dgrblue Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 Recently had an argument on another forum about my dislike of fighting spirit no sell spots - the standard argument, made by many people, seems to be that everyone has specific things in wrestling that rankle them and disrupt their suspension of disbelief, but that these are essentially arbitrary pet peeves - that there's nothing fundamentally worse about a no-sell spot than, say, an Irish whip. Since I always like to believe I'm objectively correct and my opinions have a stronger basis than mere preference ( ) I started thinking about this. I think that a no-sell spot is a fundamentally different class of unbelievable than an Irish whip. An Irish whip is a move that's physically impossible in reality, but consistent with the exaggerated physics of pro wrestling. No-selling, on the other hand, is a disruption of the internal logic of pro wrestling - why can a guy who's been selling normally for the entire match suddenly pop right up after, say, a German suplex? I feel like spots that are physically unrealistic are far, far less egregious than spots that are logically inconsistent, and it's wrong to label having a problem with one class of 'unbelievable' spot and not the other as merely arbitrary preference. Another factor to consider is what role context plays in determining what we consider unbelievable. I think it's safe to assume if you put a modern day WWE match in front of a 1960s crowd they would shit on it for the lack of realism. How big of a role do the established generic conventions of pro wrestling play in what we accept as believable? Is, say, running the ropes only accepted because we've seen it as such a ubiquitous element of wrestling matches for so long? And in that case - how did it ever come to be accepted in the first place? Thoughts? Let's ask ourselves, if 1960s fans saw moves off the top of the cage, and moonsaults, and 450s and shooting star presses, they would lose their minds. Todays fan expects to see these things regularly, so it is awesome, but not unexpected. In 1960s it was common to win off of a back breaker, or a suplex or a simple punch. Today's fan would not allow for wrestling so simplistic, they require to dazzled by acrobatics, and fast-paced offense, and the lack of psychology is simply okay with today's passive fan, something that would not have been allowed by 1960s fan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dgrblue Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 As long as it doesn't take me out of my willing suspension of disbelief, I'm ok with it. Just like i don't enjoy slapstick comedy in the middle of serious action movie, I don't like certain things in the middle of a match that is out of place. I don't mind a Santino cobra, but if that was the finish to a 35 minute Lesnar brawl, I would have issues. It has been said that funny equals no money. That motto was preached upon by promoters galore. Guys have been fired for making jokes in promos, or taken off of tv, or fueds canceled, and the like. See, in the past it was thought that, if you cracked jokes, it would make the product feel less that authentic, more carney, and that detracted from the gate, or so it was believe. When today, jokes are tossed unabaited like asprin after a match. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shining Wiz Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 It has been said that funny equals no money. That motto was preached upon by promoters galore. Guys have been fired for making jokes in promos, or taken off of tv, or fueds canceled, and the like. See, in the past it was thought that, if you cracked jokes, it would make the product feel less that authentic, more carney, and that detracted from the gate, or so it was believe. When today, jokes are tossed unabaited like asprin after a match. I think my point stands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 Recently had an argument on another forum about my dislike of fighting spirit no sell spots - the standard argument, made by many people, seems to be that everyone has specific things in wrestling that rankle them and disrupt their suspension of disbelief, but that these are essentially arbitrary pet peeves - that there's nothing fundamentally worse about a no-sell spot than, say, an Irish whip. Since I always like to believe I'm objectively correct and my opinions have a stronger basis than mere preference ( ) I started thinking about this. I think that a no-sell spot is a fundamentally different class of unbelievable than an Irish whip. An Irish whip is a move that's physically impossible in reality, but consistent with the exaggerated physics of pro wrestling. No-selling, on the other hand, is a disruption of the internal logic of pro wrestling - why can a guy who's been selling normally for the entire match suddenly pop right up after, say, a German suplex? I feel like spots that are physically unrealistic are far, far less egregious than spots that are logically inconsistent, and it's wrong to label having a problem with one class of 'unbelievable' spot and not the other as merely arbitrary preference. Another factor to consider is what role context plays in determining what we consider unbelievable. I think it's safe to assume if you put a modern day WWE match in front of a 1960s crowd they would shit on it for the lack of realism. How big of a role do the established generic conventions of pro wrestling play in what we accept as believable? Is, say, running the ropes only accepted because we've seen it as such a ubiquitous element of wrestling matches for so long? And in that case - how did it ever come to be accepted in the first place? Thoughts? Let's ask ourselves, if 1960s fans saw moves off the top of the cage, and moonsaults, and 450s and shooting star presses, they would lose their minds. Todays fan expects to see these things regularly, so it is awesome, but not unexpected. In 1960s it was common to win off of a back breaker, or a suplex or a simple punch. Today's fan would not allow for wrestling so simplistic, they require to dazzled by acrobatics, and fast-paced offense, and the lack of psychology is simply okay with today's passive fan, something that would not have been allowed by 1960s fan. A punch will always get over as a finish if sold right by the opponent and announcers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 Yep. Big Show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 Hell, Goldberg's Jackhammer is just a suplex with him pinning the opponent in one combined motion. The AA is a standup fireman's carry. DDT's' are transition moves now and used to be the kiss of death. However, I will always accept that a DDT can finish a match. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 I don't really get hating the Attitude Adjustment and not minding the F5. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 The AA attacks the back in the way a suplex would but the F5 is a whirlwind DDT. Splattered face seems a lot more deadlier than gentle body slam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shining Wiz Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 Brock Lesnar is popular with the people who hate John Cena. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 Brock Lesnar is popular with the people who hate John Cena. I know that obviously, I just wanted to hear what explanations might come. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantastic Posted July 26, 2014 Report Share Posted July 26, 2014 I don't really get hating the Attitude Adjustment and not minding the F5. Well, for me, the AA will always be a watered down version of the awesome Death Valley Driver, one that found it's way into conception as something of a parody of another wrestler's finishing move (the F5). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eduardo James Posted July 27, 2014 Report Share Posted July 27, 2014 The AA attacks the back in the way a suplex would but the F5 is a whirlwind DDT. Splattered face seems a lot more deadlier than gentle body slam. In theory, but half the time he just chucks them off and they fall on their side. Hell, F5s on Big Show have pretty much devolved into AAs: http://youtu.be/znpFsE6bwMU?t=1m10s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steenalized Posted July 27, 2014 Report Share Posted July 27, 2014 The way Brock twists as he does it, even on that F5 to Show, looks a lot more impactful than the AA. Not that I take it as a DDT type drop since most guys seem to land on their sides or chest first, but it does look like it'd hurt much more than Cena's often gentle drop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted July 29, 2014 Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 Here is a great compilation of Brock Lesnar's F5. I have never heard anyone dismiss it as a finisher or criticize it like the AA has been laughed at. It's clear from the video why that is the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.