MOVES!

[Loss]

Simple question. This always comes up as a sidebar topic when discussing wrestlers, but I think it's a worthwhile topic in itself.

 

Is too much emphasis placed on MOVES by most Internet wrestling fans?

 

Discuss.

[Bix]

Yes, and people responding to those who break out the "MOVES!" talking point often miss the point, thinking they mean all big moves are bad when they really mean that it's not ALL about moves.

[jdw]

Both sides are assholes about it.

 

Bix's point is vaild.

 

But the people he refers to as the "really mean that it's not ALL about moves" crowd miss the point that a lot of people who talk about moves *also* think "it's not ALL about moves".

 

Frank gets tagged as a Moves Mark, and has admitted over the years that he had/has a fondness for moves (thought not really for flying or newer highend Kanyonesque spot-fu moves-o-the-month). But to tag him as purly a Moves Mark, or one who only judges matches on moves, tends to miss the boat that he's talked about face-in-peril, payback spots, structure, stooging, heeling, comedy spots, etc. over the years as much as he's talking about moves.

 

Frank's an asshole, obviously... like most of the rest of us in various ways. But pigeon holing him as a Moves Mark tends misses that there's more there.

 

 

John

[Childs]

I get irritated when I read gushing reviews of a match and it turns out to be nothing but spot after spot after spot to the point where it's numbing. I often have this experience with Briscoes matches in ROH and also felt that way about KENTA/Ishimori v. Marufuji/Ibusha from 7/15/07. I enjoy the eye candy for awhile but I lose interest and can't understand why people consider these MOTYCs. It would be like Transformers winning best picture.

 

Anyway, others overreact to that type of irritation by fetishizing guys who work gripping matches around simple move sets. Lawler seems to be the most cited example.

 

I guess I fall in the middle. I'd rather watch a high-end Lawler match than most Briscoes matches, but there are times when I wish Lawler would use more moves (because I know he had a fair amount and executed them very well.)

 

My favorite workers are guys like Harley Race and Jumbo and Kawada, who toss high-end offense into every match but do it judiciously. I love watching Bryan Danielson, who has a huge bag of moves but at this point, doesn't feel compelled to use them all in every match.

[S.L.L.]

I don't use the "MOVES~!" line very much when talking about wrestlers or matches, but I use it pretty frequently when talking about other people's opinions on wrestlers and matches. I'm in the same boat with you guys, more or less. I've got no problem with high-end offense, I just think there's a time and a place for it. And I think you can work a high-end match with or without high-end offense. Both are valid, they're just different. And I like variety, so different is good, IMO.

 

I really only use "MOVES~!" when I'm dealing with stupid people and their stupid pro-MOVES~! opinions. It's not really a serious criticism of high-end moves on my part. Really, two of the wrestlers most heavily defended by "moves marks" are Shawn Michaels and Kurt Angle, neither of whom have particularly deep or high-end offenses. The 80's equivalent of this group were rabid Ric Flair supporters. It's not really about moves. It's about the faulty ideology applied by "moves marks". If it means anything when I say it, consider it shorthand for "your opinions on pro wrestling are deeply flawed, and are roughly in line with these other people with similar deeply flawed wrestling opinions".

[gordi]

I don't really disagree with what anyone has had to say on this subject so far. Here's my two bits' worth:

 

People who think that the only way to structure a great pro wrestling match is to string together one crazy highspot after another are wrong, of course. People who judge pro wrestlers based on how many move they "know" don't really understand pro wrestling. It's not how much you do, it's how much you do well. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you have to.

 

...and so on...

 

HOWEVER:

 

People who think that matches with lots of highspots or pro wrestlers who use lots of moves are ALWAYS, by definition, bad... those people are also wrong.

 

I'd actually say that, in the places I go to discuss pro wrestling, there seem to be more of the latter than of the former these days.

[Guest The Unholy Dragon]

I find an interesting sidebar to this being people who look for legitimate moves.

 

I hear all sorts bitching about how the FU and STFU look so weak, but given that they both have a 90%+ rate of success, they're two of the most over finishers in WWE.

 

Meanwhile, on the indies, someone can hit something that looks impossible to a mild reaction and a nearfall.

 

Makes you think.

[Guest *FH*]

People who think that matches with lots of highspots or pro wrestlers who use lots of moves are ALWAYS, by definition, bad... those people are also wrong.

I don't know who wrote it, maybe Tomk, but somebody once posted something to the effect of: "this guy's style is like a frat boy getting laid, switching positions every 2 minutes desperately trying to make the girl cum."

 

That's the best analogy for MOVES heavy matches and workers I've ever read. "well that didn't pop the crowd too much, HOW BOUT THIS????"

[gordi]

People who think that matches with lots of highspots or pro wrestlers who use lots of moves are ALWAYS, by definition, bad... those people are also wrong.

I don't know who wrote it, maybe Tomk, but somebody once posted something to the effect of: "this guy's style is like a frat boy getting laid, switching positions every 2 minutes desperately trying to make the girl cum."

 

That's the best analogy for MOVES heavy matches and workers I've ever read. "well that didn't pop the crowd too much, HOW BOUT THIS????"

 

That's definitely a good analogy for many MOVES~! - based matches. If you think the analogy applies to ALL matches where the wrestlers use a lot of MOVES~!, I'd say that you are wrong.

[Phil Schneider]

People who think that matches with lots of highspots or pro wrestlers who use lots of moves are ALWAYS, by definition, bad... those people are also wrong.

I don't know who wrote it, maybe Tomk, but somebody once posted something to the effect of: "this guy's style is like a frat boy getting laid, switching positions every 2 minutes desperately trying to make the girl cum."

 

That's the best analogy for MOVES heavy matches and workers I've ever read. "well that didn't pop the crowd too much, HOW BOUT THIS????"

 

That was me describing Vince Russo and Bischoffs first Nitro, although it works fine with the Roderick Strong and Austin Aries match I saw at ROH this weekend too.

[khawk20]

"this guy's style is like a frat boy getting laid, switching positions every 2 minutes desperately trying to make the girl cum."

That's ridiculous. Frat boys don't CARE if the girl cums.

 

**sigh**

[Guest *FH*]

People who think that matches with lots of highspots or pro wrestlers who use lots of moves are ALWAYS, by definition, bad... those people are also wrong.

I don't know who wrote it, maybe Tomk, but somebody once posted something to the effect of: "this guy's style is like a frat boy getting laid, switching positions every 2 minutes desperately trying to make the girl cum."

 

That's the best analogy for MOVES heavy matches and workers I've ever read. "well that didn't pop the crowd too much, HOW BOUT THIS????"

 

That was me describing Vince Russo and Bischoffs first Nitro, although it works fine with the Roderick Strong and Austin Aries match I saw at ROH this weekend too.

 

Gotcha. Thanks and sorry for the mis-attribution.

[Guest Spunk]

People who think that matches with lots of highspots or pro wrestlers who use lots of moves are ALWAYS, by definition, bad... those people are also wrong.

I don't know who wrote it, maybe Tomk, but somebody once posted something to the effect of: "this guy's style is like a frat boy getting laid, switching positions every 2 minutes desperately trying to make the girl cum."

 

That's the best analogy for MOVES heavy matches and workers I've ever read. "well that didn't pop the crowd too much, HOW BOUT THIS????"

 

That's definitely a good analogy for many MOVES~! - based matches. If you think the analogy applies to ALL matches where the wrestlers use a lot of MOVES~!, I'd say that you are wrong.

 

Well of course it doesn't apply for all matches with a lot of moves, but it can apply to most matches where you don't even care anymore. I think this conversation is generally about people who say John Cena sucks because he doesn't have an incredibly deep moveset, and for people who seem to love matches just for the moves that are done. Its like reading a really poorly written book with a shitty plot but they hide it by having a large vocabulary. Its a good way to hide lack of substance, pretty much.

 

Like mentioned, the FU and STFU have a pretty high success rate, and you know when they are going to happen, that the match is probably going to end, or at least take a drastic turn. But when you have guys hitting standing SSPs and brainbusters just to set up another, more spectacular move, or when a guy has 8 versions of a move, each one more DANGEROUS~!!, the original move can be rendered worthless. Like if Cena started using the FU just as the move to get a mid-match 2.9, and the top rope FU was his finisher. Then eventually, that gets kicked out of quite often, so he starts doing a WRIST CLUTCH version, etc, etc.

[gordi]

People who think that matches with lots of highspots or pro wrestlers who use lots of moves are ALWAYS, by definition, bad... those people are also wrong.

I don't know who wrote it, maybe Tomk, but somebody once posted something to the effect of: "this guy's style is like a frat boy getting laid, switching positions every 2 minutes desperately trying to make the girl cum."

 

That's the best analogy for MOVES heavy matches and workers I've ever read. "well that didn't pop the crowd too much, HOW BOUT THIS????"

 

That's definitely a good analogy for many MOVES~! - based matches. If you think the analogy applies to ALL matches where the wrestlers use a lot of MOVES~!, I'd say that you are wrong.

 

Well of course it doesn't apply for all matches with a lot of moves, but it can apply to most matches where you don't even care anymore. I think this conversation is generally about people who say John Cena sucks because he doesn't have an incredibly deep moveset, and for people who seem to love matches just for the moves that are done. Its like reading a really poorly written book with a shitty plot but they hide it by having a large vocabulary. Its a good way to hide lack of substance, pretty much.

 

Like mentioned, the FU and STFU have a pretty high success rate, and you know when they are going to happen, that the match is probably going to end, or at least take a drastic turn. But when you have guys hitting standing SSPs and brainbusters just to set up another, more spectacular move, or when a guy has 8 versions of a move, each one more DANGEROUS~!!, the original move can be rendered worthless. Like if Cena started using the FU just as the move to get a mid-match 2.9, and the top rope FU was his finisher. Then eventually, that gets kicked out of quite often, so he starts doing a WRIST CLUTCH version, etc, etc.

 

Oh, yeah, the escalating highspots thing is a real trap that modern pro wrestling is still trying to dig its way out of. On the other hand, I would hate for the pendulum to swing so far the other way that legitimately excellent wrestling matches like the 10/10/96 Michinoku Pro 10-man, The Era of Honor Begins three-way, Rey vs. Psicosis from the '95 Super J, or even say the Hardys vs. The Serial Thrillerz from OMEGA all get written off as lousy matches because they have too many MOVES~!

 

There are a ton of ways to put a very good to great pro wrestling match together. Not everyone wrestles like Dick Murdoch, nor should everyone be expected to. (And Murdoch, of course, shouldn't be expected to wrestle like Hayabusa, either).

[Indikator]

I kinda dislike 10/10 not because of the moves but because it feels like the worlds best wrestling exhibition match. To criticise the match strictly because of the number of moves would be stupid. I guess it's all about timing in a match - from both wrestlers

[Guest The Unholy Dragon]

Well of course it doesn't apply for all matches with a lot of moves, but it can apply to most matches where you don't even care anymore. I think this conversation is generally about people who say John Cena sucks because he doesn't have an incredibly deep moveset, and for people who seem to love matches just for the moves that are done. Its like reading a really poorly written book with a shitty plot but they hide it by having a large vocabulary. Its a good way to hide lack of substance, pretty much.

 

Like mentioned, the FU and STFU have a pretty high success rate, and you know when they are going to happen, that the match is probably going to end, or at least take a drastic turn. But when you have guys hitting standing SSPs and brainbusters just to set up another, more spectacular move, or when a guy has 8 versions of a move, each one more DANGEROUS~!!, the original move can be rendered worthless. Like if Cena started using the FU just as the move to get a mid-match 2.9, and the top rope FU was his finisher. Then eventually, that gets kicked out of quite often, so he starts doing a WRIST CLUTCH version, etc, etc.

The best example of that is Kurt Angle.

 

For years, the Angle Slam was a fairly credible finisher.

 

Then he brought along the Ankle Lock and that got over in a rush too.

 

But then people were kicking out of the Angle Slam, so he started doing the popup.

 

And when the Ankle Lock wasn't enough? Grapevine.

 

 

Of course, this all led to the (highly overrated imo) match between him and Shawn Michaels at Wrestlemania where Shawn kicks out of the Angle Slam, escapes the Ankle Lock, and then kicks out of an AVALANCHE ANGLE SLAM! leading to the grapevine for the finish.

 

 

It got to the point where you just wouldn't buy anything but that as the finish anymore. I mean, when you need to do the avalanche version of your finisher just to generate a pop, you've devalued the move too much. I mean for god's sake...MIDCARDERS were kicking out of the move.

 

 

...wow...I had a lot more pent up frustration over that than I thought.

[Jingus]

It seems like sooner or later, that happens to practically every finisher out there. Check out the Austin-Hall match from Wrestlemania 18, where no less than six Stunners were used.

 

Of course, it's not hard to recover from anyone kicking out of a finisher... once, for a big match or other special occasion. After that happens, the booker must have several people do the job to that finisher in the weeks following that occurance, to rebuild it. Anything on earth can be devalued or no-sold once for a big surprise pop and then got back over. The problem is when people keep kicking out of that finish, like the example with the Angleslam not being enough to put away midcarders, or when the Stinger Splash went from something that Sting hit once and pinned the guy to Sting hits three times just for the guy to counter the third one.

[Guest Spunk]

Yeah, I really hate Angle for that. It used to be my main thing I had against Yuji Nagata as well. I thought his use of overkill against Murakami was sort of genius. 3 wrist clutch exploders on him not because he kept kicking out, but because Nagata legitimately hated him and just wanted to hurt him so that he had no chance of ever getting up. But then Nagata would most of the time use the Nagata Lock II 5 minutes into a match, leave it on the guy for a solid 2 minutes, let go and then just launch into some exploders for 2 counts. Nagata effectively blew through the Nagata Lock, Nagata Lock II, Exploder, Wrist Clutch Exploder, Nagata Lock III, Backdrop Hold, THunder Death Driver, etc, etc in just a few years. To the point where none of these moves were effective at all.

 

Something happened and magically things clicked with him and he finishes with the backdrop hold now, which is really marvelously built to most of the time.

[jdw]

People who think that matches with lots of highspots or pro wrestlers who use lots of moves are ALWAYS, by definition, bad... those people are also wrong.

I don't know who wrote it, maybe Tomk, but somebody once posted something to the effect of: "this guy's style is like a frat boy getting laid, switching positions every 2 minutes desperately trying to make the girl cum."

 

That's the best analogy for MOVES heavy matches and workers I've ever read. "well that didn't pop the crowd too much, HOW BOUT THIS????"

 

That was me describing Vince Russo and Bischoffs first Nitro, although it works fine with the Roderick Strong and Austin Aries match I saw at ROH this weekend too.

 

Sounds like a TDC riff from the 90s as well.

 

 

John

[sek69]

It's funny in an era of escalated finishers that someone like Ric Flair can lock in a figure four leglock in 2007 and the crowd still will pop as if the end is imminent. Considering how reversing that move became a repeated-to-the-point-of-comedy spot, it really shows how sometimes simple is better and the MOVES~! crowd misses the point.

 

I mean, I try to sit down and watch stuff like Briscoes matches in ROH and all I can think of is how many moves they sprint through that would make devestatingly effective finishers.

[jdw]

People's Elbow.

 

 

John