CM Punk chat

[SuperBacon]

45 minutes ago, LaGoosh said:

Well quiet

Ugh, just like you AEWians to try and put down WWE and SILENCE us. You be quiet!

#IstandwithWWE

[Mr_Danger]

I don’t feel like WWE and AEW are worlds apart tbh. Maybe that’s down to the way I consume both products but to me they’re both all you can eat buffets. AEW is one of those worlds buffets where you can get Yorkshire pudding, spring rolls and sushi and WWE is a burgers, wings and pizza joint. Both have similar dining experiences and satisfaction levels.

I would argue that WWE wrestlers have a duty to hold back a bit down to their increased schedules.

What I was getting at with Dirty Dom with his wrestling ability is learning to engage the audience more bell to bell and to be more convincing as a male singles wrestler and not just a bit of eye candy with some snappy lines for the lovely ladies of wrestling.

[Merzbow]

One thing I notice far more with WWE TV matches is that you can see almost every stitch where an agent has put a match together, it's meticulous to a fault and mixed in with the production takes me out of it. But fair play to them, they do that particular style of wrestling so well.

[Carbomb]

2 hours ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

What I think is interesting is what a spot fest is.  Because if you listen to parts of the internet or Cornette it’s Ospreay/Ricochet, or every young bucks match, when in reality a good chunk of matches are spot fests by the nature of them being built around certain spots happening in matches. But why are some acceptable and others dismissed? Both can look nonsensical at times. And let’s not forget the most famous spotfest, Savage vs Steamboat from Wrestlemania III.

That was in no way a spotfest. There was an actual story being told by the action in the ring, including selling.

For me, the definition of a spotfest is simple: it's a focus on moves at the expense of everything else that tells a story. It's when the wrestlers in the match break the internal rules of storytelling that have already been established with the crowd, just to be able to do big moves that will give a momentary pop, but at best contribute nothing and at worst detract from the story and the overall emotional impact said wrestlers are supposed to be trying to have on the crowd. The most common occurrence of this was in the indies, with head-drops, overly-brutal strikes, huge complicated slams, etc. being done mid-match, with minimal or poor selling. It's supposed to be a representation of a combat sports bout, yet you had these guys walking around the ring with seemingly no issues with their necks despite being hit with a Burning Hammer five minutes previously. 

It's not a new issue, either. It's been discussed so often amongst wrestling commentators and fans - if you're dropping someone on their head from a great height and they're not knocked out for the loss, where do you go from there? If you're throwing someone through a load of glass light rods or off a ladder, and they're getting back up, what more do you have to do - which is a good question to put in the crowds mind for a specific story of hatred or extreme rivalry, but for almost every match? 

 

As regards the term "sports entertainment": it's wanky, but I think people get too hung up on the wrong question. The issue isn't that AEW does one and WWE does the other; they both do sports entertainment, they both do pro-wrestling. 

The problem is that McMahon/WWE insisted for so long on using it within their product, within the bounds of kayfabe, not outside it. The entire premise is that pro-wrestling is the illusion, and sports entertainment is the reality. We're not interested in the reality when we're watching a wrestling programme. It serves to weaken the illusion by using the real terms within it, hence why worked shoots are always shit. I've not seen that era of wCw when they actively referred to that stuff on their actual programming, like working out matches or jobbing, but it sounds like absolute fucking dross, and I would never watch it. If I'm watching a film, I don't want direct, diegetic references to it being a film, unless it's established right from the outset that it's going to break the fourth wall - and there are only so many of that kind of film I can watch before it gets irritating. I certainly wouldn't want to hear Poirot saying midway through Murder On The Orient Express saying "Do not worry, mon ami, we will all find out on page 57 of the script".

There's another factor: obviously, your mileage may vary as regards what you consider acceptable to refer to on-screen, especially as, at the opposite end of the scale, people loved Lucha Underground, which didn't just push the boundaries of kayfabe, it shoved them right into the realms of ludicrousness, which, I think, shows just how co-operative wrestling fans are willing to be in being entertained. But there was something about the insistence on using the term "sports entertainment" and prohibiting the term "wrestling" that just reeked of McMahon being adversarial/contemptuous/paternalistic/controlling towards his audience in the same way he is towards his workers. It came across like he, the purveyor of this form of entertainment you like, hated you for liking it, that you should be ashamed of it like he seemed to be, and that you should "like what I tell you to like, dammit". Go a bit further, and there's that whole proscribed/prescribed vocabulary for WWE programming - "superstar" instead of "wrestler", "championship" instead of "belt", etc. Then it takes on a whole dimension just being McMahon's own brand of wanky marketing-speak, like when MetroBank officially referred to their ATMs as "magic money machines" or their bank branches as "stores" to differentiate themselves. What wrestling fans are railing against in that is just what people rail against in general when they can spot that they're being sold to and being asked to co-operate in the charade, a bit like the forced, cringeworthy "fun" that office managers refer to as "team-building". Let's not forget, also, that McMahon adopted it for a practical, business reason, which is fair enough, but it has about as much to do with us as fans as ratings chat does.

Like I say, YMMV. From my personal standpoint, I've no issue with it as a term in itself, but I just don't want to hear it referred to when I'm trying to enjoy it, especially when I'm aware that it's a direct, negative product of the rolling maelstrom of insecurities, narcissism, and near-psychosis that is the mind of Vince McMahon.

I like my wrestling like I like my coffee: without some other bloke's bollocks in it.

[Hannibal Scorch]

Whilst I don’t disagree with your opinion @Carbomb, the problem is what’s the definition of a spotfest? Because your interpretation is one I used to use myself, however, and possibly as another instance of tribalism, I’ve seen plenty of matches called a spotfest that are telling a story and do include storytelling. Hangman/Swerve was recently called a spotfest by a lot of people, Punk/Drew wasn’t as much but some still did, and I’d agree both told a story, both included selling (for the most part).
 

People now seem to consume wrestling much more in highlights or individual clips then ever, and maybe that’s another reason. Showing a clip of a high risk flippy spot doesn’t mean that’s all the match was, or that the match wasn’t telling a story. But out of context you can make a judgement, or at least some people do. 

[Carbomb]

10 minutes ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

Whilst I don’t disagree with your opinion @Carbomb, the problem is what’s the definition of a spotfest? Because your interpretation is one I used to use myself, however, and possibly as another instance of tribalism, I’ve seen plenty of matches called a spotfest that are telling a story and do include storytelling. Hangman/Swerve was recently called a spotfest by a lot of people, Punk/Drew wasn’t as much but some still did, and I’d agree both told a story, both included selling (for the most part).
 

People now seem to consume wrestling much more in highlights or individual clips then ever, and maybe that’s another reason. Showing a clip of a high risk flippy spot doesn’t mean that’s all the match was, or that the match wasn’t telling a story. But out of context you can make a judgement, or at least some people do. 

Not having seen those matches, I couldn't tell you what they were, but, thinking about it further, I would argue that it depends on the context in which you're using the term. I've seen it used as a criticism for matches which are just the wrestlers virtually self-fellating rather than trying to entertain (or, more likely, not realising there's a difference). I've also seen it used as merely a descriptor for a match that had lots of moves in it ("it was an enjoyable little spotfest"), but personally I wouldn't use it that way, because to me it implies that there was no selling, no pacing, no structure, no character work, no crowd work, etc. 

For me, it feels like the term "spotfest" would be too general and lacking in nuance, anyway. For example, the best description of a good match that uses lots of acrobatic/athletic high-spots but not at the expense of everything else is one that I regularly heard from Signor @JLM when describing Toryumon/DragonGate matches: "sprints". I certainly wouldn't use that term for a hard-core bloodbath or death match.

[JLM]

Yeah a great Dragongate six man sprint often commits many of the sins of a spotfest but somehow still feels coherent a lot of of the time. Like people get up from things that probably should have ended the match and they don’t  always take time to let the big spots “breathe” like you’re supposed to do in “good” pro wrestling.
 

However, over the course of the match you can still  feel the cumulative exhaustion building as if their videogame life bars are gradually depleting, and the sense of growing danger and desperation  as they build to an often manic closing stretch. They’re doing lots of things very fast, but  there IS a limit to how much they can take or how much fighting spirit or whatever they have in the tank to let them keep kicking out like super humans. Also plenty of fun story beats and callbacks to previous matches and all that good stuff. The Bucks, who are often accused of having no psychology and just doing moves for the sake of moves, are really good at this and it’s no coincidence they worked Dragongate themselves. 

I would also contend that six guys doing loads of moves for the sake of moves at high speed without any of the above can still be a ton of fun as well in the right doses. Won’t pretend I don’t enjoy that, but a multiman sprint match with loads of high spots can definitely tell s great story as well. 

[LaGoosh]

6 hours ago, RedTwoster said:

in WWE TV matches typically peak at ‘good’ with the top notch stuff generally (but not always) being reserved for PPV.

And that goes back to my original point. You don't need to be that good a wrestler to be a top star in WWE because their format doesn't require it. The TV matches are generally weak and/or inconsequential. The fanbase don't care. Seth Rollins and Cody Rhodes are top stars and neither are rarely better than average when the bell rings. They don't need a main event super worker like Cena anymore. You just need to be decent enough that the machine can get behind you and do the rest to get you to the main event. So why not Dom Mysterio? He'd certainly be a fun change of pace on top from the usual.

Edited December 21, 2024 by LaGoosh

[Devon Malcolm]

I've always regarded a spotfest as loads of Big Moves, little to no selling and multiple finisher kickouts. I don't tend to call them spotfests though, more 'stuff I hate'.

[RedTwoster]

1 hour ago, LaGoosh said:

And that goes back to my original point. You don't need to be that good a wrestler to be a top star in WWE because their format doesn't require it. The TV matches are generally weak and/or inconsequential. The fanbase don't care. Seth Rollins and Cody Rhodes are top stars and neither are rarely better than average when the bell rings. They don't need a main event super worker like Cena anymore. You just need to be decent enough that the machine can get behind you and do the rest to get you to the main event. So why not Dom Mysterio? He'd certainly be a fun change of pace on top from the usual.

I genuinely don’t think that suggestion holds water anymore - if you look at any top star in WWE in the Triple H era, they’re pretty much all capable of putting together  an exceptional match when the bell rings. Cody is an interesting choice given that he was a top star in AEW and was involved in one of the best AEW matches ever, against his brother. Cody might not be Will Ospreay, but he makes everything count - I’d argue he’s a better wrestler than the vast majority of wrestlers in the industry today. As far as Rollins goes, I don’t like him - but I don’t think it’s accurate to say he’s ‘average’ in ring. His ring work is one of his strengths; he falls short when it comes to character.

You could throw the ‘average’ label at LA Knight, but he’s not been able to work his way above the midcard; but you could say the same about Hook or Wardlow in AEW. They’re wrestlers who got over in spite of their limitations, and got a limited push as a result - it’s pretty clear, I think, that both companies value ring work. 

[Vamp]

5 minutes ago, RedTwoster said:

As far as Rollins goes, I don’t like him - but I don’t think it’s accurate to say he’s ‘average’ in ring. 

I agree, he's well shit.

[Lion_of_the_Midlands]

We all disagree on various aspects of wrestling and its presentation but surely the one thing we can all agree on is that Seth Rollins is shit. Its not down to his ring work, or his promo, or his character,  its the combination of everything together. 

[LaGoosh]

7 minutes ago, RedTwoster said:

Cody is an interesting choice given that he was a top star in AEW and was involved in one of the best AEW matches ever, against his brother. Cody might not be Will Ospreay, but he makes everything count - I’d argue he’s a better wrestler than the vast majority of wrestlers in the industry today. As far as Rollins goes, I don’t like him - but I don’t think it’s accurate to say he’s ‘average’ in ring. His ring work is one of his strengths; he falls short when it comes to character.

Yeah, I think I'm going to bow out as I fundamentally cannot agree or accept that either Cody or Rollins are good wrestlers. 

[DavidB6937]

6 minutes ago, LaGoosh said:

Yeah, I think I'm going to bow out as I fundamentally cannot agree or accept that either Cody or Rollins are good wrestlers. 

See i don't get this. There are plenty that I'm not a fan of their styles etc but I can understand that they're good wrestlers. I can't see how anyone can look at Cody or Seth and not acknowledge that they're good wrestlers even if they're not your type of enjoyment.

[LaGoosh]

3 minutes ago, DavidB6937 said:

See i don't get this. There are plenty that I'm not a fan of their styles etc but I can understand that they're good wrestlers. I can't see how anyone can look at Cody or Seth and not acknowledge that they're good wrestlers even if they're not your type of enjoyment.

It's not a case of "It's not my thing, but I can see they're good". There's plenty of wrestlers I see like that. 

I genuinely do not think Cody or Rollins are good wrestlers. I think their matches are bad and they are bad wrestlers.

If you do  - great! Enjoy. But it's probably not worth discussing what makes wrestling good when opinions are that far apart as we clearly won't agree on anything. It's all good.

Edited December 21, 2024 by LaGoosh