AEW should ride the wave and focus on Character Developments
Sept 5, 2023 18:18:46 GMT -5
Dr. Bolty, Disaster Enby, DrBackflipsHoffman, and 8 more like this
Post by HMARK Center on Sept 5, 2023 18:18:46 GMT -5
Gonna respond to two things here:
and
I think there's a gap that exists between "good wrestling" and really good matches, and some of the worse online discourse out there makes it easy for people to see, say, a few highspots and just assume a match is a spotfest or something, but it's a gap that certainly does exist.
Like, think back to ECW bringing in a lot of great workers in the mid 90s, WCW hiring some of them and then presenting lucha to mainstream America, and TNA eventually doing the X-Division: so much of what made those matches special was that there was simply nothing like them going on in mainstream US wrestling at the time, the sheer athleticism and/or physicality involved in eras that still included things like endless nWo run-in finishes, mid 2000s slow heat-fest matches where it felt like you spent half of it watching chin locks, etc. But if we're being honest about a lot of those more exciting matches (certainly not all of them), the storytelling was often lacking; certainly wasn't always the wrestlers' faults, given that a lot of them were often told "you've got less than five minutes, go out there and pop the crowd", but it could still lead to eventual burnout as some of those impressive high spots and big moves would inevitably lose their novelty. Yes, in WCW you had Rey Mysterio Jr. was still getting over his never-say-die underdog character and Chris Jericho was working as a talented yet conniving schemer, but the matches were often stuck having to be these quick bursts of moves that had to end in time for the next commercial break.
But through all that, there were plenty of examples all over the world of promotions that would emphasize both that more athletic style, but also wed it with strong in-ring storytelling: King's Road Style from 90s AJPW is often associated with hard strikes and head drops, but gets its name because the style was crafted to tell the story of raising the Four Pillars of Heaven to the top of the card, traveling the "Road" to the top. Ring of Honor might've gone viral with clips like Low Ki and Amazing Red doing their kung fu movie sequence in 2002, but ultimately gained popularity, albeit with a niche audience, by building to matches that were about clashes of characters who did use plenty of hard-hitting and high-risk moves, but could just as easily get the crowd excited by Punk putting Samoa Joe back into a headlock during an hour long match, or Bryan Danielson having the potential to beat anyone at any time due to being "Mr. Small Package" (self-awareness totally not included, in kayfabe).
Basically, the former is "good wrestling": it's well-executed moves, it's crisp movement, it's smooth transitions, it's stuff done in a way that can make you go "wow"...there is absolutely nothing wrong with doing this, btw, but sometimes it just is what it is. The latter is often what makes a really good match, though: it doesn't forsake athleticism, but it combines it with character, motivation, arcs, and other aspects of narrative to create something more complex.
It brings us to today, where the latter style has gotten more mainstream in the US than it probably ever has before, but some people see it and kind of associate it with the former. For example, Kevin Nash has talked about visiting NXT and saying to Shawn that the guys need to slow it down, with Michaels saying "you can't do that anymore", which Nash took to mean people want spotfests; or you have people watching AEW and saying "this person doesn't have a gimmick, so all they do is wrestle good matches" (seen this lobbed at Kenny Omega, of all people), which comes off as missing that the story/character of a wrestler is often best told in the ring.
That doesn't mean that promos, angles, gimmicks, and all manner of other things are bad or shouldn't be utilized for everyone's benefit, of course; used right, anything in service of telling the best story and generating the most interest is what ultimately matters. But I do wonder if we're in a bit of a transition era for mainstream US wrestling, and it creates a gap in how some of us perceive what's "good wrestling" and what's a well-crafted match, since we have these competing styles and visions dating back around 25 years now that can heavily skew our points of view. Probably doesn't help, either, having two mainstream promotions in WWE and AEW that take pretty divergent paths in how they present their matches, too (though as I keep saying, maybe Triple H-led WWE creative has shifted some things I'm not aware of enough).
I've said it before (a lot of the time in the NXT thread) that I still appreciate great wrestling matches, but they're just added bonuses for me now. Stuff like what Better Than You Bay Bay, Toni, The Bang Bang Gang and Roderick Strong (can't believe I'm saying that) are doing now is what really excites me most.
and
I will always hate these discussions because we continuously act like stories can't be told in the ring. Those same storylines we love are also great because they infuse their characters into the in ring work.
Like, what do you think wrestling matches are there for?
Like, what do you think wrestling matches are there for?
I think there's a gap that exists between "good wrestling" and really good matches, and some of the worse online discourse out there makes it easy for people to see, say, a few highspots and just assume a match is a spotfest or something, but it's a gap that certainly does exist.
Like, think back to ECW bringing in a lot of great workers in the mid 90s, WCW hiring some of them and then presenting lucha to mainstream America, and TNA eventually doing the X-Division: so much of what made those matches special was that there was simply nothing like them going on in mainstream US wrestling at the time, the sheer athleticism and/or physicality involved in eras that still included things like endless nWo run-in finishes, mid 2000s slow heat-fest matches where it felt like you spent half of it watching chin locks, etc. But if we're being honest about a lot of those more exciting matches (certainly not all of them), the storytelling was often lacking; certainly wasn't always the wrestlers' faults, given that a lot of them were often told "you've got less than five minutes, go out there and pop the crowd", but it could still lead to eventual burnout as some of those impressive high spots and big moves would inevitably lose their novelty. Yes, in WCW you had Rey Mysterio Jr. was still getting over his never-say-die underdog character and Chris Jericho was working as a talented yet conniving schemer, but the matches were often stuck having to be these quick bursts of moves that had to end in time for the next commercial break.
But through all that, there were plenty of examples all over the world of promotions that would emphasize both that more athletic style, but also wed it with strong in-ring storytelling: King's Road Style from 90s AJPW is often associated with hard strikes and head drops, but gets its name because the style was crafted to tell the story of raising the Four Pillars of Heaven to the top of the card, traveling the "Road" to the top. Ring of Honor might've gone viral with clips like Low Ki and Amazing Red doing their kung fu movie sequence in 2002, but ultimately gained popularity, albeit with a niche audience, by building to matches that were about clashes of characters who did use plenty of hard-hitting and high-risk moves, but could just as easily get the crowd excited by Punk putting Samoa Joe back into a headlock during an hour long match, or Bryan Danielson having the potential to beat anyone at any time due to being "Mr. Small Package" (self-awareness totally not included, in kayfabe).
Basically, the former is "good wrestling": it's well-executed moves, it's crisp movement, it's smooth transitions, it's stuff done in a way that can make you go "wow"...there is absolutely nothing wrong with doing this, btw, but sometimes it just is what it is. The latter is often what makes a really good match, though: it doesn't forsake athleticism, but it combines it with character, motivation, arcs, and other aspects of narrative to create something more complex.
It brings us to today, where the latter style has gotten more mainstream in the US than it probably ever has before, but some people see it and kind of associate it with the former. For example, Kevin Nash has talked about visiting NXT and saying to Shawn that the guys need to slow it down, with Michaels saying "you can't do that anymore", which Nash took to mean people want spotfests; or you have people watching AEW and saying "this person doesn't have a gimmick, so all they do is wrestle good matches" (seen this lobbed at Kenny Omega, of all people), which comes off as missing that the story/character of a wrestler is often best told in the ring.
That doesn't mean that promos, angles, gimmicks, and all manner of other things are bad or shouldn't be utilized for everyone's benefit, of course; used right, anything in service of telling the best story and generating the most interest is what ultimately matters. But I do wonder if we're in a bit of a transition era for mainstream US wrestling, and it creates a gap in how some of us perceive what's "good wrestling" and what's a well-crafted match, since we have these competing styles and visions dating back around 25 years now that can heavily skew our points of view. Probably doesn't help, either, having two mainstream promotions in WWE and AEW that take pretty divergent paths in how they present their matches, too (though as I keep saying, maybe Triple H-led WWE creative has shifted some things I'm not aware of enough).