WWE TV 07/22 - 07/28 RAW Reunion! Candice Michelle is back!!!

[Matt D]

2 hours ago, El-P said:

This is way overstated. This is acting like there was no criticism of spot-workers previous to the 00's, the DVDVR sets and the post-Benoit workrate guilt (yes, it happened). There was plenty of criticism of spotfests for the sake of spotfests already. Hell, guys like Eddie Carpentier and Antonino Rocca were probably considered like spot-monkeys in their days. The thing is, back then (the 80's and 90's I mean, since this is were our conversation is focusing about "smart fans"), wrestling was also marred by a shitload of guys who would do nothing or do spots but really, really poorly. But that never made anyone who would tons of cool shit a great worker, even back then. No one ever confused the Eliminators with the MX, although as crazy spot-artists, they could be fun (with the sloppiness that went with the time too).

This isn't the case today though, as pro-wrestlers are much better athletes and especially acrobats than they ever were before. So of course it gets even harder to simply discredit someone who's doing incredible stuff as a simple spot-monkey, because let's say 90% of pro-wrestlers today that aren't great and some not even good are just that, spot monkeys. Very seldom you'd see a guy who just suck at doing anything or spend his time lying down or lumbering around. Basically, most pro-wrestlers today do a lot of "movez" and have a high workrate anyway. Hell, Cody vs Dustin was a total high workrate match, really.

At the same time, by sheer pendulum effect, some guys who aren't doing much, or are doing less, or whose execution is not that great, are de facto overrated simply because of the fallacious "lol movez" arguments. I'm not gonna name names here, but how many time have I heard about this guy or that guys being "great at his role" when in fact he was a mediocre goof who simply had a decent gimmick or decent charisma or was doing some easy but efficient stuff.

Doing less doesn't automatically means you're great (see : Corbin, Baron). Doing more doesn't mean you're not great (see : Omega, Kenny).

Seth Rollins seems to be in the old "spot monkey" category, and it's not helped by the fact he never had any discernable character ever. He's Blitzkrieg. He's doing cool moves and some people love him for that, despite the fact 99% of pro-wrestlers today do cool moves, but he's also pushed at the top of the N#1 company in the world, which helps the perception a whole lot. Remember Blitzkrieg ? He was a total spot-monkey who was on fire for a few months on Nitro and Thunder in the cruiserweight division in 1999. And some of us panned him back them for being a "lol movez" guy too (we didn't use that term, of course), whereas Rey Mysterio, who was doing even more moves and executed them better, was rightly seen as a great worker, because he had a lot more than a repertoire of moves.

I think the "spot worker" designation should come back. Anyway, I'm just ranting.   

I disagree with 45% of this in 45% of situations. It's sort of hard to pin down though. 

Nothing automatically means anything.

Most of the internet still values workrate/execution over most other things. People who feel otherwise are a subsection of a subsection. I don't disagree with the notion that they might have already existed, especially that they existed along the lines you criticize. We've spent a decade here litigating and honing this, frankly. 

[El-P]

25 minutes ago, Matt D said:

I disagree with 45% of this in 45% of situations.

You could have said I agree with you on this more often that not on more than half the situations.  

25 minutes ago, Matt D said:

Most of the internet still values workrate/execution over most other things.

Seriously, what is "the internet" ? We're in 2019. "Internet fans" may have meant something twenty years ago. I was talking about how WWE cancelled the PPV on the French station that carried it for 20 years the other day. I checked a bit on forums to see the reactions. The people there, who are not "casual" WWE fans but clearly compose the hardcore French WWE fandom audience, would absolutely not care about "workrate" or "execution". They are the hardcore WWE fans. They are a community on the Internet. So again, when people are talking about "internet fans" or "smart fans" or even "smart marks" in 2019, it doesn't even mean anything anymore. It's like "movez", and "workrate" or "indy darling". Terms are used as shortcuts.

And I disagree about the idea that workrate/execution is what is most valued in general, because what has always been most valued in term of the canon that has been established by the niche of the niche was always, above workrate and execution although it was certainly present too, psychology. When people talked about Kawada vs Misawa, above everything, the psychology of the matches (rightfully or wrongfully), where what was put over above and beyond workrate and execution. Okada vs Omega, same thing.

But mostly every consensus great worker has the workrate/execution label anyway. Ric Flair, who had a terrific workrate (he was a total go-go-go style worker, just like Angle later) and execution, was also put over for his great (???) psychology. Jerry Lawler, that great storyteller of all time (???) certainly was not an immobile dolt and his matches were never borefest, and he had the *greatest punches ever* (execution, right there). Yoshiaki Fujiwara, the second biggest figure of the DVDVR "new" canon, was workraty as shit in term of shoot-style, and his execution was always incredible. So yeah, find me a boring-ass guy who didn't do shit, whose stuff looked like crap but had matches that "made sense" who ended up very high on our latest GOAT project. I don't think you'll find one. To me it makes perfect sense. 

[Matt D]

20 minutes ago, El-P said:

You could have said I agree with you on this more often that not on more than half the situations.  

I refuse to give you that satisfaction, friend.

20 minutes ago, El-P said:

Seriously, what is "the internet" ? We're in 2019. "Internet fans" may have meant something twenty years ago. I was talking about how WWE cancelled the PPV on the French station that carried it for 20 years the other day. I checked a bit on forums to see the reactions. The people there, who are not "casual" WWE fans but clearly compose the hardcore French WWE fandom audience, would absolutely not care about "workrate" or "execution". They are the hardcore WWE fans. They are a community on the Internet. So again, when people are talking about "internet fans" or "smart fans" or even "smart marks" in 2019, it doesn't even mean anything anymore. It's like "movez", and "workrate" or "indy darling". Terms are used as shortcuts.

And I disagree about the idea that workrate/execution is what is most valued in general, because what has always been most valued in term of the canon that has been established by the niche of the niche was always, above workrate and execution although it was certainly present too, psychology. When people talked about Kawada vs Misawa, above everything, the psychology of the matches (rightfully or wrongfully), where what was put over above and beyond workrate and execution. Okada vs Omega, same thing.

But mostly every consensus great worker has the workrate/execution label anyway. Ric Flair, who had a terrific workrate (he was a total go-go-go style worker, just like Angle later) and execution, was also put over for his great (???) psychology. Jerry Lawler, that great storyteller of all time (???) certainly was not an immobile dolt and his matches were never borefest, and he had the *greatest punches ever* (execution, right there). Yoshiaki Fujiwara, the second biggest figure of the DVDVR "new" canon, was workraty as shit in term of shoot-style, and his execution was always incredible. So yeah, find me a boring-ass guy who didn't do shit, whose stuff looked like crap but had matches that "made sense" who ended up very high on our latest GOAT project. I don't think you'll find one. To me it makes perfect sense. 

So, what I'm seeing here is that the issue is one of precision in changing times. Classification isn't necessarily just a shortcut, but it does have to be accurate. I think this actually speaks to how much I was willing to agree or disagree with you. Some of that was because you were talking in generalities with specifics that I couldn't speak to well, or that I wouldn't speak to well, but the generalities still struck a nerve, which could well say more about me than about you or your argument. 

I've argued in the past that everything is a tool and everything works on multiple levels. Execution for the sake of execution only gets you so far in creating an overall effect. The same is true as logic for the sake of logic or spots/moves for the sake of spots/moves. To me, logic is the thing that underpins everything, but you still have to be able to perform the story you're trying to tell in a way that creates the suspension of disbelief, willful or otherwise. Something looking poor (or on the other side of the nexus, excellent, but overly cooperative, for instance) can ruin the effect just as easily as something making no sense as part of a larger story or something not being sold enough and thus not being allowed to have weight and meaning relatively. 

When everyone's the internet, what's the internet anymore? I don't know. There are still communities, but maybe there's just more of them now and maybe they interface with one another more often. I am generally here and DVDVR and like I said, that feels like a subsection of a subsection (of a subsection?)

All that said, I do think that certain traits/tools were undervalued by people, and I do think certain aspects of certain wrestlers needed to be revisited accordingly.

I agree with you that we probably need more precision and even that it's something of a shortcut because it's hard to keep putting in the effort here and now. But I think dismissing arguments over semantic choices isn't the way to go about it either. 

[El-P]

22 minutes ago, Matt D said:

I've argued in the past that everything is a tool and everything works on multiple levels. Execution for the sake of execution only gets you so far in creating an overall effect.

I don't think you can have execution for the sake of execution. Whatever you do, you either execute it well or not. Pro-wrestler only do moves, because they are using their bodies. Yes, occasionally they scream at the ref, the crowd or the audience, but apart from that, they move. That's the only thing they do. Pro-wrestling is movez, basically. Now, you either do these moves, from running the ropes to throwing a punch to convulsing on the mat in a fashion that is accepted as looking good in the context of what pro-wrestling is (and that is, with regard to the different cultures, a modern lucha guy won't bump the same way as a joshi puroresu girl from the 80's) or looking bad. 

22 minutes ago, Matt D said:

The same is true as logic for the sake of logic or spots/moves for the sake of spots/moves. To me, logic is the thing that underpins everything, but you still have to be able to perform the story you're trying to tell in a way that creates the suspension of disbelief, willful or otherwise. Something looking poor (or on the other side of the nexus, excellent, but overly cooperative, for instance) can ruin the effect just as easily as something making no sense as part of a larger story or something not being sold enough and thus not being allowed to have weight and meaning relatively. 

The issue is, what kind of logic do you apply ? I think a lot of time, what we call "logic" is actually "personal expectations" based on our own biases of what a pro-wrestling match should be. One thing I was thinking about. Like I said, I really have no idea about Rollins work one way or another. But there's something that I see all the time : "Oh, he does that falcon arrow from the top and it doesn't mean anything." Ok. Understood. The question is : what does the falcon arrow from the top should mean ? Why should it be a finisher (if that's the issue) ? On what are we basing this criticism exactly ? I don't think anyone could actually give me an answer that is not based on a preconcieved notion of "damn, a falcon arrow from the top rope !!!!". And as an old Hayabusa fan, I totally understand the feeling ! Still, it's 2019. Ten years ago, the Canadian Destroyer was a death spot. And it was considered either super cool or goofy as shit. Now it's just a spot. An impressive spot, especially when done right, but it's just a spot. However, Okada, arguably the greatest wrestler of these last ten years (stay with me even if you disagree) wins all his matches with a short clothesline. It's an accepted fact. Sure, some bitch about his "lame offense, especially for Japan" (which is even funnier considering Okada's status in Japan), but mostly, the Rainmaker is an accepted finisher, while a falcon arrow from the top rope isn't. Until someone makes it and it will be. So again, where's the logic here ?

I'm not sure "logic" has anything to do with pro-wrestling, really. I mean, if we go "logic", Ric Flair was a terrible, terrible worker because the story he always told (more or less) was that he was the dumbest motherfucker ever. So, I'm not sure "logic" is always the way to go, or at least not in the physical acceptation of the term. There's nothing logic about the physics of pro-wrestling. Like I said, I've seen plenty matches that "made sense" that were okayish to good, whereas I've seen some crazy-ass spotfests where logic (in term of what a body can do/endure) was thrown away that I would call great matches without blinking. 

[Matt D]

48 minutes ago, El-P said:

I don't think you can have execution for the sake of execution. Whatever you do, you either execute it well or not. Pro-wrestler only do moves, because they are using their bodies. Yes, occasionally they scream at the ref, the crowd or the audience, but apart from that, they move. That's the only thing they do. Pro-wrestling is movez, basically. Now, you either do these moves, from running the ropes to throwing a punch to convulsing on the mat in a fashion that is accepted as looking good in the context of what pro-wrestling is (and that is, with regard to the different cultures, a modern lucha guy won't bump the same way as a joshi puroresu girl from the 80's) or looking bad. 

Oh, no way, not at all. There are reactions and reactions are everything. They're what gives the match an emotional weight. They are the investment in the match. They're interacting with the crowd. Now, they use their bodies (which is where we may hit a semantic logjam) to sell and sometimes people might call it good acting or bad acting or mugging or whatever else, but I don't think people put that in the same classification as execution. It's more along the lines of selling but then selling has almost always traditionally been used to indicate expressing the effect of something that has been done to you, not the acting/expressing emotions otherwise. 

48 minutes ago, El-P said:

The issue is, what kind of logic do you apply ? I think a lot of time, what we call "logic" is actually "personal expectations" based on our own biases of what a pro-wrestling match should be. One thing I was thinking about. Like I said, I really have no idea about Rollins work one way or another. But there's something that I see all the time : "Oh, he does that falcon arrow from the top and it doesn't mean anything." Ok. Understood. The question is : what does the falcon arrow from the top should mean ? Why should it be a finisher (if that's the issue) ? On what are we basing this criticism exactly ? I don't think anyone could actually give me an answer that is not based on a preconcieved notion of "damn, a falcon arrow from the top rope !!!!". And as an old Hayabusa fan, I totally understand the feeling ! Still, it's 2019. Ten years ago, the Canadian Destroyer was a death spot. And it was considered either super cool or goofy as shit. Now it's just a spot. An impressive spot, especially when done right, but it's just a spot. However, Okada, arguably the greatest wrestler of these last ten years (stay with me even if you disagree) wins all his matches with a short clothesline. It's an accepted fact. Sure, some bitch about his "lame offense, especially for Japan" (which is even funnier considering Okada's status in Japan), but mostly, the Rainmaker is an accepted finisher, while a falcon arrow from the top rope isn't. Until someone makes it and it will be. So again, where's the logic here ?

I'm not sure "logic" has anything to do with pro-wrestling, really. I mean, if we go "logic", Ric Flair was a terrible, terrible worker because the story he always told (more or less) was that he was the dumbest motherfucker ever. So, I'm not sure "logic" is always the way to go, or at least not in the physical acceptation of the term. There's nothing logic about the physics of pro-wrestling. Like I said, I've seen plenty matches that "made sense" that were okayish to good, whereas I've seen some crazy-ass spotfests where logic (in term of what a body can do/endure) was thrown away that I would call great matches without blinking. 

Norms matter. They exist in every genre. There are trappings in a western movie or a Philip Marlowe detective novel. We just watched the new season of Veronica Mars and there's absolutely norms that it follows there and sometimes that norms move away from the logic of our day to day reality but everything works within the logic of the world they're presenting and builds off both our biases and our previous experience. This is a good thing, not a bad thing, and there may be a great benefit of ignoring (or willfully inverting) a norm in the moment, but there's a cost in the long-run, and there's also potential benefits to utilizing the norms that they're leaving on the table. That's how I feel about a lot of modern tag team matches. They get to be more action-packed by not following the southern tag structure but then they jettison a lot of the heat/emotion they could have garnered otherwise.

The biases aren't a bad thing so long as we admit them.

Moreover, I probably wouldn't find some of those spotfests great even if you would. 

So past issues of semantics, we also have issues of subjectivity. I don't think we ever get to thread the needle. That's why we're still having this talk, but maybe the talk is worth having in the first place even now?

[SAMS]

Whether it's spot fests, brawls, technical matches, or a comedy match - I'm not sure intent, or selling, or execution or any one thing - is the definitive factor in determining its quality. 

When I watch a match, if what one, or all, of the participants do (moves, interacting with the crowd, stalling, stumbling, dives etc) makes logical sense to me, if it's something that if I were a wrestler (which I decidedly am not) I be happy to rewatch my work and see this, or even better, if its something that I couldn't of even thought of myself, then I'll think it's good. 

If you're doing the same old shit and I get bored to the point that in my head I'm thinking of all the better ways the match could have been laid out or executed, then I'm gonna be disappointed. 

It's all in the eye of the beholder and totally based on my own preconceived notions of quality. 

[El-P]

19 minutes ago, Matt D said:

Norms matter. They exist in every genre. There are trappings in a western movie or a Philip Marlowe detective novel. We just watched the new season of Veronica Mars and there's absolutely norms that it follows there and sometimes that norms move away from the logic of our day to day reality but everything works within the logic of the world they're presenting and builds off both our biases and our previous experience. This is a good thing, not a bad thing, and there may be a great benefit of ignoring (or willfully inverting) a norm in the moment, but there's a cost in the long-run, and there's also potential benefits to utilizing the norms that they're leaving on the table. That's how I feel about a lot of modern tag team matches. They get to be more action-packed by not following the southern tag structure but then they jettison a lot of the heat/emotion they could have garnered otherwise.

This is exactly what I talked about when I mentioned bias and expectations. Where is the written rule that says a pro-wrestling tag match should be worked like an 80's southern tag team match ? Why should it be that way ? The answer is simple : there isn't and there's no reason why it should. It's only because of what you project onto the match, your own internalized norm, that you judge modern action packed match as lacking something. Someone born and raised with the Lucha Brothers may think different. A japanese guy raised on 80's NJ will think otherwise. A mexican guy raised on CMLL will think otherwise. They only lack something because of what you project in it, your own internalized bias and norm. 

[El-P]

4 minutes ago, SAMS said:

When I watch a match, if what one, or all, of the participants do (moves, interacting with the crowd, stalling, stumbling, dives etc) makes logical sense to me, if it's something that if I were a wrestler (which I decidedly am not) I be happy to rewatch my work and see this, or even better, if its something that I couldn't of even thought of myself, then I'll think it's good.

There's something I realized when I watched Ishii's matches in the G1. Sometimes, he does stuff that aren't logical in term of no-selling this or that move for instance, but because of how he does it and when he chooses to do it, it *always* pops the match up to the next level of intensity and mind-fuckery for the audience, and that's why he's brillant. 

[El-P]

About norms, there's also this : norms change. Norm evolve. What used to be the norm isn't anymore. I thought about something recently. Like mostly every older fan I guess, I was annoyed by tight slapping. Those damn tight slaps noise in LU ! Every shot you hear that noise. Then I thought about when I was a young teenager, I was raised on guys stomping their feet while punching. Or kicking. Or headbutting. And I was annoyed by wrestlers who would not do it, to me it looked bad, because you did not have the stomping noise. When I would play pro-wrestler, I would of course stomp when throwing a punch. Now think about that for a second...

What is faker ? The noise of feet stomping on the mat when punching, or the noise of flesh (hand) slapping flesh (tight) ? Actually, the tight slapping is a much better, organic noise effect most of the time. Plus, I found it super cool when Owen Hart used to do it when he did his enzuigiri. At this point, I'm not annoyed anymore. Yeah, it's goofy, especially a bunch of different spots sound the same. But it's not more goofy than stomping your feet when you punch, or stomping your feet when you kick someone, which seemed perfectly acceptable to me for the longest time. As of now, I think it's safe to say that tight slapping is the norm in pro-wrestling for a bunch of moves (enzuigiris, front kicks, elbows, some punching). I'm pretty sure people raised on this find it absolutely the most logical way to work.

Ok, enough ranting.  

[Matt D]

45 minutes ago, El-P said:

This is exactly what I talked about when I mentioned bias and expectations. Where is the written rule that says a pro-wrestling tag match should be worked like an 80's southern tag team match ? Why should it be that way ? The answer is simple : there isn't and there's no reason why it should. It's only because of what you project onto the match, your own internalized norm, that you judge modern action packed match as lacking something. Someone born and raised with the Lucha Brothers may think different. A japanese guy raised on 80's NJ will think otherwise. A mexican guy raised on CMLL will think otherwise. They only lack something because of what you project in it, your own internalized bias and norm. 

And if you read at how I used it in my post, I didn't say that something was necessarily preferable for its own sake. Instead, I said that they weren't utilizing tools (norms) at their disposal that have been proven to have a certain effect. Do I have a bias here? Sure, my preference, admitted as it is, wasn't the issue at play.

[El-P]

10 minutes ago, Matt D said:

And if you read at how I used it in my post, I didn't say that something was necessarily preferable for its own sake. Instead, I said that they weren't utilizing tools (norms) at their disposal that have been proven to have a certain effect. Do I have a bias here? Sure, my preference, admitted as it is, wasn't the issue at play.

Understood. But why should they ? And you did say that "they jettison a lot of heat/emotion they could have garnered", so that is a judgement, and a negative one.

For instance, honestly, I think Bucks vs Cody & Dustin would have got a much better reaction at Fight for the Fallen is they had worked a more Bucks style match, especially at that point of the card after Omega vs Cima. The lack of heat (not that one) could be attributed partly to the fact they tried to work a more sold-school, deliberate style for a while.

[Matt D]

2 minutes ago, El-P said:

Understood. But why should they ? And you did say that "they jettison a lot of heat/emotion they could have garnered", so that is a judgement, and a negative one.

For instance, honestly, I think Bucks vs Cody & Dustin would have got a much better reaction at Fight for the Fallen is they had worked a more Bucks style match, especially at that point of the card after Omega vs Cima. The lack of heat (not that one) could be attributed partly to the fact they tried to work a more sold-school, deliberate style for a while.

Well yeah, but that's because they were wrestling in front a bunch of....

wait, I think I hit my limit for calm deliberation for the day. We were doing so well too. Let's revisit again tomorrow.

[El-P]

9 minutes ago, Matt D said:

Well yeah, but that's because they were wrestling in front a bunch of....

… people who don't share the same tastes as you ? "Bad" fans ? Come on now. Old-school pro-wrestling has been built on "listening to the audience". That's reaction, as you very rightly said earlier on. So, you should listen to the audience unless they like tight slapping and movez too much ? There are the "good" fans and the "bad" fans ? You're back straight into bias here.  

[Matt D]

Not listening to the audience, leading them. Subtle difference.

[NintendoLogic]

Leading them to what?

[El-P]

4 minutes ago, Matt D said:

Not listening to the audience, leading them. Subtle difference.

Actually, every old-school guy would talk about how pro-wrestling is listening to the audience and react accordingly. I've heard it countless times from guys like Funk, Cornette etc… As far as leading them, well, modern pro-wrestler do that very well. They simply don't lead them to the same places as the older guys did, I guess. Or maybe they do. That woman crying her eyes out last year at the G1 when Naito got fucked out of the final by losing to ZSJ, well, she got led.

[Migs]

On 7/30/2019 at 4:12 PM, El-P said:

Understood. But why should they ? And you did say that "they jettison a lot of heat/emotion they could have garnered", so that is a judgement, and a negative one.

For instance, honestly, I think Bucks vs Cody & Dustin would have got a much better reaction at Fight for the Fallen is they had worked a more Bucks style match, especially at that point of the card after Omega vs Cima. The lack of heat (not that one) could be attributed partly to the fact they tried to work a more sold-school, deliberate style for a while.

I think where that match got off the rails was the Cody and Dustin heat segment. The first heat segment worked really well because the Bucks, playing heel in the match, were slowing things down to play against their expectations. (And, to your larger point, the Bucks using southern tag team formula in that way is only an option because they don't use it all the time. If it's every match, there's no heat in it.)

[C.S.]

Accidentally posted this in the wrong thread.

See: 

 

(Yes, this is the second time this week I've done this, for those of you keeping score.)