Wrestling Myth Busters

[Log]

Bret Hart had a repeatable approach to his matches

 

I actually have to agree with this one, as much as the Bretmaniacs hate to hear it. When you even have Scott Keith busting your balls over your FIVE MOVES OF DOOM~! (in almost the exact order every time) then yes, you do have a repeatable approach.

 

Which wrestler doesn't have a "repeatable approach"? I mean, doesn't everyone kind of have their moveset and their favorite spots? I think Bret just get's shit for it because of Keith's thing. Bret's was pretty recognizable because (like you said) he would often do it in the same order. But most guys kind of have their thing, and use it every match.

[jdw]

And maybe some people have forgotten this, but the whole point of wrestling is to entertain the fans. To that end, the opinions of the fans are pretty fuckin' important, and realistically they trump the opinions of fellow wrestlers pretty easily. That shouldn't be so hard to understand. Now, I'm self-aware enough to realize that I don't represent the average wrestling fan. None of us do, I don't think. But even with that in mind, acting like the opinions of wrestlers of their fellow wrestlers is inherently better than the opinions of a fringe wrestling wingnut like me seems silly. The wrestlers are making their judgments by standards that have little to no practical application for wrestling fans, and guys like me are making judgments based on similar standards as the bulk of fans, but with a far more critical eye than they use and than was really intended to be used on the work. Both sides can see things that the other sides can't, but most of the things that wrestlers can see that we can't are really only of any value if you're a wrestler. And again, the only opinion that should really matter to you in any significant way is your own. Seriously, why is this discussion even happening? Do people really need someone else to form their opinions for them? Why is this even an issue?

Preach it.

 

John

[sek69]

Bret Hart had a repeatable approach to his matches

 

I actually have to agree with this one, as much as the Bretmaniacs hate to hear it. When you even have Scott Keith busting your balls over your FIVE MOVES OF DOOM~! (in almost the exact order every time) then yes, you do have a repeatable approach.

 

Which wrestler doesn't have a "repeatable approach"? I mean, doesn't everyone kind of have their moveset and their favorite spots? I think Bret just get's shit for it because of Keith's thing. Bret's was pretty recognizable because (like you said) he would often do it in the same order. But most guys kind of have their thing, and use it every match.

 

 

A lot of wrestlers have repeatable approaches and still are able to mix things up once in a while.

[Sean Liska]

I'd say that Bret's matches with the British Bulldog were different from his matches with Steve Austin, which were different from his matches against Owen, which were different from his Yokozuna matches, which were different from Hakushi matches, or Jean-Pierre Lafitte matches. Then again, Flair's matches in 89 with Funk were different from his Steamboat matches. I've always felt that Flair was a less formulaic worker when he was a face. It seemed like he didn't have as much of a set pattern from that position.

[sek69]

If you actually go back and watch a lot of Bret's matches, you see they really weren't all that different. The only one that really broke the routine was the double turn Austin match.

[Guest The 3H's]

I always think of someone's comment about not buying the Memphis set because they weren't into that. I'm not sure who responded (Goodhelmet possibly?) that if you weren't a fan of the stuff in Memphis, you probably weren't a fan of pro wrestling.

I could see someone not being a fan of it, and still being a fan of pro wrestling. It would be a bit like saying that because Bahu liked FWM more than All Japan that he wasn't a fan of pro wrestling.

 

There are a lot of different tastes in what folks like in wrestling. I don't think Memphis is for everyone anymore than All Japan 90s was for everyone.

 

The "If you're not a fan of X, you're not a fan of pro wrestling" spot probably warrants a place on the Wrestling Mythbusters list. That's not a knock at Will, because I doubt he was being literal if he said it.

 

John

 

Yeah, I always thought that was a douchy thing to say to guy because he didn't want to try out Memphis, I feel the same way about Lucha, outside of certain matches

[ZThomas]

I'd say that Bret's matches with the British Bulldog were different from his matches with Steve Austin, which were different from his matches against Owen, which were different from his Yokozuna matches, which were different from Hakushi matches, or Jean-Pierre Lafitte matches. Then again, Flair's matches in 89 with Funk were different from his Steamboat matches. I've always felt that Flair was a less formulaic worker when he was a face. It seemed like he didn't have as much of a set pattern from that position.

What about his early matches in the Hart Foundation, besides the Hart attack finish, He went years without a finisher of his own. I'd say flair had more distinguishable spots then Bret.

[khawk20]

Which wrestler doesn't have a "repeatable approach"? I mean, doesn't everyone kind of have their moveset and their favorite spots?

Nick Bockwinkel might qualify in this vein.

[kjh]

I'm not sure I'd point to Bret's tag matches with Neidhart as an example of when Bret had a less formulaic approach to matches. I remember there were 3 Hart Foundation matches back to back on the DVDVR 80s WWF set, which made it clear that there was a fairly rigid order to his spots even then. That said, I think Bret did try to mix things up for his big matches and his style evolved over time more than sek is giving him credit for.

[Kronos]

Now, I'm self-aware enough to realize that I don't represent the average wrestling fan. None of us do, I don't think.

This is an interesting point. These days, would you say that the "average" fan is that teen boy who goes to RAW live and comes home and posts like this on certain, less high-brow forums ( ):

OMG, CENA SUX!

 

WTF? CENA RULZ! YOU SUCK!

 

And the like? Hehe, I can't even fathom the idea of a wrestling fan these days who doesn't like it enough to get involved in some kind of community -- which usually means forums, unless they happen to know a bunch of friends who watch it with them. When I lived in LA, I went to a couple of PWG shows and made some friends. But I met them through. . .wait for it. . .PWG's forums.

 

To come back to the topic -- in this period, is the "average wrestling fan" a myth?

[S.L.L.]

Now, I'm self-aware enough to realize that I don't represent the average wrestling fan. None of us do, I don't think.

This is an interesting point. These days, would you say that the "average" fan is that teen boy who goes to RAW live and comes home and posts like this on certain, less high-brow forums ( ):

OMG, CENA SUX!

 

WTF? CENA RULZ! YOU SUCK!

 

And the like? Hehe, I can't even fathom the idea of a wrestling fan these days who doesn't like it enough to get involved in some kind of community -- which usually means forums, unless they happen to know a bunch of friends who watch it with them.

Probably. The internet is ubiquitous enough in 2009 that I don't doubt a lot of average fans talk about it online. That said, the internet is a very big place, and boards like this one represent a pretty extreme form of fandom that most people just never get to. I mean, I come from a circle of fandom where the two obvious candidates for best worker of 2008 were Yuki Ishikawa and Blue Panther. Try asking the average wrestling fan (well, the average Amercian fan at least), which of those guys were the better worker, or even who either of those guys are, and see what kind of answer you get.

[shoe]

I'm not sure I'd point to Bret's tag matches with Neidhart as an example of when Bret had a less formulaic approach to matches. I remember there were 3 Hart Foundation matches back to back on the DVDVR 80s WWF set, which made it clear that there was a fairly rigid order to his spots even then. That said, I think Bret did try to mix things up for his big matches and his style evolved over time more than sek is giving him credit for.

 

It seemed like when The Foundation were heels the way they would allow the faces to make their comeback in almost every bout was that Anvil would Irish whip Bret into their opponent in the corner. Said opponent would move, and Bret would take a sternum bump into the corner. This lead to the hot tag.

[Bob Morris]

What it generally comes down to with Bret was that the formulaic, same-stuff match came about in his matches that weren't considered as good. Some of that would come down to Bret dogging it (as some say he did during house show matches) or a match in which there wasn't a lot of time given to it, so Bret seems to think he isn't going to bother getting anything out of it.

 

But while Bret uses the same moves in his matches, it doesn't make them all repetitive. In the better matches he has had with Bulldog, Austin, Hennig, Michaels, Diesel and 1-2-3 Kid, I don't see the same formula being repeated, regardless of the moves being used.

 

If we are talking about repetitiveness of moves used, Flair belongs in the same argument.

[Loss]

All wrestlers are repetitive. Some more than others, but I like repetition. Signature spots and bumps are a good thing.

 

Even in a good standard formula match, there's value in seeing how different wrestlers react to it. You know what you're getting with Flair nine times out of ten, so it's fun to compare a Flair match of similar length against two opponents to see who looks better.

[Dylan Waco]

All wrestlers are repetitive, which is good because formulas are good. Formulas guide the crowds and are the basis for all psychology in wrestling so shitting on them is ridiculous. Non-formula wrestlers are guys like Lance Hoyt and I don't seen anyone clamoring for him to enter the pantheon of great workers.

 

I actually did go back and watch a fuckload of Bret Hart matches for the SC poll last year. I've never had a higher opinion of Bret than I do now after watching all of those matches, and really the claim that he worked the same match every time out is pretty laughable. He had a formula, but he wasn't working a stump match - there is an obvious differrence.

[Death From Above]

Was Bret any more formula than anyone else working under the "10 minutes on TV = match of the century because it's an oddity, and maybe 3-4 genuinely long PPV matches a year" that was the WWF formula of it's day?

 

There's only so many ways to work a match inside those constraints.

 

WWF has never been a company about creativity from it's workers. Creativity with match gimmicks from time to time ("Buried Alive" matches, casket matches, hell in a cell, etc), but workers themselves rarely strike me as being under liscence to go nuts out there.

 

Bret was champ a lot when I was entering my teen years, and I'm from Alberta, so obviously he was a focal point to me as a youth watching wrestling. And even so... I don't really get the hysteria he generates either way in hindsight.

 

I don't think he's as great as his big fans make him out to be.

 

I don't think he's as bad as his biggest critics make him out to be.

 

For me the truth lies somewhere in the middle. If he hadn't been a world champion - and one that inherrited the near impossible spot of trying to headline the post-Hogan WWF business decline that, in my view, was at least partially inevitable - I think the ratio of fans on both sides of the fence and the ratio of fans more in the middle would look a lot different.

 

Bret was no more to formula than the company as a whole was, unless I missed something. He just gets singled out for it because he had the belt.

[Kronos]

This one may or may not be a myth, but it popped into my head from the other thread: Vince, Jr invented Sports Entertainment with the coming of Hogan and Mania I.

 

I was just thinking about the WCCW I have seen from 82-83. It's full of skits, music videos, lots of talking, and OTT, sometimes cartoonish characters. The wrestling is often quite good, but the shows are a whole production beyond simply wrestling and a few interviews. Could we say that Fritz pioneered it? It's something different than the GCW or the MACW I have seen from the era, which seems to have stuck basically to interviews and ring action. World Class is on a different level.

[Loss]

I know this one gets debated a lot and this seems the appropriate place to hash it out:

 

Is the money really in the chase?

[Indikator]

Probably not. I don't think most aces are good contenders. The most interesting guys in this aspect might be Hogan and Sammartino. Do you think they should have done it like Lawler? Actually I would have liked Hogan with a Lawler'ish approach. That might have pleased the old school / smarks. It's actually quite similar to the old 3 MSG show feud system, but I doubt that you can reproduce it with PPVs or TV.

[Childs]

This one may or may not be a myth, but it popped into my head from the other thread: Vince, Jr invented Sports Entertainment with the coming of Hogan and Mania I.

 

I was just thinking about the WCCW I have seen from 82-83. It's full of skits, music videos, lots of talking, and OTT, sometimes cartoonish characters. The wrestling is often quite good, but the shows are a whole production beyond simply wrestling and a few interviews. Could we say that Fritz pioneered it? It's something different than the GCW or the MACW I have seen from the era, which seems to have stuck basically to interviews and ring action. World Class is on a different level.

"Great man" versions of history are always flawed. Vince didn't invent shit. He pulled elements from a lot of places and had the will to build it into something huge. I suppose he saw the potential for a national brand earlier than most of his competitors, but the idea of him as some creative visionary has always seemed silly.

[Loss]

- The Hardys/Dudleys/Edge and Christian feud revitalized tag team wrestling in the WWF/WWE.

It didn't revitalize tag team wrestling, but it's arguable that they're the three most over tag teams the company has ever had. They did get over as stars, and the Hardys brought in a demographic none of the main eventers really did, so they were extremely valuable.

 

- The buildup and eventual match between HHH and Booker T at WrestleMania XIX buried Booker.

This is kind of a no-brainer. It took Booker T several heel/face turns, a switch to SmackDown!, a repackaging, a valet, and 2 1/2 years to move past it, and even then, he still had the stench on him. The HHH promo in itself wasn't a terrible idea, but it was a terrible idea if Booker was only going to be a transitional challenger to HHH all along.

 

HHH still -- after all this time -- does terrible heel promos. How hard is "you may be good, but I'm better" to pull off?

[kjh]

HHH really mustn't have liked Booker or something, because almost as soon as Booker got over the first burial, he did it again.

[S.L.L.]

I know this one gets debated a lot and this seems the appropriate place to hash it out:

 

Is the money really in the chase?

This one is really, really easy to figure out. All you have to do is ask yourself one question: what does the general public prefer to see...the good guy win, or the good guy lose? Yes, I realize there are dramatic benefits to having the bad guy win every once in a while, but I think one would have to be pretty deep in denial to claim that people are more likely to pay to see their heroes lose day in and day out, maybe occasionally winning the day, only to have their victories snatched away from them shortly thereafter, than to see the opposite.

 

What's particularly galling about this one is the way it's so often trotted out without any evidence to support it because it's seen as such common sense, even though the slightest critical look at it causes it to break into a million pieces. I mean, even ignoring common sense observations on the tastes of the general public, don't the careers of Hulk Hogan and Steve Austin - the two biggest money draws of wrestling's modern era - expose this one pretty badly? Of course, as Austin's career also proved, it's probably more important to be perceived as "the man" than to simply be the champion, but kinda hard to be the man when you're always trying - and usually failing - to beat the man. Maybe somebody should ask Lex Luger just how much money is in the chase. You'd think he'd have outdrawn Hogan and Austin put together if there was anything to that claim.

 

Incidentally, does anyone know if I'm correct in my assumption that this obvious myth is a byproduct of 80's smarkdom's hatred of Hulk Hogan and love of Ric Flair? I'm hard-pressed to think of how anyone could have come up with this one logically, but people blinded by fandom desperately searching for reasons why Flair was objectively better than Hogan during the 80's boom seems feasible.

[Death From Above]

Inoki is indisputably the most famous wrestler in Japan from his time frame, and he was constantly all over the title in his "heyday" as well, before he made himself into more of a "special attraction" later in his career.

 

Inoki as champ vs. (insert invader here) would go right along with Hogan and Austin in that example. So that's (I think) the three biggest money draws of all-time standing in the corner of Myth Busters Inc.

[Loss]

I think the idea behind it is more that with a good heel champ on top that people want to see lose, you can get multiple paydays off of various babyfaces chasing the heel, and in the big match where the heel finally loses, they'll do their biggest gate of them all, as opposed to just blowing the whole thing in one match. I think Hollywood Hogan in 1996-1997 is the best example of this I can think of, as they did big shows with Savage, Piper, Giant, and Luger all going after him, all leading to Sting at Starrcade.

 

Also, Goldberg beating Hogan on Nitro is probably an example of why people say the money is in the chase. Goldberg vs Hall, Nash, Savage, etc. building to Goldberg vs Hogan would have been multiple big shows that all probably would have done reasonably well, and Starrcade probably would have been huge.

 

I still maintain that HHH retaining at Wrestlemania 2000, leading to Rock winning the title at Backlash, was excellent booking, because they drew big on two shows instead of just one. I guess that is an example of the money being in the chase. It was obvious they were planning ahead at that time.

 

With Flair in the Crockett days, I don't really think that mindset was in play at all, because Flair was their guy. The idea of them building around Magnum -- well, I think that's revisionist history that should also be classified as a myth. He might have won it and dropped it right back to Flair at the most, but Nikita, Sting, Luger, and Windham, all of whom were as marketable or more marketable than Magnum T.A., didn't get a run with the title during the Crockett years, so why would Magnum T.A.?

 

You could also argue that Misawa's win over Jumbo in June 1990 was the beginning of his two-year title chase. I think the mindset among fans at that time was that it was obvious Misawa was going to win the title, it was just a matter of when it was going to happen.