Loss Posted January 5, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 I feel like the end point of that sort of checklist approach to reviewing wrestling is that the Highest Honor we can bestow upon a match is remembering to sell the leg. Like regardless of the emotional impact of the work or the visceral excitement level, none of that can come close to remembering to sell the leg. Of course, match structure should have some value and it's something important to me as well, but placing it above its ability to connect on a broader level is a tone deaf way to critique wrestling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted January 5, 2016 Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 I'm going to end up watching this damn match, right? Anyway, the issue with that is that it reverses the cognitive way things generally work. I don't watch a match with a checklist in hand. It's a much more internalized experience. Selling isn't about dogmatically following any sort of rules. It's about consequence, weight, and meaning. That's true for any match. In general, and this is really a separate but connected topic, at this point in my viewing life, I don't have a lot of regard for doing things that actually hurt as opposed to things that look like they hurt but actually don't. That's a handicap to a match being good to me. It's something for a match to overcome. I think wrestling should be about the collaborative illusion. I know I'm still in a minority on that though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted January 5, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 Consequence, weight and meaning are all important. At the same time, I think we can't allow our ideas of what good wrestling is to become religion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GOTNW Posted January 5, 2016 Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 I feel like the end point of that sort of checklist approach to reviewing wrestling is that the Highest Honor we can bestow upon a match is remembering to sell the leg. Like regardless of the emotional impact of the work or the visceral excitement level, none of that can come close to remembering to sell the leg. Of course, match structure should have some value and it's something important to me as well, but placing it above its ability to connect on a broader level is a tone deaf way to critique wrestling. This wasn't guys blowing off two minutes of legwork, it was them working a Dragon Gate version of Battlarts without the matwork. In something like Shibata's match with Naito from the G1 I argued Shibata gradually blowing off the legwork was something that made sense for what they were trying to (and did) accomplish. The legwork discussion is somehing that would be more fitting for the Okada-Tanahashi match. In general I would agree with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted January 5, 2016 Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 Consequence, weight and meaning are all important. At the same time, I think we can't allow our ideas of what good wrestling is to become religion. We come into every match we see with preconceived notions, and I have my analytical frameworks, absolutely, but it's still not something I lead with so much as something that proves true after the fact were you to classify the matches I think are good and the ones I think are not. That said, I still try to admit context. But I'm going to use the word effective or "correct" instead of good. "Utilizing selling in order to create a coherent and compelling narrative so that what is done has meaning" should be the bare minimum, the baseline. It's the starting point. I'm not so big into modern art either, though. I think part of this argument is tied to the difference between leading a crowd and letting a crowd lead the match too, which is something Austin talks a lot about (though maybe more on the small scale than the larger scale). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted January 5, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 Absolutely. There is a difference between a crowd predisposed to react to the personalities and a crowd that reacts because the workers are toying with ideas of what they want and using that to generate a specific, desired reaction. Sometimes, you get a crowd that reacts to the work in the ring *and* they are predisposed to react to the people involved. In most (but not all) cases, those are the matches we consider the classics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supremebve Posted January 5, 2016 Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 I tend to watch wrestling with an eye towards all of the things mentioned above, but I also try not to be married to any preconceived criteria of what is good and what isn't good. Sure I loved when Bret Hart would sell his opponent's leg work in a pay per view match the next night on Raw, but that is what made Bret special. Kawada's selling is the thing that makes him my favorite of the All Japan guys. I love those things, but I can also appreciate why the lack of selling worked in the Ishii vs. Shibata match. I really believe that it was a great match in its own context. You took the two guys on the roster who believe they are tougher than everyone. You have the context of the great(better) G1 match they had a couple years ago. Then you put them third from the top on the biggest show of the year. They could have tried to work a classic wrestling match, but I don't think we'd(OK, I'd)be talking about it if they did. They were put in a position where they most likely wouldn't be able to top the two top matches on the card by working it that way. What they could do is put on a match that was totally different than everything else on the card. Working the match the way they did put them in the position of putting on a match that I thought was as memorable as the top two matches, because they decided to do something different. If there was another match like this on the card it would have been overkill, but having one match that flies in the face of everything else once in a while is a good thing in my eyes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pol Posted January 5, 2016 Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 Ishii and Shibata worked the exact match their fans wanted them to work. Are there any Ishii and Shibata fans who want them to work a match based on selling and psychology? Both guys are capable of having great matches built around selling and psychology, so yeah. I find it a disappointing waste of talent that they're content to have this kind of match with each other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pol Posted January 5, 2016 Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 I feel like the end point of that sort of checklist approach to reviewing wrestling is that the Highest Honor we can bestow upon a match is remembering to sell the leg. Like regardless of the emotional impact of the work or the visceral excitement level, none of that can come close to remembering to sell the leg. Of course, match structure should have some value and it's something important to me as well, but placing it above its ability to connect on a broader level is a tone deaf way to critique wrestling. This is a great point very evocatively put. I like analysis as much as the next guy, and I'm not opposed to wrestling being a more intellectual than emotional exercise (shoot style often falls into that bucket for me), but I do feel that among those who are inclined to think in-depth about the bell-to-bell aspects of wrestling, a detached perspective in which structure is privileged and less tangible, more emotional factors are undervalued is common. I'm not sure if it even reflects upon how people actually respond to the matches so much as how we're inclined to discuss them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffey Posted January 5, 2016 Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 Ishii and Shibata worked the exact match their fans wanted them to work. Are there any Ishii and Shibata fans who want them to work a match based on selling and psychology? Both guys are capable of having great matches built around selling and psychology, so yeah. I find it a disappointing waste of talent that they're content to have this kind of match with each other. Let's not forget what two matches were following that match & what kind of match the people following them were having. It's a good thing to have different matches in a row. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GOTNW Posted January 5, 2016 Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 Shibata vs Ishii would have been totally different than those two matches even if they didn't do fifty 1 counts. Only way you can argue they needed to include that to differentiate themselves from the other matches is if you haven't watched enough of their work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supremebve Posted January 5, 2016 Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 Shibata vs Ishii would have been totally different than those two matches even if they didn't do fifty 1 counts. Only way you can argue they needed to include that to differentiate themselves from the other matches is if you haven't watched enough of their work. I'm not arguing that they needed to work that match to differentiate themselves, I'm arguing they decided to work that match differently. There is a difference. We all know they could have wrestled a traditional match, the fact that they decided that is not what they wanted to do is what made it work for me. The fun of the match is that we know they can do it the traditional way but decided to say, "I bet I'm tougher than you." They no sold the moves, not because they didn't hurt, they didn't sell them because they didn't want to show their opponent how much they hurt. They kicked out at 1, because they didn't want their opponent to feel like they had the upper hand. It was a decision to work a match that was a change of pace, that also fit perfectly with their characters. Their match could have been just as hard hitting and sold everything like it was killing them, but that isn't the story they wanted to tell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W2BTD Posted January 5, 2016 Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 OK, so the criticisms of Okada vs. Tanahashi are all valid, but none of them took me out of this match. This match could have been marginally better if Okada would have sold the leg work, but I think the bigger problem is Tanahashi working over his arm in the first place. I'm sure they discussed how they were going to work this match beforehand, and somehow they decided that Tanahashi is going to work over Okada's leg AND all of Okada's big comebacks are going to be built around dropkicks and top rope moves. Why not work over Okada's arm, so he doesn't have to ignore the leg work to work the match they put together? Okada's arm is vital to his finisher, and it would make sense that he had to hit multiple Rainmakers to put Tanahashi away. With all of that said, it didn't make me like this match any less. This is essentially a Game 7 between the '96 Bulls and the '86 Celtics. These two guys care more about beating the other, than anything else in the world. The IWGP Championship, being the ace of the company, and everything else is secondary to proving once and for all who is the better man. People claiming this is a forced epic don't understand context. This is not HHH vs. Undertaker after a month of buildup, this is the conclusion to an overarching story that has lasted years. Tanahashi and Okada have been fighting to see who will be the Ace of the company since 2012, and Okada finally wrestled the torch away from Tanahashi. As an individual match, this match is still pretty good. As the culmination of the story they've been telling, this was phenomenal. Both guys absolutely had to win this match, and they both wrestled like losing wasn't an option. Tanahashi's time as the Alpha dog had to end at some point, and Okada had to do everything in his power to take that spot. I loved this match flaws and all. Tanahashi worked the leg(s) because that's how he beat Okada last year. He destroyed Okada's legs until he could no longer stand. Tanahashi tried working the arm at Invasion Attack 2013, and that strategy failed. Going back to what worked best was part of the long term math to match psychology. Expanding on that, Tanahashi had been using the cloverleaf as a finish on recent tours. The cloverleaf spot during the match probably came off as filler spot to some, but it was a subtle part of the build and played into the leg theme of Tanahashi's victory the previous year. There was a lot of subtle stuff like that happening in the match, and right from the jump. I can see what people thought the first 15 were filler in a vacuum. If you've been immersed in the feud from day one, everything they did was contextual. The early part of the match with all of the counters and reversals told the story of both men needing new strategies, and was so important to the rest of the match. There really was a ton going on for the hardcores like myself who were emotionally invested in all of this. The final ten minutes were great for casuals dropping in. It had the epic big show main even feel. I thought it was the kind of match that worked well for everyone on at least some level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drew wardlaw Posted January 5, 2016 Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 Shibata vs Ishii would have been totally different than those two matches even if they didn't do fifty 1 counts. Only way you can argue they needed to include that to differentiate themselves from the other matches is if you haven't watched enough of their work. I'm not arguing that they needed to work that match to differentiate themselves, I'm arguing they decided to work that match differently. There is a difference. We all know they could have wrestled a traditional match, the fact that they decided that is not what they wanted to do is what made it work for me. The fun of the match is that we know they can do it the traditional way but decided to say, "I bet I'm tougher than you." They no sold the moves, not because they didn't hurt, they didn't sell them because they didn't want to show their opponent how much they hurt. They kicked out at 1, because they didn't want their opponent to feel like they had the upper hand. It was a decision to work a match that was a change of pace, that also fit perfectly with their characters. Their match could have been just as hard hitting and sold everything like it was killing them, but that isn't the story they wanted to tell. This is a good point. I think intent is what makes all the difference. The fact that Ishii and Shibata are good workers that know how how to sell and made a deliberate decision not to in order to tell a story is what makes it work for me and makes it artistic. Jackson Pollack, for instance, was a very good painter and could paint photorealistic portraits, but made an artistic decision to subvert that and splatter paint on canvas. If the two guys didn't know what they were doing and just hit each other, it really changes the match for me, and that becomes a different story they're trying to tell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childs Posted January 5, 2016 Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 But intent doesn't make it good. I agree it's important to understand what workers were going for and whether they achieved it. But then you still get to decide if you like what they achieved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drew wardlaw Posted January 5, 2016 Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 oh absolutely. I guess then it's a matter of semantics and objectivity vs subjectivity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exposer Posted January 5, 2016 Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 The war of subjectivity vs objectivity in wrestling viewing continues. I might write a play compiled of all the posts on this argument here over the years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted January 5, 2016 Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 The war of subjectivity vs objectivity in wrestling viewing continues. I might write a play compiled of all the posts on this argument here over the years. Just keep Chekhov's gun in mind so I don't have to pan it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parties Posted January 5, 2016 Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 "Let's go." "We can't." "Why not?" "We're waiting for Goto." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exposer Posted January 5, 2016 Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 The war of subjectivity vs objectivity in wrestling viewing continues. I might write a play compiled of all the posts on this argument here over the years. Just keep Chekhov's gun in mind so I don't have to pan it. That's a lot of posts to wade through in order to meet that standard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Posted January 5, 2016 Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 While climbing the stairs last week, my gran suddenly buckled upon suffering an agonising, debilitating pain in her knee that left her unable to climb the stairs without assistance, only able to make use of one of her legs. A couple of minutes later, she was walking around on the flat surface of the landing/bedroom floors as if nothing had happened, and, at almost 80-years old, even stood in the crane position with her bad knee to demonstrate that she was fine. Then she was unable to bend her knee again when heading back downstairs, but was again fine once she reached the living room. Although this incident 100% genuinely happened, my years of exposure to the art of professional wrestling left me utterly sickened to my stomach that the old bad couldn't be arsed to sell her leg. It's as if she had absolutely no regard for such conventions being the be-all and end-all of legitimate injuries, that somehow she instead chose to acquiesce to the notion that you can hurt a body part one moment but find it perfectly workable the next, and clearly that just won't do! It was easily the worst performance I've ever seen from an octogenarian caught in such circumstances, and I've seen some truly five-star classics in my time.I really liked the four-way, Shibata and Tanahashi matches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pol Posted January 6, 2016 Report Share Posted January 6, 2016 Wrestling should be held to a higher standard than reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Redman Posted January 6, 2016 Report Share Posted January 6, 2016 Yeah, that. Wrestling isn't a real fight. It's an artistic representation of one, with it's own internal logic and narrative norms. In wrestling, if something is supposed to have hurt, you have to demonstrate in some way that it hurt, or else there's no cue to the audience. Now there's not one way to sell and "selling by not selling" can absolutely be a valid storytelling choice, but when you get into "well but in real life your knee can pop in and out willy nilly or hurt for no reason so there's no need for wrestlers to sell within the consistent standards of selling in wrestling" ...you're entering onto a slippery slope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoe Posted January 6, 2016 Report Share Posted January 6, 2016 I rewatched the Shibata vs Ishii match and liked it better this time. The flaws are still their . Let me sit down while you kick me, ok my turn. A lot of your turn my turn. A lot of kick outs at 1. Both guys throwing Germans only to get 1 counts. The uneccesary head butts. They did a lot of choices I didn't like. Then it had drama. It was hard hitting. A lot of damn moments. The triangle spot. Overall the good outweighed the bad for me. Though to be honest they walked a close line to losing me. 3 3/4* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parties Posted January 6, 2016 Report Share Posted January 6, 2016 Wrestling should be held to a higher standard than reality. If this doesn't end up being my favorite post of 2016, then greatness lies ahead. 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.