Importance of movesets / escalation of violence

[supremebve]

 

 

I'm not sure it really matters what moves are 'big enough' to win a fall, so long as there is still a hierarchy. Complaining about specific moves not being viable finishes anymore always comes off more to me as clamouring for the wrestling of one's youth than anything else. What constitutes a viable finish has been escalating for at least 70 years, it's hardly a recent thing.

The issue isn't being stuck in the past as much as so many of the moves that are being used as transitions feel much more impactful than the finishers they are being replaced with. A regular old DDT looks much more vicious than the 300 different Complete Shot variations we see every week. Okada vs. Omega had a top rope dragon suplex, but ended with a short arm clothesline. The issue is that the hierarchy is completely out of whack when the moves that get the near falls are much more violent than the ones that get the pinfalls.

 

 

That's a good point, and I intuitively want to agree but at the same time, how violent was Hogan's leg drop or Warrior's splash compared to their other moves? The people's elbow certainly wasn't a killer impactful move, and arguably the rock bottom wasn't the most violent looking Rock move either.

 

Umm...Hogan's and Warrior's other moves were clotheslines, body slams, and the occasional atomic drop. The Rock Bottom looks like it would be pretty damned painful. The People's Elbow was...OK, you get that one. I get that not every finihser is going to look as devastating as a brainbuster, but we are getting to the point where the impact of moves is making everything beneath the finish less meaningful, while simultaneously making less impactful finishers less meaningful. The legdrop worked, because Hogan's opponent wasn't kicking out of multiple DDTs, German suplexes, and sit out powerbombs. I like Cena, but his matches are often bomb fests that end with an elevated fireman's carry. It isn't that the AA is a bad finisher, it is just not something that should finish his opponent after kicking out of 125 other big moves that are more impactful.

[dedhemingway]

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure it really matters what moves are 'big enough' to win a fall, so long as there is still a hierarchy. Complaining about specific moves not being viable finishes anymore always comes off more to me as clamouring for the wrestling of one's youth than anything else. What constitutes a viable finish has been escalating for at least 70 years, it's hardly a recent thing.

The issue isn't being stuck in the past as much as so many of the moves that are being used as transitions feel much more impactful than the finishers they are being replaced with. A regular old DDT looks much more vicious than the 300 different Complete Shot variations we see every week. Okada vs. Omega had a top rope dragon suplex, but ended with a short arm clothesline. The issue is that the hierarchy is completely out of whack when the moves that get the near falls are much more violent than the ones that get the pinfalls.

That's a good point, and I intuitively want to agree but at the same time, how violent was Hogan's leg drop or Warrior's splash compared to their other moves? The people's elbow certainly wasn't a killer impactful move, and arguably the rock bottom wasn't the most violent looking Rock move either.

Rock Bottom was the finisher, and I can totally believe it driving the air out of you long enough to get a 3. People's Elbow was, originally, a coup de grace, and could be used for nearfalls, but it kinda lost that feel later on.

[BrianB]

 

 

 

I'm not sure it really matters what moves are 'big enough' to win a fall, so long as there is still a hierarchy. Complaining about specific moves not being viable finishes anymore always comes off more to me as clamouring for the wrestling of one's youth than anything else. What constitutes a viable finish has been escalating for at least 70 years, it's hardly a recent thing.

The issue isn't being stuck in the past as much as so many of the moves that are being used as transitions feel much more impactful than the finishers they are being replaced with. A regular old DDT looks much more vicious than the 300 different Complete Shot variations we see every week. Okada vs. Omega had a top rope dragon suplex, but ended with a short arm clothesline. The issue is that the hierarchy is completely out of whack when the moves that get the near falls are much more violent than the ones that get the pinfalls.

 

 

That's a good point, and I intuitively want to agree but at the same time, how violent was Hogan's leg drop or Warrior's splash compared to their other moves? The people's elbow certainly wasn't a killer impactful move, and arguably the rock bottom wasn't the most violent looking Rock move either.

 

Umm...Hogan's and Warrior's other moves were clotheslines, body slams, and the occasional atomic drop. The Rock Bottom looks like it would be pretty damned painful. The People's Elbow was...OK, you get that one. I get that not every finihser is going to look as devastating as a brainbuster, but we are getting to the point where the impact of moves is making everything beneath the finish less meaningful, while simultaneously making less impactful finishers less meaningful. The legdrop worked, because Hogan's opponent wasn't kicking out of multiple DDTs, German suplexes, and sit out powerbombs. I like Cena, but his matches are often bomb fests that end with an elevated fireman's carry. It isn't that the AA is a bad finisher, it is just not something that should finish his opponent after kicking out of 125 other big moves that are more impactful.

 

 

That's true but even Hogan's back suplex or his axebomber looked like more impactful moves than the leg drop--though Hogan actually delivered the leg drop fairly well. I'll agree on the rock bottom.

 

From an artistic point of view, I agree. But I'm not convinced not violent enough finishers compared to the rest of someone's moves makes a big difference in terms of drawing money or as a big negative to more casual wrestling fans, which has to be considered if you're evaluating something's importance. I think the bigger problem may be that there's now such a formula and structure of moving through movesets to these matches--the Randy Orton RKO criticism is spot on--it's difficult to get crowds invested until after hitting a few trademark moves or the first finisher. The hierarchy criticism strikes me as more correct when I think about it. It's exacerbated and re-inforced by other current problems with the main product, like weak commentary for selling the matches and their psychology, and generally more emphasis on speed and guys getting their shit in and less on selling and targeted offense.

[JerryvonKramer]

I watched Mr Perfect vs a jobber earlier and the perfectplex just looked devastating.

 

Now it's a transitional move, not even a one count.

[GOTNW]

This really should go into the MIS sub.

 

To answer the question.....it depends on the style. The obvious answer is you can't just wrestle by spamming highspots because that negates the very purpose of a highspot. What constitutes a "big move" will change over time but if you can still execute a basic spot good enough and dedicate yourself to building it the crowd will absolutely buy into it. I mean honestly from a standpoint of earlier wrestling much of 80s wrestling is just spamming highspots anyway. I don't think it really matters whether you're talking about taking a back suplex or a top rope dragon suplex-once that process was set in motion there was no going back. Of course this is why having something like a point system where you lose points for being suplexed serves perfectly since it attaches a meaning and a consequence to the move done whatever may follow.

[BrianB]

This really should go into the MIS sub.

 

To answer the question.....it depends on the style. The obvious answer is you can't just wrestle by spamming highspots because that negates the very purpose of a highspot. What constitutes a "big move" will change over time but if you can still execute a basic spot good enough and dedicate yourself to building it the crowd will absolutely buy into it. I mean honestly from a standpoint of earlier wrestling much of 80s wrestling is just spamming highspots anyway. I don't think it really matters whether you're talking about taking a back suplex or a top rope dragon suplex-once that process was set in motion there was no going back. Of course this is why having something like a point system where you lose points for being suplexed serves perfectly since it attaches a meaning and a consequence to the move done whatever may follow.

 

Good points. Incidentally, your last sentence reminded me how much I loved Bobby Heenan's point system for scoring matches.

[sek69]

I work with someone whose partner did some training and indy wrestling in Southern California in the mid-2000s. When she found out I was a fan, we started chatting and she told me her partner said the secret to a good match was "lots of nearfalls".

 

This guy never did anything or went anywhere, but that way of thinking does seem to be widespread with those that did. Not that nearfalls can't add drama and excitement and unpredictability to a match, but the idea that their very existence will increase the "quality" of the match is a major disconnect for me.

 

If you need 3 nearfalls to make a good match today, you'll need 4 tomorrow and 5 next year -- where does it stop?

 

 

 

Steamboat-Savage from WM3 had about a million two counts in 1987 and is still considered a classic.

[Ricky Jackson]

 

 

I work with someone whose partner did some training and indy wrestling in Southern California in the mid-2000s. When she found out I was a fan, we started chatting and she told me her partner said the secret to a good match was "lots of nearfalls".

 

This guy never did anything or went anywhere, but that way of thinking does seem to be widespread with those that did. Not that nearfalls can't add drama and excitement and unpredictability to a match, but the idea that their very existence will increase the "quality" of the match is a major disconnect for me.

 

If you need 3 nearfalls to make a good match today, you'll need 4 tomorrow and 5 next year -- where does it stop?

 

 

Steamboat-Savage from WM3 had about a million two counts in 1987 and is still considered a classic.

Context matters for that match because it happened at a time when such a match layout was exceptional rather than the norm

[G. Badger]

How much does MMA play into this?

[supremebve]

How much does MMA play into this?

Can you clarify this question? I know MMA has affected how I personally watch wrestling, but I don't exactly know what you are asking specific to this conversation. I think the thing that MMA makes me look at sideways are wrestling submissions. Not so much moves like the sharpshooter or the figure four, but chokes and armbars aren't moves you can lay in for minutes at a time.

[overbooked]

How much does MMA play into this?

 

I think it helps with the notion that a fight can end at any time, and that you can execute a big move or submission at any time, rather than the traditional working a bodypart/wearing down an opponent narrative. So, there starts to be a little more justification psychology-wise for throwing big spots into a match at an earlier point. However, that loses its impact when it just becomes trading finishers and kick-outs, rather than having matches ending more quickly. I could live without escalation if more short matches were thrown in the mix, as there would be genuine uncertainty and drama around every fall and submission as it would be plausible for a match to not go 30+ minutes, but only go five, for instance.

[KawadaSmile]

Another example of fans being so conditioned on believing in the "false finish" formula was Brock vs Orton. It was exactly like overbooked mentioned, with a finish coming from out of nowhere.

 

While the result was exactly as planned - Brock would just beat Orton into a TKO - fans were left thinking "wtf was that, is this a shoot?". On rewatch it's easier to see that things transpired like originally intended, but the live reaction was much more of a flop, akin to the streak being broken, than this sense of drama and uncertainty.

[BrianB]

Another example of fans being so conditioned on believing in the "false finish" formula was Brock vs Orton. It was exactly like overbooked mentioned, with a finish coming from out of nowhere.

 

While the result was exactly as planned - Brock would just beat Orton into a TKO - fans were left thinking "wtf was that, is this a shoot?". On rewatch it's easier to see that things transpired like originally intended, but the live reaction was much more of a flop, akin to the streak being broken, than this sense of drama and uncertainty.

 

That was just a bad finish. I don't think it's an issue of the suddenness. Most people didn't react, was that shoot? They went--um....wow...bloody but that's it? Or wow....did they really just have Brock purposefully elbow the shit out of Orton's skull for a finish? All that build and hype, and that's the out of left field result? The fans didn't buy that as even a false finish, so when it was the real stoppage finish, it flopped. Most stoppage finishes flop honestly. Even Zayn and Owens back in NXT was mega-hot, and that was executed much better.

 

By contrast, Goldberg vs. Lesnar got over great. And they easily could've done something silly like Brock kicking out of the jackhammer. If anything going contrary to the false finish formula and long main events helped make it awesome, especially since that's goldberg when fans remember the best.