The Go-Go Style

[goodhelmet]

It seems to allude to Kurt Angle and "getting all his stuff in" but I want to know what this style is all about specifically and how are some other offenders of this.

I call it the Go-Go style but somebody else may call it by a different name.

 

Offenders: Kurt Angle (at his worst), Davey Richards, Eddie Edwards, DG roster.

[Matt D]

I like adding a third "Go." There's a Seth Rollins vs Drew Mcyintre match that really bugged me because I was hoping for a lot more and it was just go go go. Rollins has gotten better with this though.

[JerryvonKramer]

Is "Go Go" always pejorative? In what way does "Go Go" as applied to Kurt Angle differ from "Go Go" as applied to something like the Choshu / Yatsu tags from AJPW in 1986 which are worked 100 miles an hour with bombs flying everywhere?

 

Something like that Race vs. Martel match in AWA is "go go" in my mind. And I liked that a lot.

[goodhelmet]

In this case, yes. There is a difference between two guys throwing bombs when trying to beat the shit out of each other and two guys helping each other move to the next spot. At no point, did I ever think that Yatsu and Choshu were cooperating with Jumbo & Co.

[KrisZ]

RVD vs. Jerry Lynn series

[NintendoLogic]

The key difference to me is that Choshu and Yatsu didn't blow off the damage they'd sustained so they could get their shit in.

 

Anyway, no discussion of this style would be complete without mentioning Manami Toyota.

[goodhelmet]

Agreed. She is a great example.

[JerryvonKramer]

Thanks for this elaboration. I guess I've seen people use the term "go go" in a looser sense to refer to fast-paced, intense bombfests.

 

The way you are using it suggests a level of premeditated choreography or spottiness. Is there a difference between that and being a "spot monkey" a la your late 90s Jeff Hardy-type? Don't wish to be tedious but sometimes it's good to go through this stuff from the ground up for the sake of clarity.

[Loss]

I've always admired Belinda Carlisle's sense of fashion.

[goodhelmet]

Choreography is fine. When you watch the lucha set, you will see choreography. I think the best way to sum that up is when the choreography becomes the story of the match. In other words, you could say, "That was a great match because of the beautiful choreography".

[goodhelmet]

I've always admired Belinda Carlisle's sense of fashion.

You would. Cheap L.A. coked-up thrift store chic.

[Matt D]

Choreography is fine. When you watch the lucha set, you will see choreography. I think the best way to sum that up is when the choreography becomes the story of the match. In other words, you could say, "That was a great match because of the beautiful choreography".

Or that match had beautiful choreography but none of it sure meant much of anything?

[Dylan Waco]

There is also a difference between a quick, tight, spotfest that is presented that way and a match with dare I say it, "meaningless depth" that "builds" to pointless back and fourth spots, where the endgame appears to be to collect as many nearfalls as possible before the match finally ends

[Kevin Ridge]

There is also a difference between a quick, tight, spotfest that is presented that way and a match with dare I say it, "meaningless depth" that "builds" to pointless back and fourth spots, where the endgame appears to be to collect as many nearfalls as possible before the match finally ends

I originally posed this question in the "Comments that don't warrant a thread" post though it appears to have got it's own thread. But okay, this is a partial explanation of that style I can understand. But is there more to it? What I found to be confusing was the "get your whole crap in" portion of it. I'm not a regular viewer of current product so I can only speak for the WWE PPVs and few TV matches I actually watch. But I feel like I see a lot of guys trying to put all their signature spots in TV matches. Is this not be to confused with "get your whole crap in" or does the speed of the moves factor in? Help me out.

[Loss]

 

Just had to get that in. Now I'll stop.

[ohtani's jacket]

Mark Rocco is a name I'll add, which is one of the more frustrating ones because when he worked mat based catchweight contests he was as good as any other worker in England.

[jdw]

 

Just had to get that in. Now I'll stop.

 

She got goofy dressed for some videos, but you'll find her looking like that in a ton of concerts from that initial 1981 peak... to the point that you're wondering if that damn black dress is her only one.

 

The coked up part is true, which she'll cop to. But here in LA a lot of people dressed a bit like that, and at least the girls at my HS weren't going to the thrift for it, and good lord were they not cheap.

[Matt D]

I love the Go-Gos as much as the next guy but we've entered into Pro Wrestling Not At All land.

 

Though if John wants to write up the Go-Gos break up as a Barber Shop Windowesque heel turn, I'd read it.

[Jimmy Redman]

There is also a difference between a quick, tight, spotfest that is presented that way and a match with dare I say it, "meaningless depth" that "builds" to pointless back and fourth spots, where the endgame appears to be to collect as many nearfalls as possible before the match finally ends

I originally posed this question in the "Comments that don't warrant a thread" post though it appears to have got it's own thread. But okay, this is a partial explanation of that style I can understand. But is there more to it? What I found to be confusing was the "get your whole crap in" portion of it. I'm not a regular viewer of current product so I can only speak for the WWE PPVs and few TV matches I actually watch. But I feel like I see a lot of guys trying to put all their signature spots in TV matches. Is this not be to confused with "get your whole crap in" or does the speed of the moves factor in? Help me out.

 

It's not so much the speed in itself but the intent. If guys are popping up quickly to move to the next spot, because they are more interested in "getting their shit in" than building a match and selling the damage done to them, then that is bad. If guys move quickly but are still able to convey damage and build a meaningful match using spots, then that is good.

 

Alberto/Christian from Summerslam is a good example of the latter. They were moving pretty quickly and packed a lot of action into 10 minutes or so, but they both sold the impact of moves and nothing felt rushed or no-sold.

 

A WWE guy getting their signature spots in when they work a match isn't really the same thing, unless they are willfully not selling or not building a coherent match in order to do that. But I don't think that is the case for the most part.

[El-P]

Ric Flair.

[cm funk]

Is Go-Go the same as a sprint?

 

I can appreciate a fast paced, all out, hitting moves and spots etc. etc. match for sure, but I like them to be short, like 8 minutes max. And that format has it's own psychology and selling that good workers pull off, but not so good workers can butcher. A match with complete no selling and a complete lack of psychology that is just all highspots and fancy moves and shit, I don't appreciate.

 

If Go-Go style is what I think it is, it's the Kurt Angle style of sprinting with a ton of shit, then cooling down with rest holds, then sprinting again, over and over....and there's some selling involved, but when it's time to sprint again all of it is ignored, until it's time to sell again. And then the match goes 15+ minutes and you're just like, "what the heck am I watching!??"

[cm funk]

To be fair: there are a lot of Kurt Angle matches I like, and also a lot I dislike

 

I don't like his WM match with HBK at all

 

I love his Ironman match with Brock

 

I liked all his matches with Jarrett in TNA

 

I'm not a fan of his "Kurt Angle match" matches in TNA......which happen a lot.....but to his credit he's also carried a lot of lesser typically boring wrestlers to pretty good matches during his time there

 

EDIT* and of course his SummerSlam match with Austin is an all-time great brawl, but in terms of match layout I give the credit to Austin

[ohtani's jacket]

To me a sprint refers to the length and pace of a match. Some workers can work the Go-Go style for 25-30 minutes, even an hour in the case of some Joshi matches. I guess I'd define the Go-Go style as a type of up tempo, non-stop offence where both workers keep hitting spot after spot. When it works, it's usually because the workers hit their spots in rhythm and the transitions were solid. It also helps to have at least short term selling in the longer matches. I think it also depends somewhat on the viewer. There have been Kurt Angle matches I've enjoyed, Manami Toyota matches I've enjoyed and recently AAA matches I've enjoyed largely because I've been in synch with them. It's difficult to explain but sometimes I think you need to be in rhythm with the match to enjoy certain stuff. When I watched a lot of Joshi, for example, I would sometimes really dig when Toyota went on an offensive tear as the match was swinging for me. If I watched her now I think I'd struggle to get into that sort of groove.

 

The Steiners are another example of the style I think.

[El-P]

Sprint = short go-go style match. I'd say under 10 minutes you can consider it a sprint if they work a go-go style.

[MJH]

I have no more problem with a match being fast-paced than slow-paced; there's a way to do it well and some can. I'd also defend certain go-go/spotFU matches if they're the best of their kind. I've obviously stated before that I'll stand by some Toyota/Kyoko(/etc) matches as elite sprints/spot-fests/whatever, and, similarly, I've stood by TLC I as a perfect choreographed stunt-fest where they'd learnt from their previous matches and never bettered. Where Toyota/Kyoko differs from, I don't know, Angle or Davey, is that, with the girls, I get the impression "hey, we've enough offence and cardio to run through 25-minutes of spots and no one else can", whereas, with the guys, it feels to me like they're trying to have "a great match" and that story/selling (down the stretch in particular) isn't as important to that epic feeling as a slew of 2.9s.