Commonly used words and phrases that annoy you

[Timbo Slice]

Strong Style makes me want to punch a wall whenever I hear it. Especially when you hear "American Strong Style."

[JerryvonKramer]

As do I with "control segment".

I use this in a very specific context. It's for a section where the babyface is on top that isn't the shine.

 

Shine

Heat

Comeback

 

Control is just neater than "babyface on top for no reason".

[JaymeFuture]

One of my least favourite things on Raw is when Michael Cole uses the phrase "knocked off". It's like he refuses to say beat or pinned. "Randy Orton knocked off Daniel Bryan last week on Smackdown"...."It was two weeks ago on Raw when John Cena knocked off Kane".

 

Not only is it unnecessarily euphemistic language, but it sounds extremely lewd.

[Badlittlekitten]

I always get pulled out of it when Cole says so and so is "having his way" with someone, which means something quite different where I live.

[dawho5]

I used to use "control segment" a lot. Then I moved away from it for some reason and started going with FIP (even when there wasn't a true face involved) or heat segment. Don't know why I did that, maybe the term started bothering me even though I was the one using it.

[JerryvonKramer]

Maybe others will disagree but in my view "control segment" can only refer to a babyface being on offense after the initial shine in a longer match. Example:

Shine [babyface dominates to start]
[transition] [heel does something cheap to gain advantage]
Heat [heel works over face]
[transition] [big reversal by face]
Control [face works over heel]
[transition] [face slips up, is countered, or heel does something cheap again]
Heat [heel works over face]
Comeback [face fires up]
Finish

In a typical Bob Backlund match you pretty much only get control. I think it ceases to be shine in the strictest sense once you're past the 10 minute mark.

[Yo-Yo's Roomie]

I hate 'X is being pushed down our throats' or any iteration of that. It always connotes a petty bitterness to me.

[Matt D]

Maybe others will disagree but in my view "control segment" can only refer to a babyface being on offense after the initial shine in a longer match. Example:

 

Shine [babyface dominates to start]

[transition] [heel does something cheap to gain advantage]

Heat [heel works over face]

[transition] [big reversal by face]

Control [face works over heel]

[transition] [face slips up, is countered, or heel does something cheap again]

Heat [heel works over face]

Comeback [face fires up]

Finish

 

In a typical Bob Backlund match you pretty much only get control. I think it ceases to be shine in the strictest sense once you're past the 10 minute mark.

 

I'm still pretty certain I mainly use it when we have a situation where one wrestler is basically only containing the other. The strategy isn't wearing down or damaging a body part or even establishing dominance but just containing a force that would otherwise overwhelm them. In a shine situation, the babyface has more dominance of the situation.

[ohtani's jacket]

More dislikes -- shine and heat. Nobody used to use these terms.

[Matt D]

A lot of it is a matter of classification. When you go through hundreds of matches and try to break them down to common elements, you need terms to define what you're seeing. One of the trickier parts of our community here is that we often define things different ways, leading to more explanation being necessary, so these terms end up being tools that we use personally for our own purposes. I don't think we could easily agree on a common set of terms though.

[Loss]

 

As do I with "control segment".

I use this in a very specific context. It's for a section where the babyface is on top that isn't the shine.

 

Shine

Heat

Comeback

 

Control is just neater than "babyface on top for no reason".

 

 

I think this is my issue with it. It's a phrase that appeared out of thin air about 10 years ago and was never properly defined, so reading multiple match reviews, you're going to have conflicting takeaways over what it means. I would never think that's what a control segment is.

 

I think in some ways it also boxes in the way people think about match layouts. Does every match have a control segment? I don't mean that sarcastically, by the way, I'm just asking.

[The Chief]

I hate the term "Attitude Era"

[Loss]

Maybe others will disagree but in my view "control segment" can only refer to a babyface being on offense after the initial shine in a longer match. Example:

 

Shine [babyface dominates to start]

[transition] [heel does something cheap to gain advantage]

Heat [heel works over face]

[transition] [big reversal by face]

Control [face works over heel]

[transition] [face slips up, is countered, or heel does something cheap again]

Heat [heel works over face]

Comeback [face fires up]

Finish

 

In a typical Bob Backlund match you pretty much only get control. I think it ceases to be shine in the strictest sense once you're past the 10 minute mark.

 

My problem with this is that not all match layouts have to be formulaic or meet certain pre-defined criteria.

[Loss]

I also get annoyed by "rats" and "the boys", although you don't hear those phrases used too often by fans.

[Matt D]

 

Maybe others will disagree but in my view "control segment" can only refer to a babyface being on offense after the initial shine in a longer match. Example:

 

Shine [babyface dominates to start]

[transition] [heel does something cheap to gain advantage]

Heat [heel works over face]

[transition] [big reversal by face]

Control [face works over heel]

[transition] [face slips up, is countered, or heel does something cheap again]

Heat [heel works over face]

Comeback [face fires up]

Finish

 

In a typical Bob Backlund match you pretty much only get control. I think it ceases to be shine in the strictest sense once you're past the 10 minute mark.

 

My problem with this is that not all match layouts have to be formulaic or meet certain pre-defined criteria.

 

 

Yes, but if you watch thirty matches, you're going to find common traits between many of them. It's not about establishing rules about things matches have to have or even necessarily what makes them good or bad. It's about finding commonalities in them to better understand how pro wrestling works. There'll always be exceptions, but I think finding and defining patterns is the bread and butter of any sort of analysis.

 

Now, what you say about there being differing uses of these terms by different people is definitely an issue, but I think it's an insurmountable one.

[JerryvonKramer]

More dislikes -- shine and heat. Nobody used to use these terms.

So? It's about expanding the critical vocabulary. We've all talked about how Meltzer's reviews aren't very good, part of the reason is that he seldom talks about structure or psychology and seems to lack the vocab to do so.

 

I think this is my issue with it. It's a phrase that appeared out of thin air about 10 years ago and was never properly defined, so reading multiple match reviews, you're going to have conflicting takeaways over what it means. I would never think that's what a control segment is.

 

I think in some ways it also boxes in the way people think about match layouts. Does every match have a control segment? I don't mean that sarcastically, by the way, I'm just asking.

I'll freely admit that the way I've used it is something I just madeup myself, and it seems like Matt D uses it differently.

 

The answer is that no, not all matches are laid out in this way but having the basic idea of Shine - Heat - Comeback as a way of describing your typical Hogan match makes it easier then to recognise and describe alternative match structures.

 

The "control", as defined by me, is not necessary for a lot of matches. But you see it a lot in AWA matches, in Backlund matches and seemingly in Harley-Race-as-NWA-Champ-in-the-territories matches.

 

We had a thread on this topic last year: http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?/topic/20975-babyface-offense-in-us-singles-match-structure/

 

I think you can date my own usage of "control segment" to that thread.

[Loss]

Patterns are there and we're going to notice them, but I think if we actively look for them, we are only narrowing our view of what great wrestling is instead of expanding it. The focus becomes on the pattern -- to me, it's like missing the forest for the trees, and the quality of the pattern takes precedent over other things that may be equally or far more important.

 

"Oh, [pattern x] was done much better over here because this was missing [thing 1], [thing 2] and [thing 3], which [pattern x] should always have."

 

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy that I think dictates what good wrestling has to be and then plugs everything into it instead of just being open to all the ways there are to do good wrestling, sometimes even in ways that are a direct contradiction to other good wrestling.

 

I've fallen into this trap a few times myself and I'm trying to stay away from it.

[JerryvonKramer]

Patterns are there and we're going to notice them, but I think if we actively look for them, we are only narrowing our view of what great wrestling is instead of expanding it. The focus becomes on the pattern -- to me, it's like missing the forest for the trees, and the quality of the pattern takes precedent over other things that may be equally or far more important.

 

"Oh, [pattern x] was done much better over here because this was missing [thing 1], [thing 2] and [thing 3], which [pattern x] should always have."

 

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy that I think dictates what good wrestling has to be and then plugs everything into it instead of just being open to all the ways there are to do good wrestling, sometimes even in ways that are a direct contradiction to other good wrestling.

 

I've fallen into this trap a few times myself and I'm trying to stay away from it.

I understand the worry, but it's just recognising and describing the structure, there's nothing prescriptive in it.

 

That said, I will almost always penalise a match for lacking a heat segment or a match in which the babyface just eats up the heel in a main event setting except in some very rare exceptional cases, which I can count on one hand. One example of where it's acceptable is in the Hogan vs. Bock match from AWA after Bock had been ducking Hogan for months and Hulk finally gets his hands on him.

[Loss]

And on that point, I generally agree with you. Matches that are billed as competitive or should be competitive based on relative card placement that end up being one-sided almost always disappoint me. But then, something like Hogan/Bock, which you mentioned, will pop up as a reminder that we can't get too wrapped up in that. There is a Jeff Jarrett/Billy Joe Travis vs Sweet Daddy Falcone/Chico Torres match from USWA Texas in 1990 that is all babyface offense and still manages to be borderline great, as another example.

[JerryvonKramer]

Yeah, I don't disagree that it can't be done occassionally.

 

Last night in the World Cup Semi-final Germany beat Brazil 7-1 and they'll be talking about that match in 50 years' time, if not 100 years' time.

 

No reason why wrestling can't have it's equivalent of that, but it must be done sparingly.

[Matt D]

A lot of my enjoyment of wrestling is in trying to understand it.

[JaymeFuture]

If wrestling had a perfect chance to do their equivalent of last night's 7-1, it was Brock and Cena at Extreme Rules. End that match in 3 or 4 minutes after a complete ass-whipping. It would have been so stunning and so completely different it would have put Brock on another level, and made Cena's "year of turmoil" story a lot more compelling, and make the eventual rematch a far bigger deal as well.

[JerryvonKramer]

I wonder if Brock vs. Taker was wrestling's equivalent of it. I did see some people on FB photoshopping the black guy into a Brazil shirt.

[Tim Cooke]

My view of a control segment is that it is just a part of the match where one wrestler/tag team takes over on his/their opponent. Never equated it to a face. Bryan Danielson works over Homicide in their April 2004 ROH match, where Danielson is a tweeter and Homicide is a heel. It wasn't a 'shine' segment (which I agree with OJ and StompersPC is a poor term), it was just one wrestler being in control of the match until a bigger transition spot occurred.

[(BP)]

I'm not fond of the term "the product". I also prefer calling guys wrestlers instead of workers, but that doesn't really bother me when someone else does it.