[GWE] Scripting versus Psychology

[Scarlet-Left]

This is inspired by the passage in Bret Hart's book where he talks about his experience with Flair. Supposedly, Flair liked the old style of calling the action in the ring, whereas Hart liked to have things planned out ahead of time.

 

It then feeds into his match with Bulldog at Summer Slam which, if you listen to any of his lengthier shoots, Bret almost always brings up as "the only match where you see me calling spots" (or some such similar phrasing).

 

In my mind, that logically raises two different questions (and a third one, indirectly):

 

1. Do you consider crafting and scripting a match before hand to be more, or less, impressive than calling it in the ring?

 

2. Would it affect your rating of a worker if you knew that a lot of his better matches were called or scripted by another person (say, a road agent, or his opponent)? For example, I remember reading that Hunter had a lot of input on the second HBK/Razor ladder match.

 

3. If a tree falls and no one hears it, does it make a sound? (Meaning; how far would you be willing to go, if at all, with your suspicion that a certain worker's best matches were heavily choreographed by someone else?)

 

These questions may have come up in other threads, so I'm sorry if this is an unoriginal discussion. In fact, it would probably heavily intersect with any debate on workers who could be carried to good matches, but couldn't put them on autonomously.

[Childs]

I care about the wrestler's individual performance and the quality of the resulting match. How they got there before walking to the ring matters little to me.

 

I know it matters a lot to the wrestlers themselves, and it's interesting to hear them talk about it. But it's basically a fool's errand to try and figure out who deserves what portion of credit for the layout of a match.If a guy consistently wrestled well-constructed matches throughout his career, that's important. I just don't care if he did it because he was a planner or because he was an improvisational wizard.

[Scarlet-Left]

I care about the wrestler's individual performance and the quality of the resulting match. How they got there before walking to the ring matters little to me.

 

I know it matters a lot to the wrestlers themselves, and it's interesting to hear them talk about it. But it's basically a fool's errand to try and figure out who deserves what portion of credit for the layout of a match.If a guy consistently wrestled well-constructed matches throughout his career, that's important. I just don't care if he did it because he was a planner or because he was an improvisational wizard.

I largely agree, it's just interesting to think about. As per my third question, it's impossible to know certain details for sure. With a lot of guys, though, especially from the Eighties and later, there's usually enough footage to distinguish between guys who could be manipulated by a booker (or road agent) into a good match and guys who could get there by themselves.

[WingedEagle]

I'm not remotely interested in whether a match is called on the fly or laid out in advance. Can make for some interesting stories after the fact but it won't have any bearing on what I thought of the match or the participants.

[El McKell]

I echo WingedEagle's thoughts on this doesn't matter to me if someone does the Bret/Macho Man lay out the whole match before hand thing, they still knew how to put together a good match and were able to execute it.

 

? For example, I remember reading that Hunter had a lot of input on the first HBK/Razor ladder match..

Hunter didn't even work in WWF at the time of the first Razor/HBK ladder match.

[Loss]

As long as it's not overly transparent, either way is fine.

[Matt D]

The biggest questions, I suppose would be...

 

1.) If a wrestler doesn't go with a script, do his matches still have strong narratives?

 

2.) If a wrestler does go with a script, do his matches still feel organic and natural or are they overly contrived?

 

3.) In either case, is the wrestler able to adapt in the face of something unexpected happening?

[El McKell]

What if a wrestler goes with a script and his matches don't have strong narratives, what if they don't and the matches still feel inorganic and contrived (pretty sure this one doesn't happen often). Would that make those criticisms matter less in any way?

​What I'm trying to get at is, isn't what matters here simply whether or not the matches have these weaknesses or not and whether it's scripted or not doesn't make much difference other than the likeliness of certain problems.

[Loss]

Does anyone know if the WWF had a separate heel locker room in the 80s? I know everyone had the same entrance. I ask because it was mostly necessary to call matches on the fly at one time because of the fear that you'd be seen talking your match out ahead of time with your opponent. Oh no, suddenly everyone knows it's fake.

[stomperspc]

Like Childs, I only care if it impacts the end result.

 

Theoretically, planned out matches can come off more choreographed or robotic. If that were the case that would be a negative against the wrestler. If there are multiple examples of a wrestler being unable to adjust on the fly when needed and that negatively impacting his match quality then that is an issue. I am sure there are others. However, theoretically a wrestler could plan every last detail and that approach could have no material negative impact on his overall match quality. In that case, who cares? I would think this is something that would reveal itself over time. If a wrestler cannot or does not improvise when needed, there is a good chance their match quality will suffer. If by some chance it doesn’t, then great.

 

It is about the output not the input for me. I don’t watch matches for the thought process behind them. I watch for what actually happens and if that is good, I am good.

[Loss]

While I don't really have a preference, I will say that we learned in high school speech class that extemporaneous speaking is the best form of speaking because it's reactive to setting and seems more natural and from the heart.

[Scarlet-Left]

Hunter didn't even work in WWF at the time of the first Razor/HBK ladder match.

Yes, I got that wrong. It was the second one. Summer Slam '95.

[Migs]

While I don't really have a preference, I will say that we learned in high school speech class that extemporaneous speaking is the best form of speaking because it's reactive to setting and seems more natural and from the heart.

 

Generally true (and I was an extemporaneous speaker myself). But if someone can plan something and anticipate how it would be received and properly play those reactions, I'm not sure it should be looked at any less. Steamboat-Savage was of course famously planned meticulously, but the fans responded, and that's what matters.

[fxnj]

1. I see them as just different approaches to wrestling, though I'd also argue improvising is by nature inferior to planning in advance. I just don't see how it's possible to match the storytelling complexities of those AJPW epics without prior planning. For that reason, I have a rough time comparing shoot-style guys like Volk Han, who had loads of time to plan/practice matches, with old school territory guys, who had to come up with matches every night.

 

2. It definitely would affect my views on a guy as an overall worker if I found his best matches were planned by someone else. Famous example is Hogan/Warrior at Wrestlemania being laid out move-for-move by Patterson and their horrible Halloween Havoc rematch without Patterson. It's cool that they went out and nailed their performances the first time but there's a lot to be said about the importance of being able to come up with the best match for the current place and time without relying on outside help.

 

3. This question is a big reason why I have a much harder time ranking wrestlers than matches. Instinctively, I want to place a lot of stock in a wrestler's ability to lay out/call a match, but it's also something I'll never fully understand by the nature of the business.