Babyface offense in US singles match structure

[JerryvonKramer]

While watching an edition of TNT from 1984 last night, a match between B. Brain Blair and Paul Orndorff irked me a little bit.

 

This morning, I'm not sure if the criticisms I leveled at the match are justified or not. I will paste in the little match review later in this post, but first of all I want to walk through what I consider to be classic US match structure with particular emphasis on what the babyface does in the match.

 

Let's take a hypothetical 15-minute TV match. I'd break down the timings like this:

 

1. Shine sequence [about 3 minutes]

 

This is where your babyface pops the crowd at the start of the match and gives showcases a glimpse of what he's about.

 

Your cleancut "technical" babyface -- Steamboat or Martel, say -- might throw a couple of armdrags here to establish both their technique and the fact that they play by the rules.

 

Your powerhouse types might do an early Gorilla press slam to establish their strength.

 

A highflyer might do a dropkick or even do a move from the top to establish their quickness and agility.

 

2. Heat / heel control segment [about 8 minutes]

 

Your babyface will mostly be getting his ass kicked here and the heel should be showcasing their offensive arsenal and moving through the gears. Here the babyface's offense is limited to hope spots, escapes and / or reversals.

 

3. Comeback [3 minutes]

 

At some point the babyface will start to fire up and this is where the match should transition into the high spots. And the babyface will have a chance to throw some bombs and their top end offense.

 

4. Finish [2 minutes]

 

And then the match ends.

 

That's your typical ABC by-the-numbers match. However, there are at least five relatively common variations on this as I see it. I'll detail them, if these have "proper" names I don't know them and have made up my own:

 

- "Jump start": this is where the heel dives straight in and skips the shine entirely. Happens all the time and is good for establishing underdog-against-the-odds type matches. The likes of Stan Hansen and Vader start a lot of matches like this, and that makes sense.

 

- "Extended shine": this is basically where the shine takes up a much greater proportion of the match than is usual -- we saw a lot of it in the AWA.

 

- "All shine": this is rarer but still relatively common. It's when the heel just can't get anything going and the babyface eats up 90+% of the match and then usually the heel sneaks away with a cheap win. Chad and I have talked about this at some length on various episodes of WTBBP. Some examples:

 

Ted DiBiase vs. Pat Patterson (WWF 7/21/79)

Nick Bockwinkel vs. Hulk Hogan (AWA 4/24/83)

Tully Blanchard vs Don Kernodle (JCP 05/11/85)

A lot of Honkytonk Man IC title matches

 

- "WWE Main Event Style": this is essentially a normal match with an extra-long finish sequence that might go on for 15 minutes or more. ONE, TWO an-he-got-im NO! And again. And again. And again. My dislike for this formula is well known.

 

- "The Flair Match": now Flair often just throws out the rule book but then again 9 times out of 10 he's going long. A Flair match is much more "all over the place" and might look something like this:

 

1. Early matwork, could be Flair giving or receiving

2. "Stuff to do" (jdw)

3. Figure-four / high spot

4. Back to "stuff to do" (jdw)

5. Flair takes over on his real heat segment (often happens quite late in the match and the transition is marked and obvious)

6. Finish

 

It's a little ironic that people talk about "The Flair Formula" because he's one guy who very often actually throws the traditional formula out of the window. But this thread is not about Flair! Repeat, this thread is not about Flair, consider this a footnote.

 

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

 

So all of this preamble is because I'm struggling to get my head around what my real problem was with that Blair vs. Orndorff match. Here's the review again:

 

B. Brian Blair vs. Paul Orndroff!

 

This is from the Meadowlands Arena with Monsoon on commentary with *I believe* Red Bastien. Gary Michael Capetta in full on Capetta mode. Dick Woehrle and Orndroff argue. Orndorff wants Blair back in his corner so he can de-robe.

 

Orndroff now argues with the ring attendant about how exactly to carry his robe back to the lockerroom. The Paula chants break out. Dick Woehrle and Orndroff keep having issues.

 

Blair has been waiting pretty patiently for this match to start. I like his standard-issue-1984-moustache. Orndorff has now spent at least 7 minutes stalling. It's good stalling though.

 

He doesn't seem to want Blair to actually touch him. He eventually suckers him in and takes advantage. "A pearl harbour number". I've always liked Orndorff, he works with good intensity. Big bodyslam. Up to the top rope. Misses.

 

Blair goes to work on Orndorff's injured knee immediately. Good psychology by B. Brian here. Decent little stretch of offense from him here now. Pretty much stays on this knee for the next 8-10 minutes until Orndroff hits an inzaghuri (yes!). He sells the leg very well here after he's back on top.

 

Dick Woehrle is wearing some pretty funky 70s flares here. Orndroff dumps Blair outside. King of the Mountain now. Blair comes back in and hits a big crossbody. Just a hope spot, Orndorff snyches in a chinlock. This match is going on quite a long time now.

 

Nice backbreaker by Orndroff for 2. Orndroff thinks it's a slow count and gets in Woehrle's face again. Another 2, more jawing with the ref. Blair starts his comeback now. Scoop slam? No reversal. REVERSAL. OHHH Blair thought he had it. Irish whip. Blair SKINS THE CAT. Blair a house of fire now. Big knee lift. Second rope elbow. Blair is getting decent pops here. Bodyslam. Nasty knee drop on the forehead. Tries to roll him up, no. Slam -- no Orndorff reverses into a small package and that's it. He's still selling that leg.

 

I must think about structure:

 

1. Sneak attack to start by Orndorff.

2. LONG section with Blair on top working on a body part (could call this a delayed "shine")

3. Now Orndorff gets his heat segment

4. Comeback and finish

 

Now, as focused and decently worked as the second segment was here, I am starting to think that outside of AWA, a longish shine sequence at the start of the match is there for the sole purpose of eating up time. The stuff on Orndorff's leg didn't actually go anywhere here, but that's ok, it was Blair's gameplan but didn't work. But it would have been nice for Blair to remember the leg was injured during the comeback instead of going for the bodyslams and turnbuckle elbows. If he was working on the leg as his strategy, why not go back to it? It just exposes that segment with Blair on top for what it was: a time kill.

What troubles me a little about about my own critique there is if it holds then basically all babyface offense that isn't shine, hope spot or comeback is essentially a time kill.

 

Is that really true?

[Matt D]

"Control" exists but it's not always compelling.

[Johnny Sorrow]

I recommend not watching B. Brian Blair matches before going to bed.

[Matt D]

I recommend them if you want to fall asleep.

[JerryvonKramer]

"Control" exists but it's not always compelling.

Babyface control?

 

See the heel control segment has some obvious functions and its rationale is pretty clear:

 

- generate heat for the heel

- generate sympathy for the babyface

- build the crowd to the point where they are ready to pop big for the comeback

 

For a babyface control segment there is no such obvious function. The only one I can think of is:

 

- kill time

 

What else is a babyface control segment in the middle of a match really doing?

[Carnival]

I think it could be argued that a babyface control segment is worth having for no better reason than it breaks away from your formula. After all, in addition to telling a story, they're also ostensibly trying to convince us we're watching an actual sports contest. For that purpose alone, why not do some things that don't fit into a proper dramatic context? No doubt, a babyface grinding his opponent on the mat with a headlock for 2-3 minutes is not the most compelling wrestling gets. But if "kill time" was the only reason, it would be just as easy to extend the heat segment. I guess it could also be done in situations where the face knows a bunch of moves and the heel is more comfortable selling. If it was a regular formula in the AWA, maybe they theorized that fans would be happier if the good guy was usually in control?

[Matt D]

"Control" exists but it's not always compelling.

Babyface control?

 

See the heel control segment has some obvious functions and its rationale is pretty clear:

 

- generate heat for the heel

- generate sympathy for the babyface

- build the crowd to the point where they are ready to pop big for the comeback

 

For a babyface control segment there is no such obvious function. The only one I can think of is:

 

- kill time

 

What else is a babyface control segment in the middle of a match really doing?

 

Not a whole lot. You see it more as a version of extended shine which basically gets over the idea that the heel is formidable and has to be grounded for if he gets up, it's all but over for the babyface. The best recent version of this I saw was Race vs Martel from Portland and I wouldn't even call that all that good. On the other hand, there's a Rogs/Demolition match where it sort of raises the tension for when Demolition might get their hands on the babyfaces again.

[Childs]

You'd see a form of babyface control when the younger All-Japan guys worked Jumbo. Not a classic face-heel dynamic, of course, but they were working as spirited underdogs. I'm thinking of the 3/9/88 Tiger Mask match and the 10/24/91 Kawada match. in which the younger guys used a lot of headlocks to manage/control Jumbo, who would obviously destroy them going toe-to-toe. The ultimate goal was different, with hierarchy taking precedence over good vs. evil. But it struck me as a variant of babyface control.

 

I feel like Steamboat worked a fair amount of headlock/arm control sequences as well, though perhaps fewer late in his career. I think he did them to demonstrate he could outwrestle the heels in a straight-up context.

[KrisZ]

World Class was full of babyface control

[Jimmy Redman]

You also get babyface control when you have a size discrepancy that favours the babyface, i.e. a monster or a giant facing a small or normal sized heel.

 

Also for babyface control in general, I think the point of it is to establish that the babyface is a better wrestler than the heel.

[jdw]

World Class was full of babyface control

The WWF in the 80s did as well. We didn't coin the phrase "Heel In Peril" for no reason. We didn't even coin it for Backlund, thought Bob controlled loads of time in his matches and it wasn't "shine". Just on standard everyday matches:

 

Match #A-69 - 11/26/86 Tito Santana vs. Jake Roberts (17:23 "draw")

Taped: The Summit, Houston

From: 01/05/87 Prime Time Wrestling

 

Gorilla Monsoon and Ken Resnick at the table, which promises to be a challenge to listent to.

 

Pretty standard heeling and stooging opening by Jake, climaxing about four and a half minutes in with Jake eating the flying forearm. Good. solid opening that I would point to as an example of Good Jake rather than Bad Jake. Roberts can be lazying and jerk off his way through an opening segement, just killing time. When "on", the segement builds to a number of "paybacks" for the face. This one did that well.

 

Tito goes into control using a sideheadlock and a chinlock. This is really well done, including Jake trying to use a backdrop suplex to break it, but Tito "holding onto the hold". Jake finally breaks it with a jawjacker, and the transition is extremely well done: Tito sells his ass off, while Jake continues to sell the hell out of the holds he's just been eating.

 

Jake eventually takes it down to control with a chinlock of his own. They don't waste much time in it (perhaps half a minute) before starting to give Tito some hope spots and false comebacks. About four and a half mintues of them, quite well done balancing out Jake methodically breaking Tito down with Tito showing moments of looking like he was coming back.

 

Jake finally takes it back into the chinlock again, this time using it to heel up by grabbing the ropes for leverage behind Hebner's back. It kills a minute of clock, but is done in an effective way to keep the crowd into it, and focus on Jake being a heel.

 

Fists O' Fury time, with Tito of course getting the better of it, and Jake selling really nicely for him. A little back and forth to the finish, with Jake teasing the DDT, Tito using a nice backdrop to counter it, and instantly slap on the figure four for the "saved by the bell" spot.

 

This is a good match. I'd rank it on the list of Jake's best matches in the WWF. It's a peer of his 08/09/86 Boston match with Steamer and his 11/15/86 Los Angeles match with Savage from this time period.

 

John

[jdw]

You also get babyface control when you have a size discrepancy that favours the babyface, i.e. a monster or a giant facing a small or normal sized heel.

That's one way. But Savage and Steamer were the same size, and Steamer would control Savage in some of their matches.

 

 

Also for babyface control in general, I think the point of it is to establish that the babyface is a better wrestler than the heel.

That is one of the points.

 

Another is to fill space.

[JerryvonKramer]

After all, in addition to telling a story, they're also ostensibly trying to convince us we're watching an actual sports contest. For that purpose alone, why not do some things that don't fit into a proper dramatic context?

I was thinking about this and the logical extreme end is, to take a prominent example, something like Dory Funk Jr vs. Jack Brisco where you have two de facto faces playing by the rules and getting down to a legitimate struggle for position by way of matwork, counters and "control" in the true sense of the term. I still need to watch that series of matches, by the way -- if only to see why it was a benchmark for that generation.

 

A more topical recent example might be Brad Rhenigans vs. Rick Martel from the AWA set, or for a more fast-paced variant something like Bret-Owen from WMX?

 

I do think that there's value in maintaining at least the illusion of the idea that if everything was clean, and if there were no heel shenanigans, you'd be left with a match along those lines.

 

From that point of view, the 10 minutes B. Brian Blair spent working over Orndorff's leg can be justified as more than a time kill by the fact that it is maintaining that illusion. I can actually buy that.

 

You see it more as a version of extended shine which basically gets over the idea that the heel is formidable and has to be grounded for if he gets up, it's all but over for the babyface.

Think this is quite an interesting idea Matt. It's getting over the idea that "if you give this guy half a chance, he's going to hurt you". Particularly effective if it's an underdog vs. monster situation a la Sting vs. Vader.

 

I feel like Steamboat worked a fair amount of headlock/arm control sequences as well, though perhaps fewer late in his career. I think he did them to demonstrate he could outwrestle the heels in a straight-up context.

Also for babyface control in general, I think the point of it is to establish that the babyface is a better wrestler than the heel.

I think what happened as the 80s and 90s wore on is that faces became more punch-kicky and heels more "technical". You can look at Jim Duggan as a proto-typical late 80s face who is set up for a shine and a comeback and little else in between.

 

In that environment, there's less call for a Steamboat or Martel type, so I guess you can see why we had "The Model". The idea of "who is the better wrestler" goes out of the window when it's Hogan, Warrior, Duggan, Sid, Luger, Bulldog, Piper, or The Texas Tornado. The "technical" guys were all made into heels in WWF.

 

There's one possible obvious exception: Bret was a "technical" face, but I'd have to look into his matches from 92-4 again to see how much of them he controlled.

 

I think there's a lot to Loss's idea that Vince started booking Bret like Bob Backlund mark II in 94.

[Jimmy Redman]

You also get babyface control when you have a size discrepancy that favours the babyface, i.e. a monster or a giant facing a small or normal sized heel.

That's one way. But Savage and Steamer were the same size, and Steamer would control Savage in some of their matches.

 

 

Also for babyface control in general, I think the point of it is to establish that the babyface is a better wrestler than the heel.

That is one of the points.

 

Another is to fill space.

 

Not denying either of those. Just offering up the big face vs little heel match as another variation on the theme.

[JerryvonKramer]

What are people's views on those matches where the babyface has over 80% of the match? When is and isn't that justified? It's been something of a talking point recently.

 

shoe has just reviewed a Backlund vs. Race match in which he argues it is not justified.

soup has just reviewed a DiBiase vs. Patterson match in which he argues it is justified.

 

What's the difference? Not asking because I don't know, asking to flesh this out and make it explicit.

[shoe]

I will say one thing both are different cases. I agree with Soup on the Dibiase/Patterson match. The Dibiase/Patterson match was that Teddy controlled most of the match, but Patterson won. So Patterson made Ted look good, but Patterson also kept his heat with the victory and has the crowd thinking on a rematch Ted could beat Patterson. Their is also the veteran vs the youngster story going on.

[Matt D]

Vulnerable heel champ matches where the face isn't taking the title.

[khawk20]

Vulnerable heel champ matches where the face isn't taking the title.

Nick Bockwinkel comes to mind, especially applied to ending where Bobby Heenan's interference cost the face the match.

 

Also matches where a manager like Albano are wrestling. The Face should dominate the contest since he's an actual wrestler, regardless of the outcome.

[Carnival]

Also matches where a manager like Albano are wrestling. The Face should dominate the contest since he's an actual wrestler, regardless of the outcome.

I think these kinds of matches should always be squashes. When they get dragged out (Bret vs Vince, Lawler vs Cole...well, all kinds of problems with that one), it's just terrible.

[ohtani's jacket]

A more topical recent example might be Brad Rhenigans vs. Rick Martel from the AWA set, or for a more fast-paced variant something like Bret-Owen from WMX?

 

I do think that there's value in maintaining at least the illusion of the idea that if everything was clean, and if there were no heel shenanigans, you'd be left with a match along those lines.

Bret/Owen was clean?

[JerryvonKramer]

It wasn't?

[ohtani's jacket]

It's been a long time since I've watched it, but isn't there some niggle and some brawling on the outside? It's a heel vs. face match after all.

[JerryvonKramer]

It's been a long time for me too OJ, but my memory is that the match is worked relatively cleanly, with struggle and parity and face vs. face. Mostly technical. Clean finish. Owen's fully-fledged heel turn is later on at the same show.

 

Someone will almost certainly correct me if I'm wrong here.

[Matt D]

Parv,

 

Go watch the match again.

 

In the meantime:

 

http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?showtopic=15575

 

My comments are the last post. Charles' are the first. they make for a good bookend if you don't want to watch the match. Isn't the yearbook section great?

[JerryvonKramer]

When did he turn then? I always thought the turn was later on after Bret beats Yoko for the title and he's there in the aisle saying "what about me?"

 

1994 is a darkish period for me.