From: price@uclapp.physics.ucla.edu (John Price)
Subject: Re: More Wrestlemania Comments
Reply-To: price@uclapp.physics.ucla.edu
Organization: UCLA Particle Physics Research Group
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 22:30:53 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.111908.2182@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>, dejmille@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (dean joseph miller) writes:
>I went to the card with a friend who foesn't like wrestling and has never seen
>it live, but he thought the Bushwackers were the funniest and most entertaining
>thing he saw all night.  

Yup, marks like the Whackers.  I know, because I'm a mark.  

Yes, Herb, I like them too.  Sue me.  What can I say?  Whenever I see them 
on TV, I just get that urge to start whacking myself.

Hmm.  I should probably rephrase that, before Stromer gets any ideas...

Can they wrestle?  No, of course not.  Just because I'm a mark doesn't make 
me stupid.  But they're damned fun to watch.  They are IMHO by far the best 
comedic team in wrestling today; perhaps of all time.  Compare them, for 
instance, to the Ding Dongs...?

I think they're being used a lot more effectively in the WWF than they were 
in the then-NWA, where they were billed as a power team.  Jim Ross kept 
telling us how they would use mostly "high-impact maneuvers" to wear out 
their opponents.  Yeah, right.

What a lot of people in this newsgroup don't understand, I think, is how 
marks (at least *smart* marks) watch wrestling.  As I have often stated, 
workrate is important, but not all-important.  It takes a back seat to 
things like believability, angles, and yes, humor.  

Believability refers to whether the marks can buy what's happening in the 
ring.  Currently, we've been conditioned to believe that a big guy will 
almost always beat the tar out of a little guy.  Is this true?  Herb tells 
us without hesitation that it isn't, and I tend to believe him, but it 
hasn't really been tested IMHO.

As to angles, Herb and I have already discussed the relative importance of 
angles and workrate in this group, so I won't put you all through that 
again.  Let's just say that the mark needs a reason to believe that the two 
guys in the ring really hate each other; after all, in other sports, like 
tennis, baseball, football, etc., this sort of hatred isn't nearly as 
apparent as it is in wrestling.

When it comes to humor, the WWF has it all over the WCW.  When I watch the 
Whiff, I look mostly to the interviews, and the pre- and post-match 
activities.  That's because there isn't a whole lot of wrestling worth 
watching.  After all, I don't like squash matches any more than Herb does.  
The WWF *does* have good interviews, however.  By "good", I mean "fun to 
watch".  The LOD (pronounced, of course, "LAWHD") interview at WM is an 
example.  No one does an interview as well as Hawk.  And yes, I think it 
was a good idea to bring Ellering back as well.

Hogan interviews are always fun to watch.  I tend to talk to the TV during 
them ("Yo, Hulk, the camera's over here!"  Watch a Hogan interview sometime 
- you'll understand...).  

The point is that watch wrestling because it's *fun*.  I *enjoy* it.  Sure, 
workrate helps, but without all the other stuff the WWF puts into the show, 
it would be a lot more boring.  Picture a WCW show with only Jim Ross 
giving commentary.  That's why the WWF has Monsoon with Heenan - Monsoon 
alone would be just as bad.

	Just another shameful admission (with an explanation) by the 
	Johnster.

           John Price * * * * price@uclapp.physics.ucla.edu
           Where there is no solution, there is no problem.