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

[Jingus]

It heavily depends on your definition of "great". Take some of the WWE's best train-wreck multi-man ladder matches, for example. Some of their TLC and MITB matches were among the most entertaining spectacles I've ever seen in a ring, but I wouldn't argue that they had anything resembling a deep story. It was mostly "one guy climbs up, another guy stops him, WHAM CRASH KABOOM" ad infinitum. But I still love 'em with all my heart.

[Dylan Waco]

The best of the WWE car crash ladder matches was the four man tag ladder match from 06 where Joey Mercury's face explodes and that match actually had a really interesting story to it - one of my favorite in recent memory actually

[Chess Knight]

It heavily depends on your definition of "great". Take some of the WWE's best train-wreck multi-man ladder matches, for example. Some of their TLC and MITB matches were among the most entertaining spectacles I've ever seen in a ring, but I wouldn't argue that they had anything resembling a deep story. It was mostly "one guy climbs up, another guy stops him, WHAM CRASH KABOOM" ad infinitum. But I still love 'em with all my heart.

I don't like the TLC matches (outside of the one on SmackDown 5/01), but this is generally what i feel about separating "good" from "favourite". I don't know if this brings up anything about psychology or story-telling (two terms which i hate using in wrestling), but I've enjoyed matches that were flat-out bad and felt good matches were not really my thing. I'll use the 96 yearbook as an example:

 

Liger v Kanemoto 4/1/96- realistically, there's nothing wrong with this match. Had nice moves, everything looked good, and nothing bringing it down. But shit, I got a little bored watching it. Idk if it was the shitty crowd or the fact I had seen the moves done a lot already before, but I'd almost never care to watch it again.

 

Psicosis v Ultraman 18/1/96- well, this started out as a pretty "good" match, but it eventually turned into pretty much a dog shit of a wrestling match with other luchadores coming in and peforming thir own moves for no other reason than to seemingly want the crowd ooh-ing and ah-ing over them. Still, tranwreck or not, I liked this, had fun with it, and it made it me laugh at times because of how silly it got.

 

If I had to say which match was objectively better, I'd probably say it was Liger v Kanemoto, but I have no shame in liking the pile of mess that was Psicosis v Ultraman. This is probably the big reason I stopped using star ratings. They're great for "this is what I thoguth of the match in one word," but if i had wrote how much i liked Psicosis v Ultraman and then plunked ** at the end, it wouldn't do what i wanted (this isn't a jab at snowflakes, btw).

 

----------

As far as "psychology" and "storytelling" go, I don't know if I'd say it was overrated or too much of pre-requisite, but I think i can be taken too seriously. 90s All Japan is an example. I mean, yeah, there's brilliant continuity through the deacde and they play off of stuff from the past really well, but I've seen a lot of people say that 90s AJ should be watched almost in order to really "get" it. I would say there's some stuff you wouldn't "get" if you hadn't watched a previous match, but if a guy out of the blue watches Misawa v Kawada 3/6/94 and doesn't know of the stuff with the leg, or the Jumbo v Tenryu references, or the finish not being used in years, etc. etc, I'd highly doubt he'd not enjoy just because of that.

[jdw]

I recall enjoying one of those SNME matches in the sense that Macho was fucking awesome in it in putting on a show and making Steele look good and getting the fans into the shit. I wouldn't say it sucked at all.

 

John

I'll agree that as entertainment it was fine, but as MATCHES it's hard to go above a Scott Keith-style "DUD" rating.

 

DUD is a Meltzer rating going all the way back to the early 80s. Setting that aside...

 

I could give a shit how That Idiot SKeith would have rated the matches.

 

I enjoyed at least one of those Macho-Animal SNME matches. Didn't suck to me. I can't think of a single match that I would rate as a "DUD" that I also happened to enjoy.

 

You lost me on the rest of your post, which doesn't strike me as relevant to pondering whether Macho-Animal sucked.

 

John

[S.L.L.]

I think the weakness of Jerry's arguments is borne out by his inability to name any concrete examples. Can he come up with a single great match that doesn't make any sense or tell a coherent story? Or a single all-time great worker who doesn't have any great matches to his name? In the latter case, he tried to go with Ted DiBiase, but even he said that he doesn't consider him a serious contender for all-time top 10, so I guess that shows how far he's willing to take that argument.

It's not that he can't point to concrete examples. He can and has. It's that the examples he points to don't fit his arguments, and I don't know that he can point to examples that do. When talking about how great matches don't have to make sense or have a coherent story, he points to Steamboat vs. Sheik...which made sense and had a coherent story. In the older thread he pointed to DiBiase as a possible all-time great who didn't have great matches, and illustrated his point in part by pointing to great performances in matches with Savage and Virgil...which are, you know, wrestling matches.

 

The problem seemed to be a semantic one the older thread. What he meant by "great matches" was not what I or seemingly anyone else on the board meant by "great matches":

 

In other words, I'm saying that when you say "the name on the marquee" is wrestling, the word "wrestling" once deconstructed MEANS the heel/face dynamic, the characterization, the storylines and angles, and so on and then and only then the match.

You seem to be suggesting that reliance on the heel/face dynamic, characterization, storylines, angles, and so on precludes a match from being a "great match", but most of us think that that's a key part of most great matches.

And as a side note, that really made this thread all the more confusing to me. Workrate/"wrestling" is overrated. Psychology, logic, and storytelling is overrated. What's left to rate? This thread seemed completely oppositional to everything Jerry had put forward until now. How it's supposed wrap around to a support of his earlier posts is mind-boggling.

 

But, I thought there was a similar error in play here - when he said psych/logic/storytelling in matches was overrated, he wasn't actually trying to say that. His interpretation of "psych/logic/storytelling" was not ours, just as his interpretation of "great matches" was not ours. What I don't get, though, is why he hasn't picked up on this yet, because it really seems like he hasn't.

 

I'll agree that as entertainment it was fine, but as MATCHES it's hard to go above a Scott Keith-style "DUD" rating.

Wrestling matches are supposed to be entertainment. Why would I ever want to watch a wrestling match that I didn't think was entertaining? Why would "entertainment" and "wrestling match" be mutually exclusive? Yes, there are assholes out there like Scooter Keith who might treat it that way, but we're not them, and you'd think he'd know that by now. Why is he still talking to us like we are?

[Loss]

S.L.L. said that about as diplomatically as it could be said. Thanks for making the point by focusing on the argument and not the person. I think that's what makes this board worth visiting.

 

I agree with the sentiment. I'm not inside Jerry's head, so Jerry, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think some points you make are intended to be devil's advocate points. If not that, I think sometimes you throw a question out without having an idea in your head yet of where you stand on it, because you are curious how we'll answer. I think that's perfectly fine, and I mention it not to single you out, but instead so we have a better understanding of where you're coming from when posing such questions.

 

Just to be honest, I don't really care for devil's advocate posting most of the time unless it's coming from a place of genuine conviction. Otherwise, why advocate for the devil?

[NintendoLogic]

To put it another way, if match quality doesn't matter, and if logic and storytelling don't matter...isn't that essentially Russoism? Or at least a pretty big step down that road?

[Al]

I recall enjoying one of those SNME matches in the sense that Macho was fucking awesome in it in putting on a show and making Steele look good and getting the fans into the shit. I wouldn't say it sucked at all.

 

John

The Savage/Steele matches were integral to building Savage's character. The Megapowers angle doesn't work without Savage's jealousy of Elizabeth being firmly established in that feud.

[JerryvonKramer]

And as a side note, that really made this thread all the more confusing to me. Workrate/"wrestling" is overrated. Psychology, logic, and storytelling is overrated. What's left to rate?

All the non-wrestling aspects of the product: the promos, the angles, etc As I've said before.

 

"psychology, logic and storytelling" all refer to in-match things. "Psychology" means psyching an opponent out or working the crowd, "logic" means following an attack on the arm with another attack on the arm, "storytelling" is "this arm injury has put worker A at a serious disadvantage, especially as he needs this arm to do his finisher"

 

This thread seemed completely oppositional to everything Jerry had put forward until now. How it's supposed wrap around to a support of his earlier posts is mind-boggling.

Not at all, psychology, logic and storytelling -- as described above -- are all part of what makes workers good workers and what makes them good matches. I was talking about all the OTHER things outside of the match in the old thread, and here I'm asking if WITHIN a match people tend to overrated the importance of narrative and structure.

 

Those two arguments are not in any way contradictory.

 

 

But, I thought there was a similar error in play here - when he said psych/logic/storytelling in matches was overrated, he wasn't actually trying to say that. His interpretation of "psych/logic/storytelling" was not ours, just as his interpretation of "great matches" was not ours. What I don't get, though, is why he hasn't picked up on this yet, because it really seems like he hasn't.

How would you define those three terms then? And how would your definition differ from what I outlined above?

 

Wrestling matches are supposed to be entertainment. Why would I ever want to watch a wrestling match that I didn't think was entertaining? Why would "entertainment" and "wrestling match" be mutually exclusive? Yes, there are assholes out there like Scooter Keith who might treat it that way, but we're not them, and you'd think he'd know that by now. Why is he still talking to us like we are?

I've been taking part in the DVDR project -- admittedly late on board with the All Japan set. But I've read through many comments in Too Short on the Mid South set too.

 

People do draw a distinction, whether explicitly or implcitly, between "I really enjoyed this" and "this was a great match". I can't point to individuals, but there IS a tendency to draw a line between FUN on the one hand, and QUALITY on the other.

 

Flair vs. Jumbo is QUALITY

 

A chaotic 6-man tag from 88 is FUN

 

Do you think this distinction doesn't exist? And do you think I'm mistaken to point to it?

[jdw]

"Psychology" means psyching an opponent out or working the crowd,

There's your problem right there.

 

John

[JerryvonKramer]

What does it mean then? "Working the leg" like the Andersons?

[Loss]

What does it mean then? "Working the leg" like the Andersons?

Logic and storytelling combined are psychology.

[Matt D]

"Doing everything for a conscious, thought out reason."

 

That's the best way I could put it.

 

I think one of the best psychological performances of the last few years is Big Show vs Mayweather. Every tiny movement big show does before, during, and after that match has a purpose. It's frigging amazing.

[JerryvonKramer]

See, my thought was that Hogan and Warrior nose-to-nose, doing the superman power battle spot, or any time the babyface does a big Rocky Balboa comeback were all times when we'd talk about "pyschology".

 

People say Jake Roberts has great pyschology, but surely that could be him, for example, sitting in the corner of the ring and letting everyone else fight during a Royal Rumble (or whatever).

 

I understand that "psychology" and "basic logical storytelling" are taken to be synonymous, but don't the above examples count as pyschology?

[MikeCampbell]

Simply put, psychology is why the wrestlers do what they do.

 

Example: Eddie Edwards and Davey Richards are fighting on the floor. Davey fires off a roundhouse kick, but Eddie ducks and Davey winds up kicking the post. Eddie gets Davey in the ring and starts attacking the knee. Why is Eddie doing this?

 

A. Because Davey just screwed himself up and is hurt.

B. Because he can soften up Davey for the half crab, which is his finisher

C. With Davey having a bad wheel, he'll be less likely to KO Eddie with one his roundhouse kicks.

 

It's all of the above, they all make perfectly logical sense. That's good psychology.

[JerryvonKramer]

Ok fine, I don't think this necessarily affects my argument on the last page.

[Loss]

To Mike's point, which I think was well put, someone inevitably always points out "Because it fucking hurts" in these types of discussions as the "why". Sure, that's competent psychology, but it's not great psychology on its own.

[Ricky Jackson]

I've always found the term rather ambiguous, but I would consider a wrestler behaving in a manner that suggests they are "thinking" like their character as "good psychology".

[MikeCampbell]

To Mike's point, which I think was well put, someone inevitably always points out "Because it fucking hurts" in these types of discussions as the "why". Sure, that's competent psychology, but it's not great psychology on its own.

I've always hated that argument. It strikes me as a knee-jerk reaction when trying to defend something that doesn't seem to hold up under higher scrutiny.

[Matt D]

It's like the bs over people "playing their roles."

 

The issue is that so few people do it well. So few matches actually make sense. If all of them made sense. If everyone played their role well, then it wouldn't stand out, but since so few matches actually qualify that's what makes it all stand out.

[El-P]

Since someone brought up Jake Roberts, there's the most perfect exemple why "psychology" is overrated to some extent.

Jake Roberts is supposed to bring this great psychology to his matches. Except, like Dan said in the Tito thread, most Jake matches end up being disapointing. Because Jake just wasn't that good of a worker after all. So, psychology only goes so far, if you don't bring it with some actual work too(and don't give me the argument that psychology = work), matches won't be that good after all. They will surely make sense, but... Anyway, you get the point.

[NintendoLogic]

I remember reading a piece on psychology that argued that it was actually two separate concepts: ring psychology and crowd psychology. Ring psychology is doing things that make sense from a standpoint of trying to win a match. An example would be Bret Hart working over an opponent's back to set up the Sharpshooter. Crowd psychology is doing things to elicit a reaction from the audience. An example would be a typical babyface comeback routine. Ideally, you want to have both.

[Loss]

I think that's breaking it down too much. It's not that complicated. Wrestling that makes sense is good, and displays good psychology. Wrestling that doesn't make sense is bad, and displays bad psychology. We tend to break things into categories too much when discussing this stuff. It's too fragmented. That we're at a point where we're asking if it really matters if wrestling makes sense honestly embarrasses me a little.

[JerryvonKramer]

So Loss, are you saying there is no scope for the wrestling equivalent of absurdism? Or Dadaism?

 

Even aside from that, I still think it's setting the bar ridiculously low to say "makes sense = good", "doesn't make sense = bad".

[MikeCampbell]

Even aside from that, I still think it's setting the bar ridiculously low to say "makes sense = good", "doesn't make sense = bad".

Brother, it's pro wrestling. It's not intended to be highbrow, high concept stuff.