How important are historical context/signifigance and the broader storyline/promo when you rate/evaluate a match?

[Cap]

Apologies if this exists elsewhere, but the question has been percolating in my mind and some of the recent talk about the Last Battle of Atlanta (http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?/topic/35434-last-battle-of-atlanta/)and the importance of finishers (http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?/topic/35447-how-important-is-the-finish-in-giving-a-match-five-stars/) got me pondering it again this morning. I didn't want to bog down the Last Battle thread with this or turn the Finishers thread too far off track, so I thought this could use its own thread or at least a revisit given the big unearthing one of the holy grails and the conversation about evaluation coming from it. Ultimately, I have two questions:

 

How important is historical context and/or historical significance of a match to you when you are evaluating matches (whatever that looks like for you)? Can you separate a match's place in wrestling history from what happens in (and before and after) the match itself? Do you even try to do that?

 

and

 

How important is the story or the program or the storyline when you are evaluating matches? Do you judge or rate matches in a vaccuum or do you place an emphasis on the broader context? I assume obviously that depends on what we have access to, but when given the choice, how do you tend to think about?

 

 

I'll chime in later probably when I get a minute to flesh out my thoughts.

[JerryvonKramer]

I think this is a great topic and a different question from the infamous Do Standards Change thread, which made everyone such a big fan of Joe Lanza.

 

I think you have to take certain contextual things into consideration and accept them.

 

For example, in some contexts the piledriver is a transitional spot, in others it's the deadliest move that has ended careers and been banned.

 

You have to adjust expectations. If I watch stuff from the past decade or so, I adjust to the fact that the crowds are gonna be different and doing the chants and things. Doesn't mean I'll accept or love it, but it would be entirely unfair to go in expecting a different type of crowd. The workers have to wrestle under a different set of conditions, and you have to make certain allowances.

 

In the context of late 80s WWF, something like the typical Dibiase vs. Savage match or Galmour Girls vs. Jumping Bomb Angels are worked at a frantic pace, but those same matches in the context of AJPW wouldn't stand out in the same way.

 

This isn't about one being better than the other, it's just about recognising that within certain contexts things can seem more or less special.

 

I said it before: within the context of the 80s AJPW set where you're watching all-time classics back to back to back, a match like Choshu / Yatsu vs. Hansen / Dibiase would go completely missing. If that match had been on Summerslam 88 it would be thought of as one of the best matches in WWF history.

 

Context does matter, and there's virtually no way around that.

[Loss]

Important. There are matches that are great enough that watching cold is still an awesome experience, but that doesn't mean all matches have to fit that bill to be great.

[Cap]

Parv brings up a dimension of the question that I wasn't necessarily thinking about here, but certainly ponder a lot when I am watching, so i will touch on that first.

 

I agree pretty much to a tee here. I try to be very mindful of the time period, the expectations, the norms, and so on when I am evaluating a match. Sometimes that is harder than others which is why I like to watch a match or two at least in a given time period before I really start to think critically about it. It just helps put me back in that mode. That might honestly be why the second watch of Buzz/Rich was so much more rewarding for me. I have been watching a lot of CWC, NXT, and WWE almost exclusively the last few weeks (simply out of time restraints and convenience), so the shift a GCW blood bath was substantial. I feel the same every time I go to an 80s set, especially lucha. I need to watch a few matches to get my eyes and my brain back in mode of watching those matches to not just evaluate them for some meaningless star rating I may give, but also to just enjoy them to their fullest.

 

To sort of extend this, I haven't really found a style of wrestling yet I don't like. There are pretty big blind spots, but I really took to a lot of styles that I know others have trouble with (lucha and joshi most notably). Sure there are things that annoy me in different eras/styles, but usually that sets up a sort of hurdle that, when cleared so to speak, a match can really set itself apart. For example, I think Dragon's ability play the indy crowd and balance their expectations of pace and with good psychology is a huge feather in his cap. It makes his best indy matches really stand out to me. As a result, I - more often than not - analyze a match within its context. If I say something is "elite" or "5 stars" or whatever vocabulary I might be using I am saying it is up there as the epitome (for me) of great wrestling and great wrestling comes in a lot of different forms and can be judged by a lot of different standards.

 

The way I was thinking about context was really more a direct response to the Final Battle of Atlanta match, which really almost has a mythic status at this point. I feel like I get it extra points for being such a good match and having such an important place in wrestling history. I think not having it for so long makes it feel more important and it is hard for me to separate that from how I evaluate the match itself. There are some other examples where the historical significance of the match is hard for me to separate from the match itself. Steamboat/Savage from mania is a canonical match in not just the WWE world, but in the sort of history of American wrestling more broadly I think. I love that it was the best match on the biggest card, a match that represents what I like in wrestling that sort of outlived Hogan/Andre in some ways (certainly not all). The match itself though is something I always feel let down by. I hate the finish (for another topic perhaps), but I still like the match and think fondly of it. Punk/Cena at MITB is a match that feels like the product of a moment/story, and feels like it gets sort of mythologized a bit too and that is hard for me to separate from the match. For me, there are matches that just have a "place" in wresting history. They resonate either with the popular audience or the online community or both and that can affect how I evaluate the match and it can be positive or negative. I try to demarcate that, but sometimes it seems impossible.

 

I think the second question is easier. I think storyline can add a lot to a match. Idol/Lawler cage match is the perfect example. That is a match I like better because of the story being told more broadly. For me, Eddie/JBL (Judgement Day) is maybe the best example. I think that match in a vaccuum might just feel like a blood bath, but in the context of the story they are trying to tell, a story that appropriates much of Eddie's real story and the emotional investment people have in his career success, makes that match other worldly to me. I feel like this has been beat to death in some cases, but I only brought it up because I don't think you can detach it from the first question about historical position. The Punk/Cena match is somewhat iconic because of the storyline more than the match, for example.

 

Finally, I completely agree with Loss. Matches that you can pluck out of their context and still be in awe of are special in some ways. Again, it isn't the only way to achieve greatness, but its a unique and somewhat rare quality.

[BrianB]

Historical significance? I'll consider it if I know it. I tend to look at that, but it's got limits in terms of impacting how I'll think about the match on some star rating scale. Piper-Hogan's PPV matches in WCW in 1996 and 1997 might be historically significant because of the numbers they drew for those shows, the whole context of the Hogan-Piper feud from the 80s that was monumental for the wrestling business but never had a decisive finish, etc. But....that's not going to work me into a shoot of awarding any of those matches 3 stars (or probably even 2). Same with Hogan and Andre, which you mentioned.

Let's take some other examples: how does significance of knowing that Hogan-Warrior WM6 didn't result fullly pass the torch ,and that Hogan would be back at WM7 in the main event without Warrior impact assessing the match to me? Not much, if we're just talking star ratings. I understand it differently. And that's important to me from a historical and fan perspective, but it's attenuated enough to be a separate factor from evaluating the match. Similarly, Bret and Austin at WM13, while a poor business show by WM standards and an on-off feud, is a pivotal match in the arc of Steve Austin vs. the Hart Foundation and Steve Austin becoming one of the biggest stars in wrestling history. So it adds some resonance to the greatness of the match, and maybe boosts it a bit? It's hard to say, since I grew up watching that period so that might cloud my assessment.

IMO, there's a delicate balance between considering historical significance and the bigger storylines when you look at a match and venturing too far into hindsight bias, imo. For instance, I think Goldberg vs. Nash at Starrcade 1998 is fine to good as a match. But it's historical significance and bad storytelling with the terrible follow-up and the fingerpoke of doom afterwards is partly why it's hated. IMO, that's sort of sloppy analysis clouded by hindsight.

Personally, as a viewer, my preference is for matches that stand out as great singular viewing experiences, where maybe if you got the functional equivalent to good, quick promo package hyping the match for contextualizing the match and/or the program, you'd be able to appreciate at least 90% of it. I'm usually interested to hear about crazy backstage stuff that might play into it, or some extra biographical or past programs, styles, etc. that it builds on, but at a certain point, imo, it's like a film or a book. Is the text/match good, effective, interesting, and sturdy enough as a work to sustain being elevated by those additional or other ways of looking at it? (Other ways being context, subtext, and inter-text.)

This may be getting sidetracked a bit, but I think looking more at the product itself to evaluate it makes the most sense because wrestling is a form of mass entertainment and is more or less a traveling carnival show. It's not something like a Faulkner novel where it's more defensible to justify as a critic to call the novel as a classic because of various deep interpretative layers, even if the characters, their interpersonal dynamic, the plot, and page to page readability (I guess that's a word?) is a slog. Digesting and mulling over a match, how its worked, how it builds is awesome. But I'm less likely to suddenly consider a match I thought sucked a 4.5-5 star classic, unless I was just really young or completely uneducated and with the wrong expectations, than I am to completely 180 on a novel or, to a lesser extent, a movie.

I guess my ultimate answer to your question is that I consider storylines and promos to help me understand the context of the match and program that can sway my rating some, not a ton by themselves but some. And historical significance can color or change my rating slightly, but less than storylines and promos when looking at afterwards, although it could have an indirect impact since lots of historically significant matches and programs are ones where the crowds go absolutely mental and crowd participation can really elevate a match.

[Cap]

Point taken. I think we are pretty close to on the same page. I am not talking about drastic changes. Shitty matches are shitty matches. I am talking about taking a match from good to great or from great to elite. I hate to harp on the Buzz/Tommy match, but that is what is really inspiring a lot of this in my mind. I don't hold a ton of stock in star ratings and comparing two people's star ratings, but as a thought exercise, I'll flesh it out a second. I really like the match, but I like it even more because of its place in wrestling history. I love it and part of my love for it is that it was kept from us for so long. We are talking the difference in my own little ratings of 1/4 star MAYBE 1/2 star in extreme situations. Again, insignificant, but it reflects how in certain cases I have trouble uncoupling the match and its context, its history, and in some cases my own emotional attachment to it. I am not talking about drastic changes, more nuanced rises and falls in my evaluation.

[victory]

I think it matters to know what happened before if you are watching an important match of a feud. If it's just a one off its not going to make a difference. There are always exceptions of course.

 

I personally always keep in the back of mind the timeframe and compare it to other stuff from that time period only. That's why I always hate the saying "the match doesn't hold up". I'm guilty of it too, I just try to refrain from it.

[Cap]

Yeah, that phrase bothers me sometimes and I am also guilty. I tend to use it to refer to the sort of timeless stuff that I look for in a match (emotional investment, narrative coherence), but there does always feel like there is a weird connotation when something "doesn't hold up".

[Loss]

Sometimes, it's okay that something doesn't hold up. When I say it, I definitely don't mean it as an insult. It just means you had to be there. It's kind of a neutral statement.

[Childs]

I don't know that I give a match extra points for being famous. I'm sure I have at times. What I care about a lot is how well it pays off whatever led up to it or how well it sets up whatever is coming next. In that sense, context is immensely important. I've enjoyed plenty of matches without really grasping their context. But those are rarely the richest viewing experiences.

[Cap]

Sometimes, it's okay that something doesn't hold up. When I say it, I definitely don't mean it as an insult. It just means you had to be there. It's kind of a neutral statement.

A good point. I tend to mean it as sort of a sideways negative, that the match doesn't have sort of staying power. Though, like every evaluation it says as much (more) about me as a fan/viewer than it really does about the match. That sort of "you had to be there" evaluation is exceedingly important in wrestling because the VAST majority of wrestling ever has been performed for the moment, not for the sort of archival viewing paradigm that I think we (internet fans, hardcore vans, etc) tend to intuitively reference and operate within.