What happened to wrestling?

[Supremo]

1 hour ago, tiger_rick said:

Most of my favourite matches down the years have a traditional "psychology". But what I've realised along the way is that caring about the people and caring who wins is much, much, much more important than any "psychology" of a match.

This is why this is my favourite place online to talk about pro-wrestling; for the most part we’ve all gone through the same life cycle of being a wrestling fan.

Firstly, we all fell in love with the big characters, bright colours and daft storylines. Then we all read a couple of issues of Powerslam and convinced ourselves it was all about the crispness of the moves and the selling. Did someone start running after previously selling their leg?! An instant minus two stars! Everything has got to be super serious and realistic otherwise it’s shit. And then we’ve all come out the other end and realised that a fun match is a fun match regardless, there’s no set criteria every match should follow in order to be objectively good, and there’s nothing more important than a big character or storyline that you care about.

It’s why I usually can’t stomach wrestling discourse on Twitter. The majority are still stuck in phase two, endlessly moaning, hate watching everything, parroting shit they’ve heard Bully Ray say or tagging Jim Cornette to snitch on something. Give it five to ten years, lads. You might actually remember why you enjoyed this stuff in the first place.

It was my main takeaway from those Ultimate Warrior documentaries earlier this year. Miserable bastards like Jim Ross moaning about how he was so shit and couldn’t work. Who gives a fuck. The guy was over and it was an absolute blast when his music hit and he ran out to smash someone up. I loved watching him on my TV and hoped he’d win his match. There’s your psychology.

[Chris B]

13 minutes ago, Smokin' said:

 I think it's very easy to define

 

13 minutes ago, Smokin' said:

there's a large grey area

Glad we cleared that up.

[BomberPat]

24 minutes ago, Smokin' said:

The issue that I see in wrestling today is that things just don't make sense, therefore the psychology is poor. If a wrestler has his back worked on for the entire match and then starts powerbombing people, it's poor psychology. If a wrestler isn't strong enough to do a move early in the match but does something equally impressive as a feat of strength later, it's poor psychology. If a wrestler is sat in a choke for 30 seconds without giving a plausible reason they're not out cold, it's lacking psychology. If a wrestler is in an armbar for 30 seconds without it being snapped, it's illogical and therefore poor psychology. A wrestler choosing to do a standing shooting star press (notably Sammy Guevara) is poor psychology because it obviously looks less painful to receive than a simple elbow drop, so why is it being done?

But this is largely applicable to wrestling at any point since it became televised, at least. If anything, you're far less likely to see a wrestler "sat in a choke for 30 seconds" now than you would have done in the '80s or '90s, because the audience have a baseline understanding of how MMA fights work - that's why in WWE you won't see referees do the old "checking the arm" spot in a chokehold any more, they'll just call for the bell as soon as it looks like someone's passed out. 

Similarly, when it comes to something like an armbar, you're far more likely these days to see wrestlers struggle to avoid a submission - if you take the Cross Armbreaker as a fairly common example, you'll see wrestlers lock their hands together to try and fight the hold, constantly trying to work their way up off the mat, because audiences these days know that once a hold like that is locked in, you're pretty much done. Whereas if you see any submission hold in wrestling up until, let's say 2010 as an arbitrary cut-off point, but certainly throughout the '90s and beforehand, the spot is always that a wrestler is in the hold for longer and longer, trying to fight the pain or reach the ropes. That's unrealistic and poor psychology - based on the knowledge available to the audience now - so you don't really see it any more, but used examples like Terry Funk and Ric Flair, who would spend far longer in holds without their limbs being snapped, but you don't consider that to be unrealistic, because it wasn't the "psychology" of the time. 

 

As for the standing shooting star press, that's just opening up a whole can of worms. Why do a "simple elbow drop" at all if you could just stamp on the dude's head, because surely that looks even more painful? Why aren't they just always punching each other clean in the face if it's just about what "looks more painful"? Why, when wrestlers since year dot have done the International routine, would a wrestler leapfrog over the other one for no discernible reason rather than just hitting him? Why did Great Muta do a Moonsault rather than just a Splash? Why did Jeff Hardy do a Swanton Bomb instead of just jumping on them? 
You could easily bullshit together some wrestling logic for it - the rotation of the standing shooting star creates momentum that makes it more painful than an average splash, or you could say that Sammy Guevera's personality is that he's a bit of a show-off so why wouldn't he be a bit of a flashy prick and add a little sizzle to his moves?

 

There are criticisms of the modern style, for sure - there's a lot of spots I see done without a sense of the underlying logic as to why, but I'm talking more about very basic routines, not the flashier side of things, which clearly has a place; it gets reactions from the audience. But to say there's a lack of storytelling when there are countless posts on this forum alone raving about the story of the Omega/Hangman feud, or about how believable Eddie Kingston is in his matches, is just disingenuous. 

 

EDIT: and, ultimately, the point is this conversation has been happening for as long as wrestling has. You pointed to Ric Flair and Terry Funk as believable wrestlers, but Ric Flair has his Flair flop and all sorts of comedy spots, and Funk's the best to ever do it but does some mad old pratfalls that are nothing like believable. When Ric Flair was on top, wrestlers from the previous generation used to complain that he bumped too much, that he did too much comedy for a champion, that he did spots that exposed the business. When Hogan was on top, the criticism was that he couldn't work and that babyfaces shouldn't be throwing punches. Shawn Michaels was a spot monkey, Harley Race took too many bumps and did too much in a single match for any of it to be believable. I've read books written in the 1930s that complain that the wrestlers of that era were too showy and too athletic compared to those of twenty years prior. I'm sure the people who grew up with Farmer Burns and William Muldoon were complaining that Frank Gotch was too much of a showman too. 

Edited July 9, 2021 by BomberPat

[Chris B]

We all know that in a real fight, your manager would hold up an urn with magic ashes in it, and you'd get extra power to keep fighting. That's psychology.

[Supremo]

1 hour ago, Smokin' said:

The issue that I see in wrestling today is that things just don't make sense, therefore the psychology is poor. If a wrestler has his back worked on for the entire match and then starts powerbombing people, it's poor psychology. If a wrestler isn't strong enough to do a move early in the match but does something equally impressive as a feat of strength later, it's poor psychology. If a wrestler is sat in a choke for 30 seconds without giving a plausible reason they're not out cold, it's lacking psychology. If a wrestler is in an armbar for 30 seconds without it being snapped, it's illogical and therefore poor psychology. A wrestler choosing to do a standing shooting star press (notably Sammy Guevara) is poor psychology because it obviously looks less painful to receive than a simple elbow drop, so why is it being done?

If all wrestling followed this terrible definition of, “psychology,” then it’d be the worst form of entertainment ever created. Guys would exclusively do the most basic of offensive moves that expel as little energy as possible, and would get progressively more hurt and tired until one man died to silence. There’d be no swings of momentum or big comebacks. No crescendo.

Honestly, you think it’d make for a better match if a guy sells his back throughout and then loses due to broken back? You don’t think it’d be a tiny bit more exciting and perhaps make for a better story if a guy who’s had a sore back all match suddenly gets a second wind and manages to fight through the pain to do the big Powerbomb regardless? You don’t see how such an act might make someone feel heroic?

Plus, if we’re going to obsess about realism, have you ever seen MMA? There’s decades of examples of guys in real fights managing to do exactly what you describe as unrealistic. Withstanding submissions far beyond what you’d think was possible (Dan Hardy vs. GSP), taking endless concussive blows and still fighting regardless (Griffin vs. Bonnar), powering out of submissions that look locked in to completely swing the momentum (Trigg vs. Hughes), earning a victory after getting a second wind when they otherwise looked completely fucked (McGregor vs. Diaz 2) and managing to steal victory from the jaws of defeat, overcoming the pain at the last second for the big, wild comeback (Lewis vs. Volkov).

If you aren’t an MMA fan, presumably because it’s filled with such, “bad psychology,” then I’ll let you know that these are some of the most memorable fights of all time for the very reasons I’ve listed. Because that’s what, “psychology,” really is. Not what grumpy retired wrestlers told you in RF Video shoots. It’s creating engagement and excitement. Telling a story. Swinging momentum. Building expectations and then surprising the audience. Making people cheer or boo and lose their minds. And whilst limping after being in the Figure Four might be one way to tell a story, it’s far from the only way, nor is it necessarily the best. I bet more people would cheer if you surprised them, overcame the pain and used that damaged leg to hit a super kick out of nowhere. Super kick partaaaaay.

Out of interest though, you do admit, “Biology,” and, “Sound of the Underground,” are classics, yeah?

Edited July 9, 2021 by Supremo

[Smokin']

1 hour ago, Chris B said:

 

Glad we cleared that up.

Those are two seperate points. "Psychology" is easy to define and "there's a large grey area" between an ultra realistic match and an unrealistic spotfest. I'm not saying that psychology is a grey area, it isn't, it's a very simple principle.

[Smokin']

1 hour ago, BomberPat said:

But this is largely applicable to wrestling at any point since it became televised, at least. If anything, you're far less likely to see a wrestler "sat in a choke for 30 seconds" now than you would have done in the '80s or '90s, because the audience have a baseline understanding of how MMA fights work - that's why in WWE you won't see referees do the old "checking the arm" spot in a chokehold any more, they'll just call for the bell as soon as it looks like someone's passed out. 

Similarly, when it comes to something like an armbar, you're far more likely these days to see wrestlers struggle to avoid a submission - if you take the Cross Armbreaker as a fairly common example, you'll see wrestlers lock their hands together to try and fight the hold, constantly trying to work their way up off the mat, because audiences these days know that once a hold like that is locked in, you're pretty much done. Whereas if you see any submission hold in wrestling up until, let's say 2010 as an arbitrary cut-off point, but certainly throughout the '90s and beforehand, the spot is always that a wrestler is in the hold for longer and longer, trying to fight the pain or reach the ropes. That's unrealistic and poor psychology - based on the knowledge available to the audience now - so you don't really see it any more, but used examples like Terry Funk and Ric Flair, who would spend far longer in holds without their limbs being snapped, but you don't consider that to be unrealistic, because it wasn't the "psychology" of the time. 

 

As for the standing shooting star press, that's just opening up a whole can of worms. Why do a "simple elbow drop" at all if you could just stamp on the dude's head, because surely that looks even more painful? Why aren't they just always punching each other clean in the face if it's just about what "looks more painful"? Why, when wrestlers since year dot have done the International routine, would a wrestler leapfrog over the other one for no discernible reason rather than just hitting him? Why did Great Muta do a Moonsault rather than just a Splash? Why did Jeff Hardy do a Swanton Bomb instead of just jumping on them? 
You could easily bullshit together some wrestling logic for it - the rotation of the standing shooting star creates momentum that makes it more painful than an average splash, or you could say that Sammy Guevera's personality is that he's a bit of a show-off so why wouldn't he be a bit of a flashy prick and add a little sizzle to his moves?

 

There are criticisms of the modern style, for sure - there's a lot of spots I see done without a sense of the underlying logic as to why, but I'm talking more about very basic routines, not the flashier side of things, which clearly has a place; it gets reactions from the audience. But to say there's a lack of storytelling when there are countless posts on this forum alone raving about the story of the Omega/Hangman feud, or about how believable Eddie Kingston is in his matches, is just disingenuous. 

 

EDIT: and, ultimately, the point is this conversation has been happening for as long as wrestling has. You pointed to Ric Flair and Terry Funk as believable wrestlers, but Ric Flair has his Flair flop and all sorts of comedy spots, and Funk's the best to ever do it but does some mad old pratfalls that are nothing like believable. When Ric Flair was on top, wrestlers from the previous generation used to complain that he bumped too much, that he did too much comedy for a champion, that he did spots that exposed the business. When Hogan was on top, the criticism was that he couldn't work and that babyfaces shouldn't be throwing punches. Shawn Michaels was a spot monkey, Harley Race took too many bumps and did too much in a single match for any of it to be believable. I've read books written in the 1930s that complain that the wrestlers of that era were too showy and too athletic compared to those of twenty years prior. I'm sure the people who grew up with Farmer Burns and William Muldoon were complaining that Frank Gotch was too much of a showman too. 

I think a lot of that is something I'd agree with entirely. The thing which is noticable to me is that no matter how much wrestling has changed, from say the 50s onwards, there was always an element of what was believable in wrestling at that particular time. There are anomalies, sure, but 50s wrestling was fairly easy to define, you can see the changes by the 60s to a faster style, when you get round to the 70s you can see it evolving further, there was more variety coming in during the 80s and you'd have power wrestlers, more smaller guys and so on. That evolution of wrestling has always been there and it always will develop, as it should do.

The thing which I do find more egregious though is when common sense goes out of the window. To be specific to the points you raised, looking through a pro-wrestling scope, I can justify a moonsault or Swanton Bomb because it's like the wrestler is adding more velocity to their moves and it's showbusiness, there's always going to be an element of that, so as a wrestling fan, you try to excuse it. I think those moves are acceptable in the sense that you can justify it by suspending your disbelief, something you have to do any time there's an Irish whip.

What I'm talking about goes beyond that though. There's so many illogical things, it's not just purely about moves not looking legit or being contrived. It's the wrestlers working together...how does that not instantly piss people off when wrestlers are stood together, waiting for their opponent? Wrestlers not selling, moves not having a logical amount of 'damage' to them, the endless spotfest finishes, the no selling of finishing moves and so on. There's just so many different things going on that make wrestling in 2021 feel like you're watching a bad video game be copied.

To me, that line of wrestling from the 50s to early 2010s was fairly obvious. Most of the defences people have made in this thread so far could easily be applied to the indies in 2006 or so, but then you have this modern 2021 style which has just thrown sense out of the window. Psychology and intending to be legitimate seems to be a thing many wrestlers are uninterested in, which is a shame.

[Smokin']

34 minutes ago, Supremo said:

If all wrestling followed this terrible definition of, “psychology,” then it’d be the worst form of entertainment ever created.

If you aren’t an MMA fan, presumably because it’s filled with such, “bad psychology,”

1. I accept pro-wrestling as pro-wrestling. The best to ever do it were Misawa, Kobashi, Austin, Triple H, Hansen and so on. They were all well, well within my examples of ring psychology.

2. That's such a poor argument, I just can't. I'll leave our debate there, I don't want to get into the childish by responding to things like that.

[Meej81]

2 hours ago, Smokin' said:

1. I accept pro-wrestling as pro-wrestling. The best to ever do it were Misawa, Kobashi, Austin, Triple H, Hansen and so on. They were all well, well within my examples of ring psychology.

2. That's such a poor argument, I just can't. I'll leave our debate there, I don't want to get into the childish by responding to things like that.

All of this is not important. What I went to know is which wrestlers you think are weed smokers and if you think Bayleys arse is looking a bit bigger nowadays 

[Keith Houchen]

@Devon MalcolmWho was this guy again?

[JNLister]

"But it's great psychology" is usually a euphemism for being lazy, so I'll just post a review I did 18 years ago that covers some relevant points in between the rambling. It's from the old Real In Memphis forum/newsletter when we were all randomly assigned three matches to watch:

 

Quote

Masahiro Chono vs Don Frye / El Canek vs Andre The Giant – by John Lister

So, yeah, the Secret Santa deal. Apparantly I've been a very good boy this year as I've wound up with three gifts. Unfortunately one, Chono vs Frye, never actually got to me, even though I've been waiting for it for over a year. Had I arranged for somebody to send it, maybe that would be different. And Andre vs Canek came via a download link which led me to a 1k file. While this would have been fine for a ZX81 (and too much to handle for a ZX80), it appears it's not sufficient for a video file. Unless it's an animated gif, which may not be too useful for reviewing purposes.

So, it's Bryan Alvarez vs Timothy Flowers in an Iron Man match for the ICW title. If you think I'm going to sit here and write a blow by blow account with a few sarky comments, you must have me confused with Scott Keith. So let's just have it on in the background and ramble on in the meantime. You know, like at the last full-on domestic RIM-up. The last one before we realised that watching wrestling was clearly not the main purpose in getting together.

Right, getting on for five minutes in, nothing has happened. Literally nothing but stalling, though there's a hot blonde in the balcony. Oh, and there's a caneshot to get things started. My plan of typing this while keeping an ear out doesn't really work as there is no commentary, so I'll have to listen for comments from the crowd of about thirty people. Oh, and it's 1-0 to Flowers.

So, Chono vs Frye. I got that match because it was the inspiration between "Because it fucking hurts!", the RIM slogan that came after "Where Euroboy shines Harley Race's boots" but before the current offering from a CCW fan. (Chico just got an equaliser). If you don't know the backstory, once upon a time there was a fool whose name we shall not mention. He didn't understand wrestling.In a review of Chono-Frye he concluded "Thank you, Don Frye, for spending the entire match punching and working Chono's ribs, only to use a sleeper to win, you embarrassment to professional wrestling." Now, I've not seen the match, so I could only ask whether Frye should have:

a) Worked a headlock all match to set up the sleeper

or

b) Finished with a bearhug.

Neither really sounds that engrossing to me. And that's actually the idea, you know, engrossing people. Wrestling is not science, it is art. If you are an idiot reviewer, you will start at ***** and then see how many flaws you can find and knock points off until you get as low as possible. The more "advanced" your understanding, the more flaws you can find. Then you can get into an argument on the internet and show other people how they have missed flaws. Once you win the argument, you will have proven your superiority, AND helped somebody enjoy wrestling less.

The only problem, is that all wrestling is flawed. It's flawed because it's bullshit. In real grappling, it would be very difficult indeed to pin somebody for three seconds. And the idea of having a contest where you can win by a three-second pinfall or a submission makes no sense, because they are totally different aims. And small people can't usually beat much bigger people in a real fight unless there is a ridiculous gulf in class. And people who have been beaten up repeatedly can't usually make a comeback. And in real fights, a boring undercard match can go 25 minutes while a main event can be over in 9 seconds.

Wrestling is great because it celebrates 'flaws'. Looking for what isn't 'logical' defeats the point. Watching two men in their pants pretend to fight is illogical. Pro wrestling takes something that is pointless and ludicrous and then works on basic human emotions to engage people in a story that gives the whole thing a totally artificial meaning and uses entirely fake methods to create a real experience.

And in other news, there is a reason you would repeatedly work over somebody's ribs even when you planned to finish with a sleeper: BECAUSE IT FUCKING HURTS.

Still nothing much happening in the Iron Man match; in fact Flowers is now jiving with the crowd. At some point I need to watch the last match on this disk so I can then watch the whole thing with commentary, which I suspect will be more entertaining. I plan on doing this just after watching the matches on the Benoit DVD, the second disc of the Guerrero DVD, the unseen stuff on the Jake set, maybe dipping into WrestleManias 1-10, the WWE Hall of Fame from this year, and those Australian WCW stuff from the 60s. (20 minute call in Portland). Oh, and watching 8 months of Memphis from TWC on Tivo, plus catching up with World of Sport, and starting on my March 2004-present ROH watching which incorporates TWC, videos, DVDs and downloads. This is different to my ROH shows 3-8 run which I also need to see. And I should probably watch the six months of CMLL I've downloaded, plus Makat Medina which is Israeli comedy (Orthodox Jew vs Swiss Banker and so on).

See, I have a lot of wrestling to watch. This is one of the main reasons I don't have time to waste arguing about whether fucking Tyson Tomko is better than Shawn Michaels or whatever. Yeah, it's fun to sound controversial, but it you could prove the claim (leaving aside the inherent impossibility of proving something like that - note, any 'objective' assessment is still based on a subjective selection of criteria), what's the point? What do you win? Does Tomko get Michaels' slot? Do you get a little animated trophy as your avatar? Do you get some free DVDs?

2-1 Alvarez

Canek-Andre. Not seen it, but I did notice it on a Barnett update, along with lots of stuff I'd buy if there was any point me buying stuff these days. Jesus, a year without full-time work and I've still got about 500 unwatched tapes. That's a real 500, not a random number picked as an exaggeration. Anyway, it must be better than Maeda-Andre, which is a long long time to spend watching a relatively unimportant incident. What is it with 'hardcore fans' and 'shoots'? There seems to be an obsession with backstage fights or in-ring scuffles. And everyone wants to know who would win if it was real. That's like asking who would win the world snooker championship if it was actually contested via a game of Cluedo. My theory is that the hardcore fan is so tormented for watching a fake sissy show that he secretly wants it to be real. That's probably why he also wants it to be STIFF~!~! Then again, it's better than the aforementioned rating systems by which some wrestling has added MEANING~!~! because it tells deep stories that most people can't appreciate, and therefore liking wrestling isn't lame, because they like the intelligent stuff.

3-1 Alvarez at 30:00. I think he's the babyface. That's odd. Make that 3-2. They must have heard me.

The thing with this deep story is that all the usual suspects writing now are going on about mid-90s All Japan (even though he who shall not be named didn't start watching until 2000) and picking up on all this supposed deep psychology, but do wrestlers really think like that? I mean All Japan ones, not US indy "wrestlers who are really just message board posters who found a gym." Yeah, finishes play off previous finishes (which we were noticing in Liger-Sano in 1990, but never mind), but there's no way it's done as deliberately as people claim. Seriously, one guy once wrote about some match in ludicrous detail and about 3000 words in he hit the five minute mark and explained how somebody escaping a move had added depth and meaning because when he did it, Akira Taue was in the background of the picture at ringside with a 'knowing' look, and remember how several years ago Taue tried to escape the same move in a tag match with the same guy? Yes, that's real depth and meaning, and should definitely count towards the match being highly rated, because obviously it was entirely planned that way and not in any way a FUCKING CO-INCIDENCE that Taue happened to be on camera.

Repeating moves from previous matches is nice, as is finding new counters, but it's not actually the entire and sole focus of pro wrestling, you know. There's emotion and execution and originality and timing and working the crowd and adjusting to the crowd without letting them control you, and a million other things. (Note, actual number is not a million, and may or may not be larger than the number of near falls in Brody-Flair.) Of course, I may be wrong here, in which case 'Steve Austin' vs 'Undertaker' on an Orig Williams tribute show, in which they did many many spots and counters from previous major Austin and Taker matches, is the greatest match ever.

The ring for the Alvarez match is on a carpet and they don't have anything under the corner posts. That'll be the last time they use this venue. And it's now 4-3 to Flowers, which means the disk has skipped. Oh well.

They are doing chops. Chops in Sasaki-Kobashi were awesome because they did chops because they were Sasaki-Kobashi in the Tokyo Dome and wanted to out-chop each other and become the toughest man in Japan. Chops is Sasaki-Joe were not awesome, because they were doing chops because Kobashi did chops against Sasaki. At some point somebody will fight Joe and do chops because he did chops against Kobashi. And the end result is a bunch of monkeys in a cage who never touch an electrified post, even though they don't know it's electrified and have never seen anyone touch it - they just know that you don't. (This was originally the ending of an analogy story that explained why new staff in offices use jargon they don't understand and nobody in the office knows why they do it. But it seems to work here.)

10 minutes left and Bryan is down 5-3. Some bloke in the front row really needs a piss. Alvarez  back to 5-4 but looking rough. Bryan needs to do a cake angle. With chocolate cake. Hey, Flowers is discussing real vs fake boobs with the timekeeper. That's the kind of diversion from pure wrestling that we hate at RIM.

Five minutes to go. Sorry, I'm bored. A "Let's go home" chant starts. Are they being deliberately smarky, or are they making travel plans?

Alvazrez actually doing moves and stuff for an hour makes me sad. I like to think of him taking no bumps, stalling, doing comedy, and generally being the youngest grizzled veteran in the biz.

5-5.

One minute left. Fortunately it's not like Wrestling Observer Live where they go to a break for three minutes then return for 45 seconds and never have time to do anything worthwhile. Also, why when I download it from pwtorrents (or did until it disappeared today) does it play fine on my PC, but on my MP3 player it's about 30% slower and makes Alvarez and Meltzer sound like they are totally baked?

The hour's up. That's your lot. Overblown, rambling, inconsistent, no logical story and didn't achieve much.

The Iron Man match was OK though.

 

Edited July 9, 2021 by JNLister

[LaGoosh]

I always find it weird that the Young Bucks are always used as the example of modern no psychology high spot no-sell matches when I would argue that's been the WWE style for years now.

The Bucks have more character and story going into their big matches than most wrestlers do. I'm not even a big fan of them and can see that.

Edited July 9, 2021 by LaGoosh

[Joe Blog]

Why don't you bump me, feed (for) me, say you need me
Without wicked games
C'mon and hold me, (Bear) hug me, say you love me (HBK)
And not my dirty (Bobby The) brain

I got one Alabama (Slam) return
That'll take me far away from you
Cos when you take me in your arms
I turn to slave, I can't be saved (me Y2J)

You can't mistake my Psychology
The way that we talk
The way that we walk
It's there in our thoughts

 

Even Girls Aloud knew. 

[AshC]

I preferred the Sound of Raw Underground.

[hallicks]

1 hour ago, Keith Houchen said:

@Devon MalcolmWho was this guy again?

I feel like it was a flounce over something Ched Evans related