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: Fri, 17 Apr 92 04:32:13 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.184337.6050@watdragon.waterloo.edu>, hekunze@jeeves.waterloo.edu (Herb Kunze) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.223053.12668@physics.ucla.edu>, price@uclapp.physics.ucla.edu (John Price) writes:
>> Yup, marks like the Whackers.  I know, because I'm a mark.  

>> Yes, Herb, I like them too.  Sue me.  What can I say?  

>  There should be a rehab clinic to get Sheepwhacker fans back on the
>  straight and narrow.  

My ex-roommate tells me that too.  Isn't that right, Jeff?

>  ...comedy has a small place in pro-wrestling.  But it shouldn't
>  be the underlying gimmick for a wrestler or wrestlers.  

I agree, almost.  It shouldn't be the underlying gimmick for an 
*organization*.  That would IMHO get very dull very fast.  Also, it ought 
to be used sparingly.  

>> 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.

>  They'd be used even more effectively now in WCW -- they're not being
>  used.  

My point here was that when they *were* in WCW (I think it was the NWA 
then, though), they were used in a manner which just wasn't believable.  
They don't work as a power team.  They work better as a comedic team.

>> What a lot of people in this newsgroup don't understand, I think, is how 
>> marks (at least *smart* marks) watch wrestling.  
>                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>  This is an oxymoron.

Perhaps.  What would you call someone who roots for Hogan?

Remember that NSF is paying for at least part of the Usenet connections; 
try to tone the language down.  :)

>> workrate is important, but not all-important.  It takes a back seat to 
>> things like believability, angles, and yes, humor.  

>  Workrate and wrestling ability is what gives the sport aspect of
>  pro-wrestling it's credibility.  Angles and interviews are helpful
>  for getting the fans out to watch the show.  Humour can be used
>  occasionally to spice up the mix.  

My feelings *exactly*.  This is what I tried to state in my last post.  
Does it scare you that we agree on this point?

>  I can't see how "wrestlers" like the Sheepwhackers, Sid, UW, etc.,
>  help increase wrestling's believability.

Sid and UW help believability because of the way wrestling is booked today. 
Bigger is better.  That is changing, I think, but it's changing slowly.  
The Whackers, admittedly, don't do squat for believability.  Quite the 
opposite, in fact - who in their right mind would believe they could beat 
the Beverly Bros.?  But, they're damned funny to watch.  Again, IMHO.

>  Wrestling that is booked based on ability and workrate has got to have
>  more believability than wrestling that ignores these quantities.  

Not if you don't train the audience to believe that ability can overcome 
size.

>In
>  the old days, that is, pre-Hulkamania, wouldn't you say that wrestling
>  had more believability?  

Perhaps it did.  I don't know, since I didn't watch it then.  

>  If you can read the paper
>  or watch Entertainment Tonight, you know that the WWF has admitted
>  that match outcomes are predetermined and that wrestlers don't try
>  to hurt each other.  That improves believability? 

Actually, I have yet to see any statement like this outside of this group.  
I've missed the ET pieces, and haven't seen the newspaper articles.  I 
consider myself fairly literate, and reasonably well-informed, but those 
things slipped by me.  Perhaps they slipped by some others as well.

>  ...North American wrestling is booked
>  very strongly with the heel-face structure in mind.  If we mixed this
>  up more frequently (instead of just the occasional UW-Hogan, 
>  Hart-Piper, or Riger-Pillman match), the need for angles would 
>  decline a little.  

I doubt it.  When the GWF started, there weren't that many angles.  Nor, 
for the most part, were there that many jobbers.  Anyone could beat anyone 
else.  Although I concede that the wrestling was very good in those early 
shows, the lack of angles made it pretty dull IMHO.  Sorry, Joe (assuming 
that Nick's server is still grepping for GWF things), but that's how I see 
it.  Lately, they have more of a traditional (in the North American sense) 
approach to booking, and it looks a lot more interesting.  But again, 
that's just me.

>> The WWF *does* have good interviews, however.  

>  And interviews are important.  For WrestleMania, though, that was the
>  highlight of the show.  None of the matches were memorable.  

I disagree.  I liked the Piper-Hart match.  I'll admit that that was the 
only one, though...

>> The point is that watch wrestling because it's *fun*.  

>  This is a question of priorities.  Do you want to have fun watching
>  wrestlers' inaction or do you want to watch wrestlers in action?

Well, if I had my way, I'd have fun watching wrestlers in action.  Why 
can't we have both?  I agree that it will take some changes in how things 
are booked.  Ability should count for more than it currently does; I don't 
have a problem with that.  But that shouldn't happen at the expense of the 
angles.  If it does, you'll see better wrestling, but fewer fans.

>  I guess this attitude comes from watching videos of matches where
>  you can't understand the commentary and there are relatively few
>  angles.  

Yes, well, Herb, we all have our crosses to bear, don't we?

	Just another case of self-defense by the Johnster.

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