What if HBK/HHH is the match of the year?

[Guest claydude14]

i love TNA's X-Division and i think the week 2 Lynn-Styles-Lo Ki match is MOTY for me. why? because it was fast paced non stop action with stiff kicks insane moves and great ariel work. i'm not really a big fan of benoit. why? i find technical wrestling to be way too slow and boring for me. i dont really care about psychology of matches. just because your knee is worked a little you have to sell it the whole match? to some extent i enjoy it but if someone does one move to the knee then people complain that he doesnt sell it enough, who really cares? well i don't. i'm only saying all this to

they should be able to justify it with more than "I like what I like", which, unfortunately, isn't the common case these days.

however,

Yes, what you like and don't like in wrestling is subjective, but only to a point. When it comes to matches, it's not that hard to actually pay attention and see what different guys are doing, what works, what doesn't, and generally what makes a match great.

Wrestling is not subjective to a point at all. i love fast paced, other love technical. what generally makes a match great IS opinion, not to a point, it is.

[Guest Brian]

What generally makes a match great is what goes into it. You can like certain factors but does that make it a good match. This is the differentce between watchable and good.

[Guest BionicRedneck]

Basically, it does all come down to opinion.

 

Even if the match has no substance and just crazy spots, then this may be seen as great match to someone, because they like spotfests. Just like actual wrestling matches, there are "good" spotfests and "bad" ones. It really is all opinion.

[Guest Anglesault]

I can see it now. HHH climbs on to the apron to spit water, but tears his quad in the process. As he falls over, he lands on Michaels who tears his quad. X-Pac runs into the ring to help, but trips over his own two feet and tears his quad. Jericho is blamed.

[Guest Incandenza]

What I'm trying to say is that none of us should jump to conclusions about Michaels' condition because we haven't seen him wrestle in years. If you do chose to jump to conclusions, then don't be surprised if you are proven wrong.

I'd like to be proven wrong--I don't want to hate this match, it's just that circumstances dictate that it won't be very good.

 

HHH's performance on Raw tonight will be an indicator if going back to heel will mean he can "go" again. I would say this is a sneak preview for Sunday, but Michaels can't even take a regular Pedigree, so who knows.

[Guest BionicRedneck]

I doubt HBK will even take back bumps. I think they will just brawl in and around the ring, then HHH finishes it. It seems so pointless for Michaels, who was once a great performer, particularly as HHH gains nothing from this victory.

 

Someone like say Chris Jericho, could get a win like this. He could take the piss out of HBK until the point when Michaels comes out of retirement, and then Jericho retires him. Thus helps Jericho take the step up.

 

I mean if HBK is gonna danger his health he might as well do it for a reason.

[Guest red_file]

Like I've said in the past, basically when you've thrown away all personal bias and looked at the match as it is, than you can rate things fairly and objectively, even universally.

Um, that's not possible. Everything you view is through the filter of your own perception, hence it's not possible to "rate" something objectively as it's all subjective. It is impossible to view media without bringing something external to it to the table. Merely having a good working knowledge of wrestling history colors your perception in ways that a relatively new fan would not see; to try to strip just a thing away is to miss the point.

 

Ratings are, essentially, meaningless. The only thing they do is give the reader an idea of how well the reviewer enjoyed the match. They should never be used as a type of fact and certainly should never be considered objective.

[Guest RickyChosyu]

I disagree. What workers do and don't do, what story they tell with their actions, and how well their story is executed can all be seen objectively. Pay attention to what you're watching. That's all there is to it. Sure, personal bias comes into play many a time, but it doesn't have to. The quality of a match does not have to be controlled by what you perceive it to be. Working knowledge or not, it's quite easy to simply read into the match, find the underlying details (if there are any) and understand the levle at which it was presented. Easy.

 

As for the backlash against "technical" wrestling and psychology, such a thing doesn't exist. Every match has psychology. Even most Lo Ki matches have psychology. It's not good psychology, but psychology, none-the-less. Therefore, you can't fault a match for not having it, or having too much. Working the leg has as much to do with psychology as hitting a dive. It's all relative, and if it works within the confines of the match, then it's good psychology.

 

Second, Benoit is hardly what I would call "technical." Whenever he happens to work a boddy part, his opponent rarely can be bothered to sell it properly, and otherwise he just suplexes and chops like a normal wrestler. He simply knows how to sell, pace his attacks, and control his opponent's comebacks better than anyone else right now. That's what makes him great, not his ability to kick someone in the leg.

[Guest BionicRedneck]

Lynn-Styles-Lo Ki match is MOTY

 

I haven't seen it (and have no real desire to) but i think the MOTY is Tenryu/Kojima II.

[Guest RickyChosyu]

According to what I've heard, Ito/Nakanishi hold that honor right now, but I think we're refering to North America right now.

[Guest bps "The Truth" 21]

My vote goes to Lynn vs. Styles vs. Lo Ki as well.

[Guest RickyChosyu]

My vote goes to Lynn vs. Styles vs. Lo Ki as well.

As someone who's never liked the concept of three way matches to begin with, I'm skeptical. I know it's a bad year, but the idea of a three-way-dance being MOTY just hurts my soul.

[Guest bps "The Truth" 21]

don't get me wrong...it kills me too.

 

And none of those guys has been able to hit ***1/2 stars in singles matches in TNA yet.

 

But here we are...

 

in the midst of the worst year of actual "wrestling" I can recall.

[Guest RickyChosyu]

don't get me wrong...it kills me too.

 

And none of those guys has been able to hit ***1/2 stars in singles matches in TNA yet.

 

But here we are...

 

in the midst of the worst year of actual "wrestling" I can recall.

Seriously. Barring a full recovery from Benoit, I don't think there's anything I would call "really great" material so far. Just really dissapointing, mostly.

[Guest bps "The Truth" 21]

If I had a gun to my head and had to select the best singles match I've seen this year (which is only N. America)...

 

I'd still give that nod to Eddy vs. RVD at Judgment Day.

 

Jericho/Rock and Angle/Edge (Backlash) were really no better or worse than that match if you ask me...

 

but I give that the nod because it was RVD's best match ever...and as an RVD mark...it gets extra credit for that.

[Guest red_file]

I disagree. What workers do and don't do, what story they tell with their actions, and how well their story is executed can all be seen objectively.

Again it appears that we've run into the wall of the concept of objective and subjective information. What workers do and what story they tell is completely objective; while we may quibble over the names of moves, the events that happen in the ring are verifiable. One can look at a match and verify a list of moves that happened in it. One can look at the match and see where a story is being told; can view the psychology and how the moves relate to that psychology. These things are objective because they do not require the observer to make any sort of judgement about what's going on. The observer views what happens and is able to report the event.

 

"How well their story is executed" is, however, subjective. When the observer is required to take the almalgam of objective information and render an opinion on it, a piece of subjective information is what is produced. "Good" and "enjoyable" are not quanitfiable measurements. To pretend otherwise is foolish.

 

To cite an example, I'm not particularly fond of matches built upon strikes. For whatever reason, matches whose psychology is built around strikes strike me (har, har) as less interesting than those that are built around other types of psychology. Hence, I find very little to enjoy in early-90s All Japan, which is considered some of the best wrestling there is. I can look at the matches and see the brutally stiff strikes that others appreciate, but I cannot call those matches good. Does that mean that I'm wrong? If, like you say, the quality of a match is objective, then I am wrong. I tend to believe that the quality is subjective and that my opinion on those matches is as valid as anyone else's.

 

I am curious about this statement:

 

The quality of a match does not have to be controlled by what you perceive it to be.

 

Just what would one base one's opinion of a match on if it wasn't what the perception of said match was? Other people's perception of the match? Arcane calculations? How far you were able to toss the midget at the county fair?

 

And a quibble:

 

Second, Benoit is hardly what I would call "technical." Whenever he happens to work a boddy part, his opponent rarely can be bothered to sell it properly, and otherwise he just suplexes and chops like a normal wrestler.

 

I wonder in what way this is a criticism of Benoit's technical ability; it would seem, to me, to be more a criticism of the rest of the WWE roster's technical abilities. If he consistently attacks a part of the body using holds and his opponent fails to sell said holds in a convincing manner, who is really to blame?

 

On the other hand, you are correct that he does seem to rely on chops and suplexes more often than not. But he has displayed technical prowess when he has been given opponents who were able to keep up (or carry him). I believe him to be a technical wrestler who is unable to display that side of his repertoire. Perhaps I am wrong on that assessment.

[Guest RickyChosyu]

"How well their story is executed" is, however, subjective.

 

I have to disagree here, once again. Simply by looking at the logic of what the wrestlers do is easy enough. If, in one match, a wrestler gets his arm worked over for a long period of time, only to bust out hand-spring elbows and lariats, it would be easy to see that he's doing a worse job with his role than he should be. If a wrestler does not build to something, and resorts to stalling, then the same can be said. By following the logic of the match, it's easy to see the quality of what is done. Sure, everyone has matches that they enjoy the most, and it's not always because it is "technically" the best, but that's what sepperates "favorite" from "best."

 

As for my slip-up with match quality and perception, I meant "match quality is not always controlled by individual perception alone, because what the wrestlers do in the match doesn't change based on perception. What they do is what they do." Reading it over, it's clear that I wasn't making sense. Sorry about that.

 

You would be right that I was criticising the rest of the roster's abilities, as opposed to Benoit. The point I was trying to make was that Benoit, as a worker, does not dictate matches to be "technical" nine times out of ten, and the others simply work the matches they would always work, whether it be against Benoit or the Undertaker. I agree with you that he's usually not able to display his potential, but it seems to that he has changed very much, and apparently this is due to his neccesity to mesh with other workers, as William Regal has failed to make this transition, and sticks out like a sore thumb. I guess "technical" as a term just bothers me because Benoit isn't so much technical as he is smart. He doesn't do anything that drastically different from everyone else, he just does what he does well and that's what seperates him. Often times I hear people mock him by saying if it were up to his fans, he would be wrestling Malenko in arm-bar matches, but anyone who has seen the two of them wrestle each other knows that they hardly wrestle like that in any form. It annoys the hell out of me.

 

Sorry, rant over.

[Guest AndrewTS]

I can see it now. HHH climbs on to the apron to spit water, but tears his quad in the process. As he falls over, he lands on Michaels who tears his quad. X-Pac runs into the ring to help, but trips over his own two feet and tears his quad. Jericho is blamed.

No, Michaels will break his back, not tear his quad. A friend and I were chanting "TEAR YOUR QUAD" during the Rock-HHH match, BTW.

[Guest Mulatto Heat]

Often times I hear people mock him by saying if it were up to his fans, he would be wrestling Malenko in arm-bar matches, but anyone who has seen the two of them wrestle each other knows that they hardly wrestle like that in any form. It annoys the hell out of me.

Don't let it bother you too much. I pretty much attribute it to people trying to be cute and funny by deliberately going against the grain to get a rise out of others, but much like anything they do in real life, it fails miserably.

[Guest RickyChosyu]

Exactly. I guess it's still considered a blasphemy to ask someone to use logic in their arguements on the internet. Bah.

[Guest red_file]

As for my slip-up with match quality and perception, I meant "match quality is not always controlled by individual perception alone, because what the wrestlers do in the match doesn't change based on perception. What they do is what they do."

We agree here partially. We agree that the match itself never changes; what happens in the ring is never in dispute because it's easy enough to verify "what" happened in the match. What is in dispute, what is of a subjective nature, is if the "what" is any good (is appealing, tickles the viewer in the right way).

 

This, I think, is where we part company:

 

By following the logic of the match, it's easy to see the quality of what is done.

 

See the quality or merely recognize the psychology that's going on? I can watch Williams/Kobashi and see how the match moves logically from strike to strike, building from one move to the next, but I cannot, for some reason, view it and call it good (or appealing or enjoyable for me or the type of match that makes me go "God damn! That's what wrestling's all about!"). I can sit back and objectively say that the match is well structured and I could probably sit back and point out the logic of the match, but I could only make guesses at what people enjoy about it. The same goes for the Michaels/Ramon ladder matches and the Vader/Sting series. The matches don't appeal to me and therefore I can't call them good matches. I can call them competent matches; I can say that the workers did their jobs to the best of their abilities and managed to tell a story, but it was not a story that worked for me.

 

On the other hand, I do think that bad matches are easy to spot. A loose collection of blown spots complete with finisher-killing no selling, a couple of ref bumbs, ten run ins, and the Pope coming down to count the pin (for the Dusty finish, of course, because he's not sanctioned) is relatively easy to point to and say, "I have a couple of problems with the work in that match."

 

We could probably agree on a number of elements that make up good matches. But even when all those elements are present, I think that it's still up to the individual viewer to decide if the match was any good. Perhaps it's part of the viewer's responsibility to try to see where others might enjoy what s/he did not. Perhaps not.

[Guest RickyChosyu]

As for my slip-up with match quality and perception, I meant "match quality is not always controlled by individual perception alone, because what the wrestlers do in the match doesn't change based on perception. What they do is what they do."

We agree here partially. We agree that the match itself never changes; what happens in the ring is never in dispute because it's easy enough to verify "what" happened in the match. What is in dispute, what is of a subjective nature, is if the "what" is any good (is appealing, tickles the viewer in the right way).

 

This, I think, is where we part company:

 

By following the logic of the match, it's easy to see the quality of what is done.

 

See the quality or merely recognize the psychology that's going on? I can watch Williams/Kobashi and see how the match moves logically from strike to strike, building from one move to the next, but I cannot, for some reason, view it and call it good (or appealing or enjoyable for me or the type of match that makes me go "God damn! That's what wrestling's all about!"). I can sit back and objectively say that the match is well structured and I could probably sit back and point out the logic of the match, but I could only make guesses at what people enjoy about it. The same goes for the Michaels/Ramon ladder matches and the Vader/Sting series. The matches don't appeal to me and therefore I can't call them good matches. I can call them competent matches; I can say that the workers did their jobs to the best of their abilities and managed to tell a story, but it was not a story that worked for me.

 

On the other hand, I do think that bad matches are easy to spot. A loose collection of blown spots complete with finisher-killing no selling, a couple of ref bumbs, ten run ins, and the Pope coming down to count the pin (for the Dusty finish, of course, because he's not sanctioned) is relatively easy to point to and say, "I have a couple of problems with the work in that match."

 

We could probably agree on a number of elements that make up good matches. But even when all those elements are present, I think that it's still up to the individual viewer to decide if the match was any good. Perhaps it's part of the viewer's responsibility to try to see where others might enjoy what s/he did not. Perhaps not.

By watching, I believe you can understand the psychology and recognize the quality. While I can understand the psych with Williams/Kobashi, I don't neccerilly think it works. I look at it and I see two guys striking each other but building to a finish that makes it seem wasted, and therefore, bad psychology (if you're wondering, I too don't care for Williams/Kobashi much). It's the why aspect that I'm not getting understanding here. Do you feel like you understand why the match doesn't appeal to you? Is it the enphasis on strikes, or that it moves too slowly, loses direction, picks a route too logical (ie: predictable) ...ect. It's here that I sort of faltar on my opinion of objectively ratings matches, because if someone can give me a solid opinion on why a match is better or worse than I belive it is, then my "objective" opinion changes, or I disagree with them and forget I ever called it into question.

 

I would agree that with you as well, that this type of thing does come down to individual preferences most of the time. However, I usuaully try to expand my preferences by getting a bit of everything and coming to appreciate various matches for what they are, because then it allows me to view everything with more objective opinion, in the end, even if it's still not decidedly so.

[Guest red_file]

Usually I can see a "why" as to my disliking of a match. In regard to Williams/Kobashi it stems from the basing on strikes and the fact that when they finally move into the finish they really haven't established anything other than the fact that they've pounded into each other and they've got fighting spirit. The pacing doesn't help, but that's more a time period thing so I try not to let that get to me.

 

I do understand about the changing of opinion. Many times I've disliked something only to have someone explain the things I didn't like and show me why I should like it. That doesn't happen so much with wrestling as with other types of media, but the principal is the same.

 

I too try to expand my horizons as often as possible, but it seems that some of my basic bias come through no matter what type of wrestling I watch. A shame, really. Something I continue to work on.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Bumping his for retrospective comedy value.