 |
|
Home
Wrestling
WWE
TNA
Tape Reviews
Other
Sports
Basketball
Football
Baseball
Hockey
International
Entertainment
Movies / TV
Music
Gaming
Technology
Books / Comics
" The Gravel Pit "
|
|
|
|
Wrestling
Moving Right Along
Posted by Mark Goodhart on Jul 5, 2002, 13:24
|
|
Moving Right Along
As a lover of wrestling holds and how workers use them to construct interesting matches, I just have to say nothing really warms my heart quite like a finisher. Seeing Chris Benoit slap on the Crippler crossface or watching Rob Van Dam nail the five star frog splash just brings a little bit of glee to my otherwise empty heart. Because gosh darn it, finishers really are wonderful things when you think about them intellectually. Not because they pop a crowd, although that is a nice feature. Not because they are visually impressive, although that is also quite handy. To be perfectly honest, now that really I think about it, I could not care less about the actual mechanics of the finisher itself. It doesn�t matter if the finish is a nerve hold or a firebird press. Because in the end, all I really want are some good matches. And contrary to some beliefs, you don�t really need to be trading triple jump moonsaults and ganso bombs to put on good matches. You just need to be able to construct matches to reasonable conclusions that make sense. And that is why I love finishers, because they are the quickest and easiest doorways to well orchestrated psychology. And the it is that use of psychology which makes for logical, interesting matches that go beyond the realm of trading spots like they are Yu-Gi-Oh cards.
Now, since these smart phrases can be a little vague in their definitions, I guess it would be best to actually tell you what I mean by psychology instead of just throwing out the term. Basically, psychology from the wrestling sense means that the workers involved in a match use maneuvers to set up other maneuvers until they build towards the finish, usually by working on a specific body part. For instance, Ric Flair working on someone�s knee is generally a good display of psychology because it builds up to the use of the figure-four leglock, which is a submission hold that, get this, works the leg. Another common example of psychology is when a wrestler works on a specific part of their opponents anatomy in order to defend against their opponents� signature moves. Attacking Jeff Hardy�s knees in order to limit his high wire act would be a fine case in point because if his knees are damaged, he cannot get the spring he needs to use his offence effectively. Anyway, the point of this whole diatribe is that finishers very simply give workers something to either build towards, or battle against. It gives a simple goal that workers can work for with a minimal amount of thought and effort.
But we do not believe in those elements anymore in WWE. Oh no. We are too busy hitting signature moves that have nothing to do with each other. Take a look at Chris Jericho and you�ll notice how none of his moves ever seem to hit the same place twice. The Flashback sleeper drop hits the back of the head. The flying forearm hits the forehead. The Walls of Jericho work the back. The lionsault hits the ribs. Would it kill the guy to maybe concentrate on the back a little bit so that if anyone actually taps to The Walls, it would make some sense? You know, maybe if it was just Jericho, it wouldn�t bother me so much. But it is like that for just about everyone in the roster. It�s just spot, spot, spot, and then to give you something completely different, another spot. I mean honestly, let us say you are working against Chris Jericho and he hits his standard offence on you. How in the heck would you even begin to sell it? You can�t. Unless you just go for the generic �tired� and that just does not make for great matches. See folks, psychology is not just some buzz word smart marks came up with to bitch about Hulk Hogan matches. It basically encompasses the entire structure of a match. If there�s no structure, matches just become exhibitions of what neat moves people know. But structure allows for an actual story to be told, an actual progression. What we have right are collogues, when we should be getting stories.
And this is why I take issue with the recent trend in WWE to give each wrestler a secondary finisher, especially when the moves work a different part of the body. It takes the opportunity to establish psychology that a finisher represents and flushes it. Instead of realizing the values that finishers have, it instead reduces the finisher to just another spot that appears as quickly as it is forgotten. Now, I really don�t mind if Undertaker switches back and forth from the chokeslam to the Last Ride elevated powerbomb because they both work the same part of the body, and the build to either of those moves would be identical. The problem starts when you get to a case like Kurt Angle. See, Angle has two finishers, the Olympic Slam and the anklelock. Now, one of those moves work the back and the other works the legs. Now, since Angle works both of those moves into just about anyone of his matches that go more than five minutes, it becomes a problem because he does not prepare his opponent to really sell both of those holds effectively. He sets up the Olympic Slam just fine with tons of throws and suplexes all over his matches, but the ankle lock is like his own personal Tim Conway that comes in to guest star for a few moments and then never gets mentioned again.
But it does not have to be that way. Finishers can easily become more important to the overall scheme of WWE wrestling again with the tiniest amount of work. Have people act like they are aware that Edge�s DDT is deadly and that they have to be on guard against it at all times. Have Jamie Knoble work the legs before going for the Trailer Hitch leglock. Have someone assault Undertaker�s back so it would be harder for him to maintain position for the Last Ride. By doing these things, you make better stories simply and effectively with little effort. It�s effective and smart and there�s no good reason not to do it. So do it already. I have spoken.
Post of The Week
Finally, before I go let us go to TheSmartmarks message board for the Post of the Week! It is a little slice of message board life that fills you with joy and makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside, just like apple fritters. This weeks post comes to us from two fine individuals with nice hair and a pleasing manner. They go by the handles, M Nyland and SuperTonyJaymz.
M Nyland: Darth Vader isn't an imbecile...he destroyed planets....
SuperTonyJaymz:Actually, it was just one planet, but damn, that was a big planet!
Oh Ho Ho! How soon these youngsters forget that it was Grand Moff Tarkin who actually gave the orders to destroy that planet, while Vader�s job was to hold onto Princess Leia while she mumbles, �No.� Old Tarkin always had his eyes on the big picture, like blowing up planets and finding rebel bases. Meanwhile that crazy Vader just wandered around choking people out. �Awwburrr� Use the force if you can � Awwburrr� SURVIVE IF I LET YOU!�
This has been Moving Right Along, I was your host Mark �Goodear� Goodhart reminding everyone that I like gum.
| |
|
|
|
|
|
