Good Trope/Bad Trope

[Matt D]

For what it's worth, Hogan was a tremendous bully during his run on top in the WWF. He was a poor loser, constantly let others do the work for him while he took the credit, and always made sure he had the last word whether he deserved it or not.

 

But people, ESPECIALLY KIDS, love this. He's like Superman from the 50s, the whole "superdickery" idea, where Jerry Siegel always had Superboy/Superman playing jokes on people and being a general dick. Every kid secretly wants to be the bully and barring that, they want to cheer the bully or be friends with him, be one of his cronies. Hogan and Hulkamania was all about that.

 

The board's been great over the last week or so, btw. Keep it up. Would this be the note to talk about Outsider angles and stables in general (I have a friend who insists the secret to a good stable is to have the Leader, the Enforcer, the muscle, the technical veteran, and the young upstart, with those catagories overlapping to make at least 3-4 people).

 

Oh, and while I'm at it, Re: The Five Moves of Doom. I think this is more of a tool than anything else. It depends on how they're used. They can be used lazily, without adding much to the story done in the ring and just to kill time with action to lead up to the finish or they can be an integral part of the match and the story being told. A move that a wrestler goes for in every match tends to mean more than a regular move because the fans are conditioned to expect it. Presumably, it fits into the wrestler's gameplan somehow. I think I read an interview where Bret actually considered his 5 Moves of Doom part of his extended finish and something the crowd expected in his matches.

[Log]

There's a lot of people who get heavily into the play-by-play at the end of a big epic All Japan match, but to me Kawada kicking out of one move and Misawa having to do another isn't the story. A great sportswriter doesn't tell the story like that, even if the finish to a sporting event is memorable.

I don't really get what you're saying here.

[goodhelmet]

Refresh my memory... what are the five moves of doom? Can someone list them?

 

Also, I am trying to think of some stables across the years and I think that the only real ingredient you need is someone who can work the microphone. The First Family had Jimmy Hart. 1980s Horsemen had all of them. NWO had the Outsiders and Hogan. Dangerous Alliance had Paul E. DX were incredibly effective on the mic. The whole purpose of the mic work is to put over the group.

[sek69]

Refresh my memory... what are the five moves of doom? Can someone list them?

 

Also, I am trying to think of some stables across the years and I think that the only real ingredient you need is someone who can work the microphone. The First Family had Jimmy Hart. 1980s Horsemen had all of them. NWO had the Outsiders and Hogan. Dangerous Alliance had Paul E. DX were incredibly effective on the mic. The whole purpose of the mic work is to put over the group.

 

The five moves were vertical suplex, Russian legsweep, backbreaker, elbowdrop from the second rope, and Sharpshooter.

[goodhelmet]

I don't see what the big deal is... I guess with the exception of the elbowdrop, it all leads to softening up the back to the Sharpshooter. Sounds more logical to carry those out since it has been an effective way for him to finish off opponents. Maybe the problem is that he tries to pin the opponent after each of the moves when none of them has ever resulted in a pinfall.

[sek69]

I don't see what the big deal is... I guess with the exception of the elbowdrop, it all leads to softening up the back to the Sharpshooter. Sounds more logical to carry those out since it has been an effective way for him to finish off opponents. Maybe the problem is that he tries to pin the opponent after each of the moves when none of them has ever resulted in a pinfall.

 

The problem is that he used the exact same sequence almost every match. It's the kind of thing guys like Hogan or Cena would get roasted for but Bret largely got a pass for. Ironically I'm fairly sure it was our pal Scooter who coined the phrase "five moves of doom", and I'm pretty certain he meant it as a goof and not a serious knock on a guy he idolizes.

[kjh]

Five moves of doom is probably a deserved knock for lazy Bret when he's dogging it at house shows and dark matches taped for Coliseum home video, sleepwalking through his set moves at a snails pace. I'm not sure it's a fair knock in general, given that for his big matches he busted out several other moves and mixed things up more.

[goodhelmet]

My buddy Gene is supposed to be making a Bret Hart comp. If he ever completes it, I'll be sure to put this theory to the test. However, if I have to make a comp then I will.

[S.L.L.]

I believe Bret himself made the observation that if he had a series of moves that he did well and that had proven effective for him, why wouldn't he use them? Like GH said, the only thing about it that really seemed weird was him going for the pin, usually after the elbow, even though he never scored a pin off of it, and even that's a pretty minor quibble overall.

[Resident Evil]

I believe Bret himself made the observation that if he had a series of moves that he did well and that had proven effective for him, why wouldn't he use them? Like GH said, the only thing about it that really seemed weird was him going for the pin, usually after the elbow, even though he never scored a pin off of it, and even that's a pretty minor quibble overall.

I did see Bret win once with an elbow off of the middle rope.

 

I never get the people who say Bret always did the same thing. I thought one of his biggest attritubtes was his versatility in his matches espceially when compared to his peers.

 

GH -- I heard they aired a new Bret vs Austin match on WWE Tv so that's something to keep an eye on that might get overlooked otherwise.

[ohtani's jacket]

There's a lot of people who get heavily into the play-by-play at the end of a big epic All Japan match, but to me Kawada kicking out of one move and Misawa having to do another isn't the story. A great sportswriter doesn't tell the story like that, even if the finish to a sporting event is memorable.

I don't really get what you're saying here.

 

The wrestlers use moves to tell the story, but they're not the actual story. A story always begins with characters and a theme. After that, you plot it out. Whenever people get carried away about All Japan finishes, it always seems like they're describing the plot and not talking about the story. Even if you can find a trope to describe the finish, I think it misses the point, because that trope is specific to the match. If it weren't specific to that match, then it would come across as a cliche or a parody. The most important thing in wrestling stories is not how the wrestler won the match, but why the wrestler won the match.

[Loss]

You once said there is almost no storytelling in wrestling because a story involves change, so most of wrestling isn't storytelling, it's just keeping a narrative. At least that's what I think you said. Do you still agree with that?

[ohtani's jacket]

You can't tell a story like you usually would, but you can give it an arch.

 

It's like a Laurel and Hardy film. At the beginning they're in a certain situation; they make a plan, a whole bunch of shit happens, and their situation changes. Laurel and Hardy never change, only their circumstances. Not too long ago, I was watching a Satanico match where his behaviour at the beginning was markedly different from his reaction at the end, because the circumstances had changed. You know in the next match he'll revert back to character, because he'll only change if they turn him technico, but you can make something of it. The bigger the arch, the greater the drama.

 

I actually think lack of change is something that hurts a lot of wrestlers. There's been a lot of great performers in wrestling who haven't had great depth to their characters. And there's been others, who when their stock "story" does change, haven't been able to adapt. Very rarely do wrestlers change their archetype as they get older or have a character that's timeless.

 

Obviously you can't expect a wrestler's character to change after every big match, but if you look at wrestling as a serialisation, there's more character development in most soap operas. It's not a criticism. They've gotta go out there and adlib something night after night for a different audience. It's a worked sport with a bunch of theatrics.

[Log]

There's a lot of people who get heavily into the play-by-play at the end of a big epic All Japan match, but to me Kawada kicking out of one move and Misawa having to do another isn't the story. A great sportswriter doesn't tell the story like that, even if the finish to a sporting event is memorable.

I don't really get what you're saying here.

 

The wrestlers use moves to tell the story, but they're not the actual story. A story always begins with characters and a theme. After that, you plot it out. Whenever people get carried away about All Japan finishes, it always seems like they're describing the plot and not talking about the story. Even if you can find a trope to describe the finish, I think it misses the point, because that trope is specific to the match. If it weren't specific to that match, then it would come across as a cliche or a parody. The most important thing in wrestling stories is not how the wrestler won the match, but why the wrestler won the match.

 

Ok, gotcha. It's not so much that the Bulls beat the Celts in triple ot, it's the fact that it wasn't supposed to be that close of a series, and there's already been like 4 ot games. Something like that.

[Johnny Sorrow]

Jesse's commentary during Hogan matches always came off like him just shooting the whole time. I guess it was because he was so established as a heel supporter, but it's amazing the things he was allowed to say about Hogan being an egomaniac.

My favorite was during the Hogan/ Muraco match from SNME. Muraco had done the "scraping his nails" on Hogan's back move earlier. Hogan did it back to Muraco and Jesse started yelling about how Hogan wascheating and should be dq'd. Vince says, "Wait a minute, Jesse! You didn't say that when Muraco did that to the Hulk!"

 

Jesse: "Well, Muraco has his nails trimmed."

 

Or something like that. It was hilarious.

[ohtani's jacket]

Ok, gotcha. It's not so much that the Bulls beat the Celts in triple ot, it's the fact that it wasn't supposed to be that close of a series, and there's already been like 4 ot games. Something like that.

That was a great series and I imagine you could make a lot of stories out of it. One of them would be the overtimes, but overall it was about the defending champs without their pivot guy and a young team that was shooting the lights out, which you could pretty easily turn into a wrestling story.

 

With All Japan, for example, the fans knew Misawa's character and they knew Kawada's character. Moreover, they knew the relationship between the two. So the moves had a lot of meaning outside of building to the finish and popping the crowd.

[Ditch]

As opposed to El Generico vs PAC, where if PAC was replaced by Tyler Black or M-Dogg 20 and the match happened the same move-for-move then the crowd (PWG/IWA-MS/Europe) would react exactly the same because all that matters is the spots.

[Resident Evil]

As opposed to El Generico vs PAC, where if PAC was replaced by Tyler Black or M-Dogg 20 and the match happened the same move-for-move then the crowd (PWG/IWA-MS/Europe) would react exactly the same because all that matters is the spots.

I don't totally agree with that. Even if the audience are spot fans and not individual fans of the wrestlers. When a match is repeated move for move there is always gonna be a signifigant difference in the match quality because of body language.

[Dylan Waco]

Five moves of doom is probably a deserved knock for lazy Bret when he's dogging it at house shows and dark matches taped for Coliseum home video, sleepwalking through his set moves at a snails pace. I'm not sure it's a fair knock in general, given that for his big matches he busted out several other moves and mixed things up more.

Where are these phoned in performances? I kept expecting them during the SC poll last year and never found them.

[goodhelmet]

Probably in the same place as the Jumbo phoned-in performances.

[Loss]

Every singles match Bret Hart had against Shawn Michaels (barring Survivor Series '92 and I guess that ladder match) was inoffensive, but not particularly good until 1996. Both guys were very much on auto-pilot.

[Dylan Waco]

Every singles match Bret Hart had against Shawn Michaels (barring Survivor Series '92 and I guess that ladder match) was inoffensive, but not particularly good until 1996. Both guys were very much on auto-pilot.

Dates?

[Loss]

Date on the left, commercial release title in parentheses.

 

6/2/92 (Rampage 92)

6/23/93 (Invasion of the Bodyslammers)

12/1/93 (Bret "The Hitman" Hart) (Cage match)

1/12/94 (Bret "The Hitman" Hart)

 

And there's also the available handhelds.

[Dylan Waco]

I remember thinking Shawn was awful in that 6/92 match, but the others I have no recollection of at all. I may try and track them down.

[jdw]

I recall Bret not doing anything against the Mountie on the undercard of the first Hogan-Flair out here. It's possible that I'd find more to like about that match now than in the building as I started enjoying Bret's face work a bit more starting the next year (match with Piper). But I think JHM's list of handheld pointed out a fair number of other house show matches where Bret wasn't too fired up.

 

John