Is it possible to be too ignorant to enjoy Japanese wrestling - or do I secretly agree with Vince Russo

[WingedEagle]

I was 12 or so when I first subscribed to the Observer, and within a year picked up a couple Japanese tapes to see what all the fuss was about. At that point the commentary was a *huge* issue for me and kind of tough to overcome. When I was a bit older I began rewatching everything and after a while you very clearly pick up the calls for many moves and the roles of the parties involved. It doesn't bother me in the slightest anymore.

[ohtani's jacket]

The funny thing is that a longtime Puro fan probably understands the commentary as well as a Japanese person who had never watched wrestling.

Long time puroresu fans think Akira Fukuzawa is a great commentator when he's clearly not. They have no clue about Ichiro Furutachi and Kotetsu Yamamoto or Takao Kuramochi or Kenji Wakabayashi. There's a huge amount that's lost on fans. What they're left with is the basics. They know that Hokuto hates Kandori, but they don't know why exactly because they can't understand what she's saying about her. That doesn't mean that they can't enjoy the matches, but they fill in the gaps with their own interpretation of the work or focus on the booking, i.e. wrestler A fought wrestler B in this tag match, then they had this singles match and so forth.

[NintendoLogic]

I think all this talk about context is overblown. Do you really need to be familiar with the Misawa/Kawada rivalry to appreciate 6/9/95? Do you really need to know why exactly Hokuto and Kandori hate each other to appreciate Dreamslam? I don't think you do.

 

To the OP, it sounds to me like you view puro as completely inscrutable and you're afraid to even try to approach it. Don't be afraid, just dive in. For the most part, the matches speak for themselves. If you're intimidated, my advice would be to focus on All Japan because it most closely resembles American heavyweight wrestling.

[Mad Dog]

I'm going to give you the really hack answer here.

 

Watch the 94 and 95 J Cup Tournaments and then watch the J Crown Tournament. You'll know a lot of the guys in the tournament. It's a national co-promotional tournament and you don't need context for what's going on. The J Crown Tournament will take a lot of the guys you saw in the previous tournaments and this one does provide context. You won't understand what's being said but they all toss their championships in the ring so you'll get an idea of what's going on. These 3 shows will have a variety of quality.

 

That's how most people I know really dove into the Japanese scene.

 

As far as the language barrier. You figure it out quickly. You'll start seeing the booking develop and you'll learn the body language and other things to help you fill in the blanks.

[Loss]

I think all this talk about context is overblown. Do you really need to be familiar with the Misawa/Kawada rivalry to appreciate 6/9/95? Do you really need to know why exactly Hokuto and Kandori hate each other to appreciate Dreamslam? I don't think you do.

 

To the OP, it sounds to me like you view puro as completely inscrutable and you're afraid to even try to approach it. Don't be afraid, just dive in. For the most part, the matches speak for themselves. If you're intimidated, my advice would be to focus on All Japan because it most closely resembles American heavyweight wrestling.

It's hard for me to watch a match cold without knowing at least a little bit about the wrestlers and their histories so I get that. I never thought this was about not being able to appreciate a great match. It's more about having a full appreciation of it and getting wrapped up in the moment.

[JerryvonKramer]

80 All Japan doesn't seem that angle heavy or full of intricacies to me. There are the few big ongoing feuds. What else do you need to know?

 

- Baba is a legend there.

- The Funks are both legends there, but the fans have a special affinity with Terry

- Jumbo is Baba's protege who makes a step up to be the ace.

- In turn, Tenryu is his protege who eventually wants to make that same set up

- There is always hierarchy and it is explicitly marked

- Brody and Stan Hansen are at the top of the tree on the gajin side, and when Brody goes, Hansen replaces him with a series of partners (DiBiase, Gordy and eventually Tenryu)

- When Choshu and friends come in they rip shit up like the NWO. If it's not obvious from the crowd losing their shit, Choshu is an established big star. They've come in from New Japan and this is an invasion of All Japan by Choshu and his key allies, probably the most prominent of whom is Yatsu.

- After Tenryu establishes Revolution, it's clear that group doesn't respect the old hierarchies and traditions which are basically embodied in Jumbo (and Baba), it's a classic "uprising of the youth against the establishment" narrative. Tenryu has no respect for his elders or superiors and kicks all kinds of ass.

 

Have I missed anything? Most of that is obvious within 5 minutes of seeing any of these guys. It's always obvious who the main event guys are in tags because they fucking deck midcarders. While face and heel dynamics in terms of fans actually booing for heels are not quite the same (Hansen will always get cheered even vs. Funk or Jumbo), it's always obvious who is the antagonist and if it's not, well, it's usually the guy taking on Jumbo or one of his allies.

 

I had a problem with Tenryu early in the set because the dude's faces never fucking changes. He's permanently non-plussed 24/7. It works amazingly when he's leading Revolution, not so much when he's meant to be Jumbo's plucky number 2. But that's just my take.

 

I honestly don't know what MORE context you could want to get through that particular set, for example.

 

That said, I'm high on building up context too. I'm personally glad that unlike 99% of other people, just through circumstances really, I actually started my watching in January 1980. So now when the All Japan guys are coming up in the 1990 yearbook I understand what's going on. When the high-end stuff comes up later in the decade, I'll be able to see the transition to a new cast of main event guys.

 

Like to my mind in my watching, Misawa is still Tiger Mask and Kawada's still that dude from Footloose. Obviously I vaguely know they go on to great things, but it's going to be all the more fun when I get there having seen the journey. I will probably get more out of them than if I'd gone in cold. I mean, sure, you have to "go in cold" somewhere, but it's like I always say: you can't really truly enjoy and appreciate the "delights of the plate" -- the meat, the Yorkshire puddings, the roast potatoes -- until you've worked through all the veg -- the Brussels sprouts, the cabbage -- first. There are those people like my brother who beeline straight to the meat and then end up leaving the veg, I've argued with him in the past that it's an instant gratification strategy with diminishing returns. Yes, I've made my brother argue with me about strategies of approaching a meal. Yes, I've digressed here ...

[NintendoLogic]

That's the thing, though. Watching wrestling is supposed to be fun. It's not something you should have to force yourself to choke down because it's good for you.

[JerryvonKramer]

You've missed the argument: the veg enhances the enjoyment of the meat. A bunch of **1/2 and *** matches enhance a ***** match. A slow build enhances a big crescendo.

 

Beeline to the meat, the ***** match and the crescendo and the payoff is less, your appreciation is less, and ultimately your "fun" is less.

 

Like I said: instant gratification offers diminishing returns. Hard to explain this in the day and age where you can get most things you want within a few clicks of a button. But I absolutely believe it. I've had friends who have mocked me for bringing "a puritan work ethic" into areas where it is not appropriate, but I disagree with them. I think I get more from the payoffs than the guys who take short cuts and beeline.

 

I have a friend who takes this to the extreme actually. He refuses to "binge watch" TV series and instead works out a schedule and watches only one episode of a given thing per week on the basis that people don't make a TV series to watch in one day. He might have a point, but even I think he's taking things too far there.

 

I am definitely more towards that end of things though. I sincerely believe that you need to experience things that aren't that fun in order to get more out of the things that are.

[El-P]

In others words, sex with foreplays is better than sex without foreplays.

[JerryvonKramer]

The eloquence of a Frenchman there

[NintendoLogic]

You've missed the argument: the veg enhances the enjoyment of the meat. A bunch of **1/2 and *** matches enhance a ***** match. A slow build enhances a big crescendo.

 

Beeline to the meat, the ***** match and the crescendo and the payoff is less, your appreciation is less, and ultimately your "fun" is less.

 

Like I said: instant gratification offers diminishing returns. Hard to explain this in the day and age where you can get most things you want within a few clicks of a button. But I absolutely believe it. I've had friends who have mocked me for bringing "a puritan work ethic" into areas where it is not appropriate, but I disagree with them. I think I get more from the payoffs than the guys who take short cuts and beeline.

 

I have a friend who takes this to the extreme actually. He refuses to "binge watch" TV series and instead works out a schedule and watches only one episode of a given thing per week on the basis that people don't make a TV series to watch in one day. He might have a point, but even I think he's taking things too far there.

 

I am definitely more towards that end of things though. I sincerely believe that you need to experience things that aren't that fun in order to get more out of the things that are.

Allow me to join your friends in mocking you. I think the notion that you need to watch a bunch of mediocre lead-in matches to appreciate a great one is a crock of horseshit. Take 6/9/95, since it came up earlier in the thread. I've never seen the lead-in match where Kobashi injures his leg, nor do I ever intend to. Why would I? He's got a big-ass fucking bandage on his leg. What more do I need to know? 99% of the time, everything you need is right there in the match.

[Loss]

But if that's the first wrestling match you watch, you may think Kenta Kobashi is a great worker, but why should I give a shit? The first time I saw it, that tag left no lasting impression with me, other than yeah, it was well worked, but so what? I didn't have any investment in these wrestlers at all.

[Loss]

Also, if you know nothing about anyone going in, the significance of Kawada getting the pin on Misawa is completely lost. Is it possible to enjoy the match without that knowledge? Of course. But you're only cheating yourself, especially if you're a fan like me who cares about who wins and who loses.

[Matt D]

I will say that the more lucha I see the more I come to appreciate it and it's not all stylistic. The more Satanico I watch the more I come to understand his MO, what he likes to do, why he likes to do it.

 

For the Sami Zayn vs Cesaro 2/3 falls match, I went back and saw the first two matches in the series and that added so much, because on the macro, it helped to see why Cesaro was so pissed at him between the promo work and the lightning win in the first match and on the micro, they went back to previous matches and that was a huge part of the build of the match both in the use of the chinlock and some specific counters.

 

As for Bryan vs Cena, I had missed the promo the previous Monday so the slapfight meant SOMETHING but it sure as hell didn't have the resonance it would have if I had seen them talk about it for two minutes before.

 

Etc. etc.

[JerryvonKramer]

No Matt, you're doing it all wrong, just watch the absolute best matches in a vacuum.

[Loss]

How do you know what great wrestling looks like if you don't know what not-so-great wrestling looks like? Some context is necessary. That doesn't mean every single event is significant, but quite a few are significant.

[WingedEagle]

How do you know what great wrestling looks like if you don't know what not-so-great wrestling looks like? Some context is necessary. That doesn't mean every single event is significant, but quite a few are significant.

This is exactly the point. If you have no basis for comparison you've got zero ability to distinguish between what you hate, dislike, like and love. If you go through life only watching ***** matches, soon enough you're probably going to think some of those really aren't that special. The whole point isn't to fall in love with what's merely mediocre, but to identify for yourself why some matches blow those others out of the water. I love nothing more than a great steak, but for a number of reasons including cost, health and how it leaves me feeling afterwards, I simply won't have it that often. Not every night can or needs to be 6/9/95.

[NintendoLogic]

We're obviously not talking about complete blank slates. Everyone here has seen enough wrestling to know what they consider good and bad.

[Childs]

Something like 6/9/95 is definitely richer if you have some sense of the Misawa-Kawada dynamic, and I'm all for people going back and watching everything. I just wouldn't want someone who's curious about Japanese wrestling to avoid diving in because of some belief that he/she must know EVERYTHING to appreciate anything. I started watching fairly haphazardly and was able to backfill as my appreciation deepened. And now, god help me, I've seen every New Japan and All Japan match that made tape in the 1980s.

[Tim Cooke]

I think 1996 MPro is a good gateway into Japanese wrestling. It's fast paced with tons of great spots and features one central storyline over the entire year, KDX v Sasuke and Co. You don't need to know anything background wise as the in ring and crowd reactions make everything clear.

[Log]

I like to make up my own storylines. Like 6/9/95 for example. Kobashi got roughed up because he found out about internal affairs lying to the cops. He needed to be shut up. Kawada and Taue were in on the thing the whole time. If they don't stop Kobashi, they'll be found out. Misawa is two weeks away from retirement. The last thing he wants is to be wrapped up in this mess. He's clearly too old for that shit!

 

Don't even get me started on the MPro 10-mans.

[NintendoLogic]

Something like 6/9/95 is definitely richer if you have some sense of the Misawa-Kawada dynamic

Sure, but you don't need to watch matches to get that. You can just have someone tell you.

 

Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with watching everything if you have the time and inclination. But it's not an absolute necessity. If you're intimidated and don't know where to begin, don't be afraid to start at the top. There are plenty of knowledgeable people who can help you fill in the blanks.

[Tim Cooke]

My own experience was the 6/9/95 tag was excellent on its own. The 12/6/96 tag had great work but didn't match up as well as a potential #1 match of All Japan in the 90's. Watching the May, June, and July tags helped cement the main storyline. It definetly helped knowing that post December 1996 the Misawa/Kawada storyline became really fucked up (it was clearly already in trouble), so I think that added some value to 12/6 being a pinnacle storyline and in ring work wise.

[JerryvonKramer]

Something like 6/9/95 is definitely richer if you have some sense of the Misawa-Kawada dynamic

Sure, but you don't need to watch matches to get that. You can just have someone tell you.

Do you think it's the same though?

 

I mean I listened to the Lucha podcast but I'm not sure how much of it went in, I'm not familar with any of the guys being discussed. I'll probably go back and listen to it again after I'm a disc in and it will all make a lot more sense.

 

I did the same thing with the preview podcasts for All Japan and AWA, despite having a greater sense of the starring cast than for Lucha.

 

Being told something and actually experiencing it make for different levels of connection and emotional connection. No amount of me telling you about the backstory of Hamlet to get to the moment where he's got the sword over Claudius as he's praying can substitute for actually watching Acts 1 and 2.

 

The context is not just an intellectual exercise, it's an emotional thing and a recognition thing -- at least for me anyway. You need to build up familarity and "trust" with a set of performers.

 

Hennig vs. Bockwinkel is a better match for having seen where Hennig has come from. Being told "Hennig was a young midcarder before this billed as 'Larry's son'" can't stand in for having seen a bevy of Hennig matches.

 

I don't want to come across like a headmaster saying "do your homework", but I think context is more than you're giving it credit for here. There are a set of intangibles that come just with SPENDING TIME with footage of a given worker. It can't be substituted.

[goodhelmet]

The whole point of doing podcasts like the lucha podcast or the soon to be released 1990 year in review is so people will be interested enough to eventually see it for themselves. If you have 5 people praising El Dandy over 2 podcasts, I hope it encourages you to seek out more El Dandy.