Cesaro

[Loss]

I will answer that question this way: In WWE, if an 8-year-old isn't going to understand something, it's probably not a good idea to do it. In other words, any match choice that only works for people who follow closely and pay attention is what I'd call a really bad example of psychology in a company that is geared toward attracting casual fans.

 

The WWE style is not and has never been fueled by creativity, but rather by predictability. And I don't even mean that as a bad thing. It's just a different philosophy where they want people to pop for anticipated spots. That's the house style. Predictability within a WWE context is a good thing, and Cesaro has his signature spots that are very over within a WWE context, and I'll give him full credit for that.

 

For wrestlers working indy shows with more hardcore fans, yes, I do think creativity and changing things up is very important. I also don't think the "learned psychology"-type sequences are out of place when they happen in smaller companies more geared to hardcore fans. Finding that type of work in WWE is like caviar at McDonald's.

[Matt D]

I bet an 8 year old takes this stuff way more seriously and follows things from a kayfabe perspective way and is way more into "learned psychology" than more than most 30 year olds watching.

 

It's also something that happens a lot. It's basically the midcard house style now. I would have NEVER given Kofi Kingston credit for it, but after reading his thread, and thinking about those matches, yeah, sure, absolutely. He just does it without it feeling as natural and impactful as others I'd actually give more credit to, like Cesaro (at least to me).

 

If it's caviar, then they sell it by the pound.

[JerryvonKramer]

I just had a little chuckle to myself about that time I compared Cesaro to Van Hammer. It was basically Meltzer in 1991 going on some rant about how WCW should be pushing Van Hammer more.

 

On a less facicious note, does anyone think Cesaro will be a candidate for the mythical never-gonna-happen-we'll-all-be-by-then 2026 poll?

[Matt D]

Can you imagine the sort of Indy tour he'd have if he got cut?

 

Well, you probably can't (which is fine, honest), but ask Pete or Chad if they can.

[Loss]

I bet an 8 year old takes this stuff way more seriously and follows things from a kayfabe perspective way and is way more into "learned psychology" than more than most 30 year olds watching.

 

It's also something that happens a lot. It's basically the midcard house style now. I would have NEVER given Kofi Kingston credit for it, but after reading his thread, and thinking about those matches, yeah, sure, absolutely. He just does it without it feeling as natural and impactful as others I'd actually give more credit to, like Cesaro (at least to me).

 

If it's caviar, then they sell it by the pound.

 

If it's the house style, it's a misplaced style in a company that doesn't value it. It's overthought wrestling for an audience that isn't paying attention to it. If this is true, that midcarders are building off of previous efforts with subtle attempts to build on earlier matches, it seems like a vast misdirection of thought and resources -- like thought for thought's sake. It demonstrates a lack of understanding of their audience, and it's not something I'd point to as a positive.

[Matt D]

A way to stay sane in the midst of 7+ hours of TV a week?

[Dylan Waco]

The reality is that the most dedicated portion of the WWE fanbase are people who are closer to us than they are 8 year old kids. Whether that should be the case is debatable but I believe it to be true.

 

Anyway on Cesaro I get Loss point and I think he's right in the sense that Cesaro's most obvious strong point is his offense (he's an excellent base too, probably the best non-luchador base of all time honestly), but I think what's missing from the calculus is what Cesaro does with his offense. The reason I'm so high on him is that he has a deeply varied offensive attack that does change from match to match ("learned psychology) in a series, but also that changes depending on his role. How he works on offense v. Sheamus is different than how he works v. a Zayn for example. I also think he's a guy who actually went out of his way to work double team offense and develop an especially exciting hot tag routine as a babyface at a time when everything is either by the numbers routine or total stroke fest horseshit (see Bucks, Young).

 

To my eyes Cesaro is what happens when a great offensive wrestler has good psychology and good timing. Yes the pacing of his matches is often super indieish, but that's something I've come to accept, and it doesn't bother me as long as selling is done. I don't see Cesaro as a no seller.

 

I would also argue that it's harder to appreciate Cesaro without immersion in the WWE product. I would understand why someone would reject that out of hand given the shitty booking and storytelling, but I think what he does well is easier to appreciate if you are watching weekly. I mean if you can accept the stylist quirks of Joshi, the WWE house style issues should be a mild annoyance.

[Loss]

Not something I'd point to as a positive.

 

EDIT: That was in response to Matt's post, not Dylan's.

[JerryvonKramer]

I want to make a point about WWE style, because I've come to understand that Vince put huge limits on workers even back in 1988. I might make a thread about it in a minute, but I can't help but notice it every time I watch a WWF/E match nowadays.

 

Even the great workers didn't get much scope or freedom outside of a narrow definition of what they had to do. There are no subtleties or wrinkles there. Even in like 88, 89, 90 on the TV matches. It feels like every guy has literally one match that they'd do again and again. And you only come to see this when you watch stuff like we do. I honestly feel like you could give me a guy and the opponent and I could pretty much predict the match move for move.

[Dylan Waco]

 

I bet an 8 year old takes this stuff way more seriously and follows things from a kayfabe perspective way and is way more into "learned psychology" than more than most 30 year olds watching.

 

It's also something that happens a lot. It's basically the midcard house style now. I would have NEVER given Kofi Kingston credit for it, but after reading his thread, and thinking about those matches, yeah, sure, absolutely. He just does it without it feeling as natural and impactful as others I'd actually give more credit to, like Cesaro (at least to me).

 

If it's caviar, then they sell it by the pound.

 

If it's the house style, it's a misplaced style in a company that doesn't value it. It's overthought wrestling for an audience that isn't paying attention to it. If this is true, that midcarders are building off of previous efforts with subtle attempts to build on earlier matches, it seems like a vast misdirection of thought and resources -- like thought for thought's sake. It demonstrates a lack of understanding of their audience, and it's not something I'd point to as a positive.

 

 

What evidence do you have that the audience isn't paying attention to it? I think that is really presumptuous to be honest. If it rests solely on "well the announcers don't point it out," my response would be that I don't speak Japanese and yet I knew All Japan Pro Wrestling was doing quite a bit of this sort of thing in ways that seemed transparently obvious.

 

The WWE hardcore fanbase that go to Wrestlemania, buy the network and fall over themselves to praise NXT, et. are exactly the kind of people who do notice these sort of things. 8 year olds may or may not, but they are one half of the WWE hardcore base.

[Matt D]

I want to make a point about WWE style, because I've come to understand that Vince put huge limits on workers even back in 1988. I might make a thread about it in a minute, but I can't help but notice it every time I watch a WWF/E match nowadays.

 

Even the great workers didn't get much scope or freedom outside of a narrow definition of what they had to do. There are no subtleties or wrinkles there. Even in like 88, 89, 90 on the TV matches. It feels like every guy has literally one match that they'd do again and again. And you only come to see this when you watch stuff like we do. I honestly feel like you could give me a guy and the opponent and I could pretty much predict the match move for move.

I think that's actually changed, Parv, maybe if only because Vince doesn't have as close a handle on things as he once did. It was on shows like the ignored WWECW in 07-09 where you really started to see this sort of thing rise up, or on Smackdown where it was obvious far less attention was being paid, or on the C-Shows, where you could tell just by the announcing that they didn't have that same level of "Adult Supervision". Then it bled into the three hour Raws as well. It's arguable that this had something to do with a generation of wrestlers coming in that were somehow different from the ones before, but there's a lot on the plate here.

[JerryvonKramer]

 

I want to make a point about WWE style, because I've come to understand that Vince put huge limits on workers even back in 1988. I might make a thread about it in a minute, but I can't help but notice it every time I watch a WWF/E match nowadays.

Even the great workers didn't get much scope or freedom outside of a narrow definition of what they had to do. There are no subtleties or wrinkles there. Even in like 88, 89, 90 on the TV matches. It feels like every guy has literally one match that they'd do again and again. And you only come to see this when you watch stuff like we do. I honestly feel like you could give me a guy and the opponent and I could pretty much predict the match move for move.

 

I think that's actually changed, Parv, maybe if only because Vince doesn't have as close a handle on things as he once did. It was on shows like the ignored WWECW in 07-09 where you really started to see this sort of thing rise up, or on Smackdown where it was obvious far less attention was being paid, or on the C-Shows, where you could tell just by the announcing that they didn't have that same level of "Adult Supervision". Then it bled into the three hour Raws as well. It's arguable that this had something to do with a generation of wrestlers coming in that were somehow different from the ones before, but there's a lot on the plate here.

How about the PPVs?

 

I felt Regal basically just did the same match over and over when I watched the stuff a few weeks back. I've noticed the same thing with Ted, same stuff, same order, same transitions. Same is true of Bret. Basically anyone I've done a dive on from any period between about 88 and now and I see that same basic TV match from each guy.

 

The thing I am always put in mind of is a computer game. Where like each button does a set move and that's ALL they can do. WWF/E style seems to be all about that. Same moves, same transitions, same order, again and again and again. It is too regular to be a coincidence and we know the company is run by a control freak.

[Loss]

I still see the average WWE fan experience as the 5th grade kid in his John Cena shirt who brings his parents along. I realize that for the bigger events, it's mostly hardcore fans traveling from all over the world. These are clearly people who follow wrestling news online and are aware of indy and international wrestling to varying degrees. They probably also remember key spots in matches and respond to attempts to play off of them. But that's also an audience that WWE seems to resent and only deliberately plays to within NXT. Anytime there is a divide in what the audience wants, Vince pretty much always sides with the 5th grader in the John Cena shirt.

 

So that was my point -- that I see that first audience as the intended audience for WWE matches with the rest of us as hijackers who just happen to be along for the ride. The company will gladly take our money, but they'd rather we just shut up and go with what they're presenting. So it's hard for me to see performers in WWE crafting matches that are catered to any audience but the kid with his parents, because to do so would be incongruent with their promotional vision (again, aside from NXT), which seems designed to draw that 5th grade kid and his parents first and foremost.

[JerryvonKramer]

^ and just to finish up on the computer game point.

 

I do think it's all about branding and recognising that each guy does these signature spots and that's it. Like their character is basically incapable of doing things outside of that.

 

I have become convinced that Vince has each worker make a move list and forbids them from going outside it.

 

Also that Curt Hennig as a rib just wrote "Flying mare, drop kick, reverse knife edge, knee lift, perfectplex" not realising he was about to fuck himself over.

[Matt D]

In some ways, that's part of what made Christian so amazing in 2009, that he was constantly resequencing the same moves to different and compelling effects on a week to week basis.

[Loss]

As a separate point on the "learned psychology" of All Japan matches, my gut tells me it's probably a combination of intended attempts to play off of previous matches (which I'll add are mostly used for false finishes) and American fans probably reading too much into some of it. I don't take issue with building off of previous matches as a practice at all. In fact, it's something I appreciate in wrestling. I am only questioning its value in a company like WWE.

[goc]

It seems really silly to look down on a wrestler or count it as a negative against them for making an effort to make their matches not all feel the same. Especially when that's one of the big criticisms of WWE style. Ok so maybe the kid in the audience won't pick up on the fact that Cesaro countered a move he got hit with last week but it's not like it's somehow going to make him less of a fan.

 

WWE runs the same pairings into the ground by having guys wrestle each on TV multiple times in a short time span, why wouldn't guys want to try and build off of those previous matches even if just to keep themselves sane and not repeat the same spots over and over?

[Loss]

There is nothing wrong with it on its own. But doing something that is going to go over the heads of at least half the fans seems like a waste of time. I admire the principle behind it. I just don't think something that isn't plain as day to everyone watching is an example of good psychology.

 

I have a lot more to say about this that I'll post later.

[Loss]

I also realize that a lot of spots are callbacks that can work on more than one level, meaning that it's great for people who are paying attention, but the match's success or failure doesn't depend on understanding that history.

 

Wrestlemania VII. Savage goes for the double axehandle over the guardrail in his match with Ultimate Warrior. Was that intended to be a call back to the Steamboat feud? Possibly, possibly not. The announcers didn't mention the history of the spot, even though it was clear they knew what he was doing, despite it not being a spot he had done since 1986. If you're reviewing the match, sure, it's something worth pointing out as an extra bit of detail that enriches the match. But the spot works whether you know the history or not. We can argue about the intent because that's what we do. The history of the spot doesn't make or break the match, though.

 

Summerslam '95. Shawn goes for the splash from the top of the ladder. This time, Razor rolls out of the way and Shawn eats canvas. Was that intended to be a call back to Wrestlemania X? Almost definitely, even though the announcers didn't mention the history of the spot, despite it being in highlight reels on television from pretty much the moment it happened. If you're reviewing the match, sure, it's something worth pointing out as an extra bit of history to enrich the match. But the spot works whether you know the history or not.

 

So let me say that: If Cesaro is constructing matches that work on that extra level for people who are paying close attention while also working equally well for someone who isn't aware of the history, then that's commendable and a credit to him. If he's working matches where recognizing the greatness is dependent on understanding all of the history, then I question doing it at all.

[Jimmy Redman]

I just feel like if we're judging psychology or good work by how much of it is understood or noticed by the entire audience, we can pretty much throw out like 90% of our analysis, because almost all of the things that we read into matches and workers would fly over the heads of the 99% who aren't us.

 

Just seems a really odd thing to be critical of.

[JerryvonKramer]

I believe a lot of that stuff is in the eye of the beholder and if you actually asked Cesaro about any of it he'd be like "huh? I was just working a ten minute match and going home". Not that it matters.

 

There's a distinction between the artist, the work and the critic. A huge amount of the narratives we talk about in our analyses are pretty much just constructed by us.

 

I fully believe that if you sat down with Kawada and talked him through the supposed psychology of most of his bouts he'd wonder what planet you are on. But the intention of the workers has no bearing on anything. Stuff might be done in the moment that works for a narrative someone is looking for, but which just happened at a sub-conscious level for the worker.

[Loss]

Psychology is by definition doing things that an audience will understand. It's not maintaining consistency with some internal, personal ethos of logic. The idea behind logic in psychology is that it's easier to keep a crowd by doing things that make sense than it is by doing things that don't.

 

As for what we do, or at least what I thought we did, we see matches that do or don't connect with wider audiences, then backtrack and try to figure out how they got to that point. Of course most of our analysis is going to go over the heads of a casual fan, just like most things in a film review would be lost on people who see it in a theater. It's generally not the role of a spectator to search for why, but it is the role of a critic. So again, us picking up on or recognizing those types of details in a match is a nice enhancement, sure, but I think as a standalone trait of a match, playing off a previous match is a neutral quality. I don't think doing it on its own is something admirable. If a match is being constructed to only appeal to a narrow swath of an audience, then that's a strike against it, not a feather in its cap. If a match is being constructed to appeal to the masses with nods thrown in for people who are paying close attention, then I think that's pretty cool. There's a difference.

[JerryvonKramer]

This is also true of works much much more complex than your typical wrestling match. Imagine William Shakespeare somehow time traveled to here. His mind would be totally blown by the fact that there are 200,000+ books analysing his works and a full week of people gathered here to discuss them which has been happening every year for over four decades. If you look at intention half the time he was trying to draw a crowd to his theatre and not a lot else.

[Woof]

If a match is being constructed to only appeal to a narrow swath of an audience, then that's a strike against it, not a feather in its cap. If a match is being constructed to appeal to the masses with nods thrown in for people who are paying close attention, then I think that's pretty cool. There's a difference.

 

The problem I have with that statement is, how would you (or any of us) know the difference?

 

I've been acting for over 20 years. Whether I'm doing an intense drama or a balls out farce, I still approach my character construction the same way. My finished product will be wildly different because how I deliver that final performance is largely dependent on the style of the show and the people I'm working with, but I never dumb down my thought process just because I feel like the material is intended for a less cerebral audience.

 

If your criticism of Cesaro is that he puts too much thought into his work because his perceived audience won't appreciate the level of detail he achieves, then I feel like you're basically punishing him for giving a shit about his work. Effort isn't always about physical exertion. As long as he doesn't actively do things in his matches that would run counter to the story that the promotion asks him to tell, I can't ever find fault in a wrestler putting forth as much effort - physical or mental - in a performance. You have to remember that for most of these guys the joy of their work is those 10 minutes a night between the ropes. Taking that away from them because an 8 year old wouldn't appreciate it seems weird to me.

[Loss]

We know the difference by how the crowd reacts. If a crowd pops for Shawn Michaels missing the splash off the top of the ladder, then the spot worked for the wider audience. For those who remember Wrestlemania X, it works even more. That to me is a good example of playing off of a previous match. Countering a move done the previous week, if it's not something where the crowd reacts in that moment, then it didn't work on both levels. It's not *wrong* per se or even bad, but the spot that works on both levels is the better one.

 

It's funny that you mention not dumbing down for the audience, because I do remember high school plays where we'd do the show in front of parents and anyone who wanted to come, then we'd do an abridged version the next afternoon during the school day that was just for students. I remember the Director actually giving different pointers to everyone involved for the abridged version, indicating that certain lines should be cut out because a bunch of highschoolers wouldn't laugh as much as their parents would, and to not pause as long at certain points, and so on.

 

My criticism of Cesaro is not at all that he puts too much thought into his work. It's that effort alone doesn't make a great wrestler. If I'm assigned a project at work and turn something in that isn't very good after laboring over every meticulous detail, I'm not going to get praised just because I worked really hard on it. My point is that if he's crafting matches full of spots and sequences that only work for hardcore, detail-oriented fans (which I'm not even saying is the case), then that's not something I'd point to in his favor in a company where every single thing they do is an attempt to appeal to the masses.