World's Worst Man Posted February 28, 2006 Report Share Posted February 28, 2006 I liked this thread over at DVDVR, mostly because I've been saying it for a while now, so I figured I'd bring that discussion here. I guess the gist is whether one watches wrestling and interprets every fine detail, giving a match credit accordingly, or if one watches the match and only gives credit for clear, intentional story-telling. I personally prefer the latter, because realistically, one could interpret every meaningless, random, filler spot or transition as some fine, intricate story, even though there's almost no chance that the wrestlers intended it to have such a meaning. The end result might be that literally almost any match could be claimed as a great piece of work, just based on obscure, dubious interpretations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
World's Worst Man Posted February 28, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2006 http://board.deathvalleydriver.com/index.p...showtopic=12020 There's the original thread so people know what I'm yammering on about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted February 28, 2006 Report Share Posted February 28, 2006 I think that people watching a match see a lot more than the wrestlers intend. The reactions to Angle-Taker over at DVDVR seem to back me up on that. Half the people there think it was some great display of wrestling, when all I saw was a bunch of people marking out over Taker putting in more than his usual half assed effort for a change. In all honesty, most of the time guys probably go out there with a finish and a general idea of how they're going to get there. When I hear people say so-and-so move is a callback to a match they had months ago, I laugh (unless it's part of the angle like Steamboat's throat injury). Someone over there made the point that most reviewers spend more time trying to get themselves over than what they're reviewing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Campbell Posted February 28, 2006 Report Share Posted February 28, 2006 Interpretation is a wonderful thing at times. One of my all time favorite movies is the original "Psycho". When I was a high school senior (it seems so much longer than five years ago ) I'd already seen it tons of times and loved it. But then our teacher pointed out many little subtle things that had previously gone unoticed by me. Did Hitchcock intend them to be there? Judging from what I've read about him, I'd bank on yes. But it's still a great movie, and I can just appreciate it a bit more. The same can hold true for wrestling. Some of the aspects may not be intended, but they're still there, and like everything else in the free world, they're open to interpretation. If Kurt Angle starts working over Bob Holly's arm, and Loss recalls how Angle broke that arm five years ago or however long ago it was, and it gets Loss into things a bit more, than Angle did his job at getting people into his match. Whether or not Angle intended to do that by referencing a five-year-old accident in the ring is really irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Campbell Posted February 28, 2006 Report Share Posted February 28, 2006 I think that people watching a match see a lot more than the wrestlers intend. The reactions to Angle-Taker over at DVDVR seem to back me up on that. Half the people there think it was some great display of wrestling, when all I saw was a bunch of people marking out over Taker putting in more than his usual half assed effort for a change. I saw pretty much the same thing, and then going into ultra-defensive mode when it's pointed out that it's more than his usual effort, but it's still not that great. Which leads to such hilarious comments that "Taker wasn't out there to sell his leg, he was there to get the crowd into his match." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
World's Worst Man Posted February 28, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2006 The same can hold true for wrestling. Some of the aspects may not be intended, but they're still there, and like everything else in the free world, they're open to interpretation. If Kurt Angle starts working over Bob Holly's arm, and Loss recalls how Angle broke that arm five years ago or however long ago it was, and it gets Loss into things a bit more, than Angle did his job at getting people into his match. Whether or not Angle intended to do that by referencing a five-year-old accident in the ring is really irrelevant.If it's played up that the arm work is important, then it's likely intended. If it's casual arm work with no fervor, it's likely to be coincidental. And who knows, maybe intention isn't the main thing to look at. Maybe it's simply doing a good job of telling the story. If Angle and Holly just casually work the arm sequences, with no level of desperation or intensity, it doesn't really matter if they intended to play off the past history. If they did intend it that way, they did a crummy job of getting it across, so it's not a positive anyway. If the arm work was intense and fervored, then it's a positive, and fairly likely that they wanted it to have that meaning. Of course, regardless of all that, it's still true that some people come to obscure and arbitrary conclusions about certain wrestling matches. One can find meaning in anything if they're actively looking for it. That doesn't mean it's really there though. And while people can come to those conclusions if they want, I'll come to the conclusion that their opinion isn't supportable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resident Evil Posted February 28, 2006 Report Share Posted February 28, 2006 Personally, I tend to comment on only things that I outright notice and believe that are there. How things affect me and how I think they affect the crowd. But still even if the intention is not there and it comes off exceptionally well than it still works. The intention is unimportant in this case; what happens and what comes across to the viewer is all important. This'd be the same thing as writing a book or something and getting lucky by having your story come out better than you ever intended. Or guessing on a school test and getting the answer correct. The end result and not the intention is what's all important. There've been some match matches where I wonder where everybody gets their crazy ideas from. There's one highly regarded 5 star ROH match in particular (Which I hate) where everybody says there's this clear, concise story. When I watch it, I don't see it and even if it is intended it doesn't matter because the story doesn't come off that obviously. There's no urgency or passion to it. As much as I love my AJPW there've been some matches there where I really found people to be reaching. So yeah, it happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Dog Posted February 28, 2006 Report Share Posted February 28, 2006 I take intent mostly. I know just from my writings how it works. I'll get e-mail from someone asking if there was a deeper social meaning to some comic I did and I'll have to e-mail back like a retard "I just thought it was funny." Like Pegasus said some people really reach though. It seems like some people try to out smark each other with certain matches. I've seen some pretty dull matches and that people go on and on about even to the point where I wonder if it's the right match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Cooke Posted February 28, 2006 Report Share Posted February 28, 2006 "There's one highly regarded 5 star ROH match in particular (Which I hate) where everybody says there's this clear, concise story." Is this Danielson/London? Kobashi/Joe? Just interested because I don't remember... Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resident Evil Posted February 28, 2006 Report Share Posted February 28, 2006 "There's one highly regarded 5 star ROH match in particular (Which I hate) where everybody says there's this clear, concise story." Is this Danielson/London? Kobashi/Joe? Just interested because I don't remember... Tim I think anybody who reads my posts a little bit knows I don't like dissing matches or harping on negatives too much. Sure, I'll do it once in awhile especially when I compare something but I feel too bad about dissing somebody's work. Joe vs Kobashi was pretty good. Danielson vs London 2 out of 3 falls I did not like but that's not the match I was talking about. I know you like it a lot Tim and I respect that. And to show I'm not ROH byist I must say I really enjoyed the rescent Low-Ki vs KENTA match and thought the crowd wasn't as bad as usual! And I really want to see the Danielson vs Noble tight fight. Spanky vs Noble was fun too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted February 28, 2006 Report Share Posted February 28, 2006 I think the ROH fanboys have lead the charge when it comes to "seeing more than there actually is". Not to knock someone for being a fan of a promotion, but I haven't seen such blind fanboy LUV for one group since the heyday of ECW, the only difference is Meltzer isn't under the spell this time like when he said Sabu was the best wrestler of 1994 (LOLZ!). It's especially amusing to see them get their feathers ruffled at TNA since they're starting to pull rank on ROH, causing all the fanboys to look down their noses. "Oh, TNA thinks they're big shots now"....uhh yeah...PPV, soon to be primetime TV, and they're about to start running houseshows. It's not WWE level but it's more than ROH does. It's a shame too, since I've liked most of the ROH I've seen, but their fanbase makes me long for the days of ECW Mutants claiming the Eliminators are the best tag team ever. What does this have to do with the topic? Well since a lot of the reviewers on the net tend to be ROH fans, I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot of TNA reviews where the product gets shit on mercilessly, all under the excuse of "well they want to be big time so I'm being harsher in my review". It works both ways, when someone has an axe to grind against a worker or a company, they either start to nitpick or just flat out make shit up in order to justify their opinons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resident Evil Posted February 28, 2006 Report Share Posted February 28, 2006 I take intent mostly. I know just from my writings how it works. I'll get e-mail from someone asking if there was a deeper social meaning to some comic I did and I'll have to e-mail back like a retard "I just thought it was funny." Like Pegasus said some people really reach though. It seems like some people try to out smark each other with certain matches. I've seen some pretty dull matches and that people go on and on about even to the point where I wonder if it's the right match. I know I see things in matches that others don't. Take the 11/18/95 WCWSN match for instance. I watched it and I thought it was absolutely brilliant in every single way possible. I've related my feelings about how that match works for me (and I believe at least some of the audience) and how it connected with me. Take in comparison now the debut match of Benoit against Eddie on Nitro. Great match where the story is perhaps clearer to more people on an overall basis. People go back and forth on which match is better from what I've seen. Some go with the Nitro bout. Some people at TOA go with Saturday Night. Some tape dealers go with WCWSN and so on and so on. There's gotta be a reason for that and the reason is (if we take out the notsgolia/byist and stuborness factor that people display with sports) this ---- The actions of Benoit and Eddie on one particular night connected with us more than their actions on another particular night. For these two matches, there will be always be people on both sides of the fence and that's because we see different things in our bouts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted February 28, 2006 Report Share Posted February 28, 2006 "There's one highly regarded 5 star ROH match in particular (Which I hate) where everybody says there's this clear, concise story." Is this Danielson/London? Kobashi/Joe? Just interested because I don't remember... Tim It was Punk-Joe II. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bravesfan Posted March 1, 2006 Report Share Posted March 1, 2006 I'd like to reiterate (as Alvarez and Meltzer have stated) that Angle and Taker went over their match for two weeks prior to the pay-per-view. When you take into account the desire of both workers to have their best match with the other - and in this specific case, it's true - I'd wager that the latter portion of the match was as intricate a match as the two could've dreamed of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted March 2, 2006 Report Share Posted March 2, 2006 And in all the excitement over Taker actually working, somehow "Taker's best match in years" turned into "MOYTC for 2006" on the net. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dangerous A Posted March 2, 2006 Report Share Posted March 2, 2006 I'd like to reiterate (as Alvarez and Meltzer have stated) that Angle and Taker went over their match for two weeks prior to the pay-per-view. When you take into account the desire of both workers to have their best match with the other - and in this specific case, it's true - I'd wager that the latter portion of the match was as intricate a match as the two could've dreamed of. Sort of funny how this went. In 2001, one of Taker's beefs with DDP (and a lot of WCW workers at the time) was that DDP laid out a lot of his matches. Taker went to the office and complained that DDP didn't know how to work, citing he needed to lay everything out and couldn't work with just a spot or two planned and the finish. Not that I mind that Taker actually planned things out with Angle before the match. If those are the kind of matches Taker is going to have, then I'd prefer for him to lay things out in advance until the end of his career. My take is, if it's a good match, who fucking cares if you laid every single move, hold for hold out, as long as you have a good match. Yeah, we respect guys who can work on the fly off of crowd reactions more than guys who plan every little thing out, but in the end, I just want a good match. Steamboat vs Savage from WM III was laid out quite a bit from Savage and Steamboat trying things for 3 months at house shows and using what worked and throwing out what didn't work. Then they put together a match that is still talked about today. The same thing with HBK/Razor Ladder match from WMX. If it works, then roll with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
World's Worst Man Posted March 2, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 2, 2006 ^ That's how some matches are better than the sum of the parts of the workers involved. It's also why I'm wary of giving guys credit for "neat story-telling sequences" when it's hard to know exactly who came up with what, or if that stuff was even called on the fly or planned in advance. But anyway, the fact that UT vs. Angle was heavily pre-planned doesn't take away from the match quality in my eyes. It just wasn't a match that proved UT or Angle are particular good in the ring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts