Angles and stories, and how they play into matches

[Guest Loss]

I dragged this over from another board and thought it might make a great discussion here too. I'm curious to hear your thoughts.

 

This is a response to Loss and Hans.

 

At this point in my life as a wrestling fan, I don't really give a shit about the angles or who wins/loses.

Why? Is it because of WWE's recent failure to deliver a good storyline and pay it off in the ring? If so, I can understand that, but through history, there have been several great angles that have been paid off well in the ring.

 

Different matches deserve credit for different things. I'd never call Roddy Piper v Adrian Adonis or Hulk Hogan v Andre the Giant at Wrestlemania III great matches. I would call them satisfying matches that connected with an audience though, and since that's tough to do sometimes, I give them credit for accomplishing that. I think it's important to remember, especially when evaluating matches on the same scale, that not every match strives to be great. They sometimes have other purposes, whether it's to further a storyline or give a satisfying payoff to a long-brewing angle. Sometimes, that takes precedent over giving a great match. That's why Hulk Hogan is Hulk Hogan and why Ric Flair is Ric Flair.

 

I too prefer that the matches be great more than the story that leads up to it, but the story and the context is what makes a match what it is. Jim Cornette once said that wrestling is all about presentation, not content, and he's so right. There are things you have to know before watching a match, and if you don't know them, it's not going to jump out at you as much. Would the ending of 6/3/94 be as impressive if you didn't understand the history of the Tiger Driver '91? Would the ending of Flair/Steamboat at Wrestle War '89 be as highly regarded if it didn't play off of Savage/Steamboat at Wrestlemania III? Would you understand why the fans reacted so much to certain moves if you didn't know those moves were the wrestlers' finishers? Story is crucial to having a great match.

 

If it's not, why aren't wrestlers just going out and performing Misawa/Kawada or Flair/Steamboat spot-for-spot every night? It would be just as great if Albert and Big Show did Flair/Steamboat without blowing any spots, right? Of course it wouldn't, because they don't have that base to work from, and that's the whole point I'm trying to make. In Michaels/Jericho at Wrestlemania XIX, would the moonsault from the corner turnbuckle have gotten the pop it did if Jericho hadn't set the tone for that spot the week prior with his promo hyping the match? No, it wouldn't have.

 

There are a few examples of great matches being shit on by the crowd that had virtually no build. Benoit v Malenko at Hog Wild is the first and most obvious example that comes to mind. The crowd totally rejected the match, but had it happened anywhere else in the world practically, it'd be regarded as a classic. In that arena in front of that crowd, it's easy to respect the work, but it's not easy to call the match great. That's why heat is so important. One reason Hogan/Rock worked so well is because they understood the roles the audience wanted them to play and acted accordingly. I know you don't care much for this match, but wouldn't it be even worse if Hogan played the heel and Rock was the one trying to prove that he was The Man, only for the crowd to reject him every step of the way?

 

I think it's very, very important to know the context of a match, to know who the wrestlers are and what their finishers and character tendencies are, and know why certain moves are such a big deal. Let's say Benoit and Jericho teamed up against Flair and Batista tonight on RAW and they wrestled the 6/9/95 tag spot-for-spot. Would you call it a ***** match? Of course not, because Benoit and Jericho aren't Misawa and Kobashi and Flair and Batista definitely aren't Kawada and Taue. Does the fact that Akira Hokuto is defending AJW's honor against the owner of LLPW make the match better? Of course it does. Does the fact that they create an awesome visual of her laying on a blood-soaked mat that says Victory Through Guts make the match better? Of course it does. Would it be great without those things? Yes. But those elements make the match even better.

 

I think I understand your point, which is that you can't create something out of nothing, no matter how great the booking is. That's true. But a well-booked feud deserves every bit as much credit as a great match, and a well-booked feud may even be more of a rarity than a great match, which says something. This is why, in case you've never understood, I put so much weight on things like crowd heat and context and working from the established storyline when watching a match. At its best, wrestling is more than mechanics; it's the conveying of a story and the attempt to connect with a broad audience. Yeah, Hogan/Andre did that better than, say, Rey/Ultimo from World War 3 in '96, yet Rey/Ultimo is still the better match. I won't deny that. But great booking and great wrestling, ideally, go hand-in-hand. It's possible to have a great match without booking on your side, but I don't think it's possible to have an all-time classic without it.

 

Look at three-ways. You know why they don't work? It's because of the storyline of the match. They could do everything right in terms of moveset and big bumps and timing and selling, but the fact still remains that three guys are in the ring and there's only so much you can do with that structure before it becomes a total cliche. Some have succeeded more in three-ways than others. Now, look at gimmick matches. I know normally, you don't care too much for gimmick matches because you'd rather the focus be on traditional wrestling, which deep down, is something I'd probably agree with. But I think before dissing a match like War Games just because it's War Games, you have to ask yourself what makes a great match and ask if a gimmick match fits all the criterion.

 

So, what does make a great match? To me, it's the following things. Feel free to disagree:

 

* Execution of moves -- Are they crisp? Are they performed well? Is the offense high-end stuff or is it limited to punches, kicks and clotheslines? Are the moves difficult to pull off?

 

* Psychology -- Is the story of the match consistent? Do the motivations and actions of the wrestlers make sense? Is the match structure well and does it build appropriately to a climax? Are the wrestlers doing things that are realistic and make sense? Is the selling where it should be? Are the moves sold appropriately, and not undersold, no-sold or oversold?

 

Now here's where we'll probably differ, but here are the rest of my standards for a great match. I don't know if you have any others, above what I mentioned here, but this is a great place to put them if you do.

 

I should probably clarify something before I move on about realism. When I say realism, I mean realism with the context of wrestling. I don't mean complaining because wrestlers run into a dropkick off the ropes after an Irish whip. I mean anything that would prevent me from suspending my disbelief.

 

* Heat -- Does the audience react appropriately at the right times to the right spots? If the audience is distracted by something, how do the wrestlers respond? How is the atmosphere? Is the announcing good or are they talking about other things?

 

Now, in that case, again, you can't create something out of nothing, but I can't see myself loving a match that is shit on by a crowd. It makes it hard to enjoy, even if it can still be appreciated if the work is great. And yes, the announcing shouldn't determine how great a match is, but it can make a match seem better or worse than it really is. And wrestling is all about achieving the illusion.

 

I've heard some people say that they watch wrestling with the sound off, which I totally disagree with, because you're judging the match under a fantasy standard at that point. The match didn't take place with the sound off. The audience made some sort of noise and the announcers said something, whether it was stupid or whether it was appropriate.

 

I should also mention that bad matches have value. It's possible for a wrestler to have an excellent performance in a bad match, but the other wrestler not be up to speed and something disappointing result. I've seen this happen in numerous Chris Benoit matches, most notably his match with RVD at Summerslam 2002. I'd still consider that match one worth watching, just because it's a chance to see Benoit in awesome form. The match is okay -- good, but not great. But if someone wanted to point to an example of Benoit putting on a great performance, that match serves as a fine example.

 

I am more interested in the dance, so to speak. I think this goes back to the old Canadian Stampede/Rumble '92/ Mania 3-way argument. These were great moments BUT not in the upper-echelon of best matches I have seen ... and nowhere near *****.

 

I'd agree with that. But why is a great moment less impressive than a great match? And why do you care less about that? It's important to identify it for what it is, and not mistake great booking for great wrestling, but I don't think great booking should be short-changed either. It's a large part of what pro wrestling is.

 

Sadly, by the time I watched the Pitbulls match, I was already tired of the hardcore crap and gimmicks. Give me some fucking wrestling. I'm not saying I don't enjoy a good brawl but there are dozens of brawls that blow this out of the water and have stronger storylines to boot.

 

True. I still haven't watched the death matches you recorded for me, but I'll try to give them a view soon. I want to see what they did in that genre.

 

Loss, we can still look back fondly on the angles and he payoffs but I don't rate payoffs and angles. I rate matches.

 

True, but why do you rate matches? I think I know the answer, but I want to ask anyway. The reason I rate matches is to see where the standards of work are at any given point, and to see how modern matches that people like Dave Meltzer and Scott Keith give ****1/2-***** ratings hold up with matches that have gotten that rating in the past.

 

I think it's important to identify great angles and storylines because I want to see more of them, and it's a fascinating study in wrestling psychology, seeing what an audience responds to and what they don't, and learning something from it.

 

A backstory can add to a match... this is cliche. But a backstory is jack-shit if the wrestling isn't good. If the Katie Vick angle had a **** match (I'm stretching, I know) come out of it, I could tolerate the bullshit because something in the ring kept me satisfied.

 

I couldn't. I would hate it less, but I still wouldn't be completely satisfied. I'm not thinking, btw, of stuff like Katie Vick. I'm talking about angles and storylines that can actually play into the matches themselves, and those sort of things don't deserve to just go ignored. Ric Flair rubbing Ricky Morton's face into the concrete led to a series of matches where Morton wore a noseguard and the story of the match was Flair trying to tear it off and further dismember his face. Therefore, the angle served a purpose in setting the stage for what the matches were going to be. The audience reacted accordingly.

 

The problem with modern-day WWE is that they try to be cutesy and be entertaining just for the sake of being entertaining without building to anything worthwhile. I hate crap like Katie Vick and pregnancy storylines and I'd rather not see them on TV. I love stories where wrestlers are trying to prove something in the ring, and I love angles that set up mini-stories the wrestlers can address within matches.

 

Fuck, look how many crappy angles had good matches depite the circumstances surrounding them.

 

I can't think of very many. The storylines in AJPW in the 90s are a large part of what made those matches great. Flair/Steamboat wasn't exactly the best storyline, but they did do things like play off of previous matches, which is just as much angle as it is anything else. Michaels/Foley wasn't a remarkable storyline headed into the match, but it was great when it happened and they played off of what had been established. It was Foley's character work that gave that match such a chaotic feel that it needed to work. Hart/Austin wouldn't be anywhere near what it is if it wasn't a story of a young antihero trying to conquer a once-proud hero who sees the world changing around him and refuses to compromise himself. The second Michaels/Ramon ladder match wouldn't be as impressive without watching the Wrestlemania one first. The psychology of that one is actually very AJ-ish in terms of execution if you pay attention.

 

What are some great matches that have had crappy buildup?

[BHK 0]

I'm going to edit in feedback later, but that was very well written and well done.