Wrestling Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

Old School Mentality Against "Flippy" Wrestling. What's Up With That?

14K views 153 replies 80 participants last post by  Brock 
#1 · (Edited)
Bret Hart and other retired wrestlers saying they jump around too much taking unnecessary risks and should focus more on the psychology. I think it's unrealistic.

Once the fans see the cool "flippy" stuff, you can't dial it back and have whole matches of punches, clotheslines, and body slams. I can't sit through most old matches on the WWE Network cuz it's like watching wrestling back in the caveman days.

Wrestlers are going to get hurt sometimes in the current environment and the bar is going to continue to get raised in the ring. Fans want to see 5 star matches like AJ/Cena at Summerslam.

Good ring psychology paired with boring basic shit is going to be a mediocre boring match.
 
#15 ·
The problem isn't the flippy shit and the problem isn't too many high spots, the problem is that none of it means anything. You got skinny dudes doing tons of power moves, you got big men high flying and you got everybody no selling being dropped on their necks and getting kicked in the head 30 times a match.

The psychology behind high flying was that guys too small to do high impact power moves had to throw their bodies around to do the same amount of damage but if everybody can do dealift German Suplexes and 180lb guys are doing Last Ride Powerbombs then nobody needs to go high risk.

Too many things are done just because they look cool and not because they make sense for the story, that's what needs to be pared back, not high spots in general.
 
#25 ·
the reason i enjoyed aj's in ring work more during his feud with reigns it's 'cause he focused his style around countering what reigns was throwing at him.
He told the story of a quick, smart, season technician vs a young powerhouse perfectly, and i still think that's the way to go for him at this point.
Against cena he just kept tanking atomic bombs, i mean i understand they want to sell him as the anticena at this moment but eh
 
#4 ·
A smart individual would know that the style of a wrestling match has nothing to do with character or charisma.

A smart individual would know that NWO and Hulk Hogan started the wrestling boom, and the Attitude Era joined in the fun.

A smart individual would know that over-scripting, creative and child friendly programming drove away fans, not the talent.

A stupid individual would blame it on "gay flippy shit".
 
#6 ·
Both can work well when used effectively. The Revival make a point of not being a flippy team and they put on some of the best matches in NXT.

Though if you look at the CWC, Ibushi v Alexander featured a decent amount of high risk offence, all while maintaining a great amount of storytelling and psychology, same with Gargano and Ciampa.
 
#137 · (Edited)
For me, the primary problem with "flippy" stuff is... there's no story behind it. Back "in the day" high risk moves were sold as being desperation, somebody putting their body on the line to clinch the victory in a high risk manner that either succeeded or backfired and lost them the match. Look at the Hardys v E&C and the Dudleys, when they did high spots they either hit them or they missed and they were out of the match for a lengthy period, now they're back up in minutes.

No people are flipping all over and just doing the moves, there is no build up or psychology behind any of it, it comes across as "look at me ma!" showing off what they can do rather than threading it into the story they're telling. Fundamentally, if you're taking all these high risks my question you need to answer is.... why? Why is it worth the risk? what motivates them to risk it all?

They don't bother telling you that most of the time, it's just trading their athleticism and that is about it.
 
#27 ·
The problem with the "flippy shit" is that it's overexposed. Everybody in every match plays their entire hand. I'm gonna do every move I know in this match, and you're going to spend the last 5 minutes of the match kicking out of them, then hitting me with one of your big moves, then me kicking out of it - That's the mentality of performers these days. There's no psychology, there's no rhyme or reason. It's just people kicking out of shit over and over again in spamfest matches. Every fucking match is the same "story" of They hit them with everything they have, how do they put them away!!!?

Not to mention, they simply have too many high flyers on the roster. Guys do rope dives and it's like who gives a shit? Every match has like two or three rope dive spots. That used to be a big deal in wrestling. One of the best worked matches I've watched all year was on SD, the Alphas vs. Breezedango, as they actually applied psychology, and made everything count in their match. It wasn't just repeating spots for 15 minutes.

Modern wrestling sucks. It's ADD wrestling. It's just hitting spots and then resetting. There's no worked fight philosophy behind it. It's worked dancing.
 
#28 · (Edited)
"Move Inflation" is a very real thing, and something that needs to be remedied fast if we want to see today's performers last until their late 30's. Like @Chris JeriG.O.A.T said above, there's a ton of cool moves that are being performed, but none of them mean anything. The new style, its not just Indy anymore, is essentially move spam with very little storytelling woven in between.

What needs to happen is a reconditioning of the fanbase to enjoy a tamer way of working. They can still do the high spots and big moves, but they should count for something. Hell, most performers have 2-3 moves used nightly that look more devastating than their finisher. From a psychology perspective, thats absolutely ridiculous.
 
#7 ·
Well that is just an awful argument. You use Shawn Michaels and Bret Hart as examples, and then Kalisto and Neville? Shouldn't you have used The Goon and Eugene as examples to be more fair? Jesus Christ, if you are going to troll at least try a little harder.

I want to see AJ Styles vs Seth Rollins just as bad as I wanted to see Shawn Michaels vs Bret Hart.
 
#129 ·
The problem is WWE started catering to smarks who want to see flippy shit. Nowadays, the only way you get reactions in your matches are if you do a bunch of flips and near falls. So, if you aren't killing yourself doing flippy shit and cool moves, you'll probably have a dead crowd and that's the worst thing for a performer.

When the occasion calls for it, high spots and near falls are awesome, but they shouldn't be what the business is built upon. They should only be used when the situation calls for it, and it should be done logically. It shouldn't be something you start to do five minutes after the match has begun. Cena-Styles at Summerslam and the Cena-Owens series last year were cancer. The production of matches like those is what is ruining the business. I can assure you this is how they produced the match backstage:

"Just go out there do a lockup in the first few minutes then trade cool moves. The crowd will go nuts."

All the stories in the matches are the same. It has become a story of let's see who can do cooler moves!!!

Yeah, no thanks. As I said, those are good when the situations call for it, but it's become the main style of wrestling and that's not what should have happened. The worst thing about all of this is that wrestlers who have no personality, can't talk, and don't portray their gimmick are being pushed as the top dogs because of the cool moves they do in the ring.

Finn Balor won the title. Not only that, but he won it in a month. That's all you need to know to see what direction we are headed ffs.
 
#33 ·
Well done technical wrestling doesn't have to be boring, and in many peoples minds it is better than 2 guys spamming overly choreographed spots and kicking out of 90 finishers.

And these spot fest matches between charisma vaccums aren't exactly drawing in the fans either...
 
#88 ·
Oh...THIS argument again...


Look, what nobody here realizes is that you can't have it both ways. People here condemn what they call "flippy shit", saying that there's no psychology, that there's no storytelling, etc etc. Its just male gymnasts doing moves.

What amuses me is that while you guys bitch about high flying wrestling, clamoring for the old days of larger than life characters, is that things were bad in a different way back then. Yeah, you did have larger than life characters. You also had the exact opposite of "flippy shit", which was the WWE heavyweight style. While flippy shit is at the very least athletic and visually pleasing, WWE heavyweight style circa 1988 was not. It featured extremely limited in ring ability like punches, stomps and Manhattan Drops, a lot of rest holds due to the guys being so enormous that they'd gas out in about 4 minutes, and they were generally extremely boring. When people talk about those days, they remember Warrior vs Hogan WM6, Savage vs Steamboat WM3 or Warrior vs Savage WM7. AKA they cherry pick the good memories and completely forget the bad ones. True abortions like Hogan vs Sid WM8, Andre vs Warrior Saturday Night's Main Event, Jim Duggan vs Big Bossman or Taker vs Giant Gonzalez. This is the "old school mentality". And it has its own set of problems. I dunno about you guys, but I'm not exactly waiting with baited breath for the days of the Bushwhackers vs the Powers of Pain to return. We're past the days of bodybuilders who look strong and can do nothing remotely wrestling related.


2000/2001 got it right, the best balance between great characters and great wrestling. And people love those days. Yet there was flippy shit back then, too. The TLC matches were all about brutal bumps and flippy shit. What you guys don't want is all flippy shit, and no characters. Fine. But don't start pining for the days of the late 80s because that's not fixing the problem-its creating a new one.
 
#98 ·
How was things bad with larger than life characters back in the day? Many of them are still a house hold name that entertain many.

I will take all the so called bad matches that you mention like hogan and Sid over the flippy bullshit we see each week for the simple fact that everyone you mention had a character and were people you actually care about that stood out. Most of these bland flippy 170 pound midgets all wrestle the same and have the same I'm better then you let me one up you with a better flashy move crap. Where is the ring psychology in wrestling? Why is it to people now a days in a wwe trying to outdo each other like their trying to get style points in the olypmics? So yeah I take back in the day feuds like Hogan and Sid because it made you care and they wanted to beat the crap out of each other .
 
#104 · (Edited)
It comes off as badly choreographed gymnastics. No effort is made to make the matches look legit anymore.

I don't care if a dude can do 3 flips in the air if he can't even throw a decent kayfabe punch. The business has never looked faker than it does right now, it's all back-and-forth-your-spot-my-spot bullshit.
 
#105 ·
I think that's the biggest problem with wrestling today is they don't try to make it look legit anymore. There are a few exceptions of course. And it goes beyond "flippy shit". Most of the time it simply doesn't look like either guy is actually trying to compete for something.
 
#108 ·
The roster nowadays can't keep the crowd's attention without doing all the unnecessary high flying bullshit and the ones that actually have the ability to are forced to tone down their shit. Wrestling as a whole has changed and will continue to change, from the way fans think about the wrestlers to the atmosphere of the show itself. Back then, fans wanted great storylines and entertainment. However, nowadays, you have lots of fans wanting better matches and wanting the WWE to push every wrestler that knows the most wrestling moves (Sami Zayn, Finn Balor, etc) as opposed to a wrestler that fits the bill of being a household name for both casuals and hardcore fans alike (Luke Harper). As a result, we're showered with crap like "I want to see Kevin Owens vs Brock Lesnar. I believe he could put on a fight because he's fat." or "They should push Sami Zayn because he has that underdog feel to him, despite the fact that we have seen that underdog storyline a bunch of times in just the last 10 years. Roman Reigns can't wrestle because he doesn't do a lot of jumping moves and neither does Sheamus, so that makes them both bad wrestlers. Triple H is not a technical master in the ring and he married the boss's daughter, so he sucks despite the fact that he's a good storyteller and can hold his own against greats on the mic." There are even fans that still think that small wrestlers are getting held down by the WWE for being small despite the number of cruiserweight/light heavyweight wrestlers in the main event right now.

Now, on to how the atmosphere changed. The WWE making things more family friendly and limiting a lot of things because kids are watching costed them millions of fans. Hell In a Cell matches weren't Hell In a Cell matches because there was no blood and spots were watered down. Characters were watered down and we are relegated to seeing wrestlers just wrestle instead of segments showcasing their personalities. Who could forget the car chase involving Roddy Piper and Goldust at WM, the Stone Cold-Booker T supermarket brawl, or The Undertaker crucifying someone by cutting them and licking their blood? Stuff like that were awesome and contributed to the success of the WWF/E. Yet, nowadays, we have wrestlers that have potential to go very far if the WWE did more of those often like Bray Wyatt, Roman Reigns, and The Miz. I'm still waiting on the segment where Bray Wyatt kidnaps someone related to his rival. Scripting heavily is a bad choice too. Of course wrestlers are going to mess up, but that's how they get better. If you don't take a chance on them, they will not tap into their potential, no matter how good their matches are. I believe the WWE holds the hands of wrestlers a lot nowadays. All this sugar-coated bullshit made the fans look at wrestling in a clearer way than they have before and it has created fans that think they know more about the business than the people actually in the business, as I have put examples of in the first paragraph. There has been a very big lack of consistency in WWE storylines. One week, Stephanie hates Reigns and she gives him a title match the next. Every damn championship in the company except for the U.S. title and IC title look the same and fans have accepted that laziness.

I'd rather watch Ricky Steamboat vs Ric Flair or Hulk Hogan vs The Rock over AJ Styles vs Dean Ambrose or Nakamura vs Zayn any day because they have better storylines and better in ring psychology and storytelling. That's also the reason why my favorite tag team in the WWE right now is The Revival. The New Day is a shame to wrestling stables for twerking and, while women wrestling matches like Bayley vs Asuka deliver, that's not a reason why we can't have bikini contests or bra and panties matches.

So, when you look at it, wrestling is always changing. However, you should ask yourself "is it for better or worse" and contemplate why you chose your answer.
 
#110 ·
, while women wrestling matches like Bayley vs Asuka deliver, that's not a reason why we can't have bikini contests or bra and panties matches.

So, when you look at it, wrestling is always changing. However, you should ask yourself "is it for better or worse" and contemplate why you chose your answer.
Would you be cool if they had "stripper pouch" matches for the guys, say Roman and Cesaro all oiled up in g-strings wrestling as pure masturbation candy for the gay male/straight female fans? I wouldn't mind it personally if that's the direction they wanted to take it, but I can understand why women who want to be taken seriously as wrestlers might not be too keen on doing those sort of matches when it's so one-sided in tone like that.
 
#143 ·
Bret Hart and other retired wrestlers saying they jump around too much taking unnecessary risks and should focus more on the psychology. I think it's unrealistic.

There's a reason that "old and basic" wrestling was infinitely more popular. I'll take a solid match that tells a story over two guys flying everywhere and no selling everything, any day.


Once the fans see the cool "flippy" stuff, you can't dial it back and have whole matches of punches, clotheslines, and body slams.
Yet Roman Reigns consistently has some of the best matches.
 
#146 ·
OK, I'm definitely gonna show my age with this viewpoint, especially as a guy who's watched since the end of the 1980's, but whatever......

Guys who share the opinion of slowing things down and bringing more psychology to matches, like Bret and Austin, are 100000% right. Bull's eye. Right on the money. We have a winner.

A professional wrestling match is about one thing only - telling a story that takes the fans on a ride. At least, that's what any guy with name value will tell you. That ride starts out slow, and then escalates. It builds and builds, with some twists and turns along the way until the end. Now in the context of pro wrestling, what that means is the moves DO start out kinda basic (or what some here call "boring"); punches and kicks, headlocks and clotheslines, until out of nowhere - BOOM! - someone hits a high-impact move like a powerbomb or a facebuster that turns the tide of the match. From there, the moves start to mean more, and you think it can end at any time, until one guy makes a comeback and the drama is increased tenfold.

That's what I love out of a great wrestling match - the escalating ride. It's one of the things that made the Styles/Cena matches so fantastic. Or basically ANY of The Revivals championship defenses at any Takeover special.

Now I'm not technically *against* the "flippy" style of wrestling, but I can say that it doesn't register with me on a "suspend my disbelief" scale. When I see a match that consists of 75% jumping around with splashes and suicide dives, mixed with 25% of different ways to DDT someone, I'm just not interested. If guys like that need to have those matches just to "get their shit in", then they can go back to the indies, as far as I'm concerned. When I've seen you pull off all these flashy moves, why am I supposed to get excited for your finishing move?

I will say that there's a place for that kind of wrestling, and it's against enhancement guys, like what they're doing with Braun Strowman and Nia Jax. Jobbers take a guy's entire arsenal and get pinned, that's their job. The point of those matches is to show fans what a guy or girl can do in the ring before they move on to more suitable opponents and utilize those moves to help TELL A STORY, and insert those moves where they mean more.
 
#23 ·
Bret Hart and other retired wrestlers saying they jump around too much taking unnecessary risks and should focus more on the psychology. I think it's unrealistic.

Once the fans see the cool "flippy" stuff, you can't dial it back and have whole matches of punches, clotheslines, and body slams. I can't sit through most old matches on the WWE Network cuz it's like watching wrestling back in the caveman days.

Wrestlers are going to get hurt sometimes in the current environment and the bar is going to continue to get raised in the ring. Fans want to see 5 star matches like AJ/Cena at Summerslam.

Good ring psychology paired with boring basic shit is going to be a mediocre boring match.
eh not necessarily, go watch aj vs ziggler this week on SDL, one of the biggest pop was for a freaking dropkick... i repeat a freaking dropkick, it's all about using the move in the right moment, in an organic way with what happened before and what's going to happen next, and selling it properly. Aj and dolph did just that and they put over a freaking dropkick. Seth and balor, and sasha and charlotte for all the ugly bumps they took they didn't put up a match worthy to be named near the all time classics

now the "flippy stuff" is fine and it has its place like every move, but they are called high risk manouver for a reason and when you keep taking those risk almost every day of the week for so many years you are setting yourself up for a freak accident, and even if you stay injury free your body won't keep up with that style for long. Their is absolutely no need to shorten you career in an house show.

And as a sidenote, i know it's a matter of personal preference, but to me the "flippy stuff" isn't rly worth the risk, a proper spinebuster or a gutwrench suplex looks 10 times more awesome than the phoenix splax or the red arrow to me
 
#39 ·
The problem for me is that the flippy, spotfest indy style doesn't focus enough on the story-telling aspect of pro wrestling. The crowds don't really get emotionally invested into the wrestlers, but are instead more concerned with popping for the spots and putting themselves over in between.

I far prefer a match like this:



To a match like this:

 
#95 ·
Heavyweights have always been king of the jungle. People surfing through the channels would be interested in watching two beefy motherfuckers go at it and see what happens. That was appealing in of itself. Some wrestlers had the complete package and had charisma and mic skills to go along with that. However, people flippin through the channel do not want to watch some 170 pound geek flippin around. If they were interested in that they would go to the circus.

Fact of there matter is, A LOT of these gymnastic wrestlers only offer that. They don't have the look/aura/presence of a heavyweight to draw in of itself. And unfortunately all too often have zero charisma. Are copy paste, happy to be here, take no short cuts, i wanna be the best, smiling, vanilla midget. They have nothing to fall back on. So the end result is they only offer acrobatic spots to get "this is awesome" chants in smark towns. That's it. All the while they continue to sink the company of any mainstream appeal.
 
#96 · (Edited)
Great point, and Apollo Crews is the latest prime example of a smiling, vanilla midget.

Seth Rollins has a decent package. He can whip out a number of dirty moves, some flippy moves, and use psychology well. But he's the exception.

Everything you described can be framed like this:

1. - The WWE Universe live in an echo chamber bubble.
2. - This causes most of the problems we see today.
Conc. - Therefore, there needs to be an even greater conscious effort to appeal to mainstream casuals than what currently exists.

This is one thing I like about listening to Vince Russo's recent podcasts... he'll come across as thinking differently, then I'll realise it's because psychologically he's removing himself from the wrestling bubble and constantly looking at the product from a casual's perspective. He consistently reminds me that I accept so many things about the industry as they are because I'm used to them and thus I've committed those details to assumed knowledge.

Most people within the WWE bubble take many of the assumptions about their industry for granted, because it becomes so "normal" to them.

Something "normal" in the circus can look stupid or brilliant to the viewer... but if you can only see it as normal then you won't consistently pick the brilliant from the stupid.
 
#36 ·
I don't mind flippy moves when they make sense. What drives me crazy, though, is doing a move that doesn't need a flip but adding a flip because it looks flashy. Why do that? Most of the time when someone flips it just looks less impactful. For instance you'll see some women wrestlers throw someone into a corner than do flips towards them to do a body splash which in reality would slow your momentum down and make the move hurt way less than just running full speed and hitting them. RVD used to do that little flip flop into a splash...the flip flop forces him to lose all momentum which, if it were real, would make the move less impactful.

If you wanna do flips at least make it make sense.
 
#40 · (Edited)
Another quick little truth I feel I need to drop..

"Flippy shit" is no substitute at all for for making a match compelling by actually having a reason for it to even be happening at all. Which it seems like has become a mainstay attitude in WWE matches. "Just keep the crowds attention with oohs and aahs instead of pulling their attention with narrative."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top