JerryvonKramer Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 Geothe once said, "Only in limitation does the master reveal himself". On a recent show we recorded, I became interested in the distinction in wrestling between limitation and minimalism. How does one make this distinction? What makes one wrestler "limited" and another "minimalist"? Are these not two sides of the same coin? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shining Wiz Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 Limited is usually a euphemism for 'does some stuff ok, but not much'. Minimalist generally means 'could probably do other stuff great, but keeps it simple' or 'knows what he does well, and sticks to it". Someone like Davey Richards is limited in that all he really has going for him is athleticism. Not much charisma, not a lot in terms of the mental sides of wrestling. Someone like Goldust is a minimalist. He doesn't have a lot of movez in every match, but makes what he does mean something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strand Peanut Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 I'm not sure minimalism really fits in pro wrestling. It's an over the top form. You don't hear about minimalist acting. Are you speaking about a levels of craft within pro wrestling ? Or is this a secret Big Daddy appreciation thread? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goodear Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 I think absolutely minimalism plays a part in successful execution of the professional wrestling with the most obvious example being Hulk Hogan during his WWF World Title run who cut back basically anything that wasn't going to get the most reaction-for-the-buck because he didn't have to go all out for his audience. This is emphasized by how he would change it up when he would go to Japan and start busting out different stuff because he felt the audience there wouldn't be as receptive. You can also point to guys like Mick Foley who dumbed things way down from taking crazy risks and got more over with a sock puppet than he ever did doing sunset flips to the concrete. I think minimalism would help a great deal of talents and organizations who burn out crowds and continually raise the bar until a top rope springboard tombstone piledriver into a double superkick into a Styles Clash is the only thing that gets a reaction. It also keeps your roster healthier in the short term and emphasizes storytelling over popcorn munching explosions to the extreme. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 A limited worker has limitations and probably doesn't know what they are. As such they are given to excess and/or mediocrity. A minimalist worker has limitations (as all do) but knows how to make those limitations a net strength. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strand Peanut Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 Hogan isn't a minimalist. With those big expressions and hand motions? Is Andre limited or a minimalist at the end of his career? Minimalism isn't the word here. I understand that this is within the context of wrestling, but "limited" vs "minimalism" isn't a proper debate. One is mechanical, the other is stylistic. I suspect the debate is being framed this way for a particular answer. But maybe not! What prompted these thoughts? A particular wrestler or match? Not everyone listens to the audio shows.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 Being limited is something you are born with Being a minimalist is a choice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goodear Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 I don't know that I would agree with your take there Dylan. I would suggest minimalism implies some sort of decision on the actor's part as opposed to limitation where no other choice is possible. I'm thinking primarily of guys like later years immobile Andre who wouldn't be able to do more even if they really wanted to. Will beat me to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 Fair enough. But I reject the notion that a minimalist is someone who could do more but chooses not to. I think in many cases they are people who CAN'T do more, but understand this and work it to their advantage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 Jerry Lawler... minimalist Lawler can do stuff from the top rope. He chooses not to. Lawler could work the mat. He chooses not to. Mark Henry.... Limited. This isn't a matter of ability or quality. Being aware of your limits and choosing to work smart make guys better wrestlers. I don't want to see Mark Henry trying to do topes (actually I do). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strand Peanut Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 A minimalist wrestler is closest to a NJPW young lion. Absolute basics. Even then, it's a stretch. This aesthetic is being forced on them. And they are expected to grow out of it. Minimalism has little place in wrestling. Wrestling is a reactive art form, where the basics and fundamentals of in-ring action are malleable over time and promotion. How can you break something down to it's most bare elements, when those elements are in flux? Working a pro wrestling match with out a lot of variety of moves does not make someone a minimalist. Working like Lou Thesz did, doesn't make you a minimalist. Thesz wasn't a minimalist. The word is obfuscating. A dis service to smart workers and minimalist art thought, both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 I don't think it is. A minimalist uses the bare essentials. Jerry Lawler uses the bare essentials in telling his story. It doesn't mean his matches lack thought, intrigue or drama. It means he strips wrestling down to the bare essentials and is quite effective as the best minimalist artists are effective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.S. Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 I'd argue that Hogan is a minimalist. We've seen him bust out a more athletic style in Japan. In the States, he does only what he absolutely has to and gets a monster reaction for it. Scott Hall would also qualify, and he's done several interviews stating as much. Ditto for Jake Roberts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strand Peanut Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 Stripping pro wrestling down to it's basic essentials? What are those? This isn't painting, or architecture. The form is broad based, purposefully. There is a sub version of self involved in minimalism that runs opposite of wrestling's core. Countless nameless expressionless armbars. I'm all for getting the avant into pro wrestling, but no one who's being discussed is a minimalist. If they're using less moves. Just say so. The word doesn't apply. It's pretty much what wrestling as we know it.. is not. Kikutaro is the only one I can think of who may have even broached the issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted March 29, 2015 Report Share Posted March 29, 2015 I want to make a chart with four quadrants on Monday. Someone hold me to it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohtani's jacket Posted March 29, 2015 Report Share Posted March 29, 2015 Jerry Lawler having dramatic, bloody bouts in the Mid-South Coliseum isn't really my idea of minimalism. The empty arena match was post modern, though. My idea of minimalism would be Ikeda vs. Ishikawa in front of a tiny audience, a lucha indy handheld or that Thatcher match where there were only a handful of people watching as though it were a sparing session. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DR Ackermann Posted March 29, 2015 Report Share Posted March 29, 2015 A minimalist does the most with the least amount. That means they make the most out of a small range of "stuff." When I read the word minimalist I immediately thought of Lawler. THE basic element of wrestling is drama which boils down to good vs evil and competition, and Lawler gets to that in his matches and his character, engaging people by making the most out of the least. He always wrestles to fit the match. There may be excess but not in the sense of doibg things that are unnecessary. If Lawler bumps big he makes it mean something. If he does anything it is for effect. Lawler drops the strap and every punch he throws is echoed by the crowd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DR Ackermann Posted March 29, 2015 Report Share Posted March 29, 2015 He doesn't do a lot but he makes it all mean something and fit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohtani's jacket Posted March 29, 2015 Report Share Posted March 29, 2015 If Lawler were a minimalist, as silly as that notion is in wrestling, he wouldn't pare a match down to its most dramatic elements. The only thing that really comes close in wrestling is early UWF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WingedEagle Posted March 29, 2015 Report Share Posted March 29, 2015 Lawler is absolutely the first name that came to mind when thinking of a wrestling minimalist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strand Peanut Posted March 29, 2015 Report Share Posted March 29, 2015 Jerry Lawler having dramatic, bloody bouts in the Mid-South Coliseum isn't really my idea of minimalism. The empty arena match was post modern, though. My idea of minimalism would be Ikeda vs. Ishikawa in front of a tiny audience, a lucha indy handheld or that Thatcher match where there were only a handful of people watching as though it were a sparing session. BattleARTS gym matches also spring to mind. I'm guessing Japan is the only place that comes close to having elements of what's being discussed. Even then, it'd be a stretch to call it minimalism. Like a Beckett play as minimalist theatre. You can give it a go, but it's not really so cut and dry. You have to deal with the audience part.. I've heard and read people making the case that anything "shoot style" isn't even pro wrestling. I'm not making that case. It's not one that's made much anymore, that oxygen went to MMA. But, I do think it's illustrative for this discussion. As in, the closer you move to minimalism, the more the form is questioned. Minimalism is not doing more with less. Full stop. It is doing less. It is deconstruction far past what wrestling will reasonably allow. Empty Arena matches are fascinating to me in this light. How few there are, and how few actually worked. The Saito - Inoki Island Death Match anyone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dawho5 Posted March 29, 2015 Report Share Posted March 29, 2015 I get the idea that wresting is not a minimalist art, but at the same time I understand what people mean when they use the term to describe a wrestler or a match that way. Is there a better way of describing a less-is-more approach to wrestling than minimalist? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strand Peanut Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 I agree with you. I understand, in a way, what the other posts are getting at. Use less to mean more. But that's not minimalism. And using that word is pretensious. And deeply mis-applied. It's an affront. This may seem semantical. Or esoteric. But to pose this question seriously, is to be taken not seriously at all.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strand Peanut Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 If people are interested in the less is more approach.. Google, there's lots of discussion on this in the history of wrestling. From Buddy to Hulk. What helps make a grand figure? Why do some of the legendary figures of the sport do very little? Interesting topics.. For thoughts on what may or may not constitute minimalist wrestling.. Yohe, in front of an old microfilm machine. Smiling over a new result. (utmost respect to Yohe, I'd hope no one thinks that is a dig.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 Obviously, this doesn't cover everything, because there's Mark Henry's physical ability and then there's Evan Bourne's physical ability. There's charisma which would go under Pro Wrestling Understanding but then there's a sort of physical charisma that might go under ability. Then there's the difference between understanding something and using that understanding to create good matches. Michaels is an example of someone who would use his understanding of pro wrestling to make himself look good at the expense of a match, sometimes. I think that there's still some utility in this though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.