King Steventon

So lately this is a thing I've been thinking a lot about. Back in the Wrestlemania thread, DD said "if Taker/HBK isn't your thing, then wrestling isn't your thing", or something to that effect, to which my response in my head was "maybe not everyone likes ten minutes of finisher kickouts". Just like every other form of media and entertainment, wether it be art, film, music or whatever, we all have our preferences when it comes to wrestling. We all have our own ideologies of what make a good match and what makes a good wrestler. There are a lot of fans who only care about a match if they don't know the outcome and don't care about the match itself. Some people care about how flashy or complex the moves being hit are and don't care about their context in the match. Some like matches that are purely story driven.

So this thread is basically me asking you: What is your idea of good wrestling? What makes you care about a match? The technical work? The amount of finishers? The wrestlers personalitys? And before you give the generic "good story-telling" answer, think about WHAT makes for good story-telling? How important are factors like execution, realism, pacing, etc

__________________

Tommy Platinum

Good story-telling.










...but seriously, I want some kind of intensity from a match. Obviously I can enjoy matches just on the wrestling alone, but for a match to be great in my eyes, I need to understand the wrestlers characters and I need to buy into their situation. I have always enjoyed personal feuds more than the others, because I think the psychology can be great when you have two guys who hate each other engaging in a no limits brawl. I want to see realistic emotion in matches I guess. A lot of title matches now don't seem that big of a deal because although the belt is on the line, the depth of the feud and the interaction between the stars as characters as well as wrestlers just isn't there.

Also, matches like HBK/Taker really do it for me. Nothing beats surprising and innovative counters, shocking near falls, finishers hit out of nowhere etc. That sort of stuff just has me on the edge of my seat and that match had it in abundance.

__________________

The Brain

I'm somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, I guess. I can enjoy a match with poor story telling and poor psychology as long as there's a good story line and build up. Basically, if I give a damn about one or both of the wrestlers, I'll probably be entertained unless the match is just an obvious stinker.

On the other hand, I can also enjoy a good match between two people I've never seen or heard of before, as long as they can make me interested in who wins during the match. Good storytelling (sorry) and good psychology does that for me. By that, I mean the more the match resembles a legit contest and not a show, the more I care about who wins. Also, if the live crowd is into the match, I'll usually get into it a bit more.

__________________

King Steventon

Yeah, I think the reason Benoit was so great and is so heavily praised (deservedly so) was because of his pure intensity. He made every match seem like a battle and always looked like he was fighting-tooth-and-nail for the win.

As far as endless near falls and finisher kickouts go, I think they are good in the right context. I liked them in HBK/Taker because if there was ever a time to go all out, that was it. That said, I think if there had been any more finisher kickouts in it, it would have been borderline ridiculous.

Sometimes the best near falls come from more than just finisher kickouts. I rewatched the Homicide/Corino match from BFSE and I remember the first time I watched and I saw 'Cides missed tope into the barricade, I thought he could have legit injured himself and they were going to end the match quickly so he could get help. So when he kicked out it was a legit "OH FUCK" moment for me. Same goes with the countout near fall in HBK/Taker which I thought was a maybe better near fall than any of the finisher kickouts. I legit thought he was hurt and they were doing a quick finish to get him help, then he started to rise and I was on the verge of yelling "GET UPPPPPP" at my laptop.

__________________

Toaster Oven

I dunno, in general matches that have good flow, and maintain realistic probability are the best. Most of the time a match with good storytelling will end up on shortlist faster than one with just good "wrestling"

__________________

Tommy Platinum

Yep. One of the best ever as far as showing intensity goes. Whether it was the World Title match at Wrestlemania, a US title match at Judgment Day or just a random tag on RAW, Benoit always made it look like it was life or death. It's hard not to get into a match when you have a guy showing such intensity.

Maybe not quite at the same level, but I would place Angle in the same category.

__________________

King Steventon

Angle is intense, but he has so many other flaws. He's pretty much exhausted his finishers to the point where a kickout from the Angle Slam or an escape from the Ankle Lock is neither shocking nor meaningful. I would say part of being a good wrestler is being able to protect and build up your finishing moves. That is why Taker/HBK worked and and why I would consider Undertaker to be one of the best guys going today - he has an array of finishers that are not only entirely credible (outside of maybe the Gogoplatza) but he has also done a great job of protecting them and keeping them over.

Angle also isn't a smart worker by any means. He wrestles every match the same.... suplex x 100, followed by finisher kickouts and an ankle lock finish. Not only does that make no sense as working the neck with suplexes is terrible in context with having a leg-focused finish, but it's the same thing over and over. Part of being a good wrestler is being versatile and being able to adapt. I would say that is something that seperates the good wrestlers from the great. I mentioned it in the Ki and Danielson threads that they are examples of guys who can work a match around their opponent. Angle does not do that.

__________________

Bigpapa42

Intriguing question.

To me, wrestling is pretty much entertainment. I approach it much the same way I approach movies - while I respect true greatness in film-making, I can enjoy a wide variety of films if I accept them for what they are. I know the average action flick is not going to stand up to The Godfather or Not Country for Old Men, but I don't watch that action movie expecting it to. If that action film has most of the elements I look for in an entertaining action movie and is decently done, I will probably enjoy it. Wrestling is much the same. I don't expect an NWA title match from the mid 80s, an All-Japan match from the mid 90s, and a current WWE match all to offer the exact same things. The elements I look for are going to be slightly different.

There really are a ton of elements that that can play a role. Intensity, as previously mentioned, is so very important. If even just one of the guys is clearly going through the motions, it makes it hard to get into it at all. Pacing has to suit the situation - a couple of high fliers working a very slow match just isn't going to work usually, especially if they do hit any sequences that move quickly. Whether its technical or brawling, it again depends on the situation and the workers. Finisher-fest matches often seem over-done, but it can certainly work - I think it did in the Undertaker-Michaels WM - but if its done poorly, it just devalues the finishers. Execution matters, as it doesn't have to be perfect, but a lot of botched moves tends to kill things. As for realism, well, it is wrestling, but it has to be there to at least a small degree - having someone act dead for 15 minutes because of a shot that would normally barely put them down is tough to swallow, even when I try to suspend disbelief. And then there's the crowd, which can make or break any match. A hot crowd makes a mediocre match seem really good, or kills another otherwise good match.

Context matters. So does characters, story, all of that. It all usually adds something to the match - one more element. Watching a bunch of 90s All Japan stuff has made me realize that context only matters so much, though, when other elements are in place to make the match entertaining (aka good). I don't need an intimate understanding of a feud to realize the tension between two guys and what it adds to the match. Knowing the history and the story does help usually, but its not going make a poorly-worked match that's lacking in intensity that much better.

__________________

RobyD

That was exactly my point when some people were critiqueing those who didn't like Taker/HBK. Personally, I liked it. To me, it fit into the suspense and build up to the end of a match that was effin HBK and effin Undertaker and effin Wrestlemania. But I can understand why the second half of the match wasn't liked. I did question it a little bit myself. Simply put though, if it was anyone else out there doin that for 10 minutes, it wouldn't have been great.

Anyways, a match that always comes to mind is Samoa Joe and Kabashi when I think of when personal preference gets in the way. I like a fair bit of striking myself, but there were maximum 5 slams and wrestling holds in the match. I hated the match, personally.

Anyways, when I am looking for a great match, I'm looking for 5 things. I'm looking for a fluint and past pace match. I'm looking for a match that has mix of different styles. I want a good ending, which isn't predictable but it isn't overbooked. I want importance. A match isn't the same if it doesn't matter. And most importantly, I want psychology. I hate it when we see random leg work and then an Armbar puts someone away. That's ridiculous.

King Steventon

Wait, why you hated the match because they didn't do alot of suplexes or submissions? Is that what you are saying?

Out of interest, how can you hate Joe/Kobashi when it meets four of those fives things? (pace, variety of styles, importance and psycology).

__________________