Common Match Criticisms

[Superstar Sleeze]

Rick Rude & Atomic Drop is the ultimate stooging spot.

 

 

It is funny I had never heard of stooging before coming here, but I knew instantaneously what it meant. It is that old school heel selling for the babyface that eggs on the crowd and the wrestler. It is the type of selling that makes you want to see the heel get his ass kicked even more. It is played up for cheers and laughs but I don't think it undercuts the gravity of the match per se. Just a bit of lightheartedness that pops the crowd in a different way than a high spot or big bump. It definitely one thing you really don't see anymore, which sucks because it is an easy way to bring a smile to my face. Closest I saw recently was in Xavier Woods' great performance.

 

Another form of stooging is being overly excited about small victories like Owen Hart 1994 and New Day. Again it is something so hammy that it makes you smile but also you want to see their smug smirks get wiped off the face.

[khawk20]

Rick Rude & Atomic Drop is the ultimate stooging spot.

 

 

 

Bob Orton Jr. did this pretty well, too.

 

How would one classify Adrian Adonis' flipping over the ropes and ending up with his arms tied into them, exposing him to whatever his opponent wanted to do? The spot itself is athletic, but the result almost always had Adrian stooging with his face, begging the opponent not to attack him. Adonis did this in the majority of his matches from (at least) his AWA days onward.

 

Kind of a combo deal there, I suppose.

[ohtani's jacket]

I love British stooging where there's a body part the heel doesn't like being worked over like Breaks' nose or McManus' ears. Every rudo worth their salt has a few stooge spots up their sleeve. Some of them more obvious like Emilio or Fuerza, but guys like Satanico and Casas also had stooge routines.

[Loss]

Can we talk about my-turn, your-turn? I don't want to take the Elimination Chamber thread too far off the beaten path, but I don't understand why this is bad.

[goodhelmet]

It's bad if there is no selling of the previous move done by either participant.

 

EXHIBIT A - Davey Richards vs. Michael Elgin (ROH 2012) - Top Rope Dragon Suplex immediately shaken off into another move with zeero selling but it was a holy shit spot.

[JAC]

I agree. It has its place, as long as its used in moderation, and as long as everyone remembers to sell. I'd liken it to an exciting sudden death overtime in hockey, when each team is going all-in on every scoring opportunity, with the puck being rushed from one end of the ice to the other. If it's done well, the wrestlers will incorporate blocks and counters to justify the momentum shifts. If it's not done well... ugh.

[WingedEagle]

It's bad if there is no selling of the previous move done by either participant.

 

EXHIBIT A - Davey Richards vs. Michael Elgin (ROH 2012) - Top Rope Dragon Suplex immediately shaken off into another move with zeero selling but it was a holy shit spot.

 

I'm with that almost all the way. There are instances where someone takes a move and then pulls out something of their own before collapsing that leaves both men down. I don't want it repeatedly and like a natural flow into & out of that kind of sequence.

 

Otherwise, there are really a ton of ways to sequence from wrestler X's big move / control to wrestler Y's comeback:

 

1) X & Y are both selling a move's impact and Y happens to recover quicker.

2) Perhaps X takes his time going for a cover, working the crowd/recovering before transitioning to the next sequence which allows Y to break things up with his own offense.

3) Y counters or reverses X's next attempted move.

 

I'm sure some folks here with better recall can come up with a dozen more, but personally I'm looking for some kind of daylight that creates an opening for a potential swing in momentum & control. Matches where these spots are well paced rather than rushed create a ton of suspense and doubt as to the direction and outcome. There's at ime and place for nearly one-sided affairs, but if you take that too far you're talking squashes. Leave a match time to breathe and I'll rarely do anything but applaud these sequences.

[PeteF3]

In addition to that--even if the transitions are done well, sometimes a match can get so filled with counters that they become meaningless anyway. Joshi has had this problem--you "know" that the momentum is going to swing the other way in 5 seconds anyway, so it's hard to get invested in believing that someone is on a sustained run of offense.

[JerryvonKramer]

I've talked about this before, but I want to mention it again. I think fans praise storytelling too readily and too easily. Coherence and logic alone don't necessarily make something compelling. Narrative alone is not something to be praised. I sometimes get the Impression that people will add a couple of stars just for the mere presence of narrative, and by the same token punish a match heavily if they perceive that coherence or storytelling are missing.

 

Two things on this. First, I think sometimes narratives are there but they aren't always obvious and don't always take the same form. I've talked about Sing and Luger vs. The Steiners before on WTBBP, as well as a few other Steiners matches where this is the case. Storytelling doesn't always have to take the form of limbwork or focusing on the same body part. Sometimes it can be a case of a team underestimating another team. Sometimes it can be a case of two powerhouses going at each other and reaching a stalemate. There are occassions where the bombfest IS the best and most compelling narrative for the context and the match.

 

Second, I think people are really inconsistent with it and play favourites. I don't think Stan Hansen and Brock Lesnar are subject to a lot of the criticisms that are thrown at, for example, The Steiners, but I think they can sometimes be guilty of similar things. All the talk about logic and storytelling can be swept aside in an instant if Dory's face looks bored. Jerry Lawler is praised for his structure and formula work, while Hogan is criticised for working essentially the same formula. People say "I don't really care about moves", but for some reason the ability to throw a great punch is praised to the hilt, while the ability to throw suplex variations is undervalued.

 

I am not having a go at anyone in particular, but I do think there are systematic biases at play and the root cause is this undefined idea of "storytelling" which has some basic assumptions at its core. I think it is undertheorised, and underdeveloped as a mode of criticism.

[KrisZ]

You like what you like....you don't what you don't.....that's the way around it. If there is anyone that says they grade every wrestler on the same terms then they are lying everyone has their favorites.

[goodhelmet]

Fuck you Kris. I was going to spend an afternoon responding to this post tomorrow and you ruined my afternoon by summing it up in just a few words.

[KrisZ]

Please do a long post brother don't let me still your heat

[Matt D]

I think Parv is seeing symptoms of one thing as a totally different disease. If work relents tomorrow, I'll go into more detail.

 

I don't disagree with the Hansen stuff, though, and I'd extend it to people being forgiving of violence, stiffness, and blood in ways they wouldn't be of other things, when everything is just a tool and it's about how the tools are used and to what end they're used.

 

At the same time, I think his general storytelling critique is pretty goofy. The elements he mentioned are tools. Some are just more prone to being used to excess than others.

 

No element of wrestling is innately bad.

[Johnny Sorrow]

Parv's point that there are many kinds of narratives is right on. Just like there are many kinds of "structures".

[Matt D]

My response to that is: "Yes, we know."

 

I think it's pretty screwy (and I could attribute even more negative words than that, but I'm not going to as we're all friends here) to think that people on this site go around saying a match needs limbwork or to be a Tito Santana match to have a story or something.

 

It's especially laughable after some of the discussion we just had within the last twenty four hours about the Owens vs Cena match.

[Dylan Waco]

Not all styles are created equal

[Johnny Sorrow]

I was just saying my pal had a good point in the middle of his collegiate lecture. Chill out, Matt my brother.😀

[Johnny Sorrow]

Not all styles are created equal

Depends on who's enjoying it. If someone told me their favorite style was something I didn't dig, I'd just chalk it up to different strokes. I'm at a point in my life where I realize it's wasted energy to be all "That stinks! You don't know what's good! What I like is good!" Be it music, movies, wrestling, or whatever.

I still have my opinions, but getting worked up about them made me bald. I'd rather just make jokes about shit. I used to be that guy who had to tell everyone in the room that the music they were enjoying sucked and while at the time I felt like I was right, with age I realized I was being a douchebag.

And that's another episode of "Johnny's Getting Shit Off His Chest That Has Nothing To Do With The Topic." 😃

[JerryvonKramer]

If it just boils down to "you like what you like" why does anyone bother pretending they have criteria or reasoning things out? Whether it be reviewing matches or assessing workers?

[Loss]

I think figuring out what makes a match good or bad is more of an art than a science, and I also think it's a platform where the opposite of one profound truth can be another profound truth. Rules can be broken in a way that works just as often as rules can be broken in a way that's a disaster. There is more to it than "I like what I like", because there are some matches I can acknowledge as great that I still don't really love, just like there are matches I wouldn't argue as good that I enjoy anyway. At the same time, we're all shaped by our viewing experiences, personal tastes and other eclectic tendencies, and those things will influence all of our opinions. That's probably true of any medium.

 

I like to use Manami Toyota in this example. Her in-ring style is not my favorite in-ring style by any means, and there are matches where I can't deny the greatness, but also can't bring myself to watch again. But regardless of my quirks, Manami Toyota was in many ways a trailblazer. She was an incredible athlete and figured out a unique style that would get her over as different than those surrounding her. She has also done such off-the-wall things that I don't recall anyone else ever even trying to do like wrestle 30 matches in 30 minutes. She even attempted a sixty-minute sprint with Kyoko Inoue, and that's a divisive match to say the least, but it was so gutsy to even try it. She has been cited as an influence by everyone from Rey Mysterio to Cesaro. She was part of two of the greatest matches I've ever seen (interpromotional tags at Dream Rush and Dream Slam 2) and was a key component of both of those matches. They would not have been as great without her.

 

Is Manami Toyota one of my 20 favorite wrestlers? No way.

 

Is Manami Toyota a flawed wrestler? In more ways than I care to describe at the moment.

 

Is Manami Toyota someone I'd consider one of the 20 greatest wrestlers ever? Without a doubt.

[pol]

Re: storytelling. I think the reason it gets so much focus is because it's easy to put thoughts about logic and coherency into words. But wrestling is something that's often more felt with the heart than the head. A well-structured match can be as much or more about having a rhythm, peaks and valleys, a well-built to climax, etc. than about 'worker X sold the leg well and worked around it in a way that made sense'. Things that defy logic can work because they're making music in there, not writing a thesis. Problem is it's difficult to talk about those things beyond "well, it worked for me".

[Jimmy Redman]

If it just boils down to "you like what you like" why does anyone bother pretending they have criteria or reasoning things out? Whether it be reviewing matches or assessing workers?

 

I think if anything, for me it means that it's easier for me to say "I liked the way they sold the leg and worked around it in a way that made sense in this match between X and Y" than "I generally like it when the leg is sold and worked around in a way that makes sense, and don't like it when it isn't."

 

For me it's impossible to come up with any kind of general criteria that would equally apply to every wrestler and match, some kind of objective standard with which to rate wrestling. I think it's impossible, we're talking about an art form, something inherently subjective. Something that works in one match, or for one wrestler, may not work for another, and there's no real list of things that universally work or are "good".

 

That doesn't mean the end of debate or discussion or analysis, just like subjectivity doesn't mean the end of analysis of art or any other subjective medium or form of entertainment. There are always things to analyse, and ways to analyse them. It just means nobody can be proven right in the end.

[Matt D]

Re: storytelling. I think the reason it gets so much focus is because it's easy to put thoughts about logic and coherency into words. But wrestling is something that's often more felt with the heart than the head. A well-structured match can be as much or more about having a rhythm, peaks and valleys, a well-built to climax, etc. than about 'worker X sold the leg well and worked around it in a way that made sense'. Things that defy logic can work because they're making music in there, not writing a thesis. Problem is it's difficult to talk about those things beyond "well, it worked for me".

 

I don't know about this.

 

I think somewhere around 98% of the denizens of PWO can put their thoughts into words on why they liked or didn't like a match, and that covers storytelling, execution, emotional intangibles. We have reference points from thousands of matches, and can relate how we felt back to them to distill evidence and find patterns. Maybe that takes a little more effort sometimes, but I think everyone here can basicaclly do it.

 

Again, I think we had a lot of that with the Kevin Owens vs Cena match, where people did a great job explaining how the match may not have been laid out in a manner they would have found ideal on paper, but that the end result of it was very effective and the reasons why they felt so.

[pol]

There's a good chance I'm projecting my personal struggles with evaluating some of this stuff. I find it much easier to talk about why, say, a Triple Crown match built around duelling limb work worked than something like an MPro 6 man which is less about telling a concrete story and more about working to a rhythm, bringing the exictement up and down at the right times and hitting beats in a way that feels impactful. All of which would be factors in the former match too, but the fact that there's a more obvious narrative thread there makes it easier to talk about.

[WingedEagle]

If it just boils down to "you like what you like" why does anyone bother pretending they have criteria or reasoning things out? Whether it be reviewing matches or assessing workers?

 

Because its entirely subjective. I really enjoy seeing what many people like and why, as it gives me new things to look into. At the end of the day whether we take away different things from a match or wrestler and spend hours trying to rationalize it, if we see it differently there's no trump card anyone can play to win that argument. Folks lose sight of that fact and digging in their heels to the point of obstinacy in knocking someone else's opinions or taste is where it all gets dumb, but hopefully long before that point everybody's found something else to think about and even better watch, since we all love our rasslin'.