I wrote something and I am curious to see what people think. I've posted a few places elsewhere, but it's not the content most fans seem to care about. They rather read about John Cena's marriage problems. I do think your fans would read it, though. If you think it's best to leave the post as anonymous, that is fine with me. And if you don't want to put it up, that's fine by me as well.
Here you go…
Fans often dispute which matches were great, or even worthy of consideration as a Match of the Year. The main question is, though, what exactly makes a match qualify as a solid candidate, let alone actually become a Match of the Year? I will try my best to break down what exactly makes a match compelling to me.
Gimmicks/Characters: There is a reason the Super Bowl is the most anticipated game of the year: it is the two best teams going at it. Even if the Browns and Bills have a great game, nobody is going to remember it as much, due to its lack of importance. The same goes with wrestling.
The Rock and Austin at WrestleMania 17 was the ultimate clash of two of the most beloved wrestlers of that era for the WWE title. Ric Flair and Dusty Rhodes was a clash of both the most hated and loved wrestlers for the NWA title. The Undertaker and HBK at WrestleMania 26 was a match made to enhance one man's streak and another's career. Ideally, a match is more special when wrestlers are extremely popular (or unpopular for heels) and when the match is being booked for something important to transpire.
Reading an audience/knowing what to do and when: Being able to read the crowd is an important part of a compelling match, if not the most important criteria. Anytime the audience is enjoying something "beyond belief", it enhances the match's quality. There are many memorable matches that if you were to turn the volume down, they simply would not be any good at all.
Vince McMahon and Stone Cold Steve Austin never put Ricky Steamboat and Ric Flair's matches in jeopardy as far as workrate goes, but they generated nuclear crowd reactions every single time they wrestled. They simply knew what the fans did (or didn't) want to see, and gave them a mixture of both -- every time.
When a wrestler is able to read the crowd, they are able to give the crowd what they want, even if they do not know they want it themselves. For instance, in a formulaic tag-match, the heels beat one of the babyfaces up. If everything is done properly, the crowd will want that face to make a tag to the fresh babyface, in order to see the heels get their comeuppance.
However, if the babyface just goes over and makes a "hot-tag", he did not do a good job of building to the crescendo. Ultimately, even though the crowd wanted it to happen, it happened too suddenly. That is precisely why the wrestlers in the match must be able to read the crowd's reaction, identify the boiling point, and then make the tag.
Chances are something like this, would send the fans on a dramatic roller coaster ride: After being thoroughly assaulted, the babyface starts to prompt his comeback. However, the heel rakes his eyes and throws him into his corner. The heel proceeds to beat him down in his own corner, which makes the referee yell at heel 1, allowing heel 2 to illegally beat the babyface behind the ref's back. Eventually, babyface 1 knocks down heel 1 and then tags in his partner, but the referee tells babyface 2 he didn't see the tag.
Finally, after being battered, and subsequently trapped by the two heels in their corner, he rolls under them to make the tag. Creating intrigue, hope, and anticipation will make the crowd erupt more than just an out-of-nowhere tag. (Judging from my own personal experience as a wrestling fan.)
Furthermore, a wrestler who is able to read a crowd will be able to call proper audibles. For instance, if a wrestler uses a sleeper hold, but it is not creating any heat, the best thing would be to get out of that spot as soon as possible. However, if the move is creating lots of heat, the wrestler should instead opt to use it longer in order to try to milk the crowd.
Psychology/Storytelling: What does this mean? Psychology simply means realism. Well, at least back in the heydays, wrestling was about making fans believe it was real. If a wrestler had poor psychology, not only were their matches sub-par, but they were also exposing the business. Psychology is not as important anymore, but it has a major part to play in fans suspending their disbelief. After all, storytelling is just simply narrative in a match.
There are various ways to explain the difference between good and bad psychology. First, a wrestler must be consistent in promos and matches. A cowardly wrestler outside the ring cannot be a monster inside, for example. Ric Flair was always one to back out of a fight and thus would try every shortcut he could think of to win the match. The Undertaker, however, portrayed The Deadman at all times, thus utilizing blank facial expressions and wrestling methodically.
These are extremely different styles, yet they are examples of good psychology. Both techniques are demonstrations of good psychology and storytelling, too. Like any sport, athletes come up with some specific strategies in order to find ways that they are going to win, so it only makes sense if wrestling does the same. Bret Hart was an expert at this, as he wrestled differently depending on whom he faced; i.e. if he wrestled against Bam Bam Bigelow or Kevin Nash, he would come up with ways to chop them down, but if he faced Curt Hennig or Owen Hart, he would simply make every effort to out-wrestle them.
Psychology is all about acting as if wrestling is real, so selling is a major key to its success .The word selling simply means pretending you are hurt or injured. Yes, it is pretty much acting. Selling helps the audience to believe, or at least to suspend their disbelief, that a wrestler is injured. If a babyface never seems to be in peril because they don't sell, there would be no point to the babyface being beaten up.
Truthfully, the illusion of professional wrestling is shattered without selling.
Selling:There are a variety of ways a wrestler ought to sell depending on their character. A wrestler portraying a monster would undersell to make it seem that he is a dominant figure; an everyday babyface would sell realistic, and a cowardly heel would oversell to make it look as if he is receiving his comeuppance from the babyface.
The key to selling is consistency. If a wrestler spends a good part of the match working on another's arm, the victim should not stop pretending the arm is hurt. Instead, he must adjust to his arm being injured, by not doing stuff he would never do with a legitimately injured arm. Inconsistent selling makes a match unbelievable, and not in a good way.
Moves, facial expressions, mannerisms, and body language all help to tell stories in the ring. Without them, a match is a stunt show with moves that do not hang together. This is not to state that such a match cannot be entertaining, but it will lack substance and emotional investment.
After all, theoretically, anyone could teach a monkey how to do a moonsault, but they likely could not teach him precisely when the most optimal time would be to do one in a match of his own volition, or the cognition as to why to do one in the first place. In other words, a moonsault may look cool, but it does not have much merit if it does not fit the context of the story.
Ultimately, moves are just simply parts of the story; they are what help the match shift into different gears and build. The match building up to its crescendo keeps the audience engaged and on the edge of their seats. A match that has not properly built to the conclusion (the most memorable thing to any story) comes off as anti-climatic.
Timing/Execution: In order for the timing of a match to be effective, the wrestlers must be on the same page, meaning they must know how to communicate with each other. Otherwise, everything will be a mess. Bad timing can derail anything important planned for a match and noticeable botches can overshadow the story being told.
It is also crucial for reversals/counters and sequences to be perfectly timed and executed, or otherwise the moves look sloppy and ineffective, hindering the illusion of pro-wrestling. Most importantly, bad execution and timing can lead to injuries. So, execution and timing are TRULY everything.
Therefore, the most important keys to a compelling match are the build, fan reaction and anticipation, wrestler's popularity, importance, realism, in-ring story, and timing. If most of these keys are done well, the match will be special. When they are all done to near perfection, however, it is something that fans may only see once in a lifetime.
I hope this was a good explanation of what I believe makes a compelling match. Of course, there is no true scientific formula to use to see what makes a match great. Most of it is in the eye of the beholder.
"Calling audibles" is what a quarterback does. A solid wrestler "calls it in the ring".
ReplyDeleteSincerely,
ReplyDeleteAl Snow
Was thinking the same thing. I actually liked the Guest Booker he did because I thought he had some good core ideas until he said that he'd give Kane a 12 month title reign and have Undertaker be the one to finally dethrone him.
ReplyDeletetl;dr
ReplyDeleteThis was a great read. I think someone in the business wrote it. I wonder who, though.
ReplyDeleteThis was well written, but I feel like it's a little redundant for this blog. I'd imagine most people here have more than a basic understanding of all the items covered here.
ReplyDeleteDamn, when Jesse Baker has had his coffee, he can be quite articulate.
ReplyDeleteI don't know why my last comment didn't get posted but this was a good read.
ReplyDeleteA good read I think...when you said psychology relates to the ability to make things look "real" - in that case, psychology is fairly dead. For instance, Hard to maintain any realism when triple H uses a sledge hammer and the guy is wrestling again the next night, or Sting can hit a man with a baseball bat.....and get a 2-count! Wth?
ReplyDeletewould have liked a list at the end from the poster to see examples of what he considers sums all of these up.
ReplyDeleteNah, I don't think it was Jim Neidhart.
ReplyDeletePiggybacking on what Chris Olejko stated, I started to think of an example that summed these qualities up...
ReplyDeleteEven though I like Taker-HBK's hell in a cell match more, the Bret-Austin match from WM13 would seem to be the embodiment of this post. They were two guys with nuclear heat, they stayed true to their character arcs, they tried different things within the match that they normally didn't do to ramp up the crowd, the storytelling was of the New York Times Bestseller variety, and it even had a satisfying twist ending. Savage-Steamboat comes close, too, when considering all of these factors. I'm sure some NWA fans can chime in, too, on a perfect match.
TL;DR, I'll just assume this was an essay on why Melina vs Alicia Fox at Summerslam is the greatest match of all time.
ReplyDeleteYou probably should have called an audible instead of throwing that snap mare.
ReplyDeleteNo way that argument needs this many words. All it needs is 4::
ReplyDeleteThe women's Flair/Steamboat
Good read. Wrestling is many things to many different people. There's room for a lot of styles of wrestling.
ReplyDeleteI hate tag matches for being so fucking formulaic. If you've seen one tag match, you've seen them all.
ReplyDeleteVery good article! Examples of good injury-selling, good use of facial expressions, and good timing would have been beneficial. Right now the second half of the article doesn't make enough use of examples, so it loses its momentum a bit as a result.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I'm sure we'd all appreciate examples of matches that fail in each of the criteria, particularly if you can find an example of a match that is otherwise good, but fails on one point and subsequently fails as a whole.
Great insight, great analysis of structural qualities. Better use of examples could take this from a B+ to an A+.
Threadjack: Tiger Ali Singh asked someone their name, then said "It doesn't matter!" before they could reply on the 8/3/98 Raw.
ReplyDeleteMan, The Rock is overrated.
Oh snap! Literally.
ReplyDeleteThis post sums up how tag team matches less than fifteen minutes in length are a waste. Without that agonisingly long heat sequence, they're meaningless,
ReplyDeleteExcellent writing and analysis. I hope to see much more of your work.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to throw out what I think is a great example of selling and psychology mixed into one, which led to a great ending.
During HBK / Kennedy at Armageddon 07, HBK is constantly beating up Kennedy's hand--doing things such as stomping it. The finish comes when Kennedy throws a punch, pauses to sell his hand (through shaking it), and the momentary distraction creates just enough of an opening for HBK to hit Sweet Chin Music and win the match.
Yeah, baby.
ReplyDeleteI was thinking:
ReplyDeleteStrap-on dildo love fest.
THAT might have gotten it out of the bottom half of all-time matches. Probably not, but hey, can't be worse than what we got...
I could not disagree more. There are more tag team "formulas" out there than the WWE style or the southern tag style. I personally LOVE sprint tags -- Steiners vs. Sting/Luger is one of my favorite matches ever. Rockers vs. Hart Foundation from SNME is up there, too.
ReplyDeleteBuddy Rogers said "Whoo" in a '60s promo. Man, Ric Flair is overrated.
ReplyDeleteRic Flair said "I'm gonna whip your ass" in 1989. Man, Steve Austin is overrated.
To take this up a level to an overview, I think there are external things an organization can do too that make a match more compelling.
ReplyDeleteA big one is a winning streak -- and I don't necessarily mean an explicit one like Goldberg's where everyone talks about it and all the intrigue is over whether he'll loss or not, I mean it in a more general character development sense.
Before 50/50 booking though, guys would win matches in the lead up to a big match -- typically one that you didn't even realize was on the horizon, because the feud hasn't started yet. Both of those serve as subconscious cues to the viewer that say "this guy is on the rise". So when the match between two "on the rise" guys happens, there is a ton of tension there, because you've been conditioned to believe that both guys have a decent chance at winning the match and continuing along their path.
50/50 booking hurts that whole concept though, because (as we were discussing in the Starrcade thread with Luger/Bagwell) a guy can get a huge win that seems to be the apex of his momentum, but then give it back the very next night or on the next PPV a few weeks later. I think that removes a whole layer of tension from the product and creates a real sense of stagnation, because nobody seems to be building or losing momentum, there is no investment in any one wrestlers plight.
Here's the thing about the overhyped "inconsistent selling" issue: Flair and Steamboat would spend 20 minutes working on a head or an arm, and it would have ZERO impact on the way the match plays out. Injury selling is great, but I don't get how people can selectively say "this match sucks because he didn't sell the leg" and then applaud Flair for getting his arm destroyed and still pulling off a delayed vertical suplex late in the match.
ReplyDeleteEach match has a different story, and not every story is "working on the body part to set up a finish."
Noted. But how many matches even try for those formulas?
ReplyDeleteSomething that bothers me is that something that is popular isn't necessarily beloved by everyone. Yeah, that Wrestlemania 17 match was a huge deal back in 2001 but at the same time a lot of hardcore WWF fans thought that the WWF should do something new and push more guys like Kurt Angle instead of just using Austin/Rock.
ReplyDeleteReally its the same deal with movies, and honestly is feels kind of futile to write about because the elements that work with wrestling are so obvious, and yet they seem so hard to pin down. Honestly, you can have a match of the year with a wrestler who isn't built up as long as you get into the story of the match. I know that people say the story can make the match better but I feel differently, it can definitely lead to more hype to the match but that's the equivalent to saying the Bane/Batman fight scenes are better in Dark Knight Rises because of the build up. The match itself is a story and I don't feel CM Punk/Cena is a better match because of the awesome build up to it.
I WWE hate tag matches for being so fucking formulaic. If you've seen one WWE tag match, you've seen them all.
ReplyDeleteFixed for you.
Kevin Nash: I don't get it.
ReplyDeleteMy issue is with inconsistent selling, as in guys that will limp around selling the leg, then do a move that shouldn't be possible with a bad leg, then going back to limping. Selling is more that just acting like you're hurt, it should affect how you wrestle the match.
ReplyDeleteWell said. I think most of us underestimate how damaging 50/50 booking really is to developing new stars. There's a lot wrong with today's product, but 50/50 booking is near the top of my list of damaging trends.
ReplyDeleteYeah, defiantly. I believe the art of psychology is certainly missing these days for a lot of things. I believe a lot of wrestlers these days are too busy shocking us by using all these near-falls. I like shocking near-falls as much as the next guy, but I like psychology more; it adds suspense of disbelief to the match
ReplyDeleteNope, I am not Al Snow. But I do like head, though.
ReplyDeleteTrust me, I wasn't trying to enlighten this place. It was more so like "here's what I think makes a compelling match, what do you think" sort of piece.
ReplyDeleteGood point. I think the elements are easy to see, but giving examples doesn't always actually illustrate the point, because a lot of it is taste and timing -- when the viewer saw the match, what their tastes were at the time and where in their fandom matters too for a lot of people.
ReplyDeleteI recognize that a LOT of people think Austin/Rock at WM X7 is the Godfather (or Shawshank Redemption) of wrestling matches, and I think it's a good match too, but more on the Hogan/Warrior scale than the Flair/Steamboat scale. Speaking of The Dark Knight, I feel similarly about that too actually haha -- it's a good movie for an action movie, but not a movie I hold in special regard overall or anything.
My favorite match is actually Misawa vs Jumbo: the rematch It displayed everything above. Tons of Japanese fans believe Kawada vs Misawa is the best match in puro history, but the ending sequence had this "hit-a-big-move, near-fall, hit-a-big-move" formula. Superb match, but I feel like Misawa and Jumbo had a better story that held the match together.
ReplyDeleteThank you. That match was a really good sell job on Kennedy's behalf. I'd say one of his most brilliant performances ever, and a reason not to backlash at those who believed Kennedy had "it". I also loved how the hand played into the finish. Foolishly, Kennedy punched HBK in the face; and as a result of the pain, it gave HBK enough time and room to deliver SCM.
ReplyDeleteHBK is truly one of the best storytellers ever. I remember another really fun match he had was with Randy Orton where SCM was banned. He pulled out all the stops close out the match. And since Orton got kicked in the face so many times, he was scared to death of taking another one on the jaw. So every time Shawn thought or faked going for SCM - Randy Orton flinched. Orton, finally, at the end, wasn't fooled by it and clinched the match with a RKO.
Herb Kunze sure seems calmer these days.
ReplyDeleteI gave some examples, but I guess not enough. Perhaps if I ever do one again, I will list a matches that perfectly fit each description.
ReplyDeleteYep. I agree with that.
ReplyDeleteBeing 7 feet and 300 pounds and not doing pointless shit that a 7-foot, 300 pound guy to do.
ReplyDelete50/50 has to be right at the top of the list, 1 or 2. No one will get Cena-levels of over that way, and thus, no actual STARS.
ReplyDeleteBeat me to it, that was some good storytelling in that Orton match.
ReplyDeletethis is kyle itta's post. i use cage side seats, he posted this there b4. he wrote a good cm punk piece, it shocked me since his news pieces here felt like he was trying to turn this place into 411mania. if he does more of this on here im down
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cagesideseats.com/2013/2/25/4028956/history-in-the-making-what-makes-a-wrestling-match-compelling
Cool story bro. Tell it again.
ReplyDeleteThe tag formula is an evergreen but its true, sometimes it needs to be played with. I'm surprised there hasn't been an indie that really commits to the idea of having all tag matches be tornado-style, just to see what they can do with it.
ReplyDeleteI think you said it better than I did tbh.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it even needs to be that. They just need to show they're pushing through pain, pick the guy up but act like it's hurting. I I had a cracked a rib during the busiest period at work while suffering a chest infection, every time I coughed it felt like i was being stabbed in the side but I couldn't take a sick day that month, if an ordinary bloke like me can grit out pain for a full work day I can buy an athlete gritting it out to win a match.
ReplyDeleteExactly! It's mostly a problem on the indy circut, but what you described is the difference between selling and pretending that you're hurt.
ReplyDeleteI hate WWE matches for being so fucking formulaic. If you've seen one WWE match, you've seen them all.
ReplyDeleteFixed it again.
that's the beauty of foreign objects in the 80s. if someone got hit with a char, in 9 out of 10 times he was OUT.
ReplyDeletebut, as discussed several times before, even many of those supposedly "engaging" near-falls don't work at all because we have near seen any beaten by the moves that are being used (prime example: Orton's DDT).
ReplyDeleteI think WWE caught onto that, so they are allowing even mid-carders to kick out finishers to try to force drama. The problem is it might get to the point where nobodies finisher means anything. I mean when I was watching Rock vs Cena, they were hitting finishes and I was like no way that's it. I predicted every finisher false-finish, which neglects the purpose of a finisher.
ReplyDelete"I think WWE caught onto that, so they are allowing even mid-carders to kick out finishers to try to force drama."
ReplyDeletebut I think we both agree that's even making it worse!
As Stanislavski said, realism is not naturalism.
ReplyDeleteEd Ferrara came up with ALOT of the slogans and interviews after he arrived in June 98. He helped rock out tremendously while rock was blossoming in late 98 and its likely he suggested to Tiger that he try the "it doesn't matter" out on the crowd. He wasn't over so it was easily forgotten .
ReplyDeleteThe Shield endorses this concept.
ReplyDeleteThen don't work on a fucking body part.
ReplyDeleteIt wastes the audiences time, there is no reason to have filler in most wrestling matches.
No discussion of workrate or move use? Strange.
ReplyDeleteTrue.....instead, they kick out because in the WWE, you cant win a match unless you hit your finisher! Ever since the ppv where HBK hit Sid with a video camera and he kicked out, but got 3 after sweet chin music, it has been the case
ReplyDeleteNot to mention, the foreign objects were much better in the 80s. Loaded gloves/boots.....Ether? Brass knux? The golden spike? What about freebird hair cream?
ReplyDeleteMoves are just ingredients that move the story. And pretty much everything here sums up "workrate".
ReplyDelete"And pretty much everything here sums up workrate"?
ReplyDeleteExcept for the actual mentioning of workrate or cardio or speed of wrestling.
Workrate isn't a blanket term referring to how good of a wrestler somebody is. It's specifically a reference to how much shit a wrestler does (their "work") in a given amount of time (the "rate" of that "work" perhaps). You can have shitty matches and a good workrate. You can have good matches with a bad workrate. But workrate is part of matches.
I agree with a lot of what is written, I really do. But moves are vital to wrestling. It's a physical exhibition, and watching a beautiful crossbody or a vicious DDT is part of the enjoyment of watching wrestling. Also moves allow the characters to express their gimmick and personality. You can't be a daredevil maniac character and only punch people and never leave your feet. If you're a monster and you only do roll-ups...it doesn't work.
I talked about how important execution is - which is similar, but I see what you're saying.
ReplyDeletetl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;drtl;dr
ReplyDeleteAlso, it was too long and I didn't read it. Did he bring up Fandango?
The examples are great up to and including the paragraph about Bret Hart and his multiple types of story telling. A bit more of that in the second half would bring the whole thing up a notch.
ReplyDeleteExecution is nowhere near the same as workrate.
ReplyDeletePunk has fantastic workrate. His actual execution of moves is pretty shitty however. Same deal with Sheamus and Cena really.
There are also guys with great execution but move glacially slow. The Zybysko's and Bockwinkel's and Regals (On his bad days) come to mind.
Who fucking cares what some random mook's enjoyment breakdown is?
ReplyDeletePersonal taste is everything. For instance, I think Austin/Rock is as good as or better than every Flair/Steamboat match I've seen (which is all their PPV encounters). I think it is the perfectly realized WWF Main Event Style match, like Flair/Steamboat was the perfectly realized Ric Flair Style match.
ReplyDelete"Filler" allows the crowd to get invested in the match. To rally behind the wrestler, build heat, etc.
ReplyDeleteI find the Flair/Steamboat arm work pointless in terms of setting up a finish, but it is effective at establishing the two guys working to wear each other down, find weaknesses, and get the crowd to buy into the contest.
But you and I have drastically different wrestling tastes anyway, so we'll likely never agree on a topic like this.
ReplyDeleteYeah, that Orton/Michaels match was a classic.
ReplyDeleteYup. I think for me, the so-called Attitude style just isn't my ideal to begin with, so it's always gonna take a lot to push anything but the very best matches onto my radar in the longrun.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure other people are in the same boat, so while it surprises me when people say they don't love Steamboat/Savage or Flair/Steamboat, I can understand where they are coming from.
For the record my favorite Attitude-Era match I think is the Austin/HHH Three Stages of Hell.
That was a great one. I'm partial to Austin/Rock and Austin/Angle (Summerslam '01).
ReplyDeleteI think he just lost interest, particularly in the American style. His "Tidbits" started to come out less and less often between 2000 and 2001 and his general presence on the scene started to dwindle too. I think he was just getting his PhD when he started writing the Tidbits and by the time he left the scene he was a tenured professor. Really, really nice level headed guy IMO.
ReplyDeleteThat is the 1 flaw of the Malenko/Scotty 2 Hotty match from Backlash in 2000. The match is perfect barring Scotty using the leg that Malenko has crippled as his hopping leg to set up the Worm.
ReplyDelete