Match quality standards

[Jingus]

I thought the match was awesome, personally. I don't understand the criticism of Henry as "slow and lumbering" but it's a critique that pops up an awful lot. What should he be doing differently? Running more? How does moving slowly and doing everything deliberately make his matches worse? I've been loving the pace of his matches ever since his heel run started, "slow" has never popped into my brain. It makes him come off more like Michael Myers. So what should be happening? Should he pick up opponents faster? Move from spot to spot quicker?

I just don't like guys who move around in the ring so slowly that it makes them look like they don't care. Muta on some of his laziest days is bad about that too. I expect modern wrestling to go a bit faster than that, plain and simple. When even Kevin Nash is outrunning you in the ring, that's not a good sign. But clearly there's not much he can do to change that, since it seems to be his natural instinct to move that slow.

 

When I hear lumbering I think of Khali, awkwardly stumbling into position, clearly lumbering due to his physical limitations. Henry always comes off as extremely athletic to me, never lumbering. What am I not seeing?

Of course Khali's a lot more lumbering, but Henry has his sloppy moments too. I still remember one time he gave Matt Hardy a big boot, stumbled, and stepped right on the poor bastard's face while trying to catch himself.

[Loss]

Mark Henry is a superheavyweight. What type of pacing do you want from him? Would Henry working a faster pace make sense?

 

When exactly did Kevin Nash outrun Mark Henry in the ring?

[Jingus]

Mark Henry is a superheavyweight. What type of pacing do you want from him? Would Henry working a faster pace make sense?

I'm not a big fan of superheavyweight wrestling in general, but plenty of guys that big moved faster. Vader, for one, got around a lot quicker than Mark does. Hell, so does Big Show at times.

 

When exactly did Kevin Nash outrun Mark Henry in the ring?

Oh don't get me wrong, Nash usually doesn't want to. But occasionally he'll put on a burst of speed when he's in a situation where he's being forced to work hard. Sometimes Henry looks like he's literally incapable of running or moving much faster than a casual stroll. He's so nonchalant about it, taking his sweet time to do almost everything, and I simply don't like that sort of a crawling pace.

[Bix]

Umm, Jingus...

 

Do you remember the last time Mark Henry ran on live TV? WWE is better off avoiding that.

[Jingus]

Do you remember the last time Mark Henry ran on live TV?

No. Is that one of the recent times he got hurt again?

 

There's kind of a "defend your position!" vibe towards me and other non-Henryites here, which is odd from a logical debate standpoint, since I'm not insisting on some kind of particular truth here. I'm just saying that I'm not a Mark Henry fan, never have been, and don't see in him whatever it is that other people see in him. He seems to me to be a fairly unremarkable worker, and I don't get what it is about him that is supposed to be so amazing and unusual.

[Dylan Waco]

What on Earth are you talking about? Who here is criticizing you for not liking Henry? I generally think the purpose of boards like this is to take positions that you are a willing to defend. Otherwise why bother posting on a message board?

[Jingus]

Because I don't think I should be defending anything here. I'm saying that I find him fairly average and forgettable in a lot of ways. The countering side of the debate is the one claiming that Henry has uncommon stand-out qualities. That's the more extraordinary and statistically unlikely claim, so the burden of proof is on your side.

 

Besides, basically any time I list any reason why I don't like this guy, I get what's often a fairly snippy "you're just wrong, period" sort of answer which doesn't go into much detail (while sometimes saying that I should be the one going into detail). I dunno if any of you even realize you're doing this, but the Henry fans seem rather more defensive about him than most other wrestlers mentioned on this board. Probably because he's been shit on for so long by so many people who hate him; that's understandable, that you'd be grumpy about criticisms towards a favorite whom you think has been criminally underrated for a long time. But man, it seriously seems like you can't say a negative word about the guy sometimes without a bunch of people showing up to defend him in a rather cranky manner.

[Dylan Waco]

Because I don't think I should be defending anything here. I'm saying that I find him fairly average and forgettable in a lot of ways. The countering side of the debate is the one claiming that Henry has uncommon stand-out qualities. That's the more extraordinary and statistically unlikely claim, so the burden of proof is on your side.

There are two things I find objectionable about this statement.

 

The first is the claim that you "don't think" you should "be defending anything here." If you don't want to defend anything don't. If you feel you shouldn't have to defend an opinion, but feel compelled to do so for some reason what is the reason?

 

The second problem I see is that those who think Henry is a good worker tend to write and talk far more about what they like about Henry as a performer than those who don't like him do. I actually don't even think that point is arguable. So even if "the burden of proof" argument is one I saw much value in (and it's really not for something like this), I hardly think those who enjoy the work of Henry are known for their unwillingness to go on record for why the found him to be a good worker. If anything Henry supporters like myself tend to be very long winded to a fault when making our points. For example, here is the write up I did of Henry for my buddy Tom Holzerman's a1w100 where I voted him number one:

 

 

In the previous two years my vote for number one was not tough at all. In both 2009 and 2010 no wrestler in the U.S. combined volume of quality, with consistency and strength of big match performances as well as Rey Mysterio. In actuality no one was particularly close. However, 2011 was a different story. Rey got hurt and left the fold in August. On top of that CM Punk had put together a remarkable year up to that point, including an all-time great series with John Cena, a far better than it should have been series with Randy Orton, consistent TV performances and of course an excellent match with Rey himself. In a year with Rey on the shelf, Punk seemed like the heir apparent.

 

But there was a sleeping giant that emerged from the pack. That giant was Mark Henry, a polarizing figure in many circles, but someone who seemed to enjoy near unanimous approval in 2011 on the strength of a career defining run. I myself have been a fan of Henry for some years and considered him one of the top workers in the States in both 06 and 08. Still there was something about last year that was different, as Henry was no longer just a player. As the year went on he started to feel like THE player.

 

Henry started the year slowly as he was still a babyface on Raw, being used in radom settings as a sort of “gatekeeper” for guys trying to work their way into the upper tier or as a monster for little guys to bounce off of. He had some quality matches during this period, mostly notable a tag match from Superstars and a quality house show bout with Tyson Kidd that is available online. He was not setting the World on fire though and it would have been unimaginable to see him breaking out to have the most successful and entertaining year of his career.

 

And then the unimaginable happened. Henry was drafted to Smackdown, turned heel, and in relatively quick order went on a tear. Starting in April and running through the end of the year there was no more consistent and interesting figure in wrestling than Mark Henry. Where Punk had extremely high highs, he also had extremely low (and frankly embarrassing) lows. Part of this was due to booking and circumstance and Punk remained a consistent performer in the ring. But Punk started to feel stale and it became a chore to sit through segments involve him that ultimately felt like a great performer being set up to fail. Even in matches Henry was simply more fun to watch.

 

It was not just about “fun” though. Henry had very good to great matches with a multitude of wrestlers. His series with Sheamus, Big Show, Randy Orton and Daniel Bryan featured a multitude of high quality matches in a variety of different settings. In particular the matches all had a distinct feel and showcased different aspects of Henrys character (and talents). His matches with Sheamus and Big Show looked and felt like brutal clash of the titans affairs. His matches with Orton saw him work as a remarkably effective dominating heel, with decisive power. In some respects his most impressive performance was against Bryan in the cage where he was working as a wounded wild animal, evoking a legitimate sense of vulnerability, without losing the any of the sense of violence that made his character so compelling. His trash talking and domineering attitude in the ring made nearly every affair watchable to the point where seeing him matched up with The Great Khali actually made me excited wondering if and how Henry would be able to make it work (he did).

 

He was remarkably adept at saving and building to the big spots at the right moments. The World’s Strongest Slam off the top of the cage was the finish of the year. Or was it the definite shrug off of the RKO and WSS the night he won the title? Or was it the superplex spot that “broke the ring” with Show? Or was it putting Sheamus through a barricade before beating a ten count? They were all so great it’s hard to pick.

 

His parting of the red seas spot with the lumberjacks in his Smackdown match with Christian was one of the more entertaining spots of the year. His bout with Rey from April was one of the most underrated bouts of the year. He took the Big Show’s WMD better than anyone and would regularly surprise with other impressive bumps. There was just a lot of stuff in 2011 that Mark Henry did really, really well.

 

In December I had a chance to see Henry and Punk live within a week’s time. Henry lapped Punk despite already feeling the effects of the injury that would cut his run short. At this point I really started to consider “is Henry the (U.S.) wrestler of the year over Punk?” Overall the Smackdown ratings trends and direction of their characters led me to conclude the answer to the question was “yes.” In the ring…?

 

The best way I can explain my decision is by looking at the 2009 Academy Awards. Sean Penn ended up winning the Oscar for Best Actor for his lead role in the bio-epic Milk, edging out Mickey Rourke for his excellent work in The Wrestler. As a wrestling fan and a movie fan I felt that Rourke should have won for two reasons.

 

Firstly it was a role that transcended the movie and told the viewer as much about the troubled career and past of Rourke as it did about “Randy The Ram.” It was a career peak that sprung up out of nowhere signaling the resurrection of a man who had seemed permanently damned to irrelevance.

 

Secondly Penn had a tight template to work off of. He was to become Harvey Milk, a man who really did exist and about whom a lot is known. Rourke’s job was to create a new character, realistic enough to connect with viewers. He had to study the context of a business he knew little about, understand it and take scraps of his own life to mold an authentic representation of a man who embodied the reality of that World.

 

CM Punk is Sean Penn. He’s had other dances and will have more. I cannot begrudge someone for voting him the best in ring performer of 2011. He was handed a role and played it well. Mark Henry emerged from nowhere, created a role, made himself relevant again and had a career year in the process.

 

Maybe the Academy voted with their head when they picked Penn in 2009, but they should have voted with their heart. I voted with my heart. I voted for Mark Henry.

 

 

 

Now I don't expect those who dislike or are indifferent to Henry to write anything of that length. But my point is that Henry fans tend to be Henry fans in the true sense of the term, not "well I like him cause he did a move that looked neat" or "I like him because he has cool entrance music" types. The idea that Henry fans don't go to bat for him with more than defensive posturing strikes me as the exact opposite of the truth.

 

In fact what I often see happen, particularly before last year, were Henry fans labeled as contrarians or reductionist or trend followers for daring to like someone like Henry more than someone like Kurt Angle or Edge or Chris Jericho or whoever.

 

Besides, basically any time I list any reason why I don't like this guy, I get what's often a fairly snippy "you're just wrong, period" sort of answer which doesn't go into much detail (while sometimes saying that I should be the one going into detail). I dunno if any of you even realize you're doing this, but the Henry fans seem rather more defensive about him than most other wrestlers mentioned on this board. Probably because he's been shit on for so long by so many people who hate him; that's understandable, that you'd be grumpy about criticisms towards a favorite whom you think has been criminally underrated for a long time. But man, it seriously seems like you can't say a negative word about the guy sometimes without a bunch of people showing up to defend him in a rather cranky manner.

Give me examples of this "snippy" attitude. I actually think you are one of the snippier posters on the board so I find this to be an odd complaint on the surface.

[ohtani's jacket]

I think one of the most amazing things about Henry is exactly how he uses that negative space. He seems to grasp exactly when to act directly and when not to. His timing, in that sense, is great, as is WHAT he does when he's not actually directly attacking his opponent. All effective are the trash-talking, the ref intimidation, the crowd interaction, and the basic transmission of presence. This is all stuff that we don't usually even think about in matches with other people.

You'd think he was the World's Greatest Entertainer reading this. The trouble with Henry fans is that they go so overboard in praising him that when people go to check him out they can't get past the notion that it was supposed to be amazing. That can be true of anything that people praise, but Henry fans overcompensate for whatever bias there is against him.

[Dylan Waco]

I think one of the most amazing things about Henry is exactly how he uses that negative space. He seems to grasp exactly when to act directly and when not to. His timing, in that sense, is great, as is WHAT he does when he's not actually directly attacking his opponent. All effective are the trash-talking, the ref intimidation, the crowd interaction, and the basic transmission of presence. This is all stuff that we don't usually even think about in matches with other people.

You'd think he was the World's Greatest Entertainer reading this. The trouble with Henry fans is that they go so overboard in praising him that when people go to check him out they can't get past the notion that it was supposed to be amazing. That can be true of anything that people praise, but Henry fans overcompensate for whatever bias there is against him.

 

That's how Matt writes about wrestling in general.

[Matt D]

It pretty much is.

 

You should have seen me go on about this Eddie Edwards no sell for about a page during March Madness. Or Dusty wearing the witch's hat on WCW Prime. I petitioned HARD for that to make it into 95 yearbook. To no avail.

 

I'm still annoyed about Punk not selling the back at Mania. And still nuts over the Ghastly Sidestep big boot dodge I saw Undertaker do against Berzerker in two matches from 92 last week. (Seriously, it's awesome. Has he ever done that again? Against Diesel at WM 14? I have to rewatch that match)

 

I get excited by my wrestling?

 

EDIT: And hey! I was happy about the "negative space" explanation, since no one put it in those exact terms yet and I think it fits. He really does use it well! A lot better than most methodological wrestlers. It's not just him doing rest holds or lumbering between moves.

 

Edit #2: IT's really hard to make a coherent argument when it comes to someone who says "I don't like slow wrestling." At that point, you just have to say. "Okay, I respect that, but do you at least see the things I'm pointing to, the specific things. Because those are the things *I* like about wrestling. So, can you at least agree that these things are being executed here, and they're executed well, and that no, they're not done by most other wrestlers in most other matches, especially not nearly as well." Because that can be discussed at least. When it comes to personal tastes there isn't much one can do.

[goodhelmet]

Agreed. I know my buddy Tim Noel hates Mark Henry and I am still waiting to see the mathematical formula he uses to rate matches. I am thinking negative space doesn't generate a lot of points.

[NintendoLogic]

I think one of the most amazing things about Henry is exactly how he uses that negative space. He seems to grasp exactly when to act directly and when not to. His timing, in that sense, is great, as is WHAT he does when he's not actually directly attacking his opponent. All effective are the trash-talking, the ref intimidation, the crowd interaction, and the basic transmission of presence. This is all stuff that we don't usually even think about in matches with other people.

Isn't this just a really roundabout way of saying that he has good heel mannerisms?

[Matt D]

No, damn you. It's a REVOLUTIONARY way of saying he has good heel mannerisms!

 

I have no idea. It sounded good at the time though?