Six Years Ago This Week..........

[Rob Edwards]

EVERYONE analyses wrestling. To form any kind of an opinion on what you're watching, some degree of analysis takes place. The problem is that some overanalyse it to a ridiculous degree, and then find 'flaws' that in most cases aren't a blip on the radar in the grand scheme of things. A good example of such a fan is Jack Halewood.

But are blatant selling fuck ups a blip on the radar? I don't think they are personally :\ , the whole point of rating matches is to compare one to the other you can't give every good match ***** because then how are people who trust your opinion supposed to know what to get 1st? All matches have some flaws I agree, noones worked the perfect match yet and it'll probably never happen but some matches are better than others

[MoChatra]

EVERYONE analyses wrestling. To form any kind of an opinion on what you're watching, some degree of analysis takes place. The problem is that some overanalyse it to a ridiculous degree, and then find 'flaws' that in most cases aren't a blip on the radar in the grand scheme of things. A good example of such a fan is Jack Halewood.

But are blatant selling fuck ups a blip on the radar? I don't think they are personally :\ , the whole point of rating matches is to compare one to the other you can't give every good match ***** because then how are people who trust your opinion supposed to know what to get 1st? All matches have some flaws I agree, noones worked the perfect match yet and it'll probably never happen but some matches are better than others

Blatant selling fuck-ups can fuck-up a career, so they certainly ain't a blip on the radar. A prime example is Undertaker's no-selling at King of the Ring 2001 against DDP.However, most criticisms/debates relating to selling become INCREDIBLY and pathetically trivial and geeky. I mean I've encountered reviews slaughtering Wrestler A, because his opponent applied some leg submissions and he finished the match with a top-rope move, thereby 'ignoring' the leg-work earlier in the match. Let's be honest, who gives a fuck about that kind of thing. You can debate until your blue in the face about whether that's a valid argument or not, but what's the point? It's fans who waste their time devoting themselves to these kind of things, rather than bothering to, like, ENJOY wrestling that irks me.If any fan enjoys over-analysing and picking holes in Kurt Angle's selling, AJ Styles' 'moveset' or Red's lack of psychology in his work, then more power to them. I could just as easily do the same. Heck, it's not like I sit there and 'mark out' over everything I see. I also shit over stuff when it's blatantly bad. However, when it's flawed at a level 99.9% of the audience don't register, then you've got to ask yourself wheter these 'flaws' really are flaws. Edited October 13, 2003 by MoChatra

[Rob Edwards]

However, most criticisms/debates relating to selling become INCREDIBLY and pathetically trivial and geeky. I mean I've encountered reviews slaughtering Wrestler A, because his opponent applied some leg submissions and he finished the match with a top-rope move, thereby 'ignoring' the leg-work earlier in the match. Let's be honest, who gives a fuck about that kind of thing. You can debate until your blue in the face about whether that's a valid argument or not, but what's the point. It's fans who waste their time devoting themselves to these kind of things, rather than bothering to, like, ENJOY wrestling that irks me.

To be honest that kind of comment irks me a bit Mo, you think that someone who buys as many tapes as Jack doesn't enjoy wrestling?and people do give a fuck about this kind of thing, otherwise it wouldn't come up so frequently

If any fan enjoys over-analysing and picking holes in Kurt Angle's selling, AJ Styles' 'moveset' or Red's lack of psychology in his work, then more power to them. I could just as easily do the same. Heck, it's not like I sit there and 'mark out' over everything I see. I also shit over stuff when it's blatantly bad. However, when it's flawed at a level 99.9% of the audience don't register, then you've got to ask yourself wheter these 'flaws' really are flaws.

yeah but that logic makes Hogan the greatest worker ever Mo :\

[Terje Rindal]

And you hardly have to 'over-analyze' to find flaws in a Red match....

[edgecrusher]

Which is why Shawn Michaels can legitimately be believed by a great number of people to be the greatest worker of all time. The 'flaws' that are invariably brought up against him simply aren't seen as flaws by those who support him. -with a loo brushHowever, those very same flaws do make an impact with other people. I've noticed this in my reaction to other wrestlers. It seems totally contradictory, but the only way I can explain it is that there is a special something about Shawn that means I don't see the flaws as flaws. It never doesn't make sense. I think that's the thing. Shawn does his thing so very well that even if he is ignoring his own superb selling from earlier in the match it just doesn't matter. He makes it fit. I really can't explain any better than that right now. -in my pantsThe 'opinion vs fact' question is a really interesting one, but its really hard to approach. I think wrestling tends to lean more towards opinion than fact, to be honest. If you compare it to something such as, say, gymnastics, there is a set code of points in the latter. You can factually define one gymnast's performance as better than the other (though any fan'll point out that there's margins of error lol), but in wrestling you can't. I can't remember who said it on these very forums, but someone said that "There are wrestlers who by the weight of charisma alone can get a stadum on its feet with a simple knee lift", and I think that that says a great deal. An enjoyable match does NOT have to be a good match. The career of Hulk Hogan is proof of this theory. -with a loo brushThat said, almost anyone can factually prove that Hulk Hogan's matches are worse than Kurt Angles, because there is very little actual wrestling in Hogan's matches in the first place, and on top of that it tends to be done in slow motion from Hogan's side of the ring. It doesn't look even remotely realistic. So while I think some matches are factually better than others, I'm really not sure whether it makes any difference AT ALL in the end. It just seems to be something that us lot bitch about and nitpick over. -in my pants

[Guest TheMontyMan]

Gimmick posters  :sleeping:Have to agree with that, Montymans gimmick is far from amusing as is edgecrushers.

What gimmick? I'm not using a gimmick. I'm serious... this isn't a Joey Styles sort of a denial, I really don't. As for posting non-topic posts, I apologise. It just seemed to me as I read it, that this thread had run its course. All points had been made and an agreement had perhaps been reached (as far as the acceptance that a wrestlers flaws are only flaws when interpreted as such, by a fan who considers whatever the subject at hand to be a flaw). Another page down the line and it appears I was wrong. Edited October 13, 2003 by TheMontyMan

[bobbins]

There's no doubt that Jack loves wrestling. Some people have just got different standards. Yeah, everyone analyses, subconciously or otherwise. But what is over-analysing? Surely, if there's no right or wrong way to have a wrestling match, then there's no right or wrong way to analyse a wrestling match.So, in conclusion, Red is shit. Shawn Michaels is not. Yes.

[MoChatra]

To be honest that kind of comment irks me a bit Mo, you think that someone who buys as many tapes as Jack doesn't enjoy wrestling?

If Jack enjoys wrestling so much, find me one quote or review from him praising a match or event that's taken place this year. Much like most retro-centric modern smarts, he marks for all the usual stuff, and he's now become obsessive about Volk Han and RINGS, but as far as today's wrestling is concerned, I don't think anything floats his boat.

and people do give a fuck about this kind of thing, otherwise it wouldn't come up so frequently

Yeah, it comes up frequently on a small handful of message boards frequented by no more than a few thousand people around the world. Considering that number in relation to the millions upon millions of people who watch wrestling around the world, fans who do over-analyse are a drop in the ocean.

If any fan enjoys over-analysing and picking holes in Kurt Angle's selling, AJ Styles' 'moveset' or Red's lack of psychology in his work, then more power to them. I could just as easily do the same. Heck, it's not like I sit there and 'mark out' over everything I see. I also shit over stuff when it's blatantly bad. However, when it's flawed at a level 99.9% of the audience don't register, then you've got to ask yourself wheter these 'flaws' really are flaws.

yeah but that logic makes Hogan the greatest worker ever Mo :\

Erm, no. Even casual fans can see that Hogan is a poor worker. I speak to many such fans who notice Hogan's lack of athleticism and substandard work in comparison to guys like Rock and Austin. Hogan remains popular largely because of the nostalgia factor, but as figures have shown, he means nothing for ratings and little for drawing crowds at arena shows. Edited October 13, 2003 by MoChatra

[MoChatra]

There's no doubt that Jack loves wrestling. Some people have just got different standards. Yeah, everyone analyses, subconciously or otherwise. But what is over-analysing? Surely, if there's no right or wrong way to have a wrestling match, then there's no right or wrong way to analyse a wrestling match.So, in conclusion, Red is shit. Shawn Michaels is not. Yes.

Over-analysing is something like this: Shawn Michaels nips-up in an exhilarating match in Madison Square Garden. It's a 20,000 sellout, with 19,998 fans popping for this pivotal moment in the match, and the remaining two punters shaking their heads because Michaels is 'no-selling' the beat-down his opponent gave him earlier.Oh, and Red is the new Ricky Morton. Yes.

[Midnight Zeus]

yeah but that logic makes Hogan the greatest worker ever Mo :\

Erm, no. Even casual fans can see that Hogan is a poor worker. I speak to many such fans who notice Hogan's lack of athleticism and substandard work in comparison to guys like Rock and Austin. Hogan remains popular largely because of the nostalgia factor, but as figures have shown, he means nothing for ratings and little for drawing crowds at arena shows.

Then there are the odd fans like me who think Hogan is damn great and even though he may be slower than most active wrestlers still rate him and his matches as some of the best ever and love practically everything he does!There are still very few matches that in mind are better than Hogan v Rock and Hogan v Warrior - matches that have the effect on me are the reason I watch wrestling. These two matches in my mind are in the top 10 greatest ever matches that I have seen, of course Michaels v Undertaker from Badd Blood is in that top 10 as is Nagata v Murakami, Survivor Series 1988 10 tag team match, Midnight Express v Southern Boys, Nagata/Iizuka v Kawada/Fuchi, Doomsday Match and Chamber of Horrors Match - a nice eclectic mix which will no doubt befuddle most - not decided what the 10th match would be, possibilities: Muto v Chono, Nagata v Takayama, Steamboat v Savage - who knows?The best thing of all is that no matter how many times people throw things like psychology, workrate, selling, mobilty and all that jazz at me, I still think those are the best matches ever - now I think about it, maybe Zeus/Savage v Hogan/Beefcake could fill the 10th spot, sounds good to me. Edited October 13, 2003 by Lower Occipital Proturbance

[Onyx2]

There are still very few matches that in mind are better than Hogan v Rock and Hogan v Warrior - matches that have the effect on me are the reason I watch wrestling. These two matches in my mind are in the top 10 greatest ever matches that I have seen, of course Michaels v Undertaker from Badd Blood is in that top 10 as is Nagata v Murakami, Survivor Series 1988 10 tag team match, Midnight Express v Southern Boys, Nagata/Iizuka v Kawada/Fuchi, Doomsday Match and Chamber of Horrors Match - a nice eclectic mix which will no doubt befuddle most - not decided what the 10th match would be, possibilities: Muto v Chono, Nagata v Takayama, Steamboat v Savage - who knows?

These are where my lists come from; not a generally acknowledged concensus of 'good' matches, but bouts that have connected to me and got me going crazy. I'd pluck Warrior v Hogan out as a prime example: a pile of shit in the ring but such a fantastic story that I can't help but love it. Anything from Survivor Series 89 is treated the same - most of it is all old donkey bollocks but I have such strong nostalgic feelings attached to it (I still have a battered copy taped from Sky One that I watch over and over again) that I get enormous enjoyment when revisiting it.Compare that Jericho v Michaels form WMXIX - I liked the show but this match didn't do anything for me at all. Irritatingly for the sake of discussion I couldn't tell you why, it just wasn't my thing. Yet most people here and particularly on RIM lapped it up - I feel odd because I 'don't get it' but it doesn't force me into liking the match.Contra to this I watched the US title match of Guerrero v Benoit at Vengeance 2003, loved it and thought most people around here would too - turns out I was wrong :/Hell I dunno what you guys like. But I'm happy with my wrestling

[Midnight Zeus]

The big difference is that I don't watch those matches thinking "they are a pile of shit in the ring but I love them", I watch them thinking "it's all great"!!If I thought they were bad in the ring then I would agree, that even for myself enjoyment doesn't equal quality. That's not the case though - every match I listed there I love - every part of! I don't love them all for the same reasons and I wouldn't be so naive as to even attempt to rate them on the scale as they are all such different forms of pro wrestling, but make no mistale - this isn't me loving 'Wrestlecrap' because when I watch them I see great wrestling matches, in whatever form it happens to be in.If I thought a match was 'crap in the ring' then I probably wouldn't rate the match and wouldn't get a lot of enjoyment out of it. However, my 'crap in the ring' does not follow any rhyme or reason and certainly doesn't adhere to any conventions you may read of in snowflake discussions. In ring quailty for me can encompass all kinds of matches and for lots of different reasons.For example: I love Nagata v Murakami for completely different reasons to the Doomsday Cage match - rate one on the other's quality scale and it would be crap - vice versa. However, I love both these matches and don't think either are crap - they both appeal to me hugely but in completely different ways.For me enjoyment = quality in pro wrestling and that's what a lot of people find difficult to comprehend and I can understand where they are coming from and I'm not for a second saying my way is right and their way is wrong. I could quite possibly be the only wrestling fan I know who thinks like that, but I do, I always have and I always will and I accept that people may think it's a ridiculous way to assess wrestling but in a world of men pretending to fight in tight fitting trunks, I can handle it!!

Edited October 14, 2003 by Lower Occipital Proturbance

[Guest Fadda]

why do you often talk about matches or angles in the such an overly articulated, philosophical and generally pretentious way.

Then it's a good thing I didn't take up your offers to write for Shootfabe. After all, you'd be making money from my 'overly articulated, philosophical and generally pretentious' writing and all I'd get would be a complementary fanzine.And if Jack Halewood is willing to part with his cash to spend money on wrestling tapes, there's no doubt he does enjoy wrestling. I also don't particularly enjoy much modern wrestling...just means I have different tastes and would rather watch older stuff. I'm sure I can live with being labelled a 'retro-centric modern smart'...

[edgecrusher]

And if Jack Halewood is willing to part with his cash to spend money on wrestling tapes, there's no doubt he does enjoy wrestling.

Not taking sides in this argument, but under that logic, Mary Whitehouse loved porn. -in my pants

[Guest Fadda]

Maybe she secretly did...Anyway, it's pretty irrelevant whether or not some teenager does or doesn't enjoy wrestling. If people over-analyze, it's probably better to over analyze wrestling rather than over analyzing people that watch wrestling. Some people get paid to write about wrestling, but most other fans do it because it's something they like to talk about and to express a variety of opinions. If someone does obsess over logical body-part selling or whatever, it's not wrong, it's just the way they interpret things personally, regardless of whether the 'casual fan' thinks about these things or not.