Does Promotional Style Matter?

[BillThompson]

Maybe this has been discussed already, I've been gone for a while so it may have been, don't know. Either way, I was listening to the Roundtable discussion of the 100 matches you need to see on the Network. Charles (Loss) and Pete (Shoe) made a point when discussing Sami Zayn versus Cesaro from NXT that struck a chord with me. Their basic point, and please feel free to tell me if I'm getting this wrong, was that Zayn/Cesaro didn't really seem like a WWE or NXT match. This was used as a negative about the match.

 

This point, and the larger discussion, got me to thinking about whether or not it should matter that a match fits within the general wrestling style of a promotion. I don't think it should matter, because in the end we're watching wrestling. A match can be any style in any promotion. I love Joe Gacy versus Drew Gulak from CZW, but that's far removed from the predominant CZW style. All that matters to me is that they delivered a quality professional wrestling match that made sense within the context of the match they constructed. I'd say the same about Cesaro/Zayn. It was a quality pro wrestling match, and whether or not it was a representation of the NXT, or WWE, style is not a thought that entered my mind. And thinking about it I don't think it's an element of the match that matters.

 

What say anyone else? Does a match need to fit within the overall style of a promotion to be great?

[(BP)]

ECIII/Spud is a contender for MOTY for a lot people right now, and one of the reasons is that it was booked and worked in a way atypical to TNA. Of course that's TNA, but Cena/Brock from Extreme Rules 2012 is considered among the best match of both of their careers and part of its appeal was its uniqueness in the promotion. I think deviating from a style or formula occasionally can bring more eyes to a promotion. I watched TNA for the first time in 2 years to check out ECIII/Spud, and I'm sure there are plenty of folks that aren't into the WWE style that'll check matches out occasionally if their highly rated and different from the norm.

[donsem43]

I think it works both ways depending on a person opinion of the promotion/style. For me, I really enjoyed Nakamura vs Ibushi from this year's Dome show but what kept it form being a MOYTC for me were problems that I have with New Japan's style in general rather than the performance of either worker. I've read some criticize tag matches for not fitting a "Southern Tag" style, while any match from Dragon's Gate would need a ridiculous amount of hype to get some people to watch it.

[Matt D]

To be great? Absolutely not.

 

To be one of the greatest WWE matches (for instance), maybe.

 

Flair vs Magnum seemed like a cheat on the AWA set because they worked the same match they would have worked anywhere else. Briscos vs Murdoch/Adonis feels sort of alien on the original WWF set too.

 

Ultimately, I think the answer is no, but it may feel like a bit of a cheat to be able to move out of the normal restraints. It sort of changes the "level of difficulty" score, which may or may not matter.

[Loss]

I don't think it's so much a blanket answer. Something like Kawada-Taue in January 1991 was a short, bloody brawl and it was atypical for All Japan. Yet I still loved it.

 

With Cesaro-Zayn, to me, it just exposed how much of a facade WWE developmental is. They could have had the same match in PWG in 2011. Have either of them really grown as workers since that time? It's not as egregious, obviously, and it's not even really the fault of the workers, but I put it in the same category as something like Undertaker-HHH where all of WWE's warts are so much in plain view that the match quality almost can't overcome it.

 

I also thought it was representative of a lot of problems with the current wrestling style, where the emotion generated was entirely based on the impressive athletic feats. I don't think the crowd cared who won or lost, nor do I think they cared about them as actual characters. On its own, that's not enough to make a match terrible, and I do think the match was good. But it in no way belongs on a list of the best 100 matches on the Network.

 

I can watch something like Rey-Psicosis or Misawa-Kobashi that borders on excessive, but if I ask myself if the match would still be great if they eliminated half of their "stuff", the answer would be yes in both cases. With Cesaro-Zayn, it was all stuff. That's not to say that it wasn't a smart match, but it was smart in a wrestling nerd way (playing off of previous matches) instead of feeling like something that would appeal to a wide, major-league audience. And that's supposed to be the entire reason NXT even exists.

 

I try to judge matches on their own terms as much as possible. The exact same match happening in an indy I probably would have liked far more because it would have been a better contextual fit.

[JerryvonKramer]

The Misawa vs. Stan Hansen matches from 92 are disappointing because they are worked as if it was Brisco vs. Baba from 1975. Granted, neither of them are as good on the mat as Brisco or Baba, but I think take those exact matches and transport them back 15 years and they would feel less disappointing. The incredibly action-packed style of AJPW in 92 is a factor in why those matches are disappointing. There's no way around it.

 

Then again, it can work the other way. When Greg Valentine brings a bit of Southern stiffness to the WWF in the mid-80s, people don't tend to say it's disappointing, but better than everything else going on. He felt that way on 1975 WWF footage too. I think bringing more action / intensity / brutality / speed to a place that typically lacks any of those things will usually be seen as welcome. Whereas it's harder to go the other way.

[Matt D]

I think we need to revisit Cesaro/Zayn and really analyze what Loss just said about it.

[Badlittlekitten]

Out of curiosity Loss what did you make of Zayn/Owens from the last special?

[Loss]

I haven't watched the last special yet.

[dawho5]

So does that mean we are overrating matches like the Valentine matches in 80s WWF? I personally feel that Misawa vs. Hansen is wrestled in a very intelligent way most of the time, it's just that the difference from the usual style can be seen as a negative. I completely agree with Loss about both Cesaro vs. Zayn matches. Do I prefer that style to modern WWE style? Absolutely. But it seems like they were going for a "that's a MOTY!" consciously because it would be viewed against the rest of the WWE/NXT stuff. Honestly I thought the Paige/Emma match from Arrival was a lot better because it felt far more organic and less self-conscious. I won't lie and say that I've never liked something more because it is different from the normal style (early Shield matches come to mind), but I like to think that there are merits to the differences there that override it just being different.

 

All of that being said, I know that all promotions have their own unique styles, but it seems like there ought to be a way for a promotion to be more all-encompassing as far as how the matches are worked. WCW had a strange dichotomy going between the cruiserweights and main event style that they eventually tried to smash together. It didn't work, but could that be the fault of bad booking and/or execution far more than it being a bad idea? I suppose the trick would be to get everything over that needed to be over, as well as make sure you kept certain workers very far from guys thy would work really badly against.

[Loss]

Here is my take:

 

Does promotional style matter? No.

 

Does setting matter? Immensely.

[Dylan Waco]

Serious question that I fear will be read as a troll - what is the difference between what Zayn/Cesaro did in that match and what Flair is often said to have done (including by many of his biggest supporters) in his matches? I.E. "getting shit in" and clearly aiming to have great matches regardless of whether or not that was right for the moment were sort of standards of Flair's work, or at least they are assumed to be standards of Flair's work. So what's the difference?

 

Zayn/Cesaro having the first live match in WWE Network history is an important part of the context of that match. The expectation of the promotion was that they would go out there and steal the show. I prefer the 2/3 falls match myself, but I think you have to recognize that they were put in that spot for a reason.

 

If the argument is that there aren't enough heat building segments in modern wrestling I could buy that and would tend to agree with it. I think that is why when those things are done so well they stand out more now (the Spud/EC3 match being a great example of this, but also Dustin In Peril in the WWE). That said I think it's increasingly clear that many of these indie guys were hired with the expectation that they would be "super workers" for lack of a better term. You can argue about whether or not that's why a talent should be hired (I myself see no problem with it in 2015), but I think it's almost self-evident at this point that the WWE sees value in that for whatever reason.

 

Anyhow I don't know that I would ever fault a match for breaking the mold of a promotion per se. There are certain things that won't work certain places and wrestlers should be cognizant of that, but I'm not sure that is the same thing. What I would say is that I can appreciate the ability of people to wrestle certainly styles "well" or at least to the expectation of an audience, while also considering that style to be grossly inferior, or even bad. Also I think there are times where matches are great in a vacuum, but if you step back and look at the context there are aspects of them that are very hard to defend (I haven't watched the full episode of SD in years, but this is my memory of the 3/14/04 Eddie v. Rey match, which might get me in hot water with the Cooke family). I'm not sure that directly addresses the topic of this thread, but it feels relevant for some reason.

[Childs]

I enjoy matches that catch my attention by playing against type. Might I fall into the trap of the film critic who raves about a movie because it's different more than because it's great? I suppose. But I'm past the point of caring. At this point, either a match grabs me or it doesn't.

[JerryvonKramer]

So does that mean we are overrating matches like the Valentine matches in 80s WWF? I personally feel that Misawa vs. Hansen is wrestled in a very intelligent way most of the time, it's just that the difference from the usual style can be seen as a negative.

I don't think so, but you have to be aware that the aura of Valentine is enhanced by him being mostly different from the norm in the environment. He's having those matches with Tito while elsewhere in the promotion the Hillbillies are running around and most of the guys are bringing live animals to the ring.

 

I mean, look at Pat Patterson in 1979 WWF, to an extent he stands out a mile because he came to MSG, the land of the lumbering Gorilla men, with his working boots on. Transport 79 Patterson -- exactly the same wrestler -- and stick him in ROH in 2005. And he's going to stand out for completely different reasons. I'd argue he'd be great in any context because he's that good a worker -- which is why I champion guys like him and why I'm down on Dick the Bruiser or Chief Jay Strongbow or anyone else who was primarily over because of being in the right place at the right time with the right character. (I can hear Johnny screaming somewhere, but I stick by that)

 

By the same token, one goes into Hansen vs. Misawa with a set of expectations. What do you expect? Hansen basically to kick the shit out of Misawa for 10 minutes followed by Misawa coming back in some way. That's how you'd imagine it going down, but what we get is the human chess match. For me it confounds expections in a negative way. It's not the match I'd hope for. And even as the human chess match it's not the best example of one -- I mean that's the promotion that was home to The Destroyer and that saw Baba or Jumbo vs. every NWA champ from Dory Jr onwards. The bar is high for that, and for whatever reason they don't deliver there either.

 

Of course, I'm assuming in all of these cases that you aren't watching matches in a vacuum (which I know you're not for AJPW), but that affects things too. CM Punk vs. John Cena stripped of context just looks like any other typical WWE Main Event style match.

[El-P]

Here is my take:

 

Does promotional style matter? No.

 

Does setting matter? Immensely.

 

Yeah, pretty much. I always come back to Benoit vs Malenko from Hogg Wild 96. Part of me thinks that the same match happening in Korakuen Hall or ECW Arena (not that they are both equivalent) would get a much more postive appreciation from me. Then again, maybe not, as I really soured on those "classic" Malenko vs Guerrero matches from 95. But still, promotional style had nothing to do with it, setting and context had a lot to do with it. Another exemple is how NJ junior matches never translated in the Tokyo Dome, while they always got great reaction in the Sumo Hall. Again, setting plays a big part, but the promotional style is obviously the exact same in that case.

[Zenjo]

I think that the viewers appreciation of the match style in comparison to the promotions usual style is also a factor in this. People have mentioned the Hammer, so something like Valentine vs Garvin 1/21/90 was nothing like the usual WWF style from the era. Yet I'd consider it a superior style, so it's all good. On the other hand woe betide any outsider who came into 90's AJ and worked light, even if the fans enjoyed it.

[PhilTLL]

 

So does that mean we are overrating matches like the Valentine matches in 80s WWF? I personally feel that Misawa vs. Hansen is wrestled in a very intelligent way most of the time, it's just that the difference from the usual style can be seen as a negative.

I don't think so, but you have to be aware that the aura of Valentine is enhanced by him being mostly different from the norm in the environment. He's having those matches with Tito while elsewhere in the promotion the Hillbillies are running around and most of the guys are bringing live animals to the ring.

 

 

 

But also while Sarge and Sheik are making each other bleed for national supremacy and Savage is snapping necks over top ropes. (I know these are a year apart but, well, the Santana/Valentine feud ran for over a year.)

[ohtani's jacket]

Promotion style absolutely matters. In fact, I feel so hard line about it that I honestly believe guys do need to learn the WWE way of working. When Jericho and the Radicals first jumped from WCW, I thought we were finally going to see some great matches in the WWF and instead they were really disappointing. It took them a while to adapt.

[JerryvonKramer]

Imagine Jim Breaks in WWF in 1988. Let's say he works exactly the same way as he does in WoS, would he get over?

[ohtani's jacket]

No, he wouldn't. Jim Breaks working as Jim Breaks in the WWF sounds awful.

[KrisZ]

A perfect example is how WCW totally changed when Hogan came in working his WWF main events style then bringing in his cronies which was a total departure from the Flair era and the Sting era.

[Tim Cooke]

The Misawa vs. Stan Hansen matches from 92 are disappointing because they are worked as if it was Brisco vs. Baba from 1975. Granted, neither of them are as good on the mat as Brisco or Baba, but I think take those exact matches and transport them back 15 years and they would feel less disappointing. The incredibly action-packed style of AJPW in 92 is a factor in why those matches are disappointing. There's no way around it.

 

That's the funny thing. Come 1993, Hansen and Misawa finally have their legit good match (5/21) but still have a disappointing Carnival Final. Kobashi and Kawada get career best matches out of Hansen in 1993 (Kobashi twice). Hansen in singles matches from 1989 to 1992 was still finding his way in the new, younger, faster AJPW style. In tags, such as the 88 RWTL final night match against Revolution, he fits in like a glove but Hansen singles matches after Choshu comes in are very hit and miss until 1993.

[Migs]

To be great? Absolutely not.

 

To be one of the greatest WWE matches (for instance), maybe.

 

Flair vs Magnum seemed like a cheat on the AWA set because they worked the same match they would have worked anywhere else. Briscos vs Murdoch/Adonis feels sort of alien on the original WWF set too.

 

Ultimately, I think the answer is no, but it may feel like a bit of a cheat to be able to move out of the normal restraints. It sort of changes the "level of difficulty" score, which may or may not matter.

 

The WWF discussion was interesting, because a lot of matches got praised specifically for being different than standard WWF style. The Brisco-Murdoch/Adonis, Valentine-Garvin, Glamour Girls-Jumping Bomb Angels, and most egregiously Murdoch-Windham, which seemed to get praise primarily because it looked like it was wrestled in Tampa and not Philly. I find it disconcerting when people praise deviating from the norm only to argue that one style is superior to the other. Is it cool to enjoy a southern style that the WWF generally did not present in the mid-80s? Of course. But I do think it's an odd argument to say that a match worked in the southern style was "a good WWF match."

[goodhelmet]

But I do think it's an odd argument to say that a match worked in the southern style was "a good WWF match."

 

 

Would it be easier to say "it was a good match that happened to take place in a WWF ring"?

 

That's the way I look at it. I don't care what the promotion is but I do care about the style of wrestling. The promotion is just the conduit to release wrestling to the masses.

[stomperspc]

I thought about this thread while listening to Meltzer complain on the radio show this morning that there were “too many dives” at Rey de Reyes.

 

Any AAA show is going to have lots of dives. A major AAA show is going to have even more dives. That’s just the way it is. That’s the promotional style. You know – or should know – going into a AAA show that there are going to be a bunch of dives. Using that as a criticism of the matches/show feels hollow. If Dave wants to argue that the number of dives in AAA matches is an inherent flaw of the “AAA style”, then fine. Maybe that’s even what he actually meant, but how he said it came off as a specific criticism of this particular show rather than a criticism of the style worked in AAA in general.

 

I see it as a two-step evaluation. First, is the style of the promotion inherently flawed? If the answer is “yes”, the ceiling of any match worked in that style is limited. The next question is how was the match relative to other matches in that style? If it was a good match relative to its peers (even with the inherent stylistic flaws) than it is worthy of some level of praise. To go back to Meltzer’s point about AAA and the dives, perhaps he feels that “a lot of dives” is an inherent flaw to the current AAA style. That’s fine, but he should know that going in. The style worked in AAA is successful on some level because AAA is successful right now. Meltzer being down on the matches for "too many dives" without acknowledging that's the promotion's style (and it works for their fans) is pretty poor. Its like criticizing a WWE main event for having finishers traded at the end or a Dragon Gate match for having a lot of rope running. That's the style of the promotion and it might be a significant flaw, but don't blame the wrestlers for not going outside of their promotion's usual style.

His comments on Blue Demon Jr. vs. Villano IV were similar, although that was more of a lucha stylistic thing than a AAA stylistic thing. They worked that match straight up apuesta match style and they executed well. The fans threw money in the ring afterwards to show how much they liked it. Nonetheless, Meltzer just said it would have been the worse match on a WWE show. I don’t know if I agree with that, but even if that’s true that’s missing the point. Why is he docking a lucha match in AAA for being worked in a style that wouldn’t get over in WWE?

 

Anyway, I think that shows the importance of at least acknowledging promotion styles when evaluating matches. Where the discussion goes from there is probably more open ended but I think contextually at least, it is important to accept and mention that promotion styles do exist and do have an impact on how matches are worked.