The Overanaylsis of Wrestling

[Guest BigTim2002]

Ok. I've been reading so many reviews for thousands upon thousands of wrestling matches. I've seen people who can break down matches to individual moves (CRZ) go on their gut instinct just by recognition (Scott Keith), and have hilarious reviews and at the same time great reviews by making completely random connections that actually work with the matches they review (DVDVR boys).

 

You can also go see reviews that people break down MORE than just individual moves, but then go off on tangents that make you think, what in the hell did I just read? It's as if some people try to be TOO smart when it comes to wrestling and therefore are surprised when they see their downfalls. Is it this kind of reviewing that just turns people off to the wrestling that they are watching? I use some reviewers products as a guide, but I don't use it as a bible, as some do. What do you guys think?

[Guest SlowChemical6]

It's completely out of control, period. I attribute this to all of the sci-fi and comic book genre geeks that have latched onto wrestling (see Keith, Scott or the average puro mark). Obviously, you are going to find these ultra-analytic geeks in larger quantities on the Internet. Instead of going to Star Trek conventions or salivating over the next George Lucas script, they are now filling their time by watching puro (Ooo! Rare and foreign!) and ripping our North American product apart as if it was a legitimate sport.

 

It sucks.

 

Now we have jack-offs with names like HayabusaGetsMeHorny and ICum4Chosyu who sulk after every single WWE match. You know how it goes: "Oh my God! That match was so TOTALLY unrealistic (Because pro wrestling is real realistic to begin with...)! There was not a single armbar submission and I felt strangely entertained! -*** We want Nagata!!!"

 

You puro guys who tear apart Undertaker matches want unrealistic? How about pudgy 5'6" Japanese men beating the crap out of people?

 

Maybe there is something to be said for the days when the wrestling fanbase was nothing but ignorant, inbred trailer park trash.

[Guest bob_barron]

I don't read comic books or like sci-fi

 

Maybe thats why my reviews are so damn good.

[Guest SlowChemical6]

Prime example: Stan Hansen.

 

Here is a guy who would have been torn a new asshole by the Internet crowd if he had wrestled the majority of his career in North America.

 

I mean, if The Undertaker is considered slow and plodding, then ol' Stan wouldn't stand a CHANCE.

 

BUT...since he wrestled in Japan, and he's a legend over there, he's respected by all the puro marks.

 

So instead of, "He's a slow and plodding redneck", we get, "Oh my God, Stan is like so totally stiff and puro and stuff."

 

Bleh.

[Guest Storm Tracker]

Pro wrestling is like an impressionist painting. From a distance, it is a beautiful picture, but if you get too close, it is just a blur. It's impossible to enjoy the show if you try to analyze every move in every match. If you get into the storylines and "suspend reality" while you are watching the show, you'll discover that wrestling is still pretty damn entertaining. I don't think that wrestling is in as bad a shape as the critics claim.

 

Chris Jericho was 100% correct.

[Guest RavishingRickRudo]

Not the best wrestling matches. The best wrestling matches are able to hold-up to criticism, they are durable, they are impregnant... that is why they are good. Why should we let the 'lesser' matches get away with being lesser, it doesn't do justice to the good ones. It IS a shame to have a standard isn't it?

 

I am not for watching a match to just comment on how the selling is lacklustre and how the psychology is fucked up, but if that's their thing, if thats how they enjoy it, then let them have it. But no, we get insecure about people 'overanalysing' and start making comic book nerd references to try and put ourselves above it. Whatever. If you come on a wrestling board, guess what, you ain't exactly the fonz.

 

The day Taker has a match like Hansen vs. Kobashi is the day you can compare the two.

[Guest SlowChemical6]

The day Taker has a match like Hansen vs. Kobashi is the day you can compare the two.

 

Taker vs. HBK from Badd Blood. *****

 

So there.

 

Taker is more of a legend than Hansen will ever be. Everybody knows who The Undertaker is. You ask a non-smark who Stan Hansen is, and they'll go, "Huh?"

[Guest raptor]

Why does everybody feel the need to mock people who read comic books? The majority of comic readers are just normal people who enjoy the medium. And to blame comic readers for the internet scene's cynicism? There's no basis.

 

I read comic books. I enjoy Undertaker matches. According to you, I exist in some sort of black hole.

[Guest SlowChemical6]

If it's any consolation, I used to be an avid comic book collector and although I don't buy them anymore, I still don't mind reading the old-school stuff like Spider-Man. And I really like super-hero movies.

 

HOWEVER...the problem comes when the comic book nerds try to translate the way that they analyze comics over to wrestling, and we get a 10-page rant by Scott Keith about how Kurt Angle's tights remind him of the Mirror Universe storyline from Superman.

 

That was one of the more disgusting Keith comic book nerd rants I've ever read 3 lines of and then clicked off.

[Guest raptor]

Allright. I probably unjustly singled you out. That Kieth rant annoyed me as well.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

I think we have a few of these people here.

 

You know, like the people who say that Kurt vs Kidman sucked because it showed Kurt can't beat Kidman? Uh? Hello? The countout was because he was really after Rey.

 

Some people need to remember that quite a few Free TV matches are only meant to sell the PPV while entertaining a crowd with these guys' live presence. Going on about who has how much heat is ridiculous, because as long as the build-up doesn't totally favor one guy, the marks don't see it anyway.

[Guest godthedog]

The day Taker has a match like Hansen vs. Kobashi is the day you can compare the two.

 

Taker vs. HBK from Badd Blood. *****

 

So there.

 

Taker is more of a legend than Hansen will ever be. Everybody knows who The Undertaker is. You ask a non-smark who Stan Hansen is, and they'll go, "Huh?"

taker/hbk from badd blood was not on the level of hansen/kobashi.

 

and just because taker is more well known in the states, that means he's a better wrestler? well shit, i guess brock lesnar is a better wrestler than toshiaki kawada & the dynamite kid could ever hope to be.

 

and for all the puro elitist hate, you seem to come off as something worse: a wwf elitist who hates the puro elitists for thinking that puro is better.

[Guest XdojimeX]

Golly, the ever trite "puro fans are nazis" rant was SOOO 1999. Get with the now jingo.

 

Loved the "our North American product" line though. Rich stuff.

 

"Taker is more of a legend than Hansen will ever be. Everybody knows who The Undertaker is. You ask a non-smark who Stan Hansen is, and they'll go, "Huh?"

 

You're not gonna believe this but there are actual pro-wrestling fan-bases outside of the Unites States. Outside the WWE universe even! Yeah, they're all short, pudgy, foreign, arty little bastards over there but don't let that fuck you up or anything, they even draw money! Crazy world we live in.

[Guest DARRYLXWF]

In many aspects, Pro Wrestling is like Music...

 

that is all

[Guest RavishingRickRudo]

Taker vs. HBK depended mainly on Shawn doing one thing... Dying for Taker. The fact that it was a gimmicked match (first of its kind) and a less-than-impressive showing from Taker and that match comes nowhere NEAR Hansen/Kobashi.

[Guest BionicRedneck]

Basically it all comes down to enjoyment...

 

If you enjoy a wrestling match, you enjoy it. If you don't, you don't .If you enjoy overanalising wrestling then thats fine with me, if you don't fine. Who cares? Scott Keith's opinion is as valid as anyone elses. You think WWF is better than Puro? Taker better than Hansen? Fair enough, some people don't.

 

In other words, why get so bothered about it.

[Guest wolverine]

Shawn Michaels on his best day could never, EVER touch Kenta Kobashi in 1993.

 

Undertaker on his best day could never, EVER touch Stan Hansen in 1993.

 

Hence, we have one classic, ***** match (Hansen vs. Kobashi) and one overrated clusterfuck (Undertaker vs. Michaels).

 

So there.

[Guest razazteca]

I think the DVD guys try to hard with coming up with the obscure tangent connections to the wrestling matches, the Dennis Miller strategy did not work for Monday Night Football, maybe its time to go into another direction.

[Guest Addy]

Amen!

[Guest deadbeater]

Overanalyzed? When it comes to being overanalyzed, wrestling is glossed over when compared to the Buffyverse.

[Guest welshjerichomark]

if some1 really enjoys a certain film, group wrestler or whatever they tend to over analyze things a bit, u havent got 2 look far on the internet, ive read pages and pages of discussion and analysis on the pink floyd album "dark side of the moon" from geeks who dedicate their lives to looking for hidden things, hidden meanings, hidden theories, its what people do when they enjoy something, scott keith is basically just a mark although he would never admit it. the people who get the most out of wrestling, i think are the ones who just watch.

[Guest thebigjig]

Anybody remember the SNL episode with William Shatner in the mid 80's? The opening sketch is one of my favorites with Shatner hosting a Star Trek convention and being swarmed with all of these unusual geeky questions, and finally he just exclaims "Get a life will ya! It's just a tv show!"

 

 

I think the same logical can be applied here when it comes to certain fans

[Guest The Mighty Damaramu]

Yes I am a pro wrestling geek. A comic geek. A video game geek. And an Anime geek.

But hey I'm also going to college on just my grades alone and will probably make a decent living for myself. So ummm....what's so bad about being a geek again? Oh that's right the "cool" kids don't agree with it. Forgiveness please!