Wrestling Forum banner

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
601 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
You guys realize this, right?

A great match isn't just made in the ring, but out of it also. I was inspired to make this thread after seeing some of the users here trash some of the all time greatest matches in history. A classic isn't just determined by how many great spots can be crammed into a five minute sequence. It's about telling a story. Without it, there's nothing. You could have two no name jobbers duke it out for a half hour on RAW, pull out all of the stops, and perform at the highest possible level... and no one would care. Why? Because we don't care about the competitors involved. Without a back story and without knowing what's at stake for both superstars... there's nothing of substance to grasp onto. Just two no name superstars performing stunts.

Most people will tell you that the HBK/Taker match at Wrestlemania XXVI is one of the greatest matches they've ever seen. You want to know why? Because before the bell even rang, you were already emotionally invested. We witnessed months upon months of build up and story-telling. We knew the characters, we knew what was at stake, and we cared. That's the thing, you need to care. It makes every moment, every high risk maneuver, every near fall... that much more dramatic. It was an experience in and of itself watching that match, and it's the type of thing can only happen when a good story is being told.

Can a match succeed purely on it's technical merits? Yes, absolutely. It's like watching a fight scene in a movie. If it dazzles the eye, then of course it's going to entertain. But that same fight scene is that much more compelling when it serves as the climax to a 90 minute conflict we've already invested our time and attention to and it's about characters we care about it. But if the drama is intense enough and the emotional level is raised to a fever pitch, the on screen action becomes all but secondary.
 

·
P.O.P., hold it down
Joined
·
22,552 Posts
Duh everyone loved HBK/Taker because of the build up to it and its stipulations.
But if they just want out on RAW randomly with no build up and put on a great match like that, everyone would still care.

And as for people don't care about jobbers putting on great matches?
Um, hence why people watch Superstars.
 

·
Student of the game? I am the f***in' Game!!
Joined
·
8,351 Posts
Yea pro wrestling was never about arm drags and collar elbow tie ups. Neither does commentators sit there just to call moves. They're there to sell us the match.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,634 Posts
That's what i have beent rying to tell in another Thread, it's not about the Suplexes, it's about what the Crowd wants to see, and getting them invested emotionally, what Hogan and Rock did and i therefore consider them great.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,813 Posts
You guys realize this, right?

A great match isn't just made in the ring, but out of it also. I was inspired to make this thread after seeing some of the users here trash some of the all time greatest matches in history. A classic isn't just determined by how many great spots can be crammed into a five minute sequence. It's about telling a story. Without it, there's nothing. You could have two no name jobbers duke it out for a half hour on RAW, pull out all of the stops, and perform at the highest possible level... and no one would care. Why? Because we don't care about the competitors involved. Without a back story and without knowing what's at stake for both superstars... there's nothing of substance to grasp onto. Just two no name superstars performing stunts.

Most people will tell you that the HBK/Taker match at Wrestlemania XXVI is one of the greatest matches they've ever seen. You want to know why? Because before the bell even rang, you were already emotionally invested. We witnessed months upon months of build up and story-telling. We knew the characters, we knew what was at stake, and we cared. That's the thing, you need to care. It makes every moment, every high risk maneuver, every near fall... that much more dramatic. It was an experience in and of itself watching that match, and it's the type of thing can only happen when a good story is being told.

Can a match succeed purely on it's technical merits? Yes, absolutely. It's like watching a fight scene in a movie. If it dazzles the eye, then of course it's going to entertain. But that same fight scene is that much more compelling when it serves as the climax to a 90 minute conflict we've already invested our time and attention to and it's about characters we care about it. But if the drama is intense enough and the emotional level is raised to a fever pitch, the on screen action becomes all but secondary.


I both agree and disagree. The buildup to the match is extremely important, more important than the actual match. The angles and characters are the core of the show, and have been for years.


As far as actual in-ring storytelling, I disagree there, except for the most high profile cases. For HBK-taker it was great. Hogan/ warrior, Austin/Rock, Hogan/Rock. etc. Even Dreamer/Raven in ECW. The storytelling was great. However, unless the the storyline is a really hot one,which is pretty rare, In ring storytelling means shit. 90% of the time, give me the 'spotfest'. That term wasn't even around as a negative term, until Vince decided to slow down the action a few years ago, and made his wrestlers spout the company line that 'we're focusing on storytelling' to brainwash everyone into thinking it is a good idea. Bullshit, he did it because people were chanting boring when HHH was wrestling Test or some other big goon, and he did it to keep his guys healthy, and because it didnt go with the new image he was looking for. SPOTZ used to be called 'stuff thats fucking cool' or 'stuff that the average person can't do'.


Only the best performers can build to any Psychology, thats what makes them great. But the rest of the time, it translates to boring ring action, because there either wasnt enough time, the angle is stupid, or the guys are just mediocre. Cody rhodes can hit Ziggler in the leg with a chair, and next week Ziggler can sell it brilliantly for the whole match, and it wont mean a damn thing. But if he gives him a flip pilederiver through 3 tables I might remember that. They are great athletes, so at least let them entertain us that way. I don't know, I just remember when Vince flipped the switch on this PG era, and sent us back to 1985 with this boring match bullshit, and am surprised so many people fell for it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,205 Posts
You guys realize this, right?

A great match isn't just made in the ring, but out of it also. I was inspired to make this thread after seeing some of the users here trash some of the all time greatest matches in history. A classic isn't just determined by how many great spots can be crammed into a five minute sequence. It's about telling a story. Without it, there's nothing. You could have two no name jobbers duke it out for a half hour on RAW, pull out all of the stops, and perform at the highest possible level... and no one would care. Why? Because we don't care about the competitors involved. Without a back story and without knowing what's at stake for both superstars... there's nothing of substance to grasp onto. Just two no name superstars performing stunts.

Most people will tell you that the HBK/Taker match at Wrestlemania XXVI is one of the greatest matches they've ever seen. You want to know why? Because before the bell even rang, you were already emotionally invested. We witnessed months upon months of build up and story-telling. We knew the characters, we knew what was at stake, and we cared. That's the thing, you need to care. It makes every moment, every high risk maneuver, every near fall... that much more dramatic. It was an experience in and of itself watching that match, and it's the type of thing can only happen when a good story is being told.

Can a match succeed purely on it's technical merits? Yes, absolutely. It's like watching a fight scene in a movie. If it dazzles the eye, then of course it's going to entertain. But that same fight scene is that much more compelling when it serves as the climax to a 90 minute conflict we've already invested our time and attention to and it's about characters we care about it. But if the drama is intense enough and the emotional level is raised to a fever pitch, the on screen action becomes all but secondary.
That would require WWE to either give their wrestlers leeway for them to develop character or to give them some character depth in the way of booking. Some guys do just flat out suck, but then you have guys like Kofi Kingston, Evan Bourne, and even Mark Henry who actually appeal to the audience and can EASILY be given some character depth/motivation and even a gimmick in the case of Mark Henry, but WWE for whatever reason are just uninterested in giving them some character development. Even if none of them will ultimately reach the top brass, is it REALLY their fault in question that WWE is too lazy to even give them enough character to at least make them an entertaining midcard act, given that they are at least over?

Say what you will about their look, size, mic skill, or charisma, but you can't argue that these three are at least over considering their mostly uninspired booking and that ANYBODY that can pass as even remotely creative can come up with a decent storyline to give these guys some needed character depth. Its nowhere near appropriate to mention Taker and HBK because those two come from an era where many midcarders were at least given some character.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,564 Posts
Exactly. Also, the consequences of the match matter. That is why Austin vs. Bret from Wrestlemania 13 is my personal favorite Wrestlemania match of all time.
 

·
#RiseAbove
Joined
·
1,471 Posts
That would require WWE to either give their wrestlers leeway for them to develop character or to give them some character depth in the way of booking. Some guys do just flat out suck, but then you have guys like Kofi Kingston, Evan Bourne, and even Mark Henry who actually appeal to the audience and can EASILY be given some character depth/motivation and even a gimmick in the case of Mark Henry, but WWE for whatever reason are just uninterested in giving them some character development. Even if none of them will ultimately reach the top brass, is it REALLY their fault in question that WWE is too lazy to even give them enough character to at least make them an entertaining midcard act, given that they are at least over?

Say what you will about their look, size, mic skill, or charisma, but you can't argue that these three are at least over considering their mostly uninspired booking and that ANYBODY that can pass as even remotely creative can come up with a decent storyline to give these guys some needed character depth. Its nowhere near appropriate to mention Taker and HBK because those two come from an era where many midcarders were at least given some character.
This.

I believe the mid carders are being used a permanent stepping stones for those who Vince (or whoever) sees reaching a higher potential in the short-term and then staying there. The reality is that WWE can build WHOEVER THEY WANT and give them character and we'll accept them. If they flat-out suck then we wont. Creative teams just need to get on their jobs and work WAY harder because the only way I see pushes nowadays are forcing these 'Superstars' down our throats. There are definitely other ways to go about this.
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top