Cesaro

[Frankensteiner]

If we're judging WWE workers by how their work appeals to the casual 8 year olds in John Cena t-shirts, then how do you evaluate someone like Regal or Finlay? Regal worked a mat based style with a focus on strikes and suplexes. This is not a style that is especially in demand by the casual WWE audience (it's not really a style that is in demand by the hardcore WWE audience either). Should Regal be penalized because he's working a style that is incongruent with the audience and the general aims of the promotion?

[Loss]

Yes.

[Woof]

I get you. I just think where we differ is that you seem to think that if you do something as a performer that doesn't hit with the widest breadth of the audience then it's not worth doing, whereas I feel like if I do something in a show that gets a laugh from one person, it was worth it to me PROVIDED - and this is the key - that what I did wasn't a break in character, a break in the story we were trying to tell, or (the great theater sin) "drawing focus" away from somewhere else that should have been the attention, The thing I always tell people when I'm directing them is that you never know when an audience member is going to be looking at you, so you should always be acting, even if you're not the focus of the scene, because if somebody catches you not, it can ruin the experience for them. If an actor gets too big, or tries something that just doesn't fit with the vision of the show I'm trying to present, than I'll reign them in. My take on this Cesaro example is that if he's doing things in his matches that hardcore fans are picking up on and enjoying but that is going over the head of "the masses", it's still worthwhile to do, because it's not harming those same masses' ability to enjoy his work.

I'm not a huge comic book guy. When I go to see the Marvel blockbuster movies with my friends who are, we enjoy them equally but on a different level. The first thing I always ask them when it's over is: "Did that satisfy your comic nerd mind?". If it did, then I feel like the movie succeeded, because I as essentially a novice was able to enjoy it on the grand scale while the more nitpicky fan was also satisfied. They will sometimes remark that they didn't care for certain liberties that were taken, but they understood it was a sacrifice that needed to be made in order to please me, the novice. It's kind of how I am able to justify thinking Randy Savage is one of the greatest workers of all time, because even though I don't want to have to sit through a Savage/George Steele match, I get that it is a necessary element to the show WWF was putting on at that time and that Randy was playing the role that was asked of him (and playing it well). Would I rather seen him go toe-to-toe with Tito Santana for 20 minutes? Sure. But that wasn't his job on that show, so I can't punish him for that. Had he gone out and tried to have a Santana match with Steele it would have sucked a dick without being entertaining to anybody.

I judge wrestlers on their ability to entertain me. If a guy like Cesaro does stuff that I miss, I have no issue with it, provided the body of the match is entertaining (which I find it to be). I would only knock him if I felt he was doing things that were actively taking away from the match, and even that thought process is frought with pitfalls as it relies on me as a fan actually "knowing" what a match is trying to accomplish.

[JerryvonKramer]

Worth pointing out that the crowds are noticeably silent for the Regal vs Finlay matches.

[Woof]

Worth pointing out that the crowds are noticeably silent for the Regal vs Finlay matches.

 

Whereas live crowds tend to go apeshit for Shawn Michaels and Kurt Angle matches, despite the fact that a lot of people here think neither one of those guys "knows how to work". It's all in what you value as an individual.

[Matt D]

Presentation matters when it comes to this.

[Loss]

I'd call Shawn-Angle at Wrestlemania XXI and Regal-Finlay at Uncensored '96 both ***1/2 matches for entirely different reasons. (I also really enjoyed your post, Woof.)

[JerryvonKramer]

 

Worth pointing out that the crowds are noticeably silent for the Regal vs Finlay matches.

 

Whereas live crowds tend to go apeshit for Shawn Michaels and Kurt Angle matches, despite the fact that a lot of people here think neither one of those guys "knows how to work". It's all in what you value as an individual.

There is more to this. Workers since the days of Hackenschmidt and Gotch have understood crowds go wild for high spots and action.

 

Lou Thesz knew it. Johnny Valentine knew it.

 

The art of working was in controlling the crowd rather than pandering to them. Bringing them up and down. Working towards a high spot to maximise its impact rather than going straight to it. In other words, Kurt Angle is getting cheap pops with his go go style. He doesn't know how to build a match so instead he blindsides the crowd and works them into a frenzy with action.

 

It's the wrestling equivalent of cotton candy or a firework display. Firework displays have a long history of dazzling crowds, but they are quickly forgotten.

[Woof]

 

 

Worth pointing out that the crowds are noticeably silent for the Regal vs Finlay matches.

Whereas live crowds tend to go apeshit for Shawn Michaels and Kurt Angle matches, despite the fact that a lot of people here think neither one of those guys "knows how to work". It's all in what you value as an individual.

It's the wrestling equivalent of cotton candy or a firework display. Firework displays have a long history of dazzling crowds, but they are quickly forgotten.

 

 

That's a weird analogy to me because I don't know what the artistic counterpoint to fireworks would be.

 

Kurt Angle to me is like Def Leppard. Yeah, most of their work is grossly overproduced and their lyrics are juvenile to the point of being incomprehensible, but I still love listening to Hysteria and 30 years on I still sing along to "Pour Some Sugar On Me" because it makes me feel good. Their job, like Angle's, is to entertain me. They accomplish that in spades. Do they make me think the way U2 might? No. Do they make me appreciate musicianship the way Stevie Ray Vaughan might? Hardly. But I don't always want those things. If you can succeed in what you set out to do as an entertainer then it doesn't matter what other people do. Kurt Angle might not structure his matches in a way that is as pleasing to hardcore fans as somebody like Misawa does, but he's still succeeding at his goal, because his goal is not necessarily to please those fans. His work is not quickly forgotten by me. It left an impression on me that lingers to this day, whether or not it holds up to microscopic scrutiny.

 

 

[ohtani's jacket]

 

 

There is more to this. Workers since the days of Hackenschmidt and Gotch have understood crowds go wild for high spots and action.

Lou Thesz knew it. Johnny Valentine knew it.

The art of working was in controlling the crowd rather than pandering to them. Bringing them up and down. Working towards a high spot to maximise its impact rather than going straight to it. In other words, Kurt Angle is getting cheap pops with his go go style. He doesn't know how to build a match so instead he blindsides the crowd and works them into a frenzy with action.

It's the wrestling equivalent of cotton candy or a firework display. Firework displays have a long history of dazzling crowds, but they are quickly forgotten.

That's such a skewered view of things. Watching the Brisco/Funk match from Florida the football coach specifically mentioned that older workers didn't have the conditioning or athleticism of the modern worker. The increase in the level of action in pro-wrestling matches is primarily a matter of evolution and not related to skill level. And don't be knocking cotton candy or fireworks. They're bigger institutions than pro-wrestling will ever be and matter more to people than working ever will. Hell, in Japan it's the short-lived beauty of fireworks that make them a cultural institution much like cherry blossoms.

[Matt D]

 

 

 

Worth pointing out that the crowds are noticeably silent for the Regal vs Finlay matches.

Whereas live crowds tend to go apeshit for Shawn Michaels and Kurt Angle matches, despite the fact that a lot of people here think neither one of those guys "knows how to work". It's all in what you value as an individual.

It's the wrestling equivalent of cotton candy or a firework display. Firework displays have a long history of dazzling crowds, but they are quickly forgotten.

 

 

That's a weird analogy to me because I don't know what the artistic counterpoint to fireworks would be.

 

Kurt Angle to me is like Def Leppard. Yeah, most of their work is grossly overproduced and their lyrics are juvenile to the point of being incomprehensible, but I still love listening to Hysteria and 30 years on I still sing along to "Pour Some Sugar On Me" because it makes me feel good. Their job, like Angle's, is to entertain me. They accomplish that in spades. Do they make me think the way U2 might? No. Do they make me appreciate musicianship the way Stevie Ray Vaughan might? Hardly. But I don't always want those things. If you can succeed in what you set out to do as an entertainer then it doesn't matter what other people do. Kurt Angle might not structure his matches in a way that is as pleasing to hardcore fans as somebody like Misawa does, but he's still succeeding at his goal, because his goal is not necessarily to please those fans. His work is not quickly forgotten by me. It left an impression on me that lingers to this day, whether or not it holds up to microscopic scrutiny.

 

 

 

I think we've seen wrestlers that are able to do a lot of what Angle does well and also structure their matches far better. I don't think those things are mutually exclusive or that wrestling can only be entertaining in that wildly exciting, frenetic way if it's big and dumb. It can still be big without being dumb. It doesn't have to be an either/or.

[JerryvonKramer]

 

There is more to this. Workers since the days of Hackenschmidt and Gotch have understood crowds go wild for high spots and action.

Lou Thesz knew it. Johnny Valentine knew it.

 

The art of working was in controlling the crowd rather than pandering to them. Bringing them up and down. Working towards a high spot to maximise its impact rather than going straight to it. In other words, Kurt Angle is getting cheap pops with his go go style. He doesn't know how to build a match so instead he blindsides the crowd and works them into a frenzy with action.

 

It's the wrestling equivalent of cotton candy or a firework display. Firework displays have a long history of dazzling crowds, but they are quickly forgotten.

That's such a skewered view of things. Watching the Brisco/Funk match from Florida the football coach specifically mentioned that older workers didn't have the conditioning or athleticism of the modern worker. The increase in the level of action in pro-wrestling matches is primarily a matter of evolution and not related to skill level. And don't be knocking cotton candy or fireworks. They're bigger institutions than pro-wrestling will ever be and matter more to people than working ever will. Hell, in Japan it's the short-lived beauty of fireworks that make them a cultural institution much like cherry blossoms.

You and Joe Lanza can push this evolution line together. Have fun watching your fireworks.

[Dylan Waco]

If it's all about pops did Loss have Hogan number one on his ballot? If not, why not?

[JerryvonKramer]

Some related reading relevant to OJ's post: http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?/topic/26542-do-standards-change-in-wrestling/

[Woof]

If it's all about pops did Loss have Hogan number one on his ballot? If not, why not?

 

I don't think anyone's saying it's all about pops, but rather that discounting the notion of giving an audience what they because it doesn't fit your personal view of what constitutes proper match structure or psychology is unfair.

[ohtani's jacket]

You're a Flair man. Lou Thesz bores the tits off you. I don't give me this Hackenschmidt stuff. There's a good chance you'd be left catatonic if you were forced to watch a Hackenschmidt bout. The stuff you like is a hop, skip and a jump away from Kurt Angle. Hell, Flair was practically the Kurt Angle of his day from older fans' perspective and even some of the wrestlers.

[anarchistxx]

I'd call Shawn-Angle at Wrestlemania XXI and Regal-Finlay at Uncensored '96 both ***1/2 matches for entirely different reasons. (I also really enjoyed your post, Woof.)

 

That seems quite generous, because I'm pretty sure you shit all over HBK/Angle when it happened. I was a kid marking out at a dream match that had actually delivered, and you told me that in a few years time I wouldn't hold the match in anywhere near the same esteem. You were right, for what it is worth.

 

On topic. Cesaro never did too much for me, whether on the indies or on WWE. He was someone I enjoyed watching who brought something different, but arguing he should be in the main event and winning titles was a massive stretch for me. His spot as an over midcard act who could work a solid match and get people over was just right.

[Woof]

"He was someone I enjoyed watching who brought something different, but arguing he should be in the main event and winning titles was a massive stretch for me. His spot as an over midcard act who could work a solid match and get people over was just right."

 

But if you're an over midcard act who can work a solid match, shouldn't you at least get an opportunity to main event in order to see what you could do? How is asking for that a "massive stretch". History is littered with guys who WEREN'T over and yet were given main event slots and titles, some of whom eventually became over through sheer force of their push. It doesn't really bother me that Zack Ryder was never a world champion, because I don't think he would have fit that role, but it DOES bother me that he worked his ass off to get massively over with the crowd and they did everything they could do to kill it because he didn't fit their vision. He earned the right to fail, not to be shoved away from the table for even daring to play a hand. I was one of the people pushing hard for Benoit to get his shot on top and I was thrilled when he did. But I also realized soon after that he wasn't meant to stay on top and I was satisfied with what became of his push afterwards. At least he had been given the chance he'd earned. I'm not convinced Cesaro is a main event guy, but I'm not convinced he can't be. Just seems to me he's earned at least an opportunity to see what he can do given his proven track record of delivering in matches and getting a decent sized portion of the crowd to get behind him.

[Loss]

If it's all about pops did Loss have Hogan number one on his ballot? If not, why not?

Because it's not all about pops and I've never said that. I have also explained many times in many threads why I'm not ranking Hogan.

[Matt D]

I think there are a lot of interesting points here that don't entirely fit for the GWE discussion but that we should delve into deeper for their own sake.

[Loss]

I think there are a lot of interesting points here that don't entirely fit for the GWE discussion but that we should delve into deeper for their own sake.

 

I'd start the thread if I had the first clue what to call it.

[anarchistxx]

I'm not convinced Cesaro is a main event guy, but I'm not convinced he can't be. Just seems to me he's earned at least an opportunity to see what he can do

 

Part of WWEs problem is shoving anyone half decent who is half over into the main event to see if it sticks. That is why they haven't made a genuine top star since John Cena, Randy Orton and Batista broke through. CM Punk and Daniel Bryan are the only arguable candidates and they pretty much forced their way to the top.

 

Not everyone should get a shot at a main event level run just to see what happens. It devalues the main event, and you end up with a roster of people like Dolph Ziggler, Jack Swagger, The Miz et al who have held world titles in the past and are still jobbing every week and moved up and down the card whenever it suits. Not to mention the Rusev and Bray Wyatt types. So many people on the same level who trade jobs every week and it means nothing. There is no continuity and it means a dearth of top stars. If someone is getting pushed to the main event it should be a big deal and they should be consistent in giving them a run on top for a year or two, unless they have completely bungled it and it goes totally wrong.

 

There is nothing wrong with being a solid, over midcard act. I'm not saying people on his level shouldn't have the occasional title shot, but there is no way he should be top of the card consistently. It just isn't his role in a company like WWE. Everyone is Chris Jericho now, moving up and down the card with no rhyme or reason and where wins and losses mean absolutely nothing. Whereas Chris Jericho and Chris Benoit types are pretty rare, where they are equally at home in the opener or the main event. Ad even then, they never properly join the top table.

[JerryvonKramer]

You're a Flair man. Lou Thesz bores the tits off you. I don't give me this Hackenschmidt stuff. There's a good chance you'd be left catatonic if you were forced to watch a Hackenschmidt bout. The stuff you like is a hop, skip and a jump away from Kurt Angle. Hell, Flair was practically the Kurt Angle of his day from older fans' perspective and even some of the wrestlers.

This post got a good little chuckle out of me.

[Woof]

 

Not everyone should get a shot at a main event level run just to see what happens. It devalues the main event, and you end up with a roster of people like Dolph Ziggler, Jack Swagger, The Miz et al who have held world titles in the past and are still jobbing every week and moved up and down the card whenever it suits.

 

Agreed. But Swagger and The Miz were never really over with the crowd in a way that suggested they should get that push. They just got it because the company decided to give it to them. Ziggler was over to the point where he earned, got a HUGE pop when he won the title, then got hurt. The company killed his push after that. Again not saying he was the answer to their main event problems, but they had something there and they refused to really go with it.

 

A guy like Cesaro may have something so it's worth exploring. Somebody like Wade Barrett never really rose above his mid-card station in the fans' eyes, so he's fine to stay where he was. I'm not saying everybody deserves at least one main event push, but the guys who draw serious crowd reactions (see Cesaro after WMXXX) sure as shit are worth a look.

[funkdoc]

we've discussed this before, but one of the defining characteristics of the Attitude Era was pushing whoever got the big pop. witness IC champion The Godfather, or the New Age Outlaws & Too Cool winning the tag belts. that seemed to work out fine, as they only did it with the midcard titles...the problem was the "midcarder -> world champion" insta-pushes that didn't become a thing until well after the Attitude Era was done. i think World Champion Jack Swagger may have led us to throw the baby out with the bathwater.