The relation between execution and characters

[GOTNW]

I've brought this up in the "A " total is greater than the sum of his parts" wrestlers" thread but it is something that is worthy of discussing on its own. If Santito fucked up a dive that'd be sad because your want and expect Santo to hit beautiful breathtaking dives. He is the guy that does those. However, If Sabu fucks up a dive it's great because he's just a lunatic jumping around trying to kill himself. I realise for many execution is very important, and sometimes it is for me but not RINGS matches aren't a very big percentage of pro wrestling bouts. I think this is a Matt D talking point (and if it isn't it sounds like one anyway)-pro wrestling is about symbols to me. I'm not a good person to ask about a favourite or least favourite move. It all depends on the individual and how they use it. A Choshu lock up is a million times better and more interesting to me than a backyarder doing a Brainbuster on the grass. Yet a Brainbuster can still be used in one of the greatest spots in pro wrestling history in Hashimoto/Takada. I know many folks like to picks on Tenryu's execution, but I'm mostly glad the works the way he does. There are plenty of modern puro workers that do the moves he does and are much smoother in executing them yet I don't see anyone claiming Go Shiozaki is a better worker than Tenryu.

[Mad Dog]

Before they fucked him up, I loved Sheamus because of how he wrestled. He went out there and wrestled like you thought a soccer hooligan would in the ring.

[Laz]

The relation between character and execution is everything. If Roddy Piper, who was supposed to be a wild scrapper type, worked a scientific hold-for-hold style then he wouldn't have gotten over the way he did. He needed to throw those wild haymakers, to take the shortcuts, because he was supposed to be a slightly deranged street fighter. In relation to your Sabu mention, would RVD have gotten the "Whole Fucking Show" schtick as over as he did were he to not add superfluous twists and tumbles to his moves as a means of saying "I'm so good that I can good off and STILL beat you"?

[El-P]

Nah. RVD just sucked. And Kamala wasn't good because he was supposed to suck. This is the expressway to complte relativism. Although I'm tempted to use it to defend Sandman, who's supposed to be a bumbling drunk. But then again, when you watch closely, Sandman's execution of small things was actually good, so there's that.

 

Piper was supposed to be a wild scrapper, but his offense looked like shit, not like wild scrapping. So.

 

There's no such thing as good bad execution.

 

Plus, Sabu was fucking up some spots on purpose to the point it was like Flair's top rope failures. It gets obvious when you watch it chronologically, you can see him adding "failed" spots from time to time and repeating it the exact same way he did before (not to say he didn't actually blew spots, but that's another matter).

 

And if Tenryu actually had great looking powerbombs and enzuigiri, it would only make him better.

[Laz]

Of course it's relativism. The entire discussion is about execution and how it relates to character. Should Nick Bockwinkel have been a luchadore? Should Bruiser Brody have talked like a Shakespearean character?

[C.S.]

The perfect example for this thread would be the Stone Cold Stunner (Austin) vs. the Springboard Stunner (Cena).

 

Hell, STF (Chono) vs. STF (Cena) also applies.

 

Signature moves for Cena, but they look like shit in his hands and don't fit his character at all (IMO).

[Microstatistics]

Tenryu's execution fits his character perfectly for me. I just can't imagine him with smooth and perfectly executed offense. Honestly don't even think the offense is that sloppy, just rough around the edges which is a big distinction.

[GOTNW]

Loss has been talking a lot about flaws in the other thread and I'll just say/repeat I don't really see polished execution as an ideal. Katsuhiko Nakajima may have better kicking technique than Maeda but he can't convey the aura of danger Maeda does with his. And sure, you can go back to how they carried themselves, but at a certain point I think you need to bring up the fact that there is a need for failure in simulated struggle at its highest artistic level because of how inherent imperfection and botches are in humanity and real fights (thinking me injuring my fists when punching a kid in elementary school more than MMA and other controlled professional fighting).

[funkdoc]

Loss has been talking a lot about flaws in the other thread and I'll just say/repeat I don't really see polished execution as an ideal. Katsuhiko Nakajima may have better kicking technique than Maeda but he can't convey the aura of danger Maeda does with his. And sure, you can go back to how they carried themselves, but at a certain point I think you need to bring up the fact that there is a need for failure in simulated struggle at its highest artistic level because of how inherent imperfection and botches are in humanity and real fights (thinking me injuring my fists when punching a kid in elementary school more than MMA and other controlled professional fighting).

 

this is more or less where i'm at, but i'd like to take it a step further: i feel similarly about psychology. specifically, i don't see unfocused strategy as an inherent problem.

 

i've seen guys who make $10 million a year screw up the most basic principles of sports tactics, and don't understand why people assume pro wrestlers shouldn't make mistakes there. working the arm then switching to the back halfway through the match is perfectly reasonable in my eyes - plan A shouldn't always work!

[El-P]

Of course it's relativism. The entire discussion is about execution and how it relates to character. Should Nick Bockwinkel have been a luchadore? Should Bruiser Brody have talked like a Shakespearean character?

 

The fact Tenryu's execution of some moves is shit has nothing to do with his "character". It has everything to do with him not being very good at doing those moves and still doing it. And us brushing it off, and at points even getting fond of it because we like the guys and become used, even fond of, his shortcomings too, like we usually do with the loved ones.

 

"Character work" doesn't excuse shitty execution.

[ohtani's jacket]

I agree that Tenryu's execution problems are overstated. More often than not his execution is fine, it's just that his gaffes come at the most inopportune of times and stick out like a sore thumb. For that reason, people tend to remember them happening more often than they actually did. I'm talking about powerbomb botches here and not his general execution of the enzuigiri. He was such a great seller that he could cover for an ugly looking enzuigiri, but to claim it as "character work" is implying that it was intentional. You can rationalise it as Tenryu going for a move that he's not athletically capable of because he's Tenryu and there's no holding him back, and that's fine, but I think it's a clear example of giving the guy a free ride because you like him. You can learn to love the enzuigiri because it's Tenryu, and I'm sure everyone does similar things with workers they like, but Jerome is right that it's a double standard *provided* you adhere to that standard with other workers. If you don't care about execution in general and never hold anybody up for it then obviously there is no double standard.

[GOTNW]

I think I agree with funkdoc on surface level. Consistent strategy isn't necessarily better than inconsistent strategy. It's all about whether or not it's engaging. I do think that expecting absolute consistency out of pro wrestling psychology is unrealistic. Relative? Sure. But if you try to go down the rabbit hole of perfection and absolutism you'll end up discussing silly things like how people bump differently to set up certain moves.

[Matt D]

What matters most is the way they transition between chapters. The comparison to sport is the wrong path to go down though.

[Laz]

The comparison to sport is appropriate since pro wrestling is a scripted pantomime of sport. If the story of the match is "so-and-so had to change strategy," which is often the case for more technically-themed matches, then the comparison to sport is at play since "so-and-so" is portraying somebody that wants to win the match.

[Matt D]

If you can connect the dots and contrive that story from what you're watching, sure, but the dots have to be there. You can't just accept the dropping of one thing or another unless the match justifies it. It's not a get out of jail free card just because it exists in sport.

[MikeCampbell]

I'll never forget the first time I saw Jumbo and Tenryu against Brody and Hansen, and Tenryu actually got some distance on that back elbow off the top rope.

[Johnny Sorrow]

Wrestling is a scripted pantomime of an imaginary sport, So anything goes.

[Laz]

If you can connect the dots and contrive that story from what you're watching, sure, but the dots have to be there. You can't just accept the dropping of one thing or another unless the match justifies it. It's not a get out of jail free card just because it exists in sport.

The dots are inherent due to the nature of the medium. If a botched spot is just a botched spot then it deserves scorn, true, similar to how a bad play in a legitimate sport deserves scorn.

[Matt D]

Again, it goes back to transitions. Wrestling is a collaborative art form. Sport is a competition. Narratives are narratives sure, but it's a different world. The parallel isn't sport. It's a movie about sport or a well balanced fight scene in a genre novel (though that involves one person instead of two. Maybe a comic where you have both a writer and an artist working in tandem). There's a different level of control and cooperation and the ability to craft a story that's proactive and not just reactive.

 

I watched Butch Reed vs Dick Murdoch last night. The first 15 minutes or so are based on armwork. Murdoch sells well, even when he tries to regain some sense of offense. Reed is mostly focused. At the end of the 15 minutes, the time limit ends, and they agree to go on in the match. This leads to a break in the momentum, stalling, and Reed getting frustrated, shifting his gameplan, and going with haymakers instead. That allows Murdoch, who was knocked out of the ring, to recover his arm enough and engage in some rope running as, by this point, Reed just wants to get him. Out of that, he gets a quick cut off and starts on the leg. Now, later on, Reed goes back to the arm as a way of fighting back, which is one thing that brings the match to a next level, but if he never went back to the arm, it'd still be perfectly acceptable because of the way they transitioned out of it and gave Murdoch time to recover. There were enough dots to transition out of it while still respect what happened earlier in the match. Reed's shift in behavior (which is a word I'd use even more than gameplan or strategy) was believable to me and fit his character and the match and wasn't dissonant to the rest of the actions and consequences of those actions that surrounded it.

[Laz]

I'm not arguing the skill set of wrestling as an artform, but the inherent nature of it as a predetermined sport. It still requires a foot in the sport realm in order to tell a convincing story, and in that perspective something like trying an armlock after failed leg work makes sense.

[Matt D]

I'm not arguing the skill set of wrestling as an artform, but the inherent nature of it as a predetermined sport. It still requires a foot in the sport realm in order to tell a convincing story, and in that perspective something like trying an armlock after failed leg work makes sense.

 

It can make sense, if they make it make sense. It doesn't make sense in every situation without them doing the legwork (you know, "putting the work into it" not "working over the leg." Homograph. One of those wrestling terminology issues.). It could make sense, but then so could masked confusion or twin magic or poison mist or preternaturally hard heads. It doesn't inherently make sense on its own and shouldn't be naturally forgiven unless they actively make it work within the match.

[G. Badger]

I think the issue is that some wrestlers get lazy as they get popular OR some try to go for moves that they can't physically pull off but no one has the heart/guts to tell them.

 

With the guys mentioned above, I don't think anyone in the locker room is going to say to Tenryu, Maeda, Sabu etc., "hey man your big move looked like shit tonight." This is especially true if they are at the top of a promotion. From a business standpoint, I'm not going to pass up a big star just because a move or two looked awkward either.

 

So why do wrestlers with less than stellar execution make it big?

 

We as fans make those flubs or idiosyncrasies part of the character. I have consciously done it with Manami Toyota for instance. Or Marufuji is another one...attributing a gaff to his or her in-ring character OR out of the ring personality. All in all, we like these wrestlers. Their persona is so engaging and we can overlook or even incorporate their mistakes into who they are.

 

Hell, we do this in our day to day lives. Think about stuff a loved one says or does and how you may brush it off because of 'who' they are and what they mean to you...

[Loss]

 

Loss has been talking a lot about flaws in the other thread and I'll just say/repeat I don't really see polished execution as an ideal. Katsuhiko Nakajima may have better kicking technique than Maeda but he can't convey the aura of danger Maeda does with his. And sure, you can go back to how they carried themselves, but at a certain point I think you need to bring up the fact that there is a need for failure in simulated struggle at its highest artistic level because of how inherent imperfection and botches are in humanity and real fights (thinking me injuring my fists when punching a kid in elementary school more than MMA and other controlled professional fighting).

 

this is more or less where i'm at, but i'd like to take it a step further: i feel similarly about psychology. specifically, i don't see unfocused strategy as an inherent problem.

 

i've seen guys who make $10 million a year screw up the most basic principles of sports tactics, and don't understand why people assume pro wrestlers shouldn't make mistakes there. working the arm then switching to the back halfway through the match is perfectly reasonable in my eyes - plan A shouldn't always work!

 

 

When it comes to offense, I agree. When it comes to defense (selling), guys have to at least demonstrate being hurt by stuff that's theoretically supposed to hurt. Psychology is at its core more about connection than logic. It's just that traditionally, the way to form that connection and help people suspend disbelief was through crafting something logical and through selling, whether it was to silence the skeptic who said "those guys know how to fall" or to get people to emotionally invest in something that they know isn't real. When wrestlers really treat what they do as a set performance more than a series of improvisations and reactions based on gut feeling, that's fine, but when wrestling starts being presented that way within its own presentation ("we're going to steal the show!"), those connections are formed from a completely different sensibility than they have been historically. And I still struggle to find the art in it, even though I'm sure it's there.

[Matt D]

I like the word connection. I'd toss in symbolism and consequence in there somewhere.