Smark Cliches.

[Dr. Bunsen Honeydew]

thesunbeast said:

I also resent the "5 moves of doom" phrase, which is ACTUALLY on wikipedia foe wrestling phrases. Why I don't like wikipedia.

There is NO SUCH THING as a "5 moves of doom". It's called a "comeback", which is a STAGE of a match, usually the 3rd. This stage of the match is started by the face making a SET comeback, with a series of moves that they use in the same exact order 95% of the time. Then continue the comeback untill the heel cuts them off. Every single babyface on the face of the planet has a set comeback. There is no babyface that dosen't have one. Why single out Cena and Bret Hart and Hogan?
Everyone From Hogan, to Undertaker, to Cena, from Bret Hart to HBK, From Diesel to the Rock, From warrior to Savage, Hillbilly Jim to Tito Santana, Doink, scotty 2 hotty to Eugene.
They all have one.

When you're establishing your comeback, you don't ever mess around with it, youy leave it exactly the same. ONCE it's been fully established, THEN you can start switching things here and there based on your opponent and the match.

You answered your own question. Hogan Cena and Hart LONG established their "comeback", The issue is, Hart is a prime example of this, they NEVER changed once it was established. Thats how the got the FIVE MOVES OF DOOM label. Even Shawn Michaels is getting it now because his comebacks are repetitive.

[thesunbeast]

roybean said:

thesunbeast said:

I also resent the "5 moves of doom" phrase, which is ACTUALLY on wikipedia foe wrestling phrases. Why I don't like wikipedia.

There is NO SUCH THING as a "5 moves of doom". It's called a "comeback", which is a STAGE of a match, usually the 3rd. This stage of the match is started by the face making a SET comeback, with a series of moves that they use in the same exact order 95% of the time. Then continue the comeback untill the heel cuts them off. Every single babyface on the face of the planet has a set comeback. There is no babyface that dosen't have one. Why single out Cena and Bret Hart and Hogan?
Everyone From Hogan, to Undertaker, to Cena, from Bret Hart to HBK, From Diesel to the Rock, From warrior to Savage, Hillbilly Jim to Tito Santana, Doink, scotty 2 hotty to Eugene.
They all have one.

When you're establishing your comeback, you don't ever mess around with it, youy leave it exactly the same. ONCE it's been fully established, THEN you can start switching things here and there based on your opponent and the match.

You answered your own question. Hogan Cena and Hart LONG established their "comeback", The issue is, Hart is a prime example of this, they NEVER changed once it was established. Thats how the got the FIVE MOVES OF DOOM label. Even Shawn Michaels is getting it now because his comebacks are repetitive.

Not necassarily though. What becomes established to smarks isn't the same as what becomes established to average fans. to us, we think established means that if we know what they're going to do, then it's established, and they should do something else. But that's not true, when you're an average fan, established means something that works.

When you're an average fan, and you see Bret Hart get beat up the whole match, you know that what he's doing isn't working. Now, when you see Bret do a reverse atomic drop, a snap suplex, and a russian leg sweep he's doing something that works. Now, If the guy kicks out of the russian leg sweep, what should he do? That's right, he should do the other two moves that you know would work sinse the first 3 did, the backbreaker and elbow. Why do you think he went for a cover after each move?

There are different ways in presenting your comeback, some ways of presentation should allow for change, and some should not. Bret's way was unchangable for the way he presented it. The only way he should have changed it was if he was going to use an entirely different comeback altogether, which he did depending on the opponnent.

[lildude8218]

emptyeye said:

Going back to amend to something on the first page:

Any new gimmick is automatically Wrestlecrap...until it actually debuts, at which point it somehow morphs into the greatest thing ever (Boogeyman anyone?).

Actually you're half right. Anything new is automatically Gooker of The Year.

[thesunbeast]

lildude8218 said:

emptyeye said:

Going back to amend to something on the first page:

Any new gimmick is automatically Wrestlecrap...until it actually debuts, at which point it somehow morphs into the greatest thing ever (Boogeyman anyone?).

Actually you're half right. Anything new is automatically Gooker of The Year.

Yeah, I think I may have been the only one who wanted to atleast give the Boogeyman a chance.

[Dr. Bunsen Honeydew]

thesunbeast said:

roybean said:

You answered your own question. Hogan Cena and Hart LONG established their "comeback", The issue is, Hart is a prime example of this, they NEVER changed once it was established. Thats how the got the FIVE MOVES OF DOOM label. Even Shawn Michaels is getting it now because his comebacks are repetitive.

Not necassarily though. What becomes established to smarks isn't the same as what becomes established to average fans. to us, we think established means that if we know what they're going to do, then it's established, and they should do something else. But that's not true, when you're an average fan, established means something that works.

When you're an average fan, and you see Bret Hart get beat up the whole match, you know that what he's doing isn't working. Now, when you see Bret do a reverse atomic drop, a snap suplex, and a russian leg sweep he's doing something that works. Now, If the guy kicks out of the russian leg sweep, what should he do? That's right, he should do the other two moves that you know would work sinse the first 3 did, the backbreaker and elbow. Why do you think he went for a cover after each move?

There are different ways in presenting your comeback, some ways of presentation should allow for change, and some should not. Bret's way was unchangable for the way he presented it. The only way he should have changed it was if he was going to use an entirely different comeback altogether, which he did depending on the opponnent.

Bret could have changed the order of the moves. The big problem was that he didn't causing it to become repetitive and stale, a by product of witch is Bret's matches became too formulaic. IT a point witch Ric Flair made in his book, which I agree with. You could throw a tape of 100's of Bret's matches and they are all the same. Thats why he got the FIVE MOVES OF DOMM label.

[Smark]

roybean said:

thesunbeast said:

Not necassarily though. What becomes established to smarks isn't the same as what becomes established to average fans. to us, we think established means that if we know what they're going to do, then it's established, and they should do something else. But that's not true, when you're an average fan, established means something that works.

When you're an average fan, and you see Bret Hart get beat up the whole match, you know that what he's doing isn't working. Now, when you see Bret do a reverse atomic drop, a snap suplex, and a russian leg sweep he's doing something that works. Now, If the guy kicks out of the russian leg sweep, what should he do? That's right, he should do the other two moves that you know would work sinse the first 3 did, the backbreaker and elbow. Why do you think he went for a cover after each move?

There are different ways in presenting your comeback, some ways of presentation should allow for change, and some should not. Bret's way was unchangable for the way he presented it. The only way he should have changed it was if he was going to use an entirely different comeback altogether, which he did depending on the opponnent.

Bret could have changed the order of the moves. The big problem was that he didn't causing it to become repetitive and stale, a by product of witch is Bret's matches became too formulaic. IT a point witch Ric Flair made in his book, which I agree with. You could throw a tape of 100's of Bret's matches and they are all the same. Thats why he got the FIVE MOVES OF DOMM label.

5? I would laugh at people who bash Cena's moveset when the IWC's beloved Ken Kennedy has maybe 3 moves total, including his finisher, known as "getting injured."

[angryfan]

uncivilized82 said:

Any developmental wrestler liked by Steph and/or Johnny Ace is automatically hated.

Oh, and this really isn't smarky..but whenever I hear the phrase, "the SPORT of professional wrestling", it irks me.

What you see at the olympics, high school, or college is a SPORT. Pro wrestling...not really.

To be fair, when it comes to "Developmental guys Steph and Johnny like" they all seem to fit the mold of really big guy with less than six months of experience. Rodimer and Prudius come to mind immediately.

On the subject of the "five moves of doom" or the comeback spot, I look at it this way. True, it's been done forever, and is a very necessary spot for a babyface in a match, much as the hope spot is. My problem is, while it is something that the business must utilize, I think it's beomce as cliche as the final part to an action movie.

Throw in a Van Damme or Segal movie from 1988, you'll see it every single fight against the big dastardly villian. Hell, watch Walker, Texas Ranger, it's in every single episode ever.

The thing is, and this is the only thing that truly bothers me about it, is the impression I get when I see it is that they're playing exclusively to first time or casual viewers, with no regard for anyone who has ever made a habit of watching the product at all. This isn't necessarily an indictment of the comeback spot, but more the formulaic, paint by numbers comeback spot.

To me, it says "allright, you've never seen this, so watch as this happens. Remember the order, because it's important, react this way when this move happens, then do this when this other move happens".

Thing is, I've watched wrestling for my entire life, and I've seen many comebacks that weren't of the formulaic variety. They can be done very well and still seem spontanious and surprising. Sure, some of us may sit and watch and say "oh goody, here's the comeback", the outcome may be obvious, but if you change it up, even slightly, it can add even an instant of "hey, wait, I didnt' see that coming", and that's really the goal, isn't it? That split second where you say "damn, um, what was that?".

Take this scenario. You've got mega-face working a program against heel X. For foreer now, the babyface's comeback has been clothesline, slam, elbow drop, finisher, in that order with little to no variation except the occasional using the finisher twice to put away a tough heel.

Now, in this match, the babyface in peril story is being told, with the heel looking dominant and importnat. The babyface starts his comeback, with fans doing the whole count the pinfall bit at every opportunity, complete with ooohhhing and aaahhhing and so forth. The fans are used the usual sequence, but instead of that, they get the clothesline followed by the finisher, or a drop toe hold (which the babyface had never really used) followed by the elbow drop, then strraight into the finish.

The comeback is still accomplished, it still achieves the overall goal, with the added bonus that now the fans will say "hey, that was different, I wonder what he'll do next time?".

[metylerca]

If they don't put on ***** matches, they suck.

[W?Y]

Displaying vocal hatred for an "IWC Favourite" is edgy and unheard of, and immediately makes you cool.

EDIT: On the subject of "5 Moves of Doom", what about Shawn Michaels at his peak? His comeback was usually kept to flying forearm, slam, elbow drop, superkick, but granted he did mix it up. Trust me, after watching the Boyhood Dream DVD, I know what HBK's comeback looks like.

[thesunbeast]

slammu said:

roybean said:

Bret could have changed the order of the moves. The big problem was that he didn't causing it to become repetitive and stale, a by product of witch is Bret's matches became too formulaic. IT a point witch Ric Flair made in his book, which I agree with. You could throw a tape of 100's of Bret's matches and they are all the same. Thats why he got the FIVE MOVES OF DOMM label.

5? I would laugh at people who bash Cena's moveset when the IWC's beloved Ken Kennedy has maybe 3 moves total, including his finisher, known as "getting injured."

See, the point I was making is that we can single out a wrestler and put 100 of their matches together and say that their comeback is the same for 98 of them and then say that their matches were all the same, but that's selective reasoning, because the point I was making is that you can put 100 matches together of any babyface and their comeback will be the same aswell. It's all about choosing to notice or not choosing to notice.

I assure you, 100%, that there are babyfaces on Raw and Smackdown right now that have been using a set comeback for 4 years now and no one complains. They key is, is that just because someone has a set comeback dosen't mean the match is the same, it isn't.

Because of the "suppossed" death of kayfabe, most wrestling fans forgot how to watch a wrestling match now. (that could also be the commentator's fault as alluded to earlier, although Tazz does a good job) During the "heat" of the match, we just see "yeah, Cena's getting beat up by Orton" but we don't actually try to follow what's going on. It's as if people don't believe anymore that there's a rhyme and reason to what's happening in the ring. Then when the face makes a desperation comeback, designed for you to watch their systematic breakdown, we tend to say "heh, Cena gets beat up for a while, then does his moves, it's the same match"

As far as formulation, here's the secret. Every match is formulatic, every single one on WWE TV. The key is weather or not, (not one or the other) you should hide the formula, depending on your style. There are no babyfaces on Raw or Smackdown that do not use a formulatic comeback, or heels that do not use a formulatic heat. The beuty is, is that no two formulas are the same., so you can mix the Face's formula with the heel's.

Thankfully, I know alot of the guy's styles now to where I can back up my claims, It's alot of info though, but to me, It's braught me back to the kayfabe era that so many try to strive for, and wrestling seems to have become new to me again after 19 years of watching, because they STILL do the same things they did yesteryear, it's just not emphesised anymore.

[JMA]

One thing I hate is when posters bash a particular wrestler in EVERY SINGLE DAMN THREAD, whether the wrestler is related to the topic or not. And yet, I've done this myself many times.

[thesunbeast]

angryfan said:

uncivilized82 said:

Any developmental wrestler liked by Steph and/or Johnny Ace is automatically hated.

Oh, and this really isn't smarky..but whenever I hear the phrase, "the SPORT of professional wrestling", it irks me.

What you see at the olympics, high school, or college is a SPORT. Pro wrestling...not really.

To be fair, when it comes to "Developmental guys Steph and Johnny like" they all seem to fit the mold of really big guy with less than six months of experience. Rodimer and Prudius come to mind immediately.

On the subject of the "five moves of doom" or the comeback spot, I look at it this way. True, it's been done forever, and is a very necessary spot for a babyface in a match, much as the hope spot is. My problem is, while it is something that the business must utilize, I think it's beomce as cliche as the final part to an action movie.

Throw in a Van Damme or Segal movie from 1988, you'll see it every single fight against the big dastardly villian. Hell, watch Walker, Texas Ranger, it's in every single episode ever.

The thing is, and this is the only thing that truly bothers me about it, is the impression I get when I see it is that they're playing exclusively to first time or casual viewers, with no regard for anyone who has ever made a habit of watching the product at all. This isn't necessarily an indictment of the comeback spot, but more the formulaic, paint by numbers comeback spot.

To me, it says "allright, you've never seen this, so watch as this happens. Remember the order, because it's important, react this way when this move happens, then do this when this other move happens".

Thing is, I've watched wrestling for my entire life, and I've seen many comebacks that weren't of the formulaic variety. They can be done very well and still seem spontanious and surprising. Sure, some of us may sit and watch and say "oh goody, here's the comeback", the outcome may be obvious, but if you change it up, even slightly, it can add even an instant of "hey, wait, I didnt' see that coming", and that's really the goal, isn't it? That split second where you say "damn, um, what was that?".

Take this scenario. You've got mega-face working a program against heel X. For foreer now, the babyface's comeback has been clothesline, slam, elbow drop, finisher, in that order with little to no variation except the occasional using the finisher twice to put away a tough heel.

Now, in this match, the babyface in peril story is being told, with the heel looking dominant and importnat. The babyface starts his comeback, with fans doing the whole count the pinfall bit at every opportunity, complete with ooohhhing and aaahhhing and so forth. The fans are used the usual sequence, but instead of that, they get the clothesline followed by the finisher, or a drop toe hold (which the babyface had never really used) followed by the elbow drop, then strraight into the finish.

The comeback is still accomplished, it still achieves the overall goal, with the added bonus that now the fans will say "hey, that was different, I wonder what he'll do next time?".

That's true, they ARE matketing it to new fans, but that's what they're suppossed to do. During the early 1990's, the cigar smoking fan at the bar that remembered the old days suddenly got disgusted with the product and stopped watching, but he was replaced with a mother, a father, and their two children.

What you described is the basic way of how it works, but it gets a bad rap, because Guys like Bret changed their finish all the time. Mabe once every 30 matches, but that's enough IF YOU WRESTLED LIKE BRET.

I made a really long post about this once, It's tiresome and I'm not sure if I'm ready to do it agian, but I'll just talk about it a little.

We have to play around with status first. the status' are

jobber
lower midcard
midcard
upper midcard
main eventer
golden goose

lets say I'm a wrestler on TV, and my name is Blood Runner (that's a cool name) and I'm a babyface midcarder. I will have a set comeback untill I'm ready to move out of the midcard. It will play out in the stagers of a match.
You have many stages to matches that you can put together like a puzzle, you don't (or can't, depending on your status) use them all. They are

-face shine
-2:1 face shine
-"heat"
-"keeping the face alive"
-the hope spot*
-The "comeback"
-the home stretch
-the finish

There are many variables like false comebacks, false hope spots ect.. but I'm a mid carder, and I have to choose between the face shine and the 2:1 face shine, and eliminate the other. I choose face shine.

So I am left with:

Face shine
heat
keeping the face alive
hope spot
comeback
home stretch
finish

My comeback is this: running elbow, running elbow,Reverse atomic drop, snap suplex, double axe handle off the ropes. That's my comeback, my finish is NOT included into the comeback, it's called the finish, even if it happens right after the comaback.

My special move is the texas cloverleaf. The finish for the match is for me to slingshot him into the post and go for the texas cloverleaf, but he rolls me up and pins me.

Because I'm a midcarder facing another midcarder, we get to use the "home stretch" this is a drawn out process to the finish, but happens after the comeback. So I'll make my comeback of 2 runnung elbows, an inverted atomic drop, a snap suplex, and I will then MISS the double ax handle off the top rope, because something needs to happen to allow the match to continue, because in this match, we have a home stretch to do before the finish.

If I was a midcarder facing a jobber, then I would make my comeback FOR the finish, there would be no seperate finish.

Two micarders facing, the face makes a comeback, then they do a finish afterwards. If a babyface main eventer is facing a heel midcarder, than it's the same scenerio as a face midcarder facing a heel lower midcarder, the comeback is the final stage of the match. If a heel main eventer is facing a face midcarder, then the face will make a comeback, but they will do a quick finish right after the comeback, with no home stretch. If two main eventers are facing each other, then it's the same deal as two midcarders, except that they get the choice of just a face shine or both a face shine and 2:1 face shine in the beginning, I don't really want to get started with all that.

If a golden goose is facing a main eventer, then usually, it's the same deal as when a main eventer faces a midcarder. If a babyface golden goose faces a heel main eventer, the match will usually end with the comeback. two golden gooses rarely ever face each other unless someone is stepping down, but if they did, it would be the same scenerio as two main eventers or two midcarders, but with more choices as to match structure, again, I really don't want to spend time on that.

That's basically how it works. Lately, in John Cena's matches, they've been adding home stretches to his matches against other main eventers anyway, even though he's the golden goose. It's a subconsiuos thing that the fans may not know exactly why they feel this way, but it could ba a contributing factor with the whole "overcoming the odds" feeling that the audience gets with Cena.

Bret did change his comeback from time to time, people have lied about him. But Bret also says that he did try to keep his comeback similar, and that anyone who thinks he should have changed it more often than he actually did, just didn't understnd the psychology as much as him.


I've had enough.

[W?Y]

Gah....so long......


Feel.....


subject.....


changing.....

[chunkylover53]

thesunbeast said:

angryfan said:

jobber
lower midcard
midcard
upper midcard
main eventer
golden goose

What exactly is a golden goose? Is that somebody of the Hogan/Rock/Austin calibre?

[thesunbeast]

chunkylover53 said:

thesunbeast said:

angryfan said:

jobber
lower midcard
midcard
upper midcard
main eventer
golden goose

What exactly is a golden goose? Is that somebody of the Hogan/Rock/Austin calibre?

Yeah, there's a higher level than main event. It's the guy that serves the purpose for having a main event, It's the guy that the company is being built around. There has always been one, even during the attiude era. They say that the attitude era didn't have a "good guy" or "bad guy" but shades of gray, but this isn't true. They also didn't have the "handfull of guys building the company" without a main guy, as they did have a main guy. He's like the king in the chess game, there can only be one at the same time.

[Slim Loves Lily]

If they're terrible in the ring and even worse on the mic, but send money to their country that doesn't benefit you in any way shape or form, they rule.

[Andrew is Good]

chonson said:

If they're terrible in the ring and even worse on the mic, but send money to their country that doesn't benefit you in any way shape or form, they rule.

Well, to be honest, no one's really gonna bad mouth someone that does that.

[JerryArr: Hat!]

It's been alluded to in this thread, but the all-time champ is "WWE just signed (indy/RoH/Mexican/Japanese guy) to a developmental deal! There's NO WAY they'll use him right!"

[Mister Pigwell]

Headlock in ROH = WOW GENIUS!!! Ring psychology at its best I wish more promotions had psychology!!

Headlock in WWE = AHH BORING!!! Orton with another headlock what a loser he needs rest holds!!

[chunkylover53]

Big Show sucks, but Andre The Giant is a legend.