Don't mean to bitch and moan but...

[Guest pinnacleofallthingsmanly]

How come some of you guys seem like you form your opinions based on what you hear other people say? When I read some of these posts, I get the feeling that your opinions are influenced by what you read by people such as Scott Keith. Watching RVd versus Storm last night, I had a feeling that there would be people saying the match was great because of the psychology.

 

Psychology? You mean RVD trying to sell his leg injury, that psychology? I'm no wrestler but I was left with the impression that he was acting like he was hurt instead of believing that he was hurt. I thought selling was supposed to make people look like they are hurt. The pain isn't suppose to conveniently disappear (like in a Test match) or look like the guy is making an effort to look like he is hurt (like RVD last night). That ruins the illusion. While some people might read a Scott Keith rant and decide that any kind of selling or psychology in a match is good, I would rather see it done well than be embarrased as a wrestling fan by seeing it look like it is fake.

 

A lot of the time when I watch RAW, it is in the company of a casual watcher (she only watches wrestling because I have it on). The same people who say that the Rock getting hit with a truck ruins the credibility of the product turn around and act like half assed selling doesn't just because there was selling in the match. In my opinion, it's more important to have good selling and have storylines that border on the ridiculous than have bad selling and believable stories. When the smoke clears, it is a wrestling show.

 

The wrestling should be the redeeming quality of the show. When done effectively, there is just as much or more storytelling that can be done in the ring than in a backstage skit. That's how wrestling traditionally got stories over. They would tell the story in the ring, with a promo to supplement what they wanted to get over. Now the formula has been reversed. Sure the RVD-Storm match tried to tell a story (RVD's leg was hurt), but the selling of the leg injury was making me wince. I don't mean wince in sympathy, I mean wince like when I hear someone hit a bad note while singing. I do the same thing when I see Lita try to walk with a limp. Sure they are trying, but simply trying isn't good enough. There comes a point when you have to get it right.

 

It's harder to draw someone into the story that you are trying to tell when it looks like a put-on. Sure the skits can be entertaining, but it's the wrestling that puts asses in seats. You can see skits on SNL or Mad TV. You can turn on Baywatch to see T&A. You can watch NYPD blue to see drama. You watch wrestling to see...wrestling. That's what distinguishes it from everything else on tv.

 

Selling and psychology are the ingredients that make the story come to life in the ring. When one of the ingredients is bad, you don't say the match was a success just because it had the ingredients in it. There's a difference between the old school classics (Steamboat matches come to mind) and some of the matches you see these days. That difference is the quality of the ingredients. If they sold a move, it looked like they were hurt instead of acting like they were hurt. That's one of the things that will keep someone from breaking through to the top (like Test).

[Guest bps "The Truth" 21]

For me...

 

RVD's selling last night was good because it was an improvement over his No Way Out match with Goldust.

 

In that match...Goldust worked over his back for ever...and RVD ignored it and leaped up to the top rope to do the *****.

 

Last night I saw RVD give a good attempt at remembering he's supposed to be injured.

 

I thought the match was good...because the match was good...

 

RVD selling the leg made it better...because...you know...sometimes he forgets.

[Guest converge241]

Exactly, Bps , exactly.

The match was killer regardless.

It's an added bonus that an already good performer is taking steps to make his presentation more well-rounded. It's still not great and I dont care for the way he does that auto-jump/auto-recover for the pin at the end of the matches.

[Guest pinnacleofallthingsmanly]

While it may have been an improvement on his previous efforts, RVD's selling was not particularly good in my eyes. Perhaps I am being too analytical, but I think that half assed selling (or poor looking selling) ruins the illusion they are trying to create (that the moves are painful). Maybe half assed is a poor choice of words, he could be trying his best. However, I still think it looked poor. I wouldn't even have mentioned it, but I'm tired of people saying a match was good because it had psychology in it. They don't acknowledge whether the psychology was good or not, they just acknowledge that it was there. I wish my teachers would grade like that. I would be on easy street. "A+ on this paper Pinnacle! You handed it in, which means it's great!" It seems like some people don't have a mind of their own, and count on other people to tell them waht to think. They read that a match with psychology is a good match, and don't see the shades of grey. I have been watching wrestling since the 80's and the psychology that I saw in the 80's shits all over most of the stuff you see these days. I'm not saying the matches were superior (a lot of them were boring), but the wrestlers were better at the fundamentals than the wrestlers these days.

[Guest bps "The Truth" 21]

I agree that his selling needs work...but at least he's doing it now.

[Guest pinnacleofallthingsmanly]

My gripe isn't neccesarily with RVD's selling, it's with the fact that people jump all over psychology, regardless of whether it is good or not.

 

Good Psychology- The wrestler looks like he is in pain when a move is performed on him.

 

The pain affects the wrestlers performance.

 

A wrestler's afflicted area is a target for the other wrestler because it is hurting, which incorporates strategy into the match.

 

Previous matches or confrontations are taking into consideration during the match.

 

Bad Psychology- A wrestler obviously acting like he is hurt.

 

Disregarding any pain that should be associated with a move (Your ankle is hurt, yet you try to kick someone with the foot that should be dangling harmlessy from the hurt ankle).

 

Run in after run in after run in to make people remember previous confrontations.

[Guest converge241]

yeha i see what youre saying in the difference. i just think my brain is eroded from the sliding scale. Stuff like that is bad psychology compared to way it should be , but nowadays its almost above and beyond.

Along those same kind of lines I wish everyone could get togeteher and set some internal logic and specify what hits or moves hurt more than others.

Example going through a table is a "10"

Gitting hit with a chair is a "7"

gettign punched is a "1"

Not exact figures just an example. that might help.

[Guest pinnacleofallthingsmanly]

The equation looks like 1/amount of times used= damage inflicted. The DDT was all the rage in the 80's now it's just another move. Piledrivers were career threatening, I guess they still are so I'll scrap that one. A chairshot used to put people in a coma, now you can kick out of one.