Watching whole shows vs. watching individual matches

[JerryvonKramer]

When Chad and I talked to Loss last month, he mentioned that Starrcade 89 is the first full show he'd watched in ages.

 

I have a friend who has an almost militant (and in my view insane) stance when it comes to music albums. He argues that you're missing out on too much context if you skip tracks or hit "play all --> shuffle" on your i-pod. He insists on only listening to albums from start to finish and says this is the best way to get the best out of good music. I often make fun of him for this.

 

I wanted to drill into this a bit more vis a vis wrestling though. I quite like watching full shows for a number of reasons.

 

- shitty matches or "down time" sometimes allow me to focus on some of my pet loves in wrestling like commentary. I've always maintained that that's where someone like a Jesse Ventura really earns their money. Keeping us entertained while we sit through this crap.

- sometimes crap is fun

- you need crap to really appreciate the good stuff.

 

When I was watching the 80s All Japan set I got burnt out quite a few times because the quality was just so high all of the time. Past a certain point you're talking back-to-back ***1/2+ matches for hours on end. But then the upside was I had watched and been exposed to literally 100 or so really good matches. I don't regret doing that.

 

What are people's preferences when it comes to this?

[BrickHithouse]

I much prefer watching full shows that don't require full attention all the time so I can pay bills, draw pictures, feed the cat, have a smoke, whatever, and not worry about missing out on whatever Ivan Putski is doing in the ring. Give me a breather every now and then and it's easier to appreciate the truly great matches.

 

Same reason I don't like action movies.

 

EDIT: Should probably say that I enjoy horrible wrestling every bit as much as most 5-star classics.

[Loss]

Life is too short and there's too much good wrestling out there. I have seen enough bad wrestling in my time to last me a lifetime. There's too much good out there that I haven't seen to sit through an entire show. The idea of doing so is almost painful.

 

I'm also a guy who will happily delete all the filler from albums in iTunes. I like singles.

[Johnny Guitar]

I think it depends on the promotion and the context.

 

When I first started tape trading in 1994. I remember being really stoked to finally see ECW. But to be honest the home video versions were kind of choppy and didn't really flow that well as a show. But it all looked much better in the context of a weekly TV show,where it could be chopped up, edited and shuffled around.

 

I think every promotion looks better in individual match/highlight form, but sometimes you need to watch the whole show to get the full picture.

[Matt D]

Full Shows? I like seeing things completely in context. I'm watching everything I can get my hands on for 1994 WWF now. Superstars/challenge, the few AAW/Manias that are online, fancams, coliseum matches, Raws, etc. Full shows is sort of the bare minimum unless someone wants me to watch a specific match.

 

For the Portland stuff I'm watching I'm lucky since the guy is posting the promos too, at least.

 

As for judging a wrestler, I still think "great matches" is a terrible way to do it and seeing what a wrestler does in different situations (some of which almost certainly set up to lead to a bad match) is a much, much better way of doing it.

[Johnny Sorrow]

It depends on my mood and what promotion. I have every Clash on DVD and I love watching them in their entirety. And those Memphis studio shows we got last year need to be watched as whole shows.

[cabinboy454]

When Chad and I talked to Loss last month, he mentioned that Starrcade 89 is the first full show he'd watched in ages.

 

I have a friend who has an almost militant (and in my view insane) stance when it comes to music albums. He argues that you're missing out on too much context if you skip tracks or hit "play all --> shuffle" on your i-pod. He insists on only listening to albums from start to finish and says this is the best way to get the best out of good music. I often make fun of him for this.

 

I wanted to drill into this a bit more vis a vis wrestling though. I quite like watching full shows for a number of reasons.

I'm not sure this concept works completely for wrestling. Albums such as Love's Forever Changes, Van Dyke Parks' Song Cycle, and the Rolling Stones' Exile on Main St (just to name a few) are cohesive works of art which are intended to be digested as a complete whole. Sure, a person is able to listen to Tumbling Dice on its own and enjoy it as a good song but when it is placed alongside strong album cuts like Rocks Off, Rip This Joint, Shake Your Hips, and Casino Boogie (all featured on record 1/side 1) the listener is given a much richer musical experience that creates mood and atmosphere. This goes double for a concept album like Beach Boys' Pet Sounds in which the songs taken as a whole allows the listener to gain some sort of understanding of the emotional state of its creator, Brian Wilson.

 

I'm not sure complete wrestling shows work on the same deep, abstract level that the majority of the greatest albums ever recorded are able to work.

[Matt D]

I think it depends on why you're watching. The example I always give is Vader vs Duggan from Starccade 94. It was worked as a brawl with zero big man spots because Avalanche vs Sting was the higher billed match later in the night. You can watch it in a bubble but you won't fully understand the why of it without understanding the whole show.

 

Now, then, you don't need to actually WATCH the whole shot to do that and you can probably enjoy it (or not enjoy it) whether you know or not.

[NintendoLogic]

I'm in the same boat as Loss. Life is too short to sit through shitty matches before getting to a good one. Plus. the way I watch wrestling lends itself to individual matches. When I watch a match, I like to really pick it apart and figure out what works for me and what doesn't. But most matches don't reward that kind of attention. So if a match doesn't do something to reel me in at the outset, I end up either only half paying attention (like I do with Raw most weeks) or just turning it off.

[Loss]

As for judging a wrestler, I still think "great matches" is a terrible way to do it and seeing what a wrestler does in different situations (some of which almost certainly set up to lead to a bad match) is a much, much better way of doing it.

You have to bring this up again? Things have been so peaceful.

[Matt D]

I find it relevant. I've also refined my thoughts on the matter through watching a ton of Buddy Rose in context, in order and not just the stuff that would make a comp.

[NintendoLogic]

As for judging a wrestler, I still think "great matches" is a terrible way to do it and seeing what a wrestler does in different situations (some of which almost certainly set up to lead to a bad match) is a much, much better way of doing it.

You have to bring this up again? Things have been so peaceful.

 

Nobody's mentioned Ric Flair, so the situation is still under control.

[Dylan Waco]

I think there is something to be said for watching whole shows. That is the principle that has led to tons of discoveries for the 80's projects and things like the ECW Set. It also has led me to discover some new workers and surprising standout matches in the modern context that I otherwise might have completely missed.

 

Having said that no one has the time to watch every show in complete, so you have to prioritize. I try to watch the pimped shows and shows that have an obvious novelty to them from beginning to end. This means I watch far more NJPW and PWS than I should given my tastes.

[El-P]

I don't just watch entire shows. I watch entire seasons of bad wrestling shows, bitches.

[anarchistxx]

I like watching full shows. You can always fast forward the bad stuff, but sometimes the bad stuff turns out to be entertaining, or at least funny or sometimes interesting at the very least. I actually stopped watching wrestling for a long time when I solely watched comps. There either wasn't enough variety or, worse, all the matches were that good that it almost got boring and tedious.

 

It's like with music - does 'Breathe' mean so much if it doesn't have 'Speak To Me' leading into it? I have no interest in hearing a #1s set by The Beatles, because I'd rather hear the full album. I want to hear stuff like Piggies, Why Don't We Do It In The Road, Revolution 9, throwaways that are often just as interesting as the better songs, especially when you have heard the good songs over and over.

 

If you're into electronic music you see a lot of this principle. A badly paced mix to me is one with banger after banger, and even though the songs may be individually stunning, they don't mean anything when they are played back to back. A proper mix needs restrained tracks, filler, placeholders that bridge the gap between the bigger songs which mean a lot more when they finally arrive at peak time. Hearing 'These Days' by Petter on some commercially minded Ministry of Sound set with a bikini clad woman on the front pales in comparison to hearing it built to and mixed properly on James Holden's seminal 'Balance 005' mix. You feel rewarded, like watching Flair/Steamboat in the context of Clash IV rather than on a generic 'Best of Flair' comp.

 

I suppose the yearbooks go some way to redeeming this problem, adding variety and promos instead of just big lauded match after big lauded match. And it is true that wrestling, like electronic music, doesn't always live up to the ideal. There are a lot of badly built mixes, and there are even more badly built shows. For every perfectly paced attitude era Raw or NOAH supershow there is a ROH card or WWE PPV where sitting through the whole thing really is a waste of your time.

 

I suppose it is best to use context and cherry pick. Late 60s and 70s rock is clearly an album genre, where it is considered in classic rock circles to be blasphemous play less than the full record. Conversely, there probably isn't much to be gained from listening to a full length album from The Carpenters, or someone modern like TATU, when the aim was to make a bunch of singles. It is the same with house or garage LPs from the late 90s, which were usually collections of dancefloor orientated twelve inches that sounded better in the context of a mix. It is the same with wrestling - some people are better at putting together full shows than others. Watching an hour of ECW television must be a lot more worthwhile than watching two hours of TNA straight - with TNA, like with The Four Tops, a 'Best Of' really would suffice.

 

Note: It does help to alter preconceptions, though. Some people might see The Beach Boys as a surf pop act and just cherry pick the famous singles. They'd be missing out on the beauty of Pet Sounds when heard as a whole, and lovely album tracks on 'Sunflower', and late career gems. And in the end, to make comps and yearbooks worthwhile, someone has to sift through the rubbish. The other complication is that one mans trash is another mans treasure. I could go on for hours about this, so I'll stop now.

[Cross Face Chicken Wing]

With two jobs, family three hours away in opposite directions that expects frequent visits, and the first kid on the way, my goal is to watch 2 hrs of wrestling per week. Watching entire shows or seasons just isn't feasible and would kill my love of wrestling if I tried.

[Matt D]

Also, "watching," is sort of a misnomer for what I do sometimes. I'll listen/half watch Superstars and Wrestling challenge while at work in the background of one of my two monitors in order to get the context. Then for the bigger matches I'll watch them while a captive audience on an exercise bike. That's how I tend to watch WWF. I rarely use "bike time" for a Superstars unless it's got more of a key match.

[Loss]

Sure there's value in watching complete shows. I just don't want to be the one to do it. I'll let someone else pick all the good apples from the tree.

[JerryvonKramer]

I like watching full shows. You can always fast forward the bad stuff, but sometimes the bad stuff turns out to be entertaining, or at least funny or sometimes interesting at the very least. I actually stopped watching wrestling for a long time when I solely watched comps. There either wasn't enough variety or, worse, all the matches were that good that it almost got boring and tedious.

 

It's like with music - does 'Breathe' mean so much if it doesn't have 'Speak To Me' leading into it? I have no interest in hearing a #1s set by The Beatles, because I'd rather hear the full album. I want to hear stuff like Piggies, Why Don't We Do It In The Road, Revolution 9, throwaways that are often just as interesting as the better songs, especially when you have heard the good songs over and over.

 

If you're into electronic music you see a lot of this principle. A badly paced mix to me is one with banger after banger, and even though the songs may be individually stunning, they don't mean anything when they are played back to back. A proper mix needs restrained tracks, filler, placeholders that bridge the gap between the bigger songs which mean a lot more when they finally arrive at peak time. Hearing 'These Days' by Petter on some commercially minded Ministry of Sound set with a bikini clad woman on the front pales in comparison to hearing it built to and mixed properly on James Holden's seminal 'Balance 005' mix. You feel rewarded, like watching Flair/Steamboat in the context of Clash IV rather than on a generic 'Best of Flair' comp.

 

I suppose the yearbooks go some way to redeeming this problem, adding variety and promos instead of just big lauded match after big lauded match. And it is true that wrestling, like electronic music, doesn't always live up to the ideal. There are a lot of badly built mixes, and there are even more badly built shows. For every perfectly paced attitude era Raw or NOAH supershow there is a ROH card or WWE PPV where sitting through the whole thing really is a waste of your time.

 

I suppose it is best to use context and cherry pick. Late 60s and 70s rock is clearly an album genre, where it is considered in classic rock circles to be blasphemous play less than the full record. Conversely, there probably isn't much to be gained from listening to a full length album from The Carpenters, or someone modern like TATU, when the aim was to make a bunch of singles. It is the same with house or garage LPs from the late 90s, which were usually collections of dancefloor orientated twelve inches that sounded better in the context of a mix. It is the same with wrestling - some people are better at putting together full shows than others. Watching an hour of ECW television must be a lot more worthwhile than watching two hours of TNA straight - with TNA, like with The Four Tops, a 'Best Of' really would suffice.

 

Note: It does help to alter preconceptions, though. Some people might see The Beach Boys as a surf pop act and just cherry pick the famous singles. They'd be missing out on the beauty of Pet Sounds when heard as a whole, and lovely album tracks on 'Sunflower', and late career gems. And in the end, to make comps and yearbooks worthwhile, someone has to sift through the rubbish. The other complication is that one mans trash is another mans treasure. I could go on for hours about this, so I'll stop now.

 

Just to clarify my view on the music front. I don't make fun of my friend because I disagree with the general priinciple of listening to full albums for the context, I do it because he sticks to it rigidly to the point where it becomes absurd.

 

Take The Kinks, for example. A band with some great albums, but also a band with some really excellent singles and B-sides that don't appear on albums. By my friend's rule, you'd never get to listen to something like Autumn Aulmanac because it's not on Face to Face, Village Green or Arthur -- this is the inverse of your Beach Boys example.

 

The main one I needle him about is The Smiths. His stupid rule means that the singles collection and Hatful of Hollow are out of bounds. What sort of rule is that?

 

Bob Dylan also provides countless examples because he routinely leaves masterpieces off final albums -- Blind Willie McTell on its own is probably better than all of Infidels. Bootleg Series Vol. 3 is better than any 80s album he put out. You get the picture.

 

--------------

 

To come back to wrestling, I'm quite interested at the spread of views here. I guess El-P and Loss represent the extreme ends and everyone else is somewhere in between.

[Dylan Waco]

Sure there's value in watching complete shows. I just don't want to be the one to do it. I'll let someone else pick all the good apples from the tree.

This is completely understandable. In my case I think if I wasn't scouring old footage/youtube, et. for stuff that has been seldom seen/talked about a lot of the interest I have would wane. This doesn't always take the form of watching full shows, but that's part of it

[Sidebottom]

I rarely watch full shows back as there is typically a certain percentage of dross on every show. maybe if I'm doing housework or something it will be on in the background.

[Kevin Ridge]

When it comes to music I almost always play my Ipod on Shuffle mode outside of Movie Soundtracks or Pink Floyd. Anything else I'm fine on single songs. When it comes to wrestling I actually like watching whole shows when I'm on my exercise bike. I find wrestling and soccer to be the easiest things to watch getting through a workout. That said, I'll probably watch half of a WWE PPV during a work out. Not the full show in one setting. Can't remember last time I watched a full wrestling show in one setting on TV. Like others said, you can always fast forward/skip through the garbage though. The yearbooks have changed my viewing habits in way as I like the variety you get so your not hit on burnout of watching a certain wrestler, as much as you may like them, over the course of a couple hours.

[Sidebottom]

I dunno. I can easily watch a Bret Hart comp for a solid three hours. Granted I'm normally 50/50 with the TV / Phone or whatever.

[Matt D]

I don't have the attention span to watch more thing 2-3 really good, long matches at a time, not by myself that is.

[Cross Face Chicken Wing]

I can't say enough about how my ipad has upped my ability to watch wrestling. I load on discs from my comps and watch anywhere. My wife really rolls her eyes when I have a ballgame on TV and wrestling on my ipad at the same time.