NintendoLogic Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 Bix give us your thoughts on the Kings Road style The proper term is oudou, you baka gaijin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted June 20, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 Fucking nerds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chess Knight Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 I don't get the hate for 'control segment'. it's not really a Wrestling Term, but it's a segment where a guy is in control of the match. 'Psychology'. That term needs to be renamed in a hurry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 Bix has the problem with "control segment". I have the problem with HHH referred to "Levesque" by third-rate hack news sites -- it reads like someone is trying to show how smart they are by proving that they know someone's real name. That's probably a byproduct of one of the first things I ever saw online being "Bollea will never job to Borden" and cringing. So we all have our things. I feel like HHH is, at this point, is a justified exception (if he's an exception, I agree that smarky gratuitous real name use is annoying) . HHH is the character on WWE TV, Paul Levesque is the real WWE executive. This seems fair since WWE uses his real name on the corporate site, they appear to be making this separation as well. At least it's more defined than WWE Chairman Vince McMahon and TV character Mr. McMahon which very often seem like one in the same. Also I agree with Loss, it's definitely one of those names that even when you know someone is pronouncing it correctly it still sounds like they aren't. I just wonder how long they can go with the "real executives get involved with storylines/wrestling" before they end up causing an issue. It's one thing for Vince to be doing it since to people out of the wrestling bubble Vince = WWE and that's just how it's always been. It might be different when HHH is the boss and going on TV solving lawsuits by calling people cowards and challenging them to PPV fights. At some point if they want to be taken seriously as a company to invest in, you can't have your CEO going out and rolling around in his undies anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rainmakerrtv Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 You've actually heard someone not on Vince's payroll use the term in a non-derisive manner? Sadly, yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 Bix has the problem with "control segment". I have the problem with HHH referred to "Levesque" by third-rate hack news sites -- it reads like someone is trying to show how smart they are by proving that they know someone's real name. That's probably a byproduct of one of the first things I ever saw online being "Bollea will never job to Borden" and cringing. So we all have our things. I feel like HHH is, at this point, is a justified exception (if he's an exception, I agree that smarky gratuitous real name use is annoying) . HHH is the character on WWE TV, Paul Levesque is the real WWE executive. This seems fair since WWE uses his real name on the corporate site, they appear to be making this separation as well. At least it's more defined than WWE Chairman Vince McMahon and TV character Mr. McMahon which very often seem like one in the same. Also I agree with Loss, it's definitely one of those names that even when you know someone is pronouncing it correctly it still sounds like they aren't. I just wonder how long they can go with the "real executives get involved with storylines/wrestling" before they end up causing an issue. It's one thing for Vince to be doing it since to people out of the wrestling bubble Vince = WWE and that's just how it's always been. It might be different when HHH is the boss and going on TV solving lawsuits by calling people cowards and challenging them to PPV fights. At some point if they want to be taken seriously as a company to invest in, you can't have your CEO going out and rolling around in his undies anymore. I don't know. For the entirety of the 80s, they had Virgil Runnels listed as a producer and I don't think any of us are going to call Dusty that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 The counter of course, is that no one in the 80s knew who Virgil Runnels was unless they had a WON sub. Also there wasn't a photo of Dusty in a suit and executive ponytail accompanying the credit either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 The counter of course, is that no one in the 80s knew who Virgil Runnels was unless they had a WON sub. Also there wasn't a photo of Dusty in a suit and executive ponytail accompanying the credit either.His name was used semi-regularly by heels cutting promos on him, at least in Florida, but maybe also in GCW & JCP. Kris would know better. I agree with your general point, though: That (and the other credits of wrestlers under their real names, like Alan Rogowski & Paul Taylor) was just WCW being weird (and in the case of Dusty, stupid). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrisZ Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 Yeah his name was used a lot in Florida especially by Kevin Sullivan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted June 20, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 I don't get the hate for 'control segment'. it's not really a Wrestling Term, but it's a segment where a guy is in control of the match. Agreed. Makes perfect sense to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 It's the word "segment", not the word "control". Do matches have "segments"? Good matches have an ebb and flow, and good wrestling is reactive. I don't have a real problem with the term, but I don't really think a match's quality is necessarily determined by the adding together of all of its attributes either. That's a narrow, mathematical view in my mind. Plenty of matches with lots of good individual things in them aren't great, and plenty of great matches have huge flaws. There's no right or wrong way to watch or critique wrestling, but for me, I'm generally (I'm using the word "generally" so the handful of posters that enjoy looking for previous things I've said that contradict what I'm saying now don't read this and respond by trying to box me into a corner or take this point and run with it) more concerned with the macro takeaways (They kept the crowd, they got over the big picture, the offense generally looked good, that was quite the selling performance, etc) than the micro takeaways (a missed spot, a good punch, etc.) It doesn't mean those things can't stand out in a good or bad way, or that I won't comment on them, but for me, a good match is ultimately a composite of tangibles and intangibles. If there's a problem with talking about control segments, maybe it seems like it's the honing in on something too specific in a match instead of looking at the bigger picture. I'm not the best person to accuse someone else of being overly analytical of pro wrestling. People are welcome to deconstruct the finished wrestling product to their heart's content, and most of the time I'll find it interesting. This board is largely made up of people who make most hardcore wrestling fans look casual, so those kind of accusations are a waste of time here. But talking about control segments has always struck me as microanalytical, or at the very least, the phrase promotes a connotation that talking about wrestling in very, very, very specific terms is the best way to critique it. Although, I guess mentioning face in peril is really discussing the same thing - and that's not really a term people in wrestling use either. One of my famed Nuanced Opinions. I think I've just confused myself and talked in a circle. Pretty impressive! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJH Posted June 21, 2012 Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 I think you're over thinking what people mean when they use the term, Loss, it's just a generic term for a part of the match where one guy/girl is on offense for a stretch of time. There's really nothing more to it than that. It's useful, at least to me, precisely because it's so catch-all, whereas "shine" is specific to the babyface's control at the start of the match and "heat" to a heel's run in the middle. Besides, whether you call it "shine", "heat", "comeback," "finish", etc... you're still breaking the match down into segments; and I don't think anyone (who use them) reaches a star rating by breaking a match down into its composite parts like that, rating each individually, and then finding the mean for an overall score or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NintendoLogic Posted June 21, 2012 Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 I would say that talking about control segments lends itself to macro rather than micro analysis. To me, the best matches are the ones with a clearly defined narrative arc where things happen for a reason and each segment logically follows from the previous one. Discussing how a control segment works is part of the big picture. It's quite different from talking about how someone pulled the fingers back while applying an armbar or had a really hateful facial expression while throwing a punch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victator Posted June 21, 2012 Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 His name was used semi-regularly by heels cutting promos on him, at least in Florida, but maybe also in GCW & JCP. Gary Hart called him Virgil a few times in early 88. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohtani's jacket Posted June 21, 2012 Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 From memory, Chigusa Nagayo argues in GAEA Girls that matches are about a succcesion of moves not a sequence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffey Posted June 21, 2012 Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 This thread sure took a helluva turn from the No Way Out Pay-Per-View! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky Jackson Posted June 21, 2012 Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 This board is largely made up of people who make most hardcore wrestling fans look casual Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted June 21, 2012 Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 The bitchfest over "control segment" with the special cameo run in by "the body of the match" is hilarious. Add me to the list of people who only slightly give a hit what people in the business call stuff. If it's useful, it's worth using. But we also need to remember that these are the jerkoffs who call fans who put food on their table, clothes on their back and drugs in their system "marks". So... fuck what they call stuff if it isn't useful. "Shine" is a hot lingo now thanks shoot tapes and other ways guys in the business are talking with those outside it. But the reality is that a lot of us fans have been talking about work for 20+ years with our own words to describe what we mean... some of us longer than some of jerkoffs have been in the business or going to wrestling schools. Plenty of folks have communicated well without dropping a "shine" out as if it's a part of swinging our smart cocks around. Do we need to go back through the old DVDVR's to see how often Dean used "shine", or sift through CRZ's recaps for it being used in the proper fashion? Are we going to stomp up and down because they didn't? If I call the patt of 06/03/94 where Misawa works over Kawada's knee "control" rather than "shine", and where Kawada is working over Misawa's jucing ear "control" rather than "heat"... you know what I'm talking about. I've been rambling about that match and 06/09/95 and 12/06/96 online for 16 years, and it would appear that I've communicated well enough without "shine" and other such insiderism that jdw-think about those matches grew up all over the place like fucking weeds that a lot of people by now would like to use a metric ton of Ortho on to kill off. In turn, Phil-thoughts on Fujiwara are probably just as much out there all over the place, and did he need to use Shine... or did he have his own way of decribing what he thought the genius of Fujiwara was up to in the ring. If Phil is a good enough writer, if what he writes is clear enough to us to match what we're seeing and what we're thinking about the match, then it's effective. Seriously guys... bug out of the ass. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted June 21, 2012 Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 This board is largely made up of people who make most hardcore wrestling fans look casual Not even close. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted June 21, 2012 Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 From memory, Chigusa Nagayo argues in GAEA Girls that matches are about a succcesion of moves not a sequence. My thought would be that if you pop in one of the two famous Dump vs Chiggy matches, you'll find that are a succcesion of sequences. Within a sequence, you may have a succcesion of moves. Then you'll have a transition to another sequence, which could be complete at odds with the prior sequence and quite possibly the transition not really being a succcesion of moves that naturally follow the prior succcesion of moves... but just something to get to the next sequence. Not being snarky there. Totally serious. Sometimes a director thinks through everything they do, and everything on the screen fits perfectly into the bigger storyline. Sometimes a director just has an actress show her tits regardless of whether it has anything to do with the storyline because she's hot, and movie goers might like some tit even if it doesn't make a damn bit of sense for the character to be doing it. We don't really know which of those directors Chiggy is. She probably thinks of herself as the first. But even those of us with limited connections with people inside have run across guys who think they're the first, what they say makes some sense, but really... when you think about it... they're the second. "You see... it was a No DQ Match." -Carlos Espada John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted June 21, 2012 Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 His name was used semi-regularly by heels cutting promos on him, at least in Florida, but maybe also in GCW & JCP. Gary Hart called him Virgil a few times in early 88. Gary Hart always called Flair "Ricky", which amuses me quite a bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.