Cesaro

[Woof]

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.

 

Yeah, that was the thing about the Attitude Era: they changed titles so often that they could afford to give every Tom, Dick & Prince Albert an IC title run because they weren't gonna keep it long anyway. So whether or not it was deserved was never really an issue, because it didn't last. Once crash TV essentially went away and they decided they could just start "making stars" without any regard for who the audience was responding to, we hit Defcon Reigns.

[Dylan Waco]

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.

 

I think this is at least partially a function of deference to the wrestling canon.

 

If one removes the widely accepted hardcore fan notion of the artistic genius and depth of AJPW from the equation, it is very difficult for me to see any reason why Kawada and Misawa would care about something like "learned psychology" more than Cesaro and Kofi Kingston. I suppose you could make the argument that truly great wrestlers will sort of innately gravitate toward those sort of more subtly intelligent ways of working, but I think that's more of a stretch.

 

To my eyes there are really two different arguments at play in this thread.

 

One is a sort of denial-ism and seems to be led by Parv. Here the argument seems to be that much of what hardcore fans see as "learned psychology" is just an exercise in narrative creation on the part of the viewer. I think there is some truth to that, but much less truth to it than I would have believed as recently as two years ago. There are two reasons for my changed opinion on this.

 

The first is my obsessive/immersive wrestling habits. I find that when I jump in and watch a ton of something at once I find these connective tissues more often. No doubt some of that is narrative creation, but in many cases I will see a spot from one match that is countered in a unique way in another that seems to clearly signal "you aren't going to do that to me again." In many cases it is so explicit that I think it almost defies common sense to see it as accidental, or lacking in intent.

 

The other factor that changed my thought on this was getting to know more people in the wrestling business. I have zero interest in turning this thread into an "I'm an insider and know how things really work!" stroke fest. I'm not an insider and I don't think knowing people in the business makes me a "better fan" or some dumb horseshit like that. That said several performers I know have volunteered to me examples of things they have done in matches which explicitly played off of previous matches. This was not done in the context of a discussion on "learned psychology" and in more than one case was presented as something that they see as separating great workers from good workers. Now you might think that take is bullshit, and you might think it points to a less authentic way of performing (I'm sort of anticipating potential arguments from Parv here), but the theme of "learned psychology" as a deliberate practice among people I know is too consistent for me to be a denier, particularly as it pertains to modern wrestling.

 

The second position - or the Loss position if I may - seems to be that even if "learned psychology" is a common trait of certain modern WWE performers, it's not really psychology in the traditional pro wrestling sense because it isn't catered to the correct target audience. I assume he would take any performer who engages in this practice in the WWE as being self humoring at worst, or playing to the wrong crowd for the wrong reasons at best. The deeper argument seems to be that psychology is largely about controlling the crowd, and this sort of inside baseball is ultimately ineffective at doing that. In that sense it seems to be a variant of denial-ism which argues that "learned psychology" cannot be real psychology in the WWE because of who their target audience is.

 

I admit that I reject this argument in part because I see it as the Bush v. Gore of pro wrestling critical debate. While I am of course a believer that different crowds want different things, I am deeply suspicious of the idea that only WWE crowds are incapable of grasping these things, and thus "learned psychology" is not real psychology solely in the confines of the WWE. It is possible that this is a leap I've made and Loss is not actually arguing this, but it seems to be strongly implied if nothing else so I don't feel wrong questioning it.

 

Here I would argue that A. I don't think the target audience is exclusively 8 year olds and B. Even if it is, true immersive/obsessive viewing of the product (which is unquestionably what the WWE wants) is going to result in people catching many of these things even if they are 8 years old or even younger.

 

To the first point, while there is no doubt a struggle between Vince's vision and the vision of others, I don't see much evidence that Vince sees his core audience as young children. I think it is absolutely fair to say he wants to hook people as children and maintain them as lifelong fans, but he is not in the business of promoting a live action Spongebob Squarepants. He is very aware of the fact that he has adult fans, and I think his product is generally presented in an attempt to appeal to many audiences. Beyond that it seems obvious to me that being a good worker has never meant more than it means now when it comes to being pushed as a core attraction, and the WWE's own strategy seems to indicate that they understand that online/hardcore fans represent a substantial portion of their fanbase.

 

To the second point even if Vince were promoting a product explicitly targeted to third graders, I don't think it means that working matches that play off other matches would the wrong move. In fact I think that working matches for an audience that is likely to be more obsessive in their viewing habits (as children seem to be from my own experience as a parent) is actually quite smart, especially when it comes to someone working within the context of a weekly television product. I know from my brothers that they seemed to pick out these things when they were younger and I don't think they were exceptions. I can also recall occasions sitting next to kids at wrestling shows where they had to explain to their disinterested parents why a certain move was attempted and failed and why it was significant. All of this suggests to me that this isn't over the head of 8 year olds by it's very nature whether they are the core audience or not.

 

The fact is that Cesaro was one of the two or three most over guys on the entire roster when he went out with injury. I think there are valid arguments about whether or not he could be a top guy, but he was over. Christian was the ace of a lame duck brand, and his long title matches seemed to be worked specifically to get the crowd very invested in him and his work. He remained over despite being booked in a position that was ultimately destined to fail. Were these guys over because of their use of "learned psychology" (which I annoyingly keep putting in quotes)? That seems a stretch. But the point is that they weren't drawing critics when they were using it. So at worst those traits were embedded Easter Eggs for fans who were paying attention in performances that were connecting on a broader level. And to that end I think the critique of it fails.

 

At the end of the day I think the real divide here is between those who immerse themselves in a product and those who watch less consistently and/or cherry pick. I don't think this is restricted to this debate either. I think similar things can be said about those who don't "get" lucha, or myself as it pertained to Joshi before I decided to just dive right in. I may write about this more later, but one of the things I've learned about myself through this project is that immersion is really critical to understanding certain aspects of various wrestling products.

[WingedEagle]

 

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.

 

I think this is at least partially a function of deference to the wrestling canon.

 

If one removes the widely accepted hardcore fan notion of the artistic genius and depth of AJPW from the equation, it is very difficult for me to see any reason why Kawada and Misawa would care about something like "learned psychology" more than Cesaro and Kofi Kingston. I suppose you could make the argument that truly great wrestlers will sort of innately gravitate toward those sort of more subtly intelligent ways of working, but I think that's more of a stretch.

 

To my eyes there are really two different arguments at play in this thread.

 

One is a sort of denial-ism and seems to be led by Parv. Here the argument seems to be that much of what hardcore fans see as "learned psychology" is just an exercise in narrative creation on the part of the viewer. I think there is some truth to that, but much less truth to it than I would have believed as recently as two years ago. There are two reasons for my changed opinion on this.

 

The first is my obsessive/immersive wrestling habits. I find that when I jump in and watch a ton of something at once I find these connective tissues more often. No doubt some of that is narrative creation, but in many cases I will see a spot from one match that is countered in a unique way in another that seems to clearly signal "you aren't going to do that to me again." In many cases it is so explicit that I think it almost defies common sense to see it as accidental, or lacking in intent.

 

The other factor that changed my thought on this was getting to know more people in the wrestling business. I have zero interest in turning this thread into an "I'm an insider and know how things really work!" stroke fest. I'm not an insider and I don't think knowing people in the business makes me a "better fan" or some dumb horseshit like that. That said several performers I know have volunteered to me examples of things they have done in matches which explicitly played off of previous matches. This was not done in the context of a discussion on "learned psychology" and in more than one case was presented as something that they see as separating great workers from good workers. Now you might think that take is bullshit, and you might think it points to a less authentic way of performing (I'm sort of anticipating potential arguments from Parv here), but the theme of "learned psychology" as a deliberate practice among people I know is too consistent for me to be a denier, particularly as it pertains to modern wrestling.

 

The second position - or the Loss position if I may - seems to be that even if "learned psychology" is a common trait of certain modern WWE performers, it's not really psychology in the traditional pro wrestling sense because it isn't catered to the correct target audience. I assume he would take any performer who engages in this practice in the WWE as being self humoring at worst, or playing to the wrong crowd for the wrong reasons at best. The deeper argument seems to be that psychology is largely about controlling the crowd, and this sort of inside baseball is ultimately ineffective at doing that. In that sense it seems to be a variant of denial-ism which argues that "learned psychology" cannot be real psychology in the WWE because of who their target audience is.

 

I admit that I reject this argument in part because I see it as the Bush v. Gore of pro wrestling critical debate. While I am of course a believer that different crowds want different things, I am deeply suspicious of the idea that only WWE crowds are incapable of grasping these things, and thus "learned psychology" is not real psychology solely in the confines of the WWE. It is possible that this is a leap I've made and Loss is not actually arguing this, but it seems to be strongly implied if nothing else so I don't feel wrong questioning it.

 

Here I would argue that A. I don't think the target audience is exclusively 8 year olds and B. Even if it is, true immersive/obsessive viewing of the product (which is unquestionably what the WWE wants) is going to result in people catching many of these things even if they are 8 years old or even younger.

 

To the first point, while there is no doubt a struggle between Vince's vision and the vision of others, I don't see much evidence that Vince sees his core audience as young children. I think it is absolutely fair to say he wants to hook people as children and maintain them as lifelong fans, but he is not in the business of promoting a live action Spongebob Squarepants. He is very aware of the fact that he has adult fans, and I think his product is generally presented in an attempt to appeal to many audiences. Beyond that it seems obvious to me that being a good worker has never meant more than it means now when it comes to being pushed as a core attraction, and the WWE's own strategy seems to indicate that they understand that online/hardcore fans represent a substantial portion of their fanbase.

 

To the second point even if Vince were promoting a product explicitly targeted to third graders, I don't think it means that working matches that play off other matches would the wrong move. In fact I think that working matches for an audience that is likely to be more obsessive in their viewing habits (as children seem to be from my own experience as a parent) is actually quite smart, especially when it comes to someone working within the context of a weekly television product. I know from my brothers that they seemed to pick out these things when they were younger and I don't think they were exceptions. I can also recall occasions sitting next to kids at wrestling shows where they had to explain to their disinterested parents why a certain move was attempted and failed and why it was significant. All of this suggests to me that this isn't over the head of 8 year olds by it's very nature whether they are the core audience or not.

 

The fact is that Cesaro was one of the two or three most over guys on the entire roster when he went out with injury. I think there are valid arguments about whether or not he could be a top guy, but he was over. Christian was the ace of a lame duck brand, and his long title matches seemed to be worked specifically to get the crowd very invested in him and his work. He remained over despite being booked in a position that was ultimately destined to fail. Were these guys over because of their use of "learned psychology" (which I annoyingly keep putting in quotes)? That seems a stretch. But the point is that they weren't drawing critics when they were using it. So at worst those traits were embedded Easter Eggs for fans who were paying attention in performances that were connecting on a broader level. And to that end I think the critique of it fails.

 

At the end of the day I think the real divide here is between those who immerse themselves in a product and those who watch less consistently and/or cherry pick. I don't think this is restricted to this debate either. I think similar things can be said about those who don't "get" lucha, or myself as it pertained to Joshi before I decided to just dive right in. I may write about this more later, but one of the things I've learned about myself through this project is that immersion is really critical to understanding certain aspects of various wrestling products.

 

 

Would be very interested to hear more on the bolded paragraph. If this psychology requires watching a ton of something at once is it realistic to expect even a significant portion of the paying audience to pick up on it? In WWE, is that possible on top of all the commentary and noise that is often explicitly geared to take your attention away from the actual in-ring? If the point is that it requires studious, obsessive viewing then that seems to collapse the entire point.

[Dylan Waco]

I don't think it requires studious viewing at all. But it is enhanced by familiarly, as all wrestling is. I don't think that is unique to WWE, so if you object to the notion I'd love to know if it's a critique you would expand to AJPW as well.

[WingedEagle]

No question that familiarity enhances viewing and is important with any serial, but I do not equate familiarity with watching a ton of something at once. If that's required to appreciate WWE, AJPW or any other program then I'd contend the people behind creative are doing a poor job.

[Dylan Waco]

You don't have to watch a lot at once, but if all you watch is whats pimped the most you won't catch a lot of things. I've always known that but it's become more evident to me throughout this process.

[JerryvonKramer]

Dylan, the problem of intentionality as it relates to any sort of artist or writer or performer is that it could be post-hoc justification. We just have no way of knowing.

 

Listen to Jack Brisco commentating over his own matches in the Florida stuff. Can we know he intended all the things he claims or is he making it up as he's watching it back with Gordon Solie?

 

We just don't know. And wrestlers are the world's greatest bull shit artists.

[Dylan Waco]

All of that is known to me. But it is also my belief that if you take a discussion of intention off the table you are left with no real framework for critical analysis, absent a narrow focus on mechanics that I find boring at best. If I reject any sort of discussion of intention I am effectively rejecting the value of a message board like this.

[JerryvonKramer]

Not really, you can analyse the work and read things into the match. That is the job of criticism.

 

The actual intentions of the workers and what they say about the match themselves is not relevant. I don't just believe this of wrestling but also of something as complex as a Shakespeare play.

 

We should also probably separate out the intention of the worker (shoot) and the intention of the worker (kayfabe).

 

In the vast majority of these cases talking about psychology we are talking about the make-believe world of the kayfabe match and we measure psychology on that level of buy-in.

[JerryvonKramer]

Maybe an easier way of putting that is the difference between analysing the motivations of Hamlet, the character, the imagined real person in the world of the play, and the motivations of Shakespeare the actual playwright giving him words to say.

 

We do the former, the latter is rightly frowned on and can't ever really be known. And even if he was sitting here now telling us why, it just wouldn't matter to our readings of the play.

 

Same with a wrestling match.

[Dylan Waco]

The narrative we create in our heads about a match can never be known to be true either. It may be true to us, but there is certainly no aspect of universality in that truth. Even in instances where the narrative is hammered home by commentators, I'm not entirely sold on the idea that we can fully be certain that the narrative we have absorbed and believe in is in fact anything real or true. I don't object to this narrative creation as a means of analysis at all, but I don't see how it's any more or less based on known truths than analysis where intent is at least on the table for discussion is.

 

I will say that those posts were extremely helpful in me understanding why some find it easier to rank matches than wrestlers. If I'm being completely honest I find the drift toward a focus on individual matches to be increasingly boring and uninteresting with time, and I say this as someone who has written more than my fair share of reviews over the years (though you'll notice I rarely do anymore). I do think I am probably in the minority in preferring to discuss and think about the wrestlers themselves than the individual matches, and I am beginning to doubt that I will have a place in the broader hardcore fan culture in another five years if that trend continues.

[Cap]

I am not 100% sure this is going to make sense, but I find this notion of familiarity really interesting. It is something I have been struggling with lately because I have been exposing myself to a lot of stuff that is new to me and revisiting a lot of stuff I haven't watched in a long time. I have come to really value getting an understanding of wrestling in a particular time and space before I think too much about rating matches or chiming in on particular wrestlers. While I find the intent discussion interesting I tend to think of it in terms of something that isn't quite intent as much as it is "smarts" or proficiency in navigating a match in a given time and space. I find that I have a much richer appreciation wrestling if I give myself some time to just watch a hand full of matches from that time period and general place to get the mannerisms, expectations, pace, tendencies in storytelling, what is normal, and more importantly abnormal. For me it makes the watching more rewarding, particularly if I am watching something I haven't watch much of before (80s and 90s Lucha is my go to example recently).

 

For me, this also makes the question of intent a little less important, because I see wrestlers as moving through a specific kind of wrestling landscape and making their marks within it, always creating and recreating the style as they go. I don't tend to assume most of the matches I find to be great were designed to be all time classics (which leads me to a sort of distaste for some things - but that is a different, well documented conversation). They were products of a series of factors coming together in the right ways. Getting to something great is almost dialectical, a series of exchanges and tensions between styles, individuals, expectations, etc that creates something that really stands out and grabs you. That doesn't necessitate a sort of micro-level intent, but draws my attention to how wrestlers cultivate certain characters/personas/mannerisms/moves that then thrive in a given context (or don't). So I don't usually think of it in terms of intent, but rather how a wrestler (consciously or not) is navigating the terrain and if they are pushing boundaries in compelling ways.

 

For me - and this is a complete matter of scope right now - this draws my attention to matches and that is sort of the unit I am am currently working with and thinking about. However, it is inevitable that my attention be drawn to wrestlers and careers with this way of thinking as i watch more, which is already happening with some of my very favorite wrestlers that I have put my eyeball and brain power into enjoying and assessing.

[Bierschwale]

I will say that those posts were extremely helpful in me understanding why some find it easier to rank matches than wrestlers. If I'm being completely honest I find the drift toward a focus on individual matches to be increasingly boring and uninteresting with time, and I say this as someone who has written more than my fair share of reviews over the years (though you'll notice I rarely do anymore). I do think I am probably in the minority in preferring to discuss and think about the wrestlers themselves than the individual matches, and I am beginning to doubt that I will have a place in the broader hardcore fan culture in another five years if that trend continues.

 

Is a lack of quality "true" feuds an answer to why it's shifted from matches to wrestlers? "Flair vs. Steamboat" is still greater as a whole than the sum of the parts.

 

I personally prefer ranking matches because there's less "consequence" for lack of a better word if a match doesn't reach the spot that I feel that it should than with a wrestler who ends up five slots high or low, for example. Also... it's just easier. Easier doesn't make for better discussion.

 

The optimal measurement is some kind of "run" basis. What someone did in two consecutive calendar years, or whatever, or just a single year in general. Unless your point is that that still leads to cherrypicking. But I've been thinking about this. "Who's been the 52-week RAW MVP for every year that it's been on?" is a more interesting topic than "here's five Tenryu matches from throughout his career, rank/rate them".

[Jingus]

Authorial intent... eh, I'm ambivalent on that one. On the one hand, almost any artistic work should be able to stand alone on its own merits. But it can sometimes really heighten my appreciation for something if I find out some interesting stuff about the artist's intentions in making the story. Of course, that can go BOTH ways, sometimes it backfires. James Cameron mentioning that Aliens was partially a Vietnam War parable was something which I thought added to my overall appreciation for that great film. In comparison, Ridley Scott's insistence that the main character in Blade Runner is actually a robot (despite zero effort from the movie towards such an interpretation) is something that muddles the overall story and makes it worse if you take it into consideration. So in that case I basically say "nah, Deckard's just a human" in order to enjoy things more.

 

 

 

I think this is a good point that got overlooked:

 

There's an entire fanbase that doesn't simply swallow what the announcers are feeding them, the same one that got behind Daniel Bryan. Wrestlemania XXX was Bryan's crowning, but Cesaro was the prince on that show, the same swell of support rising him up, and this was while he was in the Real Americans having tag matches with the Rhodes' brothers. He was not positioned to be the person that people were supposed to get behind, but he was, to a certain section of the crowd, and it was almost entirely due to SOMETHING in his ringwork, and something that wasn't just the standard WWE Mass Appeal that they were trying to push.

 

I think fan-driven narratives are more important in 2016 than ever. Cesaro got himself over through his ringwork alone to the point where they almost had to push him.

Cesaro, by WWE standards, should have never gotten as over as he did. A generic foreign heel, with no promo ability, with a very average look, with no gimmick beyond Wrestley McStrongman? There's no fucking way that guy should become popular with the crowd. It's a testament to Cesaro's talent, effort, and intelligence that he still conceived and executed a method to get over anyway.

[Loss]

Dylan's post is a goldmine of stuff and I'd like to give it a deserving response.

 

First, I should probably get out of the way that I am a fan of wrestling canon and have no problem admitting to it. I don't want to talk around that, and I don't think it's anything to be ashamed of at all. I feel like navigating this hobby would be really difficult without any wrestling canon at all. Now is every aspect of canon something with which I agree? Of course not! Will I watch something that has no rep? If it features wrestlers who have impressed me at other times, of course. But it's hard for me to imagine doing any historical wrestling watching of note without any canon at all. I'd have no idea where to start and would never get out of the gate.

 

I'd also say that canon is something that constantly changes, and every time we say something declarative or that fits a specific narrative, we're developing or reshaping canon -- whether it's me saying that Ken Shamrock is the lost top WCW star of the 90s, or Dylan saying Rey has had more good television matches than any wrestler in history, or JvK claiming that Harley Race invented the modern working style. People take those observations -- sometimes we say them casually and sometimes we say them after great deliberation -- and run with them, and they take on a life of their own. Before the AWA set, I don't recall ever hearing anyone say Shawn Michaels peaked as a tag team worker in the mid-1980s, and now I hear that semi-regularly. I think we're all influenced by canon, just like we all shape it.

 

On the subject of All Japan, again, I think a lot of the stuff we've talked about through the years is probably overplayed in some ways, but I also think All Japan is more of a conducive environment for it, simply because there's a greater spotlight on the wrestling, a heavier focus on wins and losses, a sharper sense of hierarchy and more protected offensive moves. They do 5+ year title chases and count on the fans sticking with them the entire time. It's not a promotion that has all-gimmick PPVs, love triangles or battles for control of the company. They don't have a PR wing advertising their fights against breast cancer and bullying. And we know even from seeing American companies that greater emphasize the in-ring work that details do matter more in companies other than WWE. WWE has always been wrestling's version of fast food, aimed at the lowest common denominator. That doesn't make it a completely worthless company or anything like that, but it's hard to dispute how they've always seen themselves. It's a company that has trouble keeping the details straight even in the main event programs of their biggest shows sometimes. There is nothing about how WWE is promoted that I can see that suggests any interest in making the details of the ring work matter.

 

I did not intend to make a statement on the comprehension skills of WWE fans as much as I was speaking to the dissonance of working that way and how WWE promotes itself as, as Bryan Danielson (and supposedly even Cesaro) once described it, a parody of pro wrestling. You can substitute "8-year old" for "casual fan" or any other term that describes WWE's most sought after customer. Their entire programming suite is crafted for new viewers -- they constantly ID themselves, tout how long they've been on the air and promote their social media presence and charity work. They don't do that for the benefit of the people already watching.

 

My criticism of the Inside Baseball style of working as you put it (and I do like that description) is less Bush v. Gore and more When In Rome. I can think of wrestlers like Bret Hart who took a very thoughtful approach to his matches, but there's also nothing about how Bret Hart worked that I think was antithetical to the house style. It's hard for me to think of match choices he made that didn't work for the general audience.

 

Again, I want to stress that a lot of this is based on examples of Cesaro doing this -- as a response to me asking how he's more than just a "moves" guy -- that I haven't seen for myself. So once again, I will say that if he's doing spots in his matches that work on two levels, then that's great and a credit to him. Once again, "two levels" in this context means that the spot or sequence works for the casual viewer, but the hardcore fan may pick up on some subtlety that only enhances it more. In fact, now that I think about it, I can recall one example of him doing that in the Zayn match from the first NXT special, when he countered Zayn's tope through the middle turnbuckle with the uppercut after getting hit with the move in their previous match. That's actually something I'd call a great callback, because the spot works whether you have the background information or not. On the flip side, The Wyatts putting The Shield through an announce table at Elimination Chamber 2014 I don't think is a great callback because without the context of previous Shield matches, it just comes across as a cliched, tired spot that has been done to death. I think sometimes in the desire to find smart work, it's easy to consider any evidence of thought put into the work as evidence that it's somehow smart. Labored or heavily considered work isn't necessarily smart work. Playing off of previous matches I think is on its own of neutral value to me -- it's neither inherently good or bad. It's a matter of doing it in the right time, at the right place and in the right matches, just like most other choices wrestlers make.

 

I will never dispute that immersion creates a clearer pictures than cherry picking. It's usually better when attempting to gain understanding to watch more wrestling rather than less wrestling. But I also think wrestling in general is a medium that always aims to attract new fans and I don't see match choices that only work for the already converted as a sign of great psychology.

[Dylan Waco]

Great post Loss.

 

I will say that one of the things that I am really taking away from all of this is that I'm not sure my idea of psychology is the same as others.

 

For example, for years I have argued that formula is generally speaking a good thing because it creates a framework of expectations. Fans will expect one action, and get it more often than not. But when they don't, or when they get something like it but not exactly the same, they react on a different level because they are seeing something special and something that has been established over the long haul paid off.

 

Obviously this is not the only thing I would point as an example of psychology, but it's one aspect of wrestling psychology that I have always found especially important. I'm not letting go of this, but this is something that is most certainly not meant for a casual "just flipping through the channels" type of fan.

 

I do honestly think that if I was more ambivalent to that style of work, I would probably have a much lower opinion of people like Christian or Rey Jr or Ric Flair than I do.

[Woof]

 

For example, for years I have argued that formula is generally speaking a good thing because it creates a framework of expectations. Fans will expect one action, and get it more often than not. But when they don't, or when they get something like it but not exactly the same, they react on a different level because they are seeing something special and something that has been established over the long haul paid off.

 

 

Great point that I agree with. There is a downside to it though. Wrestling formula creates an expectation that someone eventually breaks, generating the big response they want (not necessarily in-the-moment crowd pop either). Over time that same break is repeated by others, each time diminishing its effect. Eventually the break in formula becomes the norm until someone comes along and breaks that. Rinse and repeat. The issue with that is that it leads to escalation - usually in complexity and violence - that ultimately puts us in the place we are now, where every mid-card match on a super indy features multiple head drops and wild brawls into the crowd, thereby causing the main event guys to have to come up with something even bigger. Which leads to a lot of old farts on message boards pining for the old days when wrestling was simpler.

 

The first time I saw a guy drop another with an apron DDT I lost my mind. I thought it was one of the most vicious things I'd ever seen, and coming as it did in the middle of a heated main event match between two guys with a long history of wrestling each other, it was an unexpected uping-the-ante moment that still resonates with me. Flash forward a dozen years and I see some sort of apron dropping move in nearly every match I watch. It's the new norm. The impact of it as a storytelling device is gone and it's merely a transitional move now. Yes, I blame the workers as a whole for not protecting it as something deadly that should be used judiciously, but I also blame us as fans for constantly demanding so much from the wrestlers. We stopped responding to the break in formula to the degree that the workers have to keep finding new ways to excite us.

 

Once kayfabe died the goal of the wrestler changed from going out and making an audience believe in what they were doing to going out and putting on spectacular matches that will "entertain". I've noticed nobody on the super indies plays a real heel anymore. They don't do chickenshit acts and take shortcuts, because that doesn't lead to epic matches, and if you're not putting on epic matches, you don't get booked by the other super indies, and if you're not booked by the super indies you have little-to-no chance of getting noticed by the big companies. So instead all the modern day heels are tremendous workers who just talk shit and occasionally do dickish things in their matches. I mean when was the last time you wanted to see a match solely because you wanted to see the heel get his ass kicked? It's extremely rare. I think that's a big reason why we've come to collectively enjoy Brock Lesnar squashing main event babyfaces so much, because it's so outside of the normal formula that it feels fresh.

[Strummer]

fantastic post Loss!

 

 

 

 

I did not intend to make a statement on the comprehension skills of WWE fans as much as I was speaking to the dissonance of working that way and how WWE promotes itself as, as Bryan Danielson (and supposedly even Cesaro) once described it, a parody of pro wrestling.

 

 

pretty sure Punk said that as well

[Boss Rock]

He may very well be the greatest tag worker ever. Kings of Wrestling, Real Americans, Brass Ring Club, and the Bar. All really good tag teams with four very different partners. And while he may not have a ton MOTYC's or classics on his resume, his consistency as a utility player and TV match worker is almost unmatched. Seems like a pretty easy lock even if I'm not sure I'd put him in the top 50. But that could change depending on how his indie run holds up and if he can continue to deliver.

[Clayton Jones]

For my money VS Regal, VS Zayn Arrival, VS Bryan (both in ROH and the RAW gauntlet), VS Dragunov, and the 4 way with Miz, Owens and Zayn are all classics regardless of his tag work. In my first round of watching so far his matches with Bryan from this year and the Orton Smackdown match from I think 2014 are among the best stuff I've watched. Top half is a safe bet for me.

[WingedEagle]

A wrestler that is always good and almost never boring.  But I'm not sure I could point to a single classic he's been a part of.  His matches against Cena and Sheamus are the first that come to mind but I wouldn't call anything with either a MOTYC.  Tough for someone like that to make my list.

[Quentin]

I wouldn’t fight anyone who would call his Regal match a classic and I think all the Generico stuff is always special and worthy of MOTYC talks. I also think very highly of the Claudio vs Hero match that goes 40 with a broken top rope. One of the most impressive matches of the decade.

[strobogo]

The Bar vs Rollins/Ambrose at I wanna say No Mercy 2017, the one where Cesaro fucked up his teeth on the post, was the WWE main roster tag match of the year.

[Clayton Jones]

I'll go one further and say it was the best example I've seen of traditional WWE big show tag wrestling in the last decade. Character driven with clear roles and real build and stakes, instead of the escalating nearfall trading for the sake of it that is more common of the tag title scene.

Cesaro brings an intensity with him that makes his big singles opportunities almost feel like special attractions. Even though his track record in terms of presentation would leave almost anyone else exposed and neutered. That's in large part because when he gets the opportunity he's one of the most consistent there is. In the little bit I've seen from this year it seems like that track record is finally paying off. And I really can't recommend that UK Takeover Dragunov match highly enough, it's everything Cesaro can and should be.

I know a knock against him is he wasn't a complete package until the tail end of his indie run but if anything I give him credit for how significantly he improved every single year. And there's plenty of greatness in there while he grows, the Brodie Lee feud, his awesome rivalry with Morishima, his afformentined match with Danielson, his heel turn where he stomps Danielson's head in with a chair and tosses students around like they're toddlers, his all-time base performances against Quack (including that fantastic tag w/Danielson VS Quack and Jigsaw) and later VS Ricochet in PWG, and that all-time classic title match VS Generico in PWG as well.

I'll take it back to that match where he gets his teeth bashed in though. This is the sort of little thing that doesn't mean much to some but means everything to me. In that split second where he is going through excruciating pain and realizing he has a life altering injury, he doesn't panic, or even miss a beat. He turns to the camera that will get the best shot, opens his mouth wide, and sells for the world. That's a great performer. That's a great pro wrestler.

[Tetsujin]

I think he's locked in my top 50. Not only that, he's a top 25 contender to me. Amazing tag wrestler, very underrated mat worker, incredible powerhouse, great use of his signature moves amd big spots, always delivering with very good matches (at least) every single week. He doesn't have as many great or legendary matches as the top tier wrestlers(*), but his consistency and amazing offence need to be acclaimed.

(*) Althought I would count the ROH Bryan match, the CZW-ROH Cage match, the two Zayn NXT matches, the Regal match, the IC F4W match at Payback 2016 and the No Mercy 2017 tag match as MOTYC level matches. By my standars, those aren't just a few. He definitely has elite stuff.