Punk vs Henry and watching wrestling "cold"

[NintendoLogic]

Lots of interesting stuff in this thread, and I don't think I'll be able to address all of it in one sitting. First of all, let's not get ahead of ourselves. It's a pretty small group that looks at something like Punk/Henry as a MOTYC. I don't think too many people on the F4W board would hold that opinion.

 

Most people go into a match cold because they're watching something they're not familiar with or don't follow on a regular basis. Casas vs. Panther, for example, has been built to since last year (possibly even the year before.) I didn't watch all of the set-up but the guys who did were really high on that match. Speaking for myself, the Punk/Henry match would be easy to watch in isolation because I at least know those workers but with the New Japan match I'd be lost and I doubt I'd give it a fair shot.

It's funny you should mention that, because Okada/Naito isn't context-heavy at all. Pretty much all the drama comes from the in-ring action. Okada works Naito's neck to set up the Rainmaker, and Naito works Okada's leg to neutralize the size advantage. You don't really need to know anything about either guy to get into it. I can count the number of Naito matches I had seen before this one on hand, and I literally have not seen a single other Okada match, and I dug the match a lot. Something like Taker/HHH is much more reliant on the booking and other external factors.

 

I realize you're trying to give me an out here, so I'll just take it and let that be that. There are exceptions to every rule.

 

I'm laughing because I must give off quite the absolutist vibe, considering how often people try to get me with you-said-this-but-you-also-once-said-this stuff.

It kind of comes with the territory when you say that there are certain things that make wrestling good that apply universally regardless of promotion and time period. Also, this board is hyper-analytical in general, so if something doesn't jibe with someone's previously expressed opinions, people are going to pick up on it. For what it's worth, I don't think it's necessarily a problem. Wrestling is inherently subjective. Sometimes, a match is more than the sum of its parts. Sometimes, the opposite is true. I for one will readily admit that I've overlooked things that my favorite wrestlers have done that would annoy the shit out of me if someone I didn't like did it.

[ohtani's jacket]

Plenty. I've enjoyed tons of stuff from those. It's not a standard I've set. It's a standard I agree with. Anyone who has ever voted in a Match of the Year poll follows the same standard. I'm not the only person on the Internet who compares matches across styles, eras and promotions featuring vastly different types of wrestlers. In order to do that, doesn't everyone have to decide what they value in good wrestling and then try to apply it universally?

Looking at Dylan's MOTY list, Panther/Casas and Terry/Che are matches I expect to follow the conventions of lucha libre hair matches, the Santo stuff I expect to follow the conventions of lucha libre brawling, the Casas/Sombra match I expect to follow the conventions of lucha libre title matches, the Finlay/Tajiri match I expect to follow the conventions of Japanese wrestling, and the Henry/Punk match I haven't seen yet but would expect to follow the conventions of the modern, present day WWE style. If I were to rank them it would simply be based on which match I liked more. Naturally, there are things I value in all wrestling but those things would be present in each individual match otherwise they wouldn't be on my list. I don't think I would rate the Santo tag above the Casas/Panther match simply because the selling was better in the Santo tag, for instance. It would be because the Santo tag was a proper lucha brawl whereas the Casas/Panther match was a maestro match when it was supposed to be a hair match. I suppose you could argue that wrestling the right type of match for the right situation is a value that can be applied universally, but I was just wondering how fixed your viewpoint is. You've already implied that you're not an absolutist so I guess that answers that.

[ohtani's jacket]

It's funny you should mention that, because Okada/Naito isn't context-heavy at all. Pretty much all the drama comes from the in-ring action. Okada works Naito's neck to set up the Rainmaker, and Naito works Okada's leg to neutralize the size advantage. You don't really need to know anything about either guy to get into it. I can count the number of Naito matches I had seen before this one on hand, and I literally have not seen a single other Okada match, and I dug the match a lot. Something like Taker/HHH is much more reliant on the booking and other external factors.

I will check it out if I have time, but I would want to know more about Okada and Naito and whether they have any sort of charisma because that type of psychology bores the crap out of me in Japanese wrestling.

[Loss]

There is nothing I disagree with in that post.

 

I suppose you could argue that wrestling the right type of match for the right situation is a value that can be applied universally, but I was just wondering how fixed your viewpoint is.

It's not completely fixed. The fixed things to me are that the match generally makes sense in a way that works for the audience and the promotion and that the wrestling exchanges themselves are quality. That can be done in a solid, enjoyable way, or it can be done in a great way that really transcends just the intended audience or era. Those are the matches that are great matches.

 

Apologies if I've hijacked this thread. I'm re-reading some stuff I've posted, and I can see how it caused some stir. It's silly to decide what wrestling is and put it in such a small box, because it comes in so many great forms. I've said as much before, so I'm not sure what I was thinking.

 

Now ... hopefully this thread can be about something other than me.

[FLIK]

It's funny you should mention that, because Okada/Naito isn't context-heavy at all. Pretty much all the drama comes from the in-ring action. Okada works Naito's neck to set up the Rainmaker, and Naito works Okada's leg to neutralize the size advantage. You don't really need to know anything about either guy to get into it. I can count the number of Naito matches I had seen before this one on hand, and I literally have not seen a single other Okada match, and I dug the match a lot. Something like Taker/HHH is much more reliant on the booking and other external factors.

I will check it out if I have time, but I would want to know more about Okada and Naito and whether they have any sort of charisma because that type of psychology bores the crap out of me in Japanese wrestling.

 

Hmmm, no clue if it'll appeal to you or not but they were over as hell with the ppl in the building atleast. Sold out K-Hall (which is rare these days) going nuts and treating both guys like superstars the whole way through so I thought it was an awesome atmosphere and it never felt like the action draged to me.

 

I went in pretty cold as well also having only seen a few Naito matches and nothing from Okada but the context of the match is pretty easy to understand. Two young guys in the middle of their first big push, one's a cocky prick the other's your standard fighting spirit babyface and they're getting a shot to headline a big show for the world title and prove themselves as top guys.

[Chess Knight]

I think it says a lot about the year when a free TV match, with no build-up, unannounced, that has commercial breaks and a count-out finish is being considered for Match of the Year. That is not to say that the match wasn't enjoyable, mind you, but how was this better than, as an example, Kazuchika Okada Vs. Tetsuya Naito from IWGP (which Dylan doesn't list, which surprised me). I understand that tastes vary and pro-wrestling as an art form is a pretty subjective thing but I think instances like this are why it is impossible for me to establish a definitive list, especially come December.

I haven't seen this Japan match that's getting talked about, but I watched Punk/Henry twice and if I didn't enjoy the IWGP thing it wouldn't be hard to say why. Most of it is just specific examples of what was good and what wasn't.

 

Punk v Henry was awesome (hyperbolic, I guess. I mean if I used star ratings it'd be like ***1/2 but I'm picky and think that's almost great), because of a lot of reasons I still remember. Opening was Punk distancing Mark because if he got too close Mark would eat his fucking face off. Henry got past that because he's a fat man and started humiliating and yelling at Punk because he's a mean fat man. The yells of "I OWN YOU," and "DID I TELL YOU TO MOVE" were so big and dominating. Punk's sell of anything Henry did to his back was terrific and I remember those squeals and facials when he was under the ropes or near the corner. Punk tries multiple times to build offense but Henry keeping booting him (some looked NASTY btw) and keeping him from stringing anything together so we have a great little story built for a 12 minute Raw match. If Punk strung anything together Henry may have been in deep shit. Punk WAS in deep shit when Henry lapped on the bear hug and Punk pulled out the most desperate elbow flurry of his life. Looked like a truly awesome struggle and it had the suspense that at any second Henry could shrug it off and turn Punk into meatloaf. Punk finally gets more than a little offense and gets his signature "knee/bulldog," but Henry's STILL not down enough and throws him outside the ring to get a breather. Neither guy can recover- Punk isn't getting back in the ring (back's hurt/he's taken way too much b/w this and the bumps v Jericho) and Henry's shaking off cobwebs too long to do anything about it. I didn't love the finish at all, though. Maybe I asked for too much to have a definitive end to it but I doubt I'd have to exaplin why a count-out finish isn't preferrable to me.

 

That wasn't me with a notepad, or even THINKING during the match. You just pick it up while watching it b/c you noticed it. Whenever a "review" or something is written, it's pretty much nothing more than someone writing the experience they had while watching it. Sort of. There's a better way to word these past few sentences.

 

I don't even know what I am looking for from a match that makes it stand out for me. Other than just using a cop-out, stock answer like "it makes me mark-out" or throwing around buzzwords like "psychology," "pacing," & "heat." It makes me feel bad. I don't want to say "I liked this match more" I want to be able to explain why, ya know?

I'm 50-odd % sure of what you mean here, I think. I've read so-called "reviews" that are like "this was a great match with really good psychology and awesome moves. *********3/6." where they don't expand on anything. I don't want to be look-my-nose-down grump who won't take someone like that's opinion seriously, but it's hard for me to care to watch it unless they actually say something about the match that sticks out. "This was a great match with really good psychology and awesome moves" applies to thousands of matches.

 

It doesn't have to be expanded on in a prententious way or anything, it usu. goes little further than naming which spots you liked and didn't like. Some just make an amazing visual (e.g. Henry booting Punk in the gut after Punk jumps from the turnbuckle).

 

Explaining why one match is better than the other IS confusing. I'd have nothing but good things to say about Punk/Jericho from Mania, but I reckon Punk/Henry was better (both "really good ***1/2"-level to me). Honestly I may JUST chalk that down to the fact I'm a sucker for big man v little man.

 

It's really hard for me to compare wrestling from different regions, for some reason. Maybe that is just a problem for me, but when comparing matches, how do I compare a WWE main event style match (like HHH/Taker), to a Lucha match (Panther/Casas) to a NJPW main event style match (Okada/Naito) to a U.S. Indy match (Richards/Elgin)? This isn't a knock against Dylan or anyone else, mind you. I just really struggle to place the matches I enjoy in an actual pecking order.

As someone who is convinced he has OCD, I love making lists but can never fucking make them in the first place. I watched the entire 1996 yearbook and had planned to make a top TEN match of the year list. I went from "top whatever I love" to "top 25 with honorable mentions" to "only top 25" to "top ten" to "fuck this." I actually got the ten matches I thought I wanted to use, but deciding on the order was torture and the only thing I was 100% sure of was that 12/6/96 was #1 and Kudo/Toyoda was #2.

 

Comparing wrestling from different countries doesn't phase me, but just comparing wrestling matches in general can be a real hair-puller which is why I don't love to think about it unless it's an easy comparison. Ironically the problem might be I put too much thought into it.

 

This isn't really what I meant by buzz words. I certainly won't act like I'm on the level as a lot of other people around these parts as it pertains to pro-wrestling knowledge but I know that psychology goes beyond just doing legwork to set-up a Figure-Four. If I am trying to explain what matches I liked to a casual fan, as an example, I can't very well just throw out words like psychology or pacing and expect them to know what I'm talking about though. I want to explain why I like "Match A" more than "Match B" when both matches are great, from a rational and logical standpoint. When one match is the pits and the other is great, it is not a problem, but I do struggle when they're both good, especially if they're from different regions and I'm talking to someone only familiar with one style of wrestling. As stated in my initial post though, it is also a struggle that I deal with personally in my critical thinking, when trying to explain it to myself. Why did I like this more than that without just resorting to phrases like "I just do."

Explaining why I like a match to a casual fan (especially in-person) would be torment. I mean the chance of a casual fan talking up why they like the match other than "I liked this more than that" is really slim, but if you get into "tighter offense," "better selling," "told the story better," they'd probably look at you like you were a nut. I recently found out my friend watched wrestling for some time, and he knows more than I thought he would as far as "insider" stuff goes, but I still don't get the impression he'll be ....me-ish and think Benoit/Angle is inferior to Benoit/Finlay because of "no-selling" or "stiffness" or whatever. What those matches have to do with this...IDK, but the point is a casual fan won't be explaining any of that any time soon. I could rat on for minutes and minutes why I think Benoit/Finlay is better than Benoit/Angle, I doubt a "casual" could other than "this was boring, that was boring," "this was good, that was good." A casual fan probably won't even ask why you liked a match anyway.

 

The great match v great match thing IS hard to explain, but how often does anyone explain it? I prefer 6/3/94 to 6/9/95 as best match ever. Can I say why? Not really. It literally goes no further other than I myself getting more emotionally compelled by the former. I last watched it on June 3rd of 2010 (was going for an every-year thing. didn't last in 2011, obv), and I got honest-to-God goosebumps watching it; there's a lot in that match to analyse but when two matches have extreme positives and little negatives, there's going to be almost no reason you prefer one to other beside personal preference. I watched the RWTL 96 final, and there's literally NOTHING wrong with that match I can remember. It was borderline perfect. Still, I just thought 6/3/94, 6/9/95, one of the Flair/Steamboats, etc. were better.

 

Analysis counts for something but if I take the "I enjoyed it more/less" aspect away, I just won't ever enjoy pro wrestling.

 

IDK how much of that made no-to-little sense.

[Jason Mann]

My point is that hierarchical structure in wrestling is something I also really like in practice to...except when I like guys who aren't really that sort of guy. Exceptions abound

The hierarchical structure of wrestling is a good thing to establish, but it makes me enjoy matches, like Ziggler-Cena, for example, in which the lower-level guy does better than you'd expect against the top guy. This obviously happens in real sports all the time, so it makes sense that one top star would have an off night or that one guy would get hot and have a better performance than usual.

 

This was kind of the story with Santino in Elimination Chamber, too, although that was probably more luck-dependent than going above himself in skill for one night. Similar principle, though.

[Coffey]

Here's a talking point that I just thought about while reading & replying to the TNA thread: Can a great match prior to a feel-good moment make the moment seem more important? Not even necessarily a feel-good moment, any moment I guess. Like, I remember that Elizabeth & Randy Savage reuniting at Wrestlemania VII was a big deal. But would it have been that big of a deal had the Warrior/Savage match not just happened? It's sort of hard to look at it from that perspective because it also tied-in with the kayfabe in-ring retirement of Savage (for losing that match) and Sherri turning on Savage.

 

But it does sort of tie-in with what Loss & I were talking about a little earlier in the thread, where knowing what's going on matters to help make a match better. But on the flip-side can the match make the goings on better, because pro-wrestling isn't always just about the bell-to-bell portions of the show, especially in the United States.

 

What I'm asking is, a vignette/segment can add heat to a match but can a match add heat to a vignette/segment to make it more memorable? Obviously I think that it can but what are some good examples? I guess if the feud involves a really heated match that it would, by default add a lot of tension to any interaction afterward, even in a non-wrestling capacity. I mostly remember shit like The Brother Love Show or Piper's Pit or Jake's Snake Pit being used to set-up matches though, not for post-match shenanigans.

[ohtani's jacket]

I've always viewed a post match angle as part of the match. Personally, I don't see how a great match can do anything but add to a post match angle. A more interesting question might be whether a post match angle can be great if the match was poor. I imagine it can. Has anyone ever shed a positive light on the BATB '96 mainevent or the King of the Ring '96 final?

[Dylan Waco]

I don't think either of these matches were bad.

[Chess Knight]

I liked the BATB tag WAYYYYYYYY more than I thought I would last year. If it wasn't for Nash's absolutely drop-dead shitty offense I would thought it was damn good.

[NintendoLogic]

I don't think either of these matches were bad.

How about Hogan/Sid? Although in retrospect, Warrior returning wasn't that great a moment.

[Jingus]

I do seriously wonder if Savage/Warrior would be so fondly remembered if the Liz reunion angle didn't happen afterward. Never quite understood why people insist that was Warrior's best match ever, let alone one of Savage's best bouts.

 

I don't think either of these matches were bad.

Wait, are you including the KotR final? That one didn't have time to be anything, it was less than five minutes long. The whole match was basically one long injury angle for Jake Roberts, played to a goofy melodramatic level; in both kayfabe and shoot terms, that guy shouldn't have been in this tournament final. It was such a squash that I was able to count all of Jake's offense: two kicks, six punches, one clothesline.

[Ricky Jackson]

I do seriously wonder if Savage/Warrior would be so fondly remembered if the Liz reunion angle didn't happen afterward. Never quite understood why people insist that was Warrior's best match ever, let alone one of Savage's best bouts.

I think the whole package of the match, the stipulation, Savage going from extremely hated to beloved over the course of 30 minutes, and the post-match reunion make it one of the greatest stories the WWE has ever told on a show. I also think it is Savage's greatest masterpiece as a performer, and that says a lot.

[Loss]

It may not be remembered as well, but so what? Taken together, it's an incredible moment, maybe the most substantive and genuinely emotional in the history of the company. Randy Savage gains the world by losing everything.

[Coffey]

That match alone is the reason why I'll never hate The Ultimate Warrior and why when asked who the best ever is, the conversation always has "or maybe Randy Savage" thrown in there somewhere. :-)

[goodhelmet]

If you guys were actually watching WWF TV at the time, I can see if you were emotionally invested in the match and respect that. However, I was not invested in WWF TV during the Savage-Warrior stuff, saw it ten years later and don't have the same affection for the match that others do.

[Jingus]

If you guys were actually watching WWF TV at the time, I can see if you were emotionally invested in the match and respect that. However, I was not invested in WWF TV during the Savage-Warrior stuff, saw it ten years later and don't have the same affection for the match that others do.

Ditto. I first saw that when I was just renting old Manias from a Hollywood Video, and judging from my once-per-year State Of The Industry perspective, I thought Warrior's match with Hogan was a lot neater than the Savage encounter.

[Matt D]

Neither here nor there but I was watching Savage/Warrior from Summerslam 92 for the first time in ages and it's amazing how much more blown up Warrior was in that match than in his other big ones.

[Chess Knight]

I've never thought Warrior/Savage was a great match and have tried to love it each time. Still, I find a huge appreciation for the aftermath. Brilliant stuff.

[Dylan Waco]

I think it's one of the three or four best matches in the history of the company and easily the best of the WWE "bioepics."

[anarchistxx]

I actually prefer the Summerslam match at Wembley to the overblown Wrestlemania epic. The Warrior/Rude series of matches are much better than both though, especially the Summerslam 89 classic, Warrior never had a better match than that. Rude and Heenan's promo before the match is gold too.

 

"you won't need any of your stupid face paint after this match, because you'll have a blue eye and a black eye courtesy of the intercontinental champion"

 

Something along those lines anyway.

[Loss]

But you were watching wrestling when Randy Savage and Elizabeth as a pairing were such a hot gimmick. Is more than that needed to "get" the emotion of that moment?

[Strummer]

If I were to pick one match to define what the WWF thinks wrestling is or perceives it to be I would choose Warrior/Savage from WM 7. Maybe this is hyperbolic but I don't know if a match booked and worked like that could have taken place in any other company or territory

[Loss]

I'd say that's right. It wouldn't have fit in in most of the other 80s territories, and no way is WCW smart enough to create that kind of moment.

 

Just to be clear, I agree that the match on its own without the post-match angle, without the story of redemption, without Savage's career at stake, without the crazy heat -- yeah, I can see not liking it. Savage was working the match hurt, and you could argue from an actual wrestling standpoint that Sherri was the best performer in the match. Strip away the setting and atmosphere and it's not fundamentally a very good wrestling match at all. But I can't divorce all of those things here. They are too important.

 

You could point to plenty of heated matches that are not so good in WWF history, but what makes this stand out is that the heat is not 100% the result of having over wrestlers meeting in a Clash of the Titans-like setting, like Hogan/Andre. It's the result of the story itself being compelling, not just because stars happen to be in the ring.

 

Add to that that I'm a sucker for anything that plays out long-term in wrestling, with call backs and continuity. Wrestling that rewards people who remember is my kind of wrestling.

 

It's certainly not a classic match in the traditional sense, but it's quite possibly the best half hour in the history of the WW(W)/F/E.