Emotional connection

[ohtani's jacket]

This comment from Kevin Ridge got me thinking...

 

There is just a disconnect for me where I find myself not being able to be emotionally behind most of the performers.

...and I was wondering if people could have a go at answering some questions.

 

How do you get behind a performer emotionally? I mean what draws that sort of reaction from you. Does it happen often or is it rare? Can you enjoy matches where you don't feel a huge emotional connection as much as matches where you do? Are there any matches you think are great where you don't feel a huge investment? I mean matches that would sit side by side with you all-time favourites even though you only enjoy them from a technical standpoint. Are there other ways you can get behind a performer that are different from the norm? For example, if promos and angles are important to you, how to you get behind foreign performers, etc.? Can this connection develop over time is it love at first sight?

 

I often read comments similar to Kevin's and I was interested in fleshing it out a bit.

[marrklarr]

Does it happen often or is it rare?

I think that the entire point of wrestling is to produce an emotional reaction of some kind, so it better not be rare. If you aren't emotionally invested in the characters, storylines, and general theatrics of a match, it all feels hallow and pointless.

 

You can certainly appreciate technical skill and athleticism, but there is much less impact without some kind of emotional context.

[cheapshot]

I can only get emotionally invested in characters I like (which I assume is the norm) - Unfortunately it's quite rare for me to get emotionally behind performers nowadays.

 

Random recent ones include Daniel Bryan, Enzo Amore and Sami Zayn. I think for me; it's rooting for the smaller underdog character.

 

I can still enjoy matches that I don't have much of an emotional connection; if not I wouldn't be watching anymore. I think for me, the person that can get me shouting and screaming has been, and always will be Ric Flair. For me, Starrcade '93 was when I was totally caught up in the emotion of Flair challenging Vader for the strap. I remember being so happy when he overcame the monster, in front of his home-town fans, friends and family. To me moments like that make me happy to be a fan; unfortunately these moments aren't as common anymore.

[overbooked]

I think an emotional connection is at the heart of all great pro wrestling. It is what makes me leap from my sofa and cheer, or just believe for a little while. Appreciating wrestling purely from a technical perspective feels a little like enjoying a book just for its grammar.

 

I think there are three facets to the emotional involvement, for me anyway...

 

The set-up - this might be a six-month build-up or just a pre-match promo, or even just knowing that the two guys don't like one another. Essentially, some degree of pre-match storytelling or context makes it a lot easier to connect with a match quickly. While it might not be essential, it helps. This isn't just about a face making me care for him, but a heel making me hate him enough to care about the face winning.

 

The match itself - it doesn't feel like moves or anything as tangible as that makes the difference, it is more those vague but vital elements of charisma, timing, body language. Ideally this comes from everyone in the ring, and they need to feed off of one another. I can enjoy a match with one wrestler who gets it, but it becomes magical when they both do.

 

The smarky bit - I'm not sure how I feel about this, but it is there. I can care about a worker if he seems like a decent guy, or deserves a good run, or has been genuinely held down. Similarly, I can hate a heel who has too much clout backstage, or has been pushed to much - HHH has over the years been pretty much the ultimate Smark's Heel, for example. This is less around the greatness of believing, which is a shame, but it has still drawn me into matches.

 

I guess the most important element of the above is what the wrestler(s) do in the ring itself, and that is how I can be drawn into a match with foreign wrestlers, but everything around the match can add to it. The drama isn't inherently in the moves, it is when the moves happen, how and why. Wrestling in a vacuum misses the point.

[Graham Crackers]

An emotional connection is important to any work of art. I would even argue that a work of art that is especially engaging on a cerebral level creates an emotional connection with the reader/viewer. That's not to say that every work that you enjoy connects with you on a profound emotional level. I don't cry at the end of every movie but I think if any narrative can make you care about the characters and their fates it is creating an emotional connection.

 

As for wrestling: It isn't always a deep connection but I think if I care about who wins, how they win, who makes a comeback, or even a great character based moment ranging from a dramatic turning point like a heel turn to something simple like a great comedy spot then I must have connected to it on some level.

 

That touches upon what happens in a single match but I think this can also factor into the overall narrative of wrestling history. I don't think context is always important to enjoying wrestling but it can definitely enrich the experience, particularly on an emotional level. If a match isn't any good context won't save it but a great match can feel a little more special when you've cared about those characters for a while.

 

Just to give an example of something I watched recently I'll talk about the AWA set. While watching them throughout the 80s I became a fan of Bockwinkel and Hennig. By 1986 Bockwinkel is pretty established as the top guy in the territory. At the same time we got to see Hennig go from promising rookie to gaining more confidence after his feud with Stan Hansen. When Hennig and Bockwinkel eventually started feuding I had an investment in their characters and wanted to see how their personal arcs turned out. The 60 minute draw and Hennig's heel turn match were great matches on their own but that added investment helped to grab my attention just as much as what they did in the ring.

[JerryvonKramer]

Hopefully this comes through in my reviews, both in written and audio format, but I try as much as possible to watch wrestling as a mark with full suspension of disbelief. I'm a pretty analytical person, so I'm going to start breaking stuff down naturally, which is why I'll often question logic within the kayfabe bubble (i.e. even as a mark, I'd be prone towards questioning things in an analytical way).

 

For me though, being emotionally invested in a match is really important and a lack of that investment can bring down a rating. See Atlantis vs. El Satanico, for example. This is why I've often said that the in-ring aspects of wrestling cannot and should not be separated from all the other aspects. "Character" stuff is really important. In that same post I've linked, Mocho Cota single-handedly got me really into the next run of matches. This wasn't because he was doing planchas or fancy matwork, first and foremost, it's because he's a terrific character who you can instantly "get". I'm convinced that the likes of Flair, Lawler and Funk would not be thought of in the exhalted terms that they are if they were not great characters in and out of the ring.

 

At the same time, I'm really interested in the behind the scenes stuff and reading Meltzer and the history and -- so long as I'm arguing with people who don't drive me nuts -- debating the causes of certain key events in history. The 2-hour show I did with Chad breaking down the causes of the decline of JCP was one of my favourite ones that we've done. But I don't always see this stuff affecting how I watch wrestling. And I'm really really against that old-fashioned "smark" type perspective that downgrades Luger because he was a dickhead and disliked backstage or downgrades Ron Garvin because he didn't draw. To me the backstage, real-life stuff has only the most limited effect on how I'm taking in what I'm seeing on my screen.

 

The only real effect it has is if I've read around the history of, say, a Dominic Denucci or even a guy like Ivan Koloff, it may give me a more "receptive" frame of mind going in. But this is more or less an extension of character stuff: knowing the long history of someone just enhances your appreciation ... and, yes, helps with emotional investment.

[El-P]

I'm sorry to say, but I have zero emotional connection with wrestling at this point. Last time I had was probably when I was following ARSION in the early 00's. I can (and do) have fun watching what's good, enjoy the good work, the good angles, the good promos, even be surprised at times, but emotional connection is gone.

[Matt D]

I'm an ass. My emotional investment for anything that's not current is that I get really excited if someone sells when and how I think they're supposed to.

 

"Yes. Get that bastard!!" becomes "Yes! you sold the leg when you came back on offense, you glorious bastard!" or "Yes! That bit from the first part of the match just paid off!"

 

With current stuff I'm a little better, though some element of that is always "Yes! they actually put the Rhodes brothers over for the belts AND the fans are loving it!!" instead of "Yes! My team beat the other team!!"

[MJH]

I'm in the same boat as Jerome, only in my case it applies to (most) films/books/etc too. I think it comes from me re-watching/re-reading a lot, and that in most cases even when watching for the first time I already know the plot/finish. But, I mean, take any great Japanese match - let's say Kawada's first tag win - did anyone here, John included, not know the result before watching it for the first time? And did that ever stop anyone from thinking it one of the best matches ever? Of course not. Then again, Titanic's one of the biggest grossing films ever and it's not as if people didn't know the finish, nor did that stop them crying when Leo died.

 

When it comes to something like current WWE I don't so much "root" for Bryan as I enjoy his matches and want him to succeed (which he obviously has) and be in a position to put on strong, enjoyable matches. But when it comes to, say, Mark Henry's retirement turn, it's not as if we were raving about how dastardly a double-cross it was; if we were "marking out" it was because of how well done an angle it was, y'know? It doesn't mean we didn't enjoy the hell out of it, but that's not an emotional connection.

[jdw]

I'm in the same boat as Jerome, only in my case it applies to (most) films/books/etc too. I think it comes from me re-watching/re-reading a lot, and that in most cases even when watching for the first time I already know the plot/finish. But, I mean, take any great Japanese match - let's say Kawada's first tag win - did anyone here, John included, not know the result before watching it for the first time?

Once I started getting the WON in 1991, there were rare occasions when I didn't know the result: something hitting the US shows so quickly that it hadn't been in the WON (this before a Japanese reporter started faxing me the results pretty much every day). The one that sticks out is the 5/94 Misawa & Kobashi vs Kawada & Taue match, which Hoback and I watched before heading down to TJ for some lucha. We could hear the time counts every five minutes, kept expecting it to end soon, (especially since nearly all of the TV version was "work to the finish" mode for 20+ minutes), and we blown away.

 

But for most of the stuff after 1991, I knew the results.

 

Oddly... I didn't enjoy the WON-era stuff anymore or less than I enjoyed the 1989-91 stuff before reading the WON.

[jdw]

On the overriding question of the thread... I don't really know. I've always viewed pro wrestling like TV and Movies. I enjoy a lot of TV and Movies that I have some emotional connection with... say Star Wars when I was a kid, or Emmanuelle 2: The Joys of a Woman as a horny mid-teen, or Seven Samurai as a stoner in college . But I also enjoy a lot of TV and movies on something that's more a cerebral level than an emotional level. When I watch Godfather and Godfather 2, is it emotional enjoyment now, or cerebral? Feels more like I'm enjoying thinking about the art and craft of it now than Moe Green getting shot in the eye. My rewatch of The Wire... this strikes me more cerebral now than emotional:

 

 

Idris is exceptional, Gilliard is fantastic (especially after the earlier scenes where the police let him know what happened to Wallace).

 

Am I splitting a fine line between what's emotional and cerebral? Maybe. But my thought would be... read this:

 

http://www.xojane.com/it-happened-to-me/da...-maryville-rape

 

That hit me emotionally this morning when reading it in my office... tears down my cheeks, almost shaking emotion.

 

Wrestling doesn't to that to me. Never has, never will. :/

 

It doesn't even hit my like the simply emotion of my girlfriend leaving a message on my phone while I'm at lunch, and coming back to the office to hear it... the happy joy in her voice to let me know she's thinking about me.

 

That's not just wrestling. I don't get a massive emotional charge watching Top Chef, and I really love me some Top Chef when I get around to binging on it. I just enjoy watching these folks cook, and how they go about the pressures of the competition.

[marrklarr]

I think the word emotional kind of confuses things in a discussion like this. It makes us think of jumping for joy or weeping in sorrow. Few of us are or ever have been emotionally affected to that degree. But I think we all get some kind of reaction, even if it's as mild as "whoa! that move looked cool!"

 

And even if we aren't caught up in emotion, I think we enjoy wrestling more when we sense that others are. Ever notice how a hot crowd can make a crap match worth watching? How a dead crowd can lessen a good match's appeal?

 

I've read a few commenters saying that they often watch to appreciate the structural elements of a good match. Some have said it's more cerebral than emotional. I suspect, though, that you're not totally disengaged emotionally. After all, what is it about a well-structured and well-executed match that you find so satisfying?

[Dylan Waco]

This will seem weird, and I will address it more later when I'm at home, but WWE was actually MORE enjoyable to me on a week-to-week basis before Mark Henry's "Hall of Pain" run made me care enough again to be perpetually disappointed

[tim]

This will seem weird, and I will address it more later when I'm at home, but WWE was actually MORE enjoyable to me on a week-to-week basis before Mark Henry's "Hall of Pain" run made me care enough again to be perpetually disappointed

I think I'm a lot more optimistic about the WWE product than you but still I definitely see what you're getting at. I remember in 2009 I wasn't much "involved" in any particular character or angle but watching the great matches that were happening on every week on just about every show was the most I've purely enjoyed WWE in a long time. Even though I like the overall WWE product right now they still manage to mangle to some degree enough stuff that I get peeved not too infrequently.

[Zoo Enthusiast]

Lately, the Rhodes/Shield feud has made me emotionally invested. When The Shield came out to attack Dusty that first time, I literally said "Oh, no!" while sitting on my couch. And when Dusty was cutting promos I felt the same way. Especially the huckleberry line. THEN, they beat The Shield and got their jobs back and I felt like I was 5 years old again. The stuff with Bryan/HHH/Orton has me invested, but not nearly to the same level.

 

It's pretty rare that I feel like that, but I love it when I do. Previous to that, it was probably Aries winning the TNA title last year. Basically for me, I know I'm emotionally invested when I really care who is winning a match.

[tim]

Anyway as to the broader question, I'm sure just about everyone here, most of us watching wrestling from all parts of the world and all time periods available, I don't need to have a "connection" to enjoy the hell out of a great match. But that doesn't mean great matches are analytical, emotionless affairs for me. I don't have any "personal" connection to El Satanico or Gran Chochisse but doesn't stop me getting excited as hell for their crazy submission reversal segments and surely "excitement" is an emotion. Same with a lot of great matches. When I was 15 years old and just got a tape of 6/9/95 and watched it for the first time I didn't have any personal or emotional involvement but it was a hell of an enthralling viewing experience and I was engrossed by the action to a far more "personal" extent than sitting back and saying "yes, very impressive selling of the leg;" "hm, rather unique spot with Kobashi trying to shield Misawa from damage, that is a point in the positive ledger;" etc.

[Graham Crackers]

This will seem weird, and I will address it more later when I'm at home, but WWE was actually MORE enjoyable to me on a week-to-week basis before Mark Henry's "Hall of Pain" run made me care enough again to be perpetually disappointed

I think may know what you're getting at. If not, I guess i have my own point about WWE of the last several years and my own investment in it.

 

WWE from 2006 to 2009 had great TV matches with great performances every week but the booking and promos did pretty much nothing for me. The only thing I really cared about was seeing my favorite guys have great matches. In 2011 with Mark Henry's push, Jerry Lawler's "WWE comeback," and the Summer of Punk II the creative direction of the company changed. A lot of programs started and stopped at weird times or were ruined by bad left turns but they no longer seemed like they were sticking to the holding pattern either. The overall creative direction has been steadily improving since then. I wouldn't say WWE's booking was good at any point during that timeframe and I don't think it's good now but they have shown enough improvement that now I find myself caring a bit more about the results than I did before. Unfortunately we aren't getting the same number of great weekly TV matches we were getting back in 2007 or so.

 

Now with all that said, I do think I've enjoyed the absolute best WWE matches of the last few years as much as those from 2006-2009. We may no longer have the same quantity of great matches we did when Finlay, Rey, Henry, Matt Hardy, Christian, Chavo, etc were wrestling every week but I think Brock/Cena, Bryan/Cena, Punk/Cena, Bryan/Sheamus, Punk/Bryan, Bryan/Henry, and the Shield/Rhodes matches could have totally been on MOTY lists from 2006-2009.

[Graham Crackers]

Anyway as to the broader question, I'm sure just about everyone here, most of us watching wrestling from all parts of the world and all time periods available, I don't need to have a "connection" to enjoy the hell out of a great match. But that doesn't mean great matches are analytical, emotionless affairs for me. I don't have any "personal" connection to El Satanico or Gran Chochisse but doesn't stop me getting excited as hell for their crazy submission reversal segments and surely "excitement" is an emotion. Same with a lot of great matches. When I was 15 years old and just got a tape of 6/9/95 and watched it for the first time I didn't have any personal or emotional involvement but it was a hell of an enthralling viewing experience and I was engrossed by the action to a far more "personal" extent than sitting back and saying "yes, very impressive selling of the leg;" "hm, rather unique spot with Kobashi trying to shield Misawa from damage, that is a point in the positive ledger;" etc.

Yeah, I think some of the posters here are taking "emotional connection" to mean something extreme. If you laugh at a comedy spot or get excited when someone is making a comeback then you're feeling something.

[jdw]

This comment from Kevin Ridge got me thinking...

 

There is just a disconnect for me where I find myself not being able to be emotionally behind most of the performers.

...and I was wondering if people could have a go at answering some questions.

 

How do you get behind a performer emotionally?

I'm not sure what "get behind" means. In the work of pro wrestling, if we're behind a wrestler, it means we're rooting for him to win. I don't think a lot of us here care a ton about that in the big picture. We tend to like guys whose work we enjoy, an don't care most of the times if he/she wins.

 

 

Does it happen often or is it rare?

Emotionally? Eh.

 

That I like someone's work? Regularly, since I tend not to watch a lot of stuff that I don't like.

 

Am I drawing a fine line in "emotionally?"

 

I don't know. I enjoy Hulk Hogan matches far more in the past decade than I did in the 80s. I have no emotional connection to Hulk, and don't get behind him. I just got to a point that the solid nature of his work and his ability to work his crowds became more obvious to me.

 

 

Can you enjoy matches where you don't feel a huge emotional connection as much as matches where you do?

I liked Hogan vs Orndorff at The Big Event. I have no emotional connection to the workers. I thought the work was solid, and there was a big match spectacle vibe to the match that one just didn't see much if at all in the WWF up to that point in the Expansion Era.

 

 

Are there any matches you think are great where you don't feel a huge investment? I mean matches that would sit side by side with you all-time favourites even though you only enjoy them from a technical standpoint.

I don't really feel like I'm making a huge investment in great matches. I'm just watching them, enjoying them and thinking about them. That may sound coy, but is it? Watching a Yearbook, with 60+ hours of stuff, is an investment to a "project". You're committed to watching your way through it. But when Misawa vs Taue pops up, is it really a huge investment to watch it... or are you just watching it and enjoying it?

 

That's my general take on watching WWF 80s stuff. There was an investment in time to watch the stuff, especially the first 100 where there was stuff that just made my head hurt. But when a good match came up, watching was easy. Writing up is another investment: in time, and in trying to get my thoughts across.

 

But did I have to invest anything in the Savage vs Tito No DQ match? No... just watched it, enjoyed it and thought about it.

 

 

Are there other ways you can get behind a performer that are different from the norm? For example, if promos and angles are important to you, how to you get behind foreign performers, etc.?

Good promos are entertaining, and good matches are entertaining. I don't need one to enjoy the other.

 

 

Can this connection develop over time is it love at first sight?

Setting aside "connection" and "love", I don't think one needs to enjoy something the first time or forever hold their peace. Like I said above: I hated Hogan, and Hogan Matches in the 80s. I don't mind them now. I didn't care for Backlund matches when I first started watching them on old CHV releases. Now... I kind of dig his matches and his work. In turn, I loved Flair Matches when I first started watching wrestling. Now... I'd be happy never to watch another one as long as I live.

 

John

[jdw]

Yeah, I think some of the posters here are taking "emotional connection" to mean something extreme. If you laugh at a comedy spot or get excited when someone is making a comeback then you're feeling something.

When I walk across a neighbor's lawn and accidentally step in something squishy, I have an "emotional connection" to dog poop? Or am I just pissed off that there's shit on my shoes?

 

I laugh at dozens of things a day. Just had one: a angry customer ended up getting transferred to my phone because the customer rep he was trying to get has the same last name as mine and same first initial, causing the operator to send him to the wrong Williams. Said customer was all happy that he got someone in "Legal" rather than customer support to express all the problems he's had with our products and company, yadder, yadder, yadder. I sat there and took it, while gently trying to get his info so I could send him off to someone who could actually help him without giving him the notion of suing the company. When I finally got him on his way, and was describing it to our secretary, we had a good laugh over it.

 

Emotional connection with the angry caller? No. It was just funny that he ended up at the wrong Williams, and hearing "Legal" decided to try to work that angle.

 

Okay... so that had nothing to do with pro wrestling and maybe sails past folks. How about this:

 

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6aqvn_vi...tal-calli_sport

 

I found that funny when it first aired. I didn't have an emotional connection with Stone Cold and Mr. McMahon in it. I didn't fell put upon by my boss, and feel like going after her like Austin went after McMahon with the bed pan and the thingy up the rear. It was just good slapstick humor that fit into their feud. Vince stooged his ass off, something that I don't think he ever got enough credit for at the time.

 

Or something entirely different:

 

 

I love that Cheetah section. Did the first time I ever heard it, and it's always stuck with me. Emotional connection? I'm not a Cheetah. I haven't been to Africa. I'm not Richard, and there's little about him that I have an emotional connection with. He's just a funny motherfucker.

[Graham Crackers]

Okay, I'll clarify. Just because you felt something for a moment doesn't mean you "made a connection." You don't have an emotional connection every time you laugh. John might not remember that anecdote years from now. You'll probably forget about that dog poop too.

 

But maybe you heard a great routine by Richard Pryor many years ago. It was really funny and to this day you still think about it and laugh. Hmm, sounds like that really stuck with you. Maybe it still makes you laugh or smile. Sounds like it might even make you happy.

 

And if anyone just remember jokes based upon some mathematical criteria for what makes them funny as opposed to how it makes them feel then I feel bad for them.

[jdw]

And if anyone just remember jokes based upon some mathematical criteria for what makes them funny as opposed to how it makes them feel then I feel bad for them.

Who brought up math in the thread?

 

If we're not emotionally connected to something we laugh at, it's because we did some math in our head to determine if it was funny? No... the shit was just funny.

 

Is laughter an emotion? Sure.

 

Does that emotion need some deep connection to the story / joke / event to create the laughter? Not really.

 

Richard Pryor. Cheetahs. Gazelles. It's just a funny story.

 

Hansen vs Taue. Hansen selling the ribs from the prior night. Taue getting on board to attack them, while Hansen goes completely one-note in selling the shit out of those ribs. Emotional connection? I don't know... I don't see it with me. Hansen's ribs don't really hurt. Mine don't. I haven't been in a situation like that in sports where I was trying to protect an injury and hoping the opponent wouldn't attack it. Worry about Hansen losing? No, because I've always known he's losing the match. So what works for me? Hansen's singular one-note performance to sell the fuck out of his ribs as the entire storyline of the match standing out in such contrast to where All Japan was headed for the balance of the decade. It's a bit like Ohtani-Samurai for me in showing something that was possible as an alternative.

 

How did I write it up when recommending it?

 

#4 - 4/11 Taue vs Hansen

 

This is probably about 85% a great match.. and by great I mean GREAT!!!! Seriously, no bullshit. 50% in the form of 100% of what Hansen does is great. This is Stan's "12/03/93 Kawada Is Sublime" performance, and Hansen's performance doesn't in anyway have to take a backseat to what I've spent 18 years pimping as one of the best performances of all-time. Hansen is great before the bell even rings, selling what happened the night before. As the match goes on... he's off the charts.

 

35% in the form of about 70% to 75% of what Taue does is great. He's extremely focused on what needs to be focused on, and really never loses the thread on it to go into "I've Got Stuff To Do" or "I'd Rather Do Cool Stuff" mode. Those are massive positives. There are some minor knocks: about half of his early stuff looks weak, he's too slam centric without theatrically drawing well into the storyline why those are useful, and he kind of ignores something obvious to the point that he only rolls it out as the Barry Windham Transition... which kind of sucks since using it would have really tied into the storyline. They may seem minor, but they add up a bit to keep this from being a perfect-great match.

 

On the other hand, once he gets past some of the early weak stuff, Taue does bring a ton of great stuff to the storyline and most of it is well done. Even some things like the Claw that doesn't work out to well at least had good thought behind them.

 

This is a helluva match. I'm not sure anyone else could have had this match with Stan at the time. Hard to imagine any of the other members of the Big 6 letting themselves work what is essentially a 17 minute Single Storyline Match. At some point, they'd go off the page to mix in some of their other Cool Things. Misawa would whip out the jumping lariat and the elbows to the head... a lot. As *stronger* as Kawada's attack to the injury would be, he would still have used the high kicks to the head. Kobashi would have gone longer, and lost the thread a few times. Doc faces Hansen a few nights later, and while I like that match a good deal, the injury storyline isn't as focused.

 

Taue... he seems to have followed Stan's lead to a T, stuck with it, etc. When he whips out the nodowa, it's not losing the thread: it's that he's fucked up Stan so much that the nodowa is there for the taking (or fits into a transition). Pretty much everything that doesn't directly tie into the injury is like that, with the injury sitting there still on display. Hell... I don't think 1996 Taue could have this match because he had some cooler stuff that he'd want to mix in, and was more confident in his work.

 

Yeah... this is one of those moment in times. Stan creating something the night before that keyed a major loss that he in turn could use the next night to key a second major loss... with probably the one guy in the Big 6 that would/could be drawn into working a Single Storyline Match.

 

85% of a GREAT match, when most of the quibbles are early... that's great match. One utterly exceptional performance, with another one that was very focused on what needed to be done and then picked up some steam as he went along.

So yeah, it's kind of a cerebral enjoyment.

 

Oddly enough, it was the one match in the entire re-watch that I enjoyed the most. Even though the Final is one of my favorite matches ever.

[evilclown]

I think wrestling is infinitely worse when you care about who wins and who loses. I've been down that road and it's kind of exhausting and can really distract you from the broader picture.

 

When you step back and look at wrestling as an over-the-top spectacle and broad farce, it's much, much better. When people get focused in on their guy losing to Cena or whoever, it kind of reminds me of someone who would be upset at Mr.T losing to Stallone at the end of Rocky III. Yes, Clubber Lang was awesome. But he was created to job.

 

Anyway...

[Grimmas]

Lately, the Rhodes/Shield feud has made me emotionally invested. When The Shield came out to attack Dusty that first time, I literally said "Oh, no!" while sitting on my couch. And when Dusty was cutting promos I felt the same way. Especially the huckleberry line. THEN, they beat The Shield and got their jobs back and I felt like I was 5 years old again. The stuff with Bryan/HHH/Orton has me invested, but not nearly to the same level.

 

It's pretty rare that I feel like that, but I love it when I do. Previous to that, it was probably Aries winning the TNA title last year. Basically for me, I know I'm emotionally invested when I really care who is winning a match.

That PPV match had me very emotionally into the Rhodes family winning. I was at the theater with a friend and I was almost yelling at the screen when the Shield was cheating. Same with the tag match from Raw.

 

So yeah, I can still be emotionally connected even at 32 years old, it just depends on the wrestler and their current storyline.

[fishbaugh]

I think wrestling is infinitely worse when you care about who wins and who loses. I've been down that road and it's kind of exhausting and can really distract you from the broader picture.

 

When you step back and look at wrestling as an over-the-top spectacle and broad farce, it's much, much better. When people get focused in on their guy losing to Cena or whoever, it kind of reminds me of someone who would be upset at Mr.T losing to Stallone at the end of Rocky III. Yes, Clubber Lang was awesome. But he was created to job.

 

Anyway...

The amount of enjoyment I get from watching wrestling, as well as the overall volume I watch, has gone up dramatically since I quit following WWE week-to-week, let my Observer and Torch subs lapse, and stopped participating in message board threads on current topics. I remember emailing Wade a fiery response to some article he put up where he did a fantasy draft to create a new brand and he chose Shelton Benjamin as like his #2 guy. The motivation was that he didn't have Rey Rey high enough on his list -- that email was orders of magnitude more stupid than his original article, and a true low point in my life!

 

Once I stopped getting so damn wrapped up in how something stupid like the Spirit Squad being made to look weak was, I was able to just sit back and enjoy the show for what it is. Instead of spending hours reading message board threads about how HHH was holding down whoever, I spend that time diving into things that I actually like.