Wrestling Fans & Motivations

[Johnny Sorrow]

I've never thought that if a live crowd thought something was great than "we" should too. I say that if guys are connecting with the crowd and making them care then those guys are being great workers. Because that's their job.

[Zenjo]

For me, I have started a new policy of always watching a match without taking notes or really analytically thinking it through as I watch it. I find that taking notes tends to break up the rhythm of the match for me and that can take you out of a match just as easily as anything else. I believe it was mentioned earlier about watching a match and feeling it at a very basic level, then later going back mentally and trying to identify the things that inspired those feelings. To me that is the best way to go about it on first watch. If it's something I need notes on, I'll rewatch it and take notes.

Do other people do this? I'd never dream of taking notes during a match. How can you ever get fully immersed whilst multitasking? My philosophy is that if I can't remember something after viewing then it wasn't all that important. I'll write down my thoughts later that night or the following day. I know you like to write good and detailed reviews Dawho, so that might require additional viewings to flesh things out.

 

One thing I do like to do that other fans would probably hate is to find out the approximate duration of matches in advance. It's obvious if you're watching a single bout online or if I'm watching a Yearbook I'll check how long the chapter lasts. Watching live I find it a lot harder to rate stuff consistently. If I know a match is going to last roughly 3m, 15m or 30m then I can analyse it in real time knowing what stage I'm at.

 

The unknown doesn't interest me that much. Who is going to win, is it going long or short, is XXX going to be pushed next month etc? All will be revealed soon enough and it doesn't really matter that much anyway. I just enjoy watching good wrestling matches. Contemporary stuff has no more value to me than 30 year old material, which is why I don't watch much of it. The mystery of an unwritten future is nothing compared to a classic match.

[PhilTLL]

The only times I've ever literally sat down with a notepad were while watching sets I needed to vote on, and that was usually just a few observations and an initial rating so I could organize my thoughts and figure out what was worth a second watch. Haven't voted on a set in awhile, though. Recently if I'm watching a match I want to write a post about, I might dictate a bit into a text box with my phone so I can expand on it later.

 

I try to avoid looking up details on matches I don't already know about before I watch them, because knowing when the finish is makes me impatient for it and I can't get into the flow. There's one megaplex where I live that insists on putting clocks in the theaters for some absurd reason, and I hardly ever go there because it drives me crazy, especially if the movie isn't grabbing me.

[dawho5]

Like I said, any write-up I did in the 2000s is based on the things I recall from watching the match. I think a few matches I re-opened the file to get a few specifics or confirm the order on things. One of the main reasons for that is that taking notes had a tendency to take me out of the match in ways I didn't like. And my reviews got shorter and less detailed as a result. Looking back at them, I rarely get to play-by-play anymore, instead focusing on the general layout with stuff I found particularly memorable added. I also noticed that matches I didn't care for sometimes got a lot less than matches I liked. To be fair though, if I had to do a more detailed review (I do like Martin's style of play-by-play in the 2000s threads btw) I probably would have to go through a match twice at least to get all the finer points written down and organize them in an easy to understand way. For me, the highlights and lowlights are what matters and how they either got me into or took me out of the match. The other stuff just doesn't stand out as much. And that's not to say that small things don't matter. Because I haven't watched Hansen vs. Kawada 2/28/93 in ages and I can tell you that Hansen's facial expression during the stretch plum makes it probably the favorite time I have ever seen the hold applied.

[TRMD]

 

Another thing to point out is that watching wrestling from the past almost makes you lend an analytical eye.

 

Watching things live gives you a better chance to get caught up in the show, while a 20 year old show has an almost impossible task in trying to get you hooked emotionally.

I think that is a double edged sword though in all honesty. Current matches can benefit AND be hindered by having the context around it AND having a bunch of people communicating about it over the interweb during real time. An older match tends to lack both.Well at least it does for me. Case-in-point: Just watched Steve Viedor vs Gwyn Davies. Only seen one Viedor match and nothing of Davies. All I knew was that it was a championship bout. This match completely latched on to me emotionally as if I were watching a 20+ minute Rocky Balboa fight. Stylistically there were a few things that were jarring but emotionally, something that doesn't tend to happen to me these days, I was overwhelm in the best of ways.

 

Now, it is hard to give an example of a match that was poorly viewed during the time but aged and was viewed better cause I've probably never went back to watch those but I like to believe the point still holds some water.

 

 

I was buzzing over that match for days after I watched it.

 

I know I'm one of the youngest guys on the forum, but you do guys still have vocal reactions to matches? If I'm watching a match I'm really into, it's completely normal for me to let out a "Woo!" for a stiff shot or "Let's Fucking Go!" for a great baby face comeback. It just makes me enjoy it that much more if I treat it like a real sporting event.

[Matt D]

 

 

Another thing to point out is that watching wrestling from the past almost makes you lend an analytical eye.

 

Watching things live gives you a better chance to get caught up in the show, while a 20 year old show has an almost impossible task in trying to get you hooked emotionally.

I think that is a double edged sword though in all honesty. Current matches can benefit AND be hindered by having the context around it AND having a bunch of people communicating about it over the interweb during real time. An older match tends to lack both.Well at least it does for me. Case-in-point: Just watched Steve Viedor vs Gwyn Davies. Only seen one Viedor match and nothing of Davies. All I knew was that it was a championship bout. This match completely latched on to me emotionally as if I were watching a 20+ minute Rocky Balboa fight. Stylistically there were a few things that were jarring but emotionally, something that doesn't tend to happen to me these days, I was overwhelm in the best of ways.

 

Now, it is hard to give an example of a match that was poorly viewed during the time but aged and was viewed better cause I've probably never went back to watch those but I like to believe the point still holds some water.

 

 

I was buzzing over that match for days after I watched it.

 

I know I'm one of the youngest guys on the forum, but you do guys still have vocal reactions to matches? If I'm watching a match I'm really into, it's completely normal for me to let out a "Woo!" for a stiff shot or "Let's Fucking Go!" for a great baby face comeback. It just makes me enjoy it that much more if I treat it like a real sporting event.

 

 

On an emotional level, I do think there's huge a difference between watching something as its happening and something from twenty years ago.

 

I got in trouble back during something in the last couple of years (Maybe Brock vs Punk?) because I was watching it downstairs while it was happening and I vocally let out a "Come on!" and the baby, upstairs (and she had to be just over 1 if it was that summerslam), thought I was talking to her and started to get upset at the baby gate because she couldn't get to me.

 

As for note taking, I do it if I'm going to write up a match for a project, or segundacaida. I used to write down every single thing that happened in the sort of stream of consciousness real-time reviews that I did for things like the Buddy Rose matches. Now I do bullet points with key transitions/cool things to note or that I want to remember. You can see a more detailed version of what those look like in the first DVDVR remedial wrestling thread.

 

Ideally, I'd watch a match once and then watch it again, taking notes, but i just don't have that sort of time right now. If I'm not going to write up a match, I won't take notes. I've never in my life taken notes of something that was happening live like a PPV or Raw.

[Cross Face Chicken Wing]

I say that if guys are connecting with the crowd and making them care then those guys are being great workers. Because that's their job.

 

Not necessarily. I've been to a lot of shows where the crowd is amped up (and/or half drunk) as it gets closer to the opening bell. They're really into the first match or segment because they came to see some wrestling, and hey! there's finally some wrestling to yell/boo/cheer about. The wrestlers working the opener are in the right place at the right time. They're not necessarily connecting with the audience because they're being great workers.

[thebrainfollower]

Johnny I don't mean to criticize but what you're saying here and the attitude taken in your podcasts is very different. You frequently DO sound like there's something wrong with Parv because he doesn't like what was over then. Or something wrong with a person who doesn't like HHH......or doesn't like Jay Strongbow.

 

Persons who are intolerant towards intolerance are just as intolerant as those they condemn.

 

Reminds of me the hypocrisy of so many friends I've known who are committed Democrats who assume I'm a Republican because I don't smoke, don't do drugs, don't personally engage in pre-martial sex and don't drink often. "well if you don't do what we do, you're wrong" is a universal human concept. It's also a true shame.

[PhilTLL]

Persons who are intolerant towards intolerance are just as intolerant as those they condemn.

 

Nope. Maybe on fun stuff like pro wrestling, but this is absolutely false equivalence for real-world concerns. (As long as we're using the word intolerance and not simply "dislike.")

[thebrainfollower]

For entertainment related stuff. If you want to take my analogy to the real world, then Johnny's analogy makes segregation okay.

[PhilTLL]

Okay, just so we're clear, ha. I see that line applied to very un-fun concepts sometimes.

 

To be 100% annoyingly accurate, Johnny's statement was very specifically about wrestling. He used no analogies. I've never listened to him on a podcast.

[NintendoLogic]

Persons who are intolerant towards intolerance are just as intolerant as those they condemn.

 

"Well, the important thing is that you've found a way to feel superior to both."-xkcd

 

Not taking sides or anything, it's just that the quote came to mind when I read that.