Planned out or called in the ring

[sdoyle7798]

This comes from a comment in the "Chanses of Omega to WWE" thread where they mentioned Savage planning everything out ahead of time for a match.

Do you think it's better to have a match planned out step by step, or to have some bullet points, but otherwise call it in the ring?

I know it's performer dependant, but overall, what do you think is best?

I'd perfer called in the ring. It just makes things seem more organic.

Side note that even if someone is a step by step planner, they do need to have the ability to pivot should something happen.

[Hypnosis]

Called out in the ring, in case one of the wrestlers suffers an injury during the match, so that their opponent can adapt to the situation.

Bullet points on what's expected can be helpful to other performers, though.

[tafkaga]

I don't care. If they tell a good story with a good finish, doesn't matter.

The only thing I'll say to the negative about guys who call it in the ring is frequency of repeated spots. A 30 minute Flair match is likely going to circle around and retread the same ground, whereas a 30 minute Savage match doesn't have those issues.

[sdoyle7798]

Sept 20, 2022 9:59:12 GMT -5 tafkaga said:

I don't care. If they tell a good story with a good finish, doesn't matter.

The only thing I'll say to the negative about guys who call it in the ring is frequency of repeated spots. A 30 minute Flair match is likely going to circle around and retread the same ground, whereas a 30 minute Savage match doesn't have those issues.

Honestly, though, I think a planned out Flair match would have all of the same spots as well.

"Gotta get my shit in" isn't a new thing,

["Evil Brood" Jackson Vanik]

Planning it out is fine but it impedes your growth early on in your career. Calling it in the ring teaches you timing and listening to the audience. It allows you to become better at improvising when something goes wrong. And you learn how to adjust when a booking changes. If you're on the undercard at a small indie show, you might get thrown into a tag or your opponent might change and you have no time to prepare. And that can happen in the big leagues too. I'm sure Sammy/Darby didn't have that much time to put their match together for the tournament. RAW/SmackDown plans change all the time. Once you get that skillset down and you know you have a big match to prepare for, it's good to lay it out to some extent. But you should still leave some room for adjustment based on what happens out there. If a guy gets cut open hard way, use it. If someone slips and lands awkwardly, sell it and make it part of the story.

[Bo Rida]

Sept 20, 2022 9:18:38 GMT -5 sdoyle7798 said:

Side note that even if someone is a step by step planner, they do need to have the ability to pivot should something happen.

That's the main thing, don't want a Del Rio type who is completely clueless of what to do of something doesn't go as planned.

Mostly it doesn't really matter either way but theoretically matches called in ring have a higher ceiling but also more chance of being crap.

["Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay]

There is in my view absolutely no argument against as much planning as possible doing something as dangerous as wrestling

The call it in the ring being the only way philosophy to me is simple gatekeeping about what 'true art' is and even if it wasn't, are you going to tell Randy Savage he got it all wrong?

By all means have both philosophies on a show if it makes the workers feel comfortable, especially on a show that doesn't need much plot progression, but in that case let's agree that either form has its place?

[Mozenrath]

Sept 20, 2022 15:56:00 GMT -5 "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay said:

There is in my view absolutely no argument against as much planning as possible doing something as dangerous as wrestling

The call it in the ring being the only way philosophy to me is simple gatekeeping about what 'true art' is and even if it wasn't, are you going to tell Randy Savage he got it all wrong?

By all means have both philosophies on a show if it makes the workers feel comfortable, especially on a show that doesn't need much plot progression, but in that case let's agree that either form has its place?

I think that some people resent having to keep track of a bunch of choreography for a match, particular if they are more fond of riffing, so to speak, but I think someone would have to be a jackass (Undertaker) to be pissy about at least agreeing on certain bullet points.

Of course, some like Ronda Rousey, they lack the background and need to have it planned to a T, or you have people like Goldberg that probably should have been choreographed tightly. The infamous Regal match wasn't meant to expose Goldberg, but Regal apparently didn't understand just how shallow Goldberg's training had been, and that Regal was *trying* to give him openings to act on with groundwork, but no one had really ever taught him how to do that.

[This Player Hating Mothman]

Sept 20, 2022 15:56:00 GMT -5 "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay said:

There is in my view absolutely no argument against as much planning as possible doing something as dangerous as wrestling

The call it in the ring being the only way philosophy to me is simple gatekeeping about what 'true art' is and even if it wasn't, are you going to tell Randy Savage he got it all wrong?

By all means have both philosophies on a show if it makes the workers feel comfortable, especially on a show that doesn't need much plot progression, but in that case let's agree that either form has its place?

And not just Savage, but damn near everyone in the conversation for 'greatest wrestler'. That style of match planning gave us [insert your favorite Bret Hart match here]. We're talking about the preferred method of all-time greats. There can be place for both and should be place for both but hell if the generally-deemed heights of the art form don't fall down on a way that a lot of people seem to be very down on.

[Mozenrath]

Sept 20, 2022 16:10:38 GMT -5 This Player Hating Mothman said:

Sept 20, 2022 15:56:00 GMT -5 "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay said:

There is in my view absolutely no argument against as much planning as possible doing something as dangerous as wrestling

The call it in the ring being the only way philosophy to me is simple gatekeeping about what 'true art' is and even if it wasn't, are you going to tell Randy Savage he got it all wrong?

By all means have both philosophies on a show if it makes the workers feel comfortable, especially on a show that doesn't need much plot progression, but in that case let's agree that either form has its place?

And not just Savage, but damn near everyone in the conversation for 'greatest wrestler'. That style of match planning gave us [insert your favorite Bret Hart match here]. We're talking about the preferred method of all-time greats. There can be place for both and should be place for both but hell if the generally-deemed heights of the art form don't fall down on a way that a lot of people seem to be very down on.

You do definitely need both, though. A formula that's tried and true is great to build off of, but it can also result in a "greatest hits" style blandness if you lean on it too hard, so it becomes something that, hypocritically or not, gets called out, like Bret slamming Flair as having the same match for years, or other people attacking Bret for "the five moves of doom" that also was a criticism of Cena. Of course, going too far the other direction, you have people doing too many spots for fans to really get breathing room, and thus kind of brings about a different sort of numbness from overstimulation, or ad-libbers who then have half the matches on a card break down to brawling outside the ring or other stuff that turns into filler because half the roster had the same idea.

[This Player Hating Mothman]

Sept 20, 2022 16:24:08 GMT -5 Mozenrath said:

Sept 20, 2022 16:10:38 GMT -5 This Player Hating Mothman said:

And not just Savage, but damn near everyone in the conversation for 'greatest wrestler'. That style of match planning gave us [insert your favorite Bret Hart match here]. We're talking about the preferred method of all-time greats. There can be place for both and should be place for both but hell if the generally-deemed heights of the art form don't fall down on a way that a lot of people seem to be very down on.

You do definitely need both, though. A formula that's tried and true is great to build off of, but it can also result in a "greatest hits" style blandness if you lean on it too hard, so it becomes something that, hypocritically or not, gets called out, like Bret slamming Flair as having the same match for years, or other people attacking Bret for "the five moves of doom" that also was a criticism of Cena. Of course, going too far the other direction, you have people doing too many spots for fans to really get breathing room, and thus kind of brings about a different sort of numbness from overstimulation, or ad-libbers who then have half the matches on a card break down to brawling outside the ring or other stuff that turns into filler because half the roster had the same idea.

You do super need both, but I find it fascinating how lopsided the opinion is from people who have a strong opinion about one of the other, talent and fan alike, in opposition to the one that has produced so much of the height of wrestling. It'd be like Jimi Hendrix fans complaining about effect pedals.

[Mozenrath]

Sept 20, 2022 16:31:39 GMT -5 This Player Hating Mothman said:

Sept 20, 2022 16:24:08 GMT -5 Mozenrath said:

You do definitely need both, though. A formula that's tried and true is great to build off of, but it can also result in a "greatest hits" style blandness if you lean on it too hard, so it becomes something that, hypocritically or not, gets called out, like Bret slamming Flair as having the same match for years, or other people attacking Bret for "the five moves of doom" that also was a criticism of Cena. Of course, going too far the other direction, you have people doing too many spots for fans to really get breathing room, and thus kind of brings about a different sort of numbness from overstimulation, or ad-libbers who then have half the matches on a card break down to brawling outside the ring or other stuff that turns into filler because half the roster had the same idea.

You do super need both, but I find it fascinating how lopsided the opinion is from people who have a strong opinion about one of the other, talent and fan alike, in opposition to the one that has produced so much of the height of wrestling. It'd be like Jimi Hendrix fans complaining about effect pedals.

It's probably in part due to the romanticization of spontaneity. People tend to have more respect for the ability to dazzle with something they think of as being wholly unique and pulled from the ether than they have for tightly rehearsed acts or drilled routine, which is rather unfair. Still, think of how often you see someone say that someone "effortlessly" created something or performed something, versus acknowledging the honed craft involved and how so much of that isn't romantic or flashy, but drilling the basics and showcasing discipline.

[Ultimo Gallos]

One of the best matches I have seen live in the past 3 years was totally called in the ring. Helped the two guys,Vordell Walker and Damien Wayne,had faced each other "At least 100 times brother"

All they knew walking to the ring was how long they had and who got the win.

Was a spot where Vordell was outside the ring and grabbed Damien's legs,as he laid on the mat,and dragged him right into the corner post.

Damien screams in pain,cause his nuts just hit the post. Crowd laughs starts a ONE MORE TIME chant,saw Damien give Vordell the ok. And boom one more time.

Where as one of the worst matches I have seen live in the past 4 years was one where the champion had planned the entire match out. Then 1 minute into the match his opponant forgot 2 spots and the match went to total shit. Was so bad neither guy had been booked by that fed again.

[tirtefaa]

Yeah, I mean I can see the argument for both.

I think calling it in the ring allows for the most flexibility in case of an injury, a botch, or just playing off the crowd. The problem with this is simply it's far more difficult to accomplish than planning it out.

Wrestling is a lot like comedy. Having a process where you plan out your material is going to net you the most success, whereas thinking on your feet can save you from disaster. That being said, I hate most improv comedy the same way I hate most wrestling with "call it in the ring" guys who clearly don't have the psychology to call it in the ring.

[Aceorton]

I wonder how much more favorably we'd look at someone like Warrior if he'd done more step-by-step planning the way he and Hogan did for WM6. (I presume Savage also laid out the WM7 match spot by spot.) Some wrestlers clearly benefit from having it spelled out for them. If the result is masterpiece-level matches from "bad workers," then it's a good thing, right?

[Kalmia]

Planning out is fine as long as you can improvise and pivot if things don't go as they should. I have no doubt that a performer like Savage could have dumped his plan and made it up on the fly if he needed to. Macho Man was the first wrestler I ever really connected with and he had some of my favorite matches so planning obviously works well for some.

[David-Arquette was in WCW 2000]

Wrestling part time, my best matches have been those that were largely planned out before hand. Not completely spot for spot, but the opening sequences, hope/comeback and the finish. The ones that had little or no planning prior usually were not great, save for a few good looking moves.

There is room for both, though. I think plan the beginning, middle, and end, so you can give the match structure. Call the stuff in between to give it some spontaneity.

Train, learn how to call, practise sequences and spots so if a guy calls something as they shoot you to the ropes you know what to do. However, wrestling should look like a fight, a struggle, if there's a miscommunication and a spot gets blown, it's not the end of the world. Use it in the match.

[Natural Born Farmer]

Expecting to remember every move you're supposed to do in a 30-40 minutes main event seems impractical.

[tirtefaa]

Sept 20, 2022 17:50:30 GMT -5 Aceorton said:

I wonder how much more favorably we'd look at someone like Warrior if he'd done more step-by-step planning the way he and Hogan did for WM6. (I presume Savage also laid out the WM7 match spot by spot.) Some wrestlers clearly benefit from having it spelled out for them. If the result is masterpiece-level matches from "bad workers," then it's a good thing, right?

I don't think Warrior cared about his match quality. I think he believed that his money was going to be in the gimmick, and that working any harder in the ring wouldn't result in any additional support or money.

[Chuck Conry]

Personally, I've always liked a couple spots planned but the rest in the ring. I've wrestled guys (mostly young ones) who want to call out the whole match. I can't remember all that.