor of English

..and you can't spell "Psychology" right?

 

Yeah I saw that as soon as I posted and this bloody board doesn't allow you to edit the title. I sent Loss a PM asking him to change it. I always post in a rush using Notepad at work.

[Matt D]

Also, and I think people forget this, or ignore it, but a wildly huge majority of matches especially of the last ..what, twenty years? don't tell a story well. Either there's no attempt or there's no time or there's just wild lapses in execution. It should be the first and most important thing. Every move should matter. But that happens so rarely. It's worth pointing out when it's done and done well.

[Al]

Wrestling works better when it follows a narrative of some sort. That can take dozens of different forms. But on a basic level you want something that builds so fans can follow it logically. They know the big spots, and when the climax of the match occurs they pop. Sgt. Slaughter hitting the Iron Sheik with his own loaded boot. So many old time wrestlers talk about getting the fans hooked into the match, that's where psychology comes in.

 

You can work a match without it for 5-10 minutes. Just like a real fight, which never lasts more than a minute or two. But even then, that's part of your narrative.

[Loss]

To answer the thread's question, NO. Wrestling that makes sense is good wrestling. That they can make something fake logical is the fun of it. Otherwise, what's the point?

[JerryvonKramer]

That brings me to my second point which is: is "making sense" necessarily ENOUGH for something to be good? It seems like a ridiculously low level to be aiming for.

 

If we said "any film that 'makes sense' is good" then there would be very few bad films made in any given year. Why is making sense so privileged when we look at wrestling?

[Matt D]

That brings me to my second point which is: is "making sense" necessarily ENOUGH for something to be good? It seems like a ridiculously low level to be aiming for.

 

If we said "any film that 'makes sense' is good" then there would be very few bad films made in any given year. Why is making sense so privileged when we look at wrestling?

Because it happens so god damn little?

[Loss]

That brings me to my second point which is: is "making sense" necessarily ENOUGH for something to be good? It seems like a ridiculously low level to be aiming for.

 

If we said "any film that 'makes sense' is good" then there would be very few bad films made in any given year. Why is making sense so privileged when we look at wrestling?

Saying something is "overrated" by arguing that other things matter too is creating a false paradigm, don't you think? To say wrestling making sense is important is not to say nothing else is.

[Kostka]

That brings me to my second point which is: is "making sense" necessarily ENOUGH for something to be good? It seems like a ridiculously low level to be aiming for.

 

If we said "any film that 'makes sense' is good" then there would be very few bad films made in any given year. Why is making sense so privileged when we look at wrestling?

I think the key is that it needs to first "make sense" within it's context, then HOW good it is/what they did to maximize that is your criteria. If it doesn't make sense first then it's pointless. If its pointless then it's not effective... And if it's not effective, then it's not good.

 

I don't watch UFC, but I'd imagine fighters have strategies, some that work out for them, and some that don't. Pro wrestling psychology consists of failed strategies. It's not as black and white as "softening up a leg for an ankle lock = psychology defined". Lawler and Dundee punching the fuck out of each other is psychology, storytelling, and everything else, just as much as Flair working Lugers leg for a figure four is.

[Ricky Jackson]

Wrestling is theatre, but there are several different ways of telling the story. Personally, my favorite matches over the years "tell a story", or more precisely, build upon a larger story over the course of a feud. It's nice to have logic and psychology as well, but it seems that only a rare breed of wrestler ever really concern themselves with those qualities. I don't think psychology, logic and storytelling are "overrated" any more in a wrestling match than they are in a play or a movie. It's easy to say that some people don't care and just like the high spots, just like some people don't care and just like the explosions and death scenes in movies or whatever. But you still need a basic structure, a basic story, for people to "care" about any of these "moments" within the performance in the first place.

[FLIK]

All wrestling matches have a story, sometimes the stories aren't good, well executed or deep but still, all matches have a story of some sort.

 

To me logic & Psychology in wrestling are two things that are closely related but vastly diffrent at the same time and I think they get confused for one another too often.

 

Logic applies to what you're doing, it's the telling of a story in a certain way but to answer the question posed NO simply having logic doesn't make a match great.

 

Jake Roberts once defined psychology in pro wrestling as "mental masturbation" and I always thought that was a perfect way of describing it. Psychology is the art of making you care about the story and those involved in it. Psychology absolutely is necesary to have a great match.

 

Logic needs great psychology to back it up. Psychology doesn't necesarily need great logic as much....but it helps....

[Ottar the Viking]

- In real life, do fights follow any particular logic? Would a bloke in a barroom brawl think about softening up a leg in order to apply a hold? What happens in UFC? Seems to me that the idea of a fight telling a story is purely the invention of pro wrestling. Most fights in real life are scrappy, disjointed, all over the place and so on.

Is it realistic? Depends on how you define realistic.

 

Wrestling is not simulating a fight between bar patrons, but a match between top-ranked experts. By virtue of being in a professional wrestling setting, we are to assume that the combatants are the best of the best, and quite closely matched. They can, apparently, think up some strategy that will set up an eventual win (which a normal person could not), they can execute that strategy (which a normal person could not), and most importantly, they have to, because they are not facing a normal person.

 

- When assessing other narratives, do we apply the same sort of standards? Seems to me that a match that moves from A to B to C in a logical fashion is almost always praised for that fact. But if we watch a film that moves from A to B to C in a logical fashion, would we praise it for that? Or would we criticize it for being unadventerous, conventional, predictable and derivative? Are the best books those that advance their narratives logically from A to B to C? John Grisham does that very well, is he a better writer than James Joyce? Or Shakespeare? His works are a lot more "logical" on a narrative level. But typically, we don't judge books or films in this way. We EXPECT narrative

Logic by itself is rarely enough. Wrestling is sports fiction, so analogy to films like Major League, The Natural, Slap Shot, Rocky, &c are appropriate. A really accurate movie about a boxing match would not be Rocky, and a really accurate movie about a Little League game would not be The Bad News Bears -- but if those movies had half-assed the sports side of the story, they would have been the less for it.

 

There is a place, though, for a pure logic story. Not all genres can support them; it depends on the audience. Mysteries, thrillers, certain kinds of science fiction : the author can put the balls on the table and take his shot, and click click click, they all drop. The market for the wrestling equivalent of that is probably quite small, but overrepresented in places like this.

[S.L.L.]

OK, so originally, I was just going to dust off my old "KENTA vs. Nakajima/reality vs. realism" post - and I probably still will, but before I can even address that, I have to look at the foundation of Jerry's argument.

 

I want to preface all the stuff I'm about to write with this: Jerry, you seem like a good dude, and I have nothing personal against you whatsoever, so please don't take any of this too personally. Also, I realize that you're a doctor of English and I'm a college dropout, but honestly, I don't think I need a degree to say this: your argument is bullshit.

 

- When assessing other narratives, do we apply the same sort of standards?

Not always, but way more often than you're giving it credit for. For the most part, people do expect their stories, regardless of the medium, to make some degree of sense, fit into some kind of internal logic, and tell a coherent story. There are works that are clearly not supposed to do that, and people will adjust their expectations for those accordingly, but that's the default. I really don't see how you concluded otherwise at all.

 

Seems to me that a match that moves from A to B to C in a logical fashion is almost always praised for that fact.

Not really, it's just that it's the bare minimum of what we expect. If a match doesn't do that, then there's going to be complaints, and if you compare matches that do it to matches that don't, it's something that will be brought up as a positive. But generally, that's just framework - not enough to praise on it's own, but it's absense is a major flaw.

 

But if we watch a film that moves from A to B to C in a logical fashion, would we praise it for that? Or would we criticize it for being unadventerous, conventional, predictable and derivative?

I'm having trouble coming up with words to describe just how wrong this line of thought is, but it's very, very wrong indeed. If nothing else, it seems to be suggesting that any film who's plot flows logically is automatically unadventerous, conventional, predictable, derivative, and overall not worthy of praise. It's basically Vince Russo's attitude towards wrestling as applied to film, so I can't support it here any more than I would there.

 

As to what we praise, again, a plot flowing logically is the bare minimum of our expectations. To say that we must either praise it for that fact or dismiss it entirely in favor of the illogical is a false dichotomy. And would people praise films who's plots flowed logically instead of dismissing them? Well, "They Shoot Pictures Don't They?" is a website that, amongst other things, catalogues the top 1000 films of all time based on critical consensus. I don't know that their methods would be considered 100% accurate, but it looks solid enough to me. As of their last update, the top 25 films of all time - based on critical consensus - are....

 

1. Citizen Kane

2. Vertigo

3. The Rules of the Game

4. 2001: A Space Odyssey

5. The Godfather

6. 8 1/2

7. The Seven Samurai

8. The Searchers

9. Singin' in the Rain

10. Battleship Potemkin

11. Tokyo Story

12. Sunrise

13. Lawrence of Arabia

14. Bicycle Thieves

15. The Godfather: Part II

16. Casablanca

17. L'Atalante

18. Rashomon

19. Raging Bull

20. The Passion of Joan of Arc

21. Touch of Evil

22. La Grande Illusion

23. Some Like It Hot

24. City Lights

25. La Dolce Vita

 

Of these 25 films, how many do not possess a logically flowing plot? And here's a free hint: the fact that a movie has a non-traditional narrative structure does not automatically mean it doesn't have a logically flowing plot.

 

Are the best books those that advance their narratives logically from A to B to C? John Grisham does that very well, is he a better writer than James Joyce?

Here's another free hint: a story being weird does not automatically mean it doesn't have a logically flowing plot. I'm not a Joyce expert, and I won't pretend to be, but from what I can tell, his plots are pretty straightforward and do flow logically. They do not flow efficiently, that's for damn sure, but they do take a very scenic route from A to B to C. I've not read Finnegan's Wake, nor do I have any desire to, but that seems to fall into the "some people will shift expectations if they know a work isn't supposed to be logical" thing I mentioned above. It's an exception, not the rule, and that's ignoring all the people who don't like it specifically because it's so far removed from convention.

 

Or Shakespeare?

I did a double take when I read this. Shakespeare's writing wasn't "logical"? Since when? I can't even begin to see this one.

 

But typically, we don't judge books or films in this way. We EXPECT narrative simply to form part of its fabric and tend to focus on other things: style, themes, characters, whatever. So why in wrestling is the fairly mundane and unremarkable fact of basic narrative seen as being the be all and end all?

If it really does stand out more in wrestling - and I'm not entirely convinced it does - it's probably because it's such a simple medium of entertainment that it's easier to notice and appreciate the things we take for granted in every other medium. It also doesn't help that certain high-profile smarks heap praise on guys who's matches don't do this, so it gets brought up as a bone of contention more than it does in aesthetic criticism for any other form of entertainment. But nobody really thinks it's the only thing that matters.

 

I'll give you an example: The Sheik vs. Ricky Steamboat from the 80s All-Japan set. Everyone else has ranked that bottom 10. It's still in my top 10.

Again, I'm really not seeing this as a meaningful example. And not because it's a bad match, either. I thought it was awesome. But therein lies the rub: it met my expectations for psychology, logic, and storytelling. In fact, it was pretty much exactly what I expected a match between Ricky Steamboat and The Sheik to look like. How was this in any way proof of psychology, logic, and storytelling being overrated qualities in wrestling, or any medium?

 

I'm sorry, Jerry, but I'm just not seeing your argument, at all. It's based on claims that are either unsupportable or just plain make no sense, to the point that that the alternative you cite matches the norm to a tee. The one thing I can give you is that, in the past, you've used certain terms differently than the rest of us, and we had misunderstandings stemming from semantic issues stemming from that. I'd be willing to believe something like that is happening here, because otherwise, this just comes off as alien.

[Loss]

You may find the most amazing suit of all time and want to buy it. But if the suit doesn't fit, it's pointless.

 

The amazing suit is the excitement level/drama/highspots. The fit is the logic.

[Ricky Jackson]

Just my opinion, but I've never understood all the love for The Rules of the Game and 8 1/2.

[Matt D]

You may find the most amazing suit of all time and want to buy it. But if the suit doesn't fit, it's pointless.

 

The amazing suit is the excitement level/drama/highspots. The fit is the logic.

And surprisingly few suits are cut to fit. That's why it matters when they are. That's why it's worth talking about, because it really is quite rare.

 

It's the "bare minimum" but it's a hell of a lot easier to find excitement level/drama/highspots than it is to find a suit that fits!

[Jingus]

Seems to me that a match that moves from A to B to C in a logical fashion is almost always praised for that fact. But if we watch a film that moves from A to B to C in a logical fashion, would we praise it for that? Or would we criticize it for being unadventerous, conventional, predictable and derivative?

I think you're overly conflating the concepts of "logical" and "predictable". Just because a story makes sense doesn't necessarily mean that we know what's going to happen next. The events in Pulp Fiction are logical, and despite its non-chronological structure it still does very much have a plot that moves from A to B to C in a nearly Aristotelian manner. But a first-time viewer still has little idea of exactly where the story is going for its next beat.

 

Why is making sense so privileged when we look at wrestling?

Because it happens so god damn little?

 

Yeah. Basic narrative competence is rare in an artistic medium which is so debased as wrestling. (Same thing with horror movies; I love the horror genre, but at least 90% of "scary movies" tend to be pure crap and it makes me treasure those rare entries which are actually good.)

 

Or Shakespeare?

I did a double take when I read this. Shakespeare's writing wasn't "logical"? Since when? I can't even begin to see this one.

 

Actually, I'm with Jerry on that one. When you step back and look at Shakespeare's stories, they often make no fucking sense at all. Massive plot holes and goofy contrivances are everywhere in his plays. But his dialogue and characterizations are so goddamned brilliant that we don't notice that The Tragedie of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark has plenty of incredibly illogical points.

 

Just my opinion, but I've never understood all the love for The Rules of the Game and 8 1/2.

I wasn't particularly wowed by La Grande Illusion myself. For an anti-war movie, it sure tried to avoid ever showing many actual consequences of the horrors of war. And Europe's social structure was already moving away from the aristocratic model which the film was criticizing.

[Ricky Jackson]

I love Grand Illusion and other Renoir films like La Bete Humaine, but The Rules of the Game bored me.

[Victator]

Do cars need wheels?

[ohtani's jacket]

The "They Shoot Pictures Don't They?" list is about as boring as you can possibly imagine, but both Rules of the Game and 8 1/2 are great films. My favourite Renoir film is Boudu Saved from Drowning, however.

 

Most wrestling doesn't tell a story for the simple reason that the stakes aren't high enough. 90% of matches are just matches. They may have a narrative of some sort, but they don't really tell a story. Wrestling follows the same principle as sports: the majority of sporting encounters are disappointing in terms of their quality, but every now and again you get a classic. Sometimes that classic occurs during a finals series or a championship game and the sports writers go into overdrive and a story is spun. I think people confuse "psychology, logic and storytelling" with basic performance tennets. Just because a wrestler played their character well in a particular match doesn't mean it told a story.

 

When story occurs in wrestling it is praiseworthy for the fact that it's a performance art. The story for a book or movie or play is written and rewritten countless times until it's acceptable. With wrestling you have to do it on the fly. It's a completely different discipline. Shakespeare would not have been able to knock out Hamlet in 20 minutes and Joyce couldn't have finished a sentence in that length of time.

 

Basically, people want wrestling to give them their jollies in a way that sport does.

[El-P]

Agreed. The "every match tells a story" always struck me as bullshit to me. If you enjoy wrestling strictly for the stories it tells, you'd get bored after two matches. This goes along with the "good" = "playing your role well". Plenty of shitty workers "played their role well". Matches still sucked.

[MikeCampbell]

http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?showtopic=3909

 

Storytelling really just comes down to how the viewer perceives the action.