Spotfests - Pros and Cons

[NintendoLogic]

Wasn't that Stevie Richards' gimmick in TNA?

[El-P]

Do people get a cookie when they say something bad about Raven around here ?

 

Anyway, it's funny because Raven vs Saturn from Fall Brawll (or WWIII, I don't remember) 98 is the perfect exemple of a match playing out to a dead crowd and getting them hot as hell toward the finish. But Raven never got the chance to get himself over in WWF ("who the fuck hired Raven" anyone ?), and Saturn was a Velocity worker at this point. So yeah. Dead crowd I guess.

Anyway. Matwork spotfest totally screams Dean Malenko to me. And not even very good ones, as Malenko had this annoying habit (that several cruiserweight got) of kicking out of his own pinfall attempts to get into the next position.

 

Spotfests can be fun when they present something dynamic, extremely well executed and not too contrived. Not exactly what I'm looking for at this point.

[PeteF3]

I'm enjoying 1995 Raven, at least. Moreso the booking than the promos, but the matches have been fine and the gimmick comes off as incredibly fresh for the era.

[TRMD]

I can like a spotfest when guys sell the fact that a big spot was just performed on them and it tells a story. Like the TLC matches. Those guys looked like they had just been through a war at the end of every match.

 

Also, I think if the spots seem organic, then I can really dig a spotfest. The MITB matches tend to look very un-organic and it takes me out of it completely.

 

Basically, if the Spotfest seems organic, is sold properly, and tells a story, I can dig it.

 

Now, I do think spotfests are kind of like the wrestling version of cheating. How do I get the fans to react to me since I kind of suck? Do a double back flip into a powerbomb! That'll make the fans cheer me. That's video game wrestling. I hate that shit.

 

Like the Young Bucks.

[Graham Crackers]

I've always thought of spotfests as referring to matches that were based around moves and sequences rather than selling, striking, or matwork. I can see why someone might consider a match with guys hitting each other with little story a spotfest or "matwork for the sake of matwork" a spotfest but to me those things are so fundamental to my enjoyment of pro wrestling that I can pretty easily get wrapped up in something like that. It might not be as special as a match that uses selling to get me invested but if the striking and matwork impresses me I can still dig it.

 

I do think there is a right way to work a spotfest and when it's done right it's one of the most fun things in pro wrestling. To me, the key is rhythm. Classic Mpro has that. CMLL minis matches often have that too. The offense in those sorts of matches are frequently spectacular but what makes that work in the context of a match is that you're given enough time to breathe and absorb what just happened before the next spot but you aren't force to wait around too long for something else to happen.

[Timbo Slice]

I always just circle back to "Why did they do that spot at that time?" Is it because it's a good spot? Is it because they wanted to build towards something else? It's pretty easy to tell whether they're throwing spots out there just because or whether they're doing it to build a story.

 

The reason why the MPro stuff still holds up is because of the way they built the spots throughout the match. They started slow, paired off, and then by the end, it's just balls to the wall and they're throwing everything they can out there. There's a rhythm to it. The reason why a lot of matches nowadays don't have that same aesthetic is because a lot of the big move spotfests today are done to pop the crowd more than they're telling a story. There's a disconnect between why the move is done and why it should be done in the first place.

 

Hell, I just watched the Generico/London vs. Young Bucks at DDT4 from 2010 and there were plenty of spots, but there was a pretty decent story attached, too, which you wouldn't expect from those guys. It all comes back to meaning. If you're gonna throw out a bunch of big spots and you can make them work in the context of the match, more power to you. But if you're doing it just because you want to get it in, it shows and it can make the match a lot less interesting.

[Hobbes]

I think one of the biggest criticisms of spotfests are that they don't "hold up" over time. A lot of matches built around cutting edge spots and not much else age poorly once said spots become old hat. I used to make that complaint myself all the time, but as I've grown older I realize that it doesn't matter to me if a match is timeless or not. Most wrestling, like most entertainment, is not made with the future in mind, it's made with entertaining people in the present in mind, and spotfests can be really good at that.

 

Also, it's good to note that even if a lot of spotfests are devoid of psychology, selling and storytelling, there is still skill and craft involved in building the best ones. I've seen great spotfests, ones where the pace is fast, but they give enough time between the big moves for the crowd to breathe and react, ones where they end at the perfect moment with the most impressive move of the match. Then I've also seen spotfests with no flow, full of people standing around for 20 seconds at a time waiting for someone else to set up their next overly complicated move, matches where they peak with their biggest spot ten minutes in and then proceed to burn the crowd out by going another twelve.

[ohtani's jacket]

I watched a Malenko/Smiley match from Worldwide and I would agree that it's a total spotfest. It's wrestled at pace, the transitions are too easy and nothing is sold. On the other hand, it's a five minute Worldwide match so who's really bothered. The biggest problem with it was that Smiley wasn't on Malenko's level as a mat worker so comes off looking second best.

[tim]

I don't know that "spotfest" is a meaningful term. It's hard to define, maybe impossible to define consistently. It's sort of inherently negative. It's a pretty empty pejorative. Everyone has a basic idea of what is being talked about when they read "spotfest," I think, but it's too loaded and provocative to be a good descriptor. There's good wrestling and bad wrestling, and good wrestling and bad wrestling across all the range of styles. There are good matches with lots of "spots" and exhibitionist athleticism that manage to be fun, creative and well-worked. You can have a match all about the spots and athleticism that still flows well and is interesting. There are bad matches of that kind that have no rhythm or momentum and are just guys doing stuff over and over again while not trying to work a compelling match around it.

 

Rather than worrying about what criteria a match has to fill to be called a "spotfest" one way or another, worry about how you'd describe a particular match you saw, the reasons you liked it or didn't like it based on what was going on in the ring whether it was all technical, a brawl, a main event epic or full of athletic spots.

[dawho5]

I think those terms are generally used as keywords to give somebody who hasn't seen it an idea of the style the match was worked in. To men, none of those are inherently good or bad, because I've seen both good and bad brawls, technical matches, epics and spotfests. I certainly have my favorite types of matches, and I think a lot of the time when you mix different elements together well (Battlarts was very much a combination of brawling and technical work with some of the flippy highspots thrown in for fun and I loved it) it can be great. But regardless of any of that, whatever "genre" you might put the match under it has to deliver on a certain level for each of us to be considered good or better. So I think the general use of the term "spotfest" as a negative is wrong. But it's use to describe a certain method of working a match is perfectly fine to me. As Loss has stated, the MPro tags (which most of us would agree are spotfests) have a pretty devoted following even here.

[Ditch]

'Holds up with time' matters in the context of saying how highly to rate something. A MOTYC that falls apart the next day isn't really a MOTYC. Plus, an especially mindless spotfest will tend to desensitize the audience and be harder to follow, both for those later on the card and future cards.

[Ryan Faulconer]

Dolph Ziggler last night delivered the definition of a spotfest against Cesaro. It was as bad as the bad version of the SATs/Whipreck students matches from fifteen years ago.

 

Move. Bump. Move. Bump. Move. Bump. Move. Bump. Counter. Move. Bump. Move. Bump.

 

None of the moves meant anything when they finally slowed down near the end. I use the term "slow" almost sarcastically because they were still going 100mph into the finish. Cesaro actually seemed a little blown up at the end. I've seen a lot of his US indy matches over the years and I don't remember him looking so gassed at the end of a match.

 

A bunch of guys doing highspots is not a spotfest by default. Most of the time the MPro/ or Dragon Gate signature match is built up by matching feuding sides. It might only be one wrestler on each side feuding but there are stories being told. I don't even watch Dragon Gate at this point but they do have their way of working. The singles matches in DG felt like that Ziggler match when they are at their worst. At their best it is more like that short Angle/Mysterio match from 2002.

[Grimmas]

As others mentioned, spot fest is something that needs to be better defined.

I usually mean a match where its all about spots and the actual story, psychology and selling are not important to the competitors in this particular match.

 

If a spot fest just means a match with a lot of awesome spots, than Mascarita Dorada is one of the best spot fest wrestlers ever.

[Kronos]

As others mentioned, spot fest is something that needs to be better defined.

 

I usually mean a match where its all about spots and the actual story, psychology and selling are not important to the competitors in this particular match.

 

If a spot fest just means a match with a lot of awesome spots, than Mascarita Dorada is one of the best spot fest wrestlers ever.

 

Your first definition fits Sabu vs Mr. JL on Nitro in Oct 1995. No story at all - just an exhibition of highspots. Sabu even stops at one point and stands there as he waits for Jerry to get into position for something. Might as well be Dragon Gate.

[stomperspc]

 

As others mentioned, spot fest is something that needs to be better defined.

 

I usually mean a match where its all about spots and the actual story, psychology and selling are not important to the competitors in this particular match.

 

If a spot fest just means a match with a lot of awesome spots, than Mascarita Dorada is one of the best spot fest wrestlers ever.

 

Your first definition fits Sabu vs Mr. JL on Nitro in Oct 1995. No story at all - just an exhibition of highspots. Sabu even stops at one point and stands there as he waits for Jerry to get into position for something. Might as well be Dragon Gate.

 

 

I disagree that spot fests are matches void of any other pro wrestling match element (ie. storytelling, selling, ect.). I have always considered a spot fest to be any match where the chief characteristic or focus is the spots. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a story and it certainly doesn’t mean that it the match is automatically bad. A match that is all move-move-move with no transitions and nothing else of substance would be on the extreme end of what constitutes a spot fest, however, a match can still be a spot fest and not be that much of an extreme.

 

The M-Pro multi-man matches mentioned in this thread are built around a bunch of cool spots from the flying, to the arm drags, to the heel taunts. There is some element of story/reason for the matches (Kaientai vs. M-Pro as an underlying theme). Guys sell in these matches. However, you are watching those matches because of all the cool spots and sequences that they execute. They are spot fests for that reason. It is not a bad thing. When people talk about a technical wrestling match, it doesn’t necessarily mean the wrestlers are exchanging holds and/or working the mat the entire match. When people talk about a brawl, that doesn’t mean the wrestlers can’t start the match with basic “feeling out” stuff. To me, spot fest is the same. Just like a technical match or a brawl are not inherently good or bad, neither is a spot fest. It is just a description of the main element/takeaway of the match.

 

I don’t dismiss a lot of current matches because they are spot fests. I don’t care for some of those current matches because they are poor spot fests that fail to engage me in any way.

[Grimmas]

The definition is so unclear, but if you use stompers definition I have no problem with spotfests.

[Ryan Faulconer]

I guess I'm stuck on spotfest meaning a match that looks or feels disjointed. It doesn't have consistent drama. If it does have a consistency they tend to beat a dead horse with it and go into extreme overkill territory. The action loses its meaning by that point and I usually start looking at my watch and hoping the match ends soon.

 

I would say that Rock/Austin at Wrestlemania 15 is a total spotfest. It wasn't a bad match but it was definitely a match hindered by the match relying on the next big pop or stunt. I only knew the match was coming to a close based on the length of the match. The nearfalls were just piled one on top of the other with no sense of drama apart from the use of their finishers.

 

A lot of the lesser Toryumon/DG tags over the years had the same problem...if you consider that a problem. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it is overkill and leaves me feeling disoriented. I stopped watching Dragon Gate in 2006 for the most part because the big singles matches always followed that formula.

 

"spot monkey" is a wrestling slur to me