Much like any other entertainment medium, professional wrestling has its highs and lows. Some parts are universally loved and become timeless, while others are instantly derided and become the entertainment quality of curdled milk. But what makes professional wrestling "bad," for lack of a better word? What characteristics does it take for it to become an eternally-burning dumpster fire? I've often pondered these questions, as well as when it's "so bad, it's good" vs. "so bad it's fucking awful" and whether bad/good wrestling just boils down to the fans' personal taste. But rather than go on meandering, let's actually break it down (insert crotch chop here) and see what truly makes professional wrestling "bad."
The Qualities
So obviously we all have our reasons for why we consider some pro wrestling "bad." There are certain aspects of it that make up why we think a certain match/angle/etc. is the equivalent of a fresh skid mark on an old pair of tighty-whiteys. While I'm sure there are a plethora of reasons for why us fans don't like certain parts of wrestling, there seems to be three prevalent aspects we look to provide our reasoning: In-Ring Quality, The Story and Overall Effort.
In-Ring Quality
So obviously in-ring work is crucial to most wrestling fans. After all, if the competitors involved can't entertain between the ropes, then what's the point? When it comes to poor in-ring quality, I feel like there are two distinct fields of it: Talent who are either A) Past their prime or B) Generally incompetent. Warrior vs. Hogan at Halloween Havoc 98 is a perfect example of the former. These two men (especially Warrior) peaked around the early 90s in terms of in-ring work. As we neared the Second Millenium, it was clear neither man could perform the way they used to. As a result, we get a grueling 14-minute affair of clunky rest holds and a botched fireball. While both men were in good physical shape at the time, to say they were athletically limited at this stage in their careers is like saying water is wet or Part IV: The Final Chapter is the best film in the Friday the 13th franchise; it's insultingly obvious. Both competitors couldn't hang like they used to (which isn't saying much as far as Warrior is concerned); because of this, they produced a dry dog turd of a match.
But sometimes garbage in-ring quality isn't because the performers are far from their glory days, shells of the wrestlers they used to be. Sometimes it's because the competitors are so blantantly incompetent that watching them attempt a collar-and-elbow tie-up is the pain equivalent to a session of aluminum can fleshlight fucking. While in-ring skills are often times subjective, or other times just not important for some wrestling fans, there's a small patch of shitty wrestling that escapes the boundaries of subjectivity; a patch where everyone can agree what they're watching absolutely sucks.
I have a hard time finding examples of matches like these, because as I said before wrestling is as subjective as any other form of media. Some want goofy fun while others want intense, dramatic affairs. But one that comes to mind is Jenna Morasca vs Sharmell at TNA's Victory Road 09. Neither competitor involved in this match were "wrestlers" by any stretch of the imagination, and this was apparent from the get-go. This wasn't a wrestling match so much as a competition between who's a more inept performer, as both Morasca and Sharmell put together some of the worst in-ring offense I've ever seen. Slaps to the face completely whiffed, lock-ups were incredibly loose and pinfall attempts were done with such little effort it's as if they weren't taught to them at all.
SERIOUSLY. JUST FUCKING LOOK AT THAT. But fortunately, they kept this painful affair relatively short, clocking in around the 6-minute mark. In all honesty, I couldn't think of a better example of sheer in-ring incompetency. And while I'm sure there's an example of a match that features wrestlers who are both past their prime of relevancy AND genuinely incompetent performers, I shudder to find such an example.
The Story
It's no secret that professional wrestling is the equivalent of a Sly and Arnie soap opera. Muscular men exuding machismo, involving themselves in ridiculous and overly dramatic storylines; it's our equivalent to Days Of Our Lives or General Hospital, if either of those two shows involved the characters bashing each other's brains in with steel chairs. And while as wrestling fans, we're used to the most absurd shit happening in our favorite medium, there are times where the story is either poorly executed or insulting in its subject matter, we can't help but scoff at it.
One such example is the Katie Vick storyline between HHH and Kane. Since I'm sure most of you are familiar with it, I'll keep this brief. After successfully defending the Tag Team Titles single-handedly on RAW one night, HHH came out and asked if the name "Katie Vick" rang a bell. He then proceeded to claim Kane killed her. From there, it took an immediate nosedive; Kane was accused of committing necrophilia, HHH committed necrophilia, someone got an enema wearing a HHH mask, etc. The angle didn't even last a month before dying a much-deserved death, its corpse being an offensive, terrible little footnote in the annals of WWE lore.
While some storylines are digusting and offensive, others are just terribly executed and are seemingly done in order to bury one of the individuals involved. One such example is the Alexa Bliss/Bayley feud from last year. Bayley has always been portrayed as an affable, fun-loving babyface whose character provided an example to the fans that if you work hard and believe in yourself, your dreams can come true. Naturally, playing the despicable heel, Bliss worked endlessly to mock Bayley and criticize the fans for believing in such a seemingly childish person. This shone through with the "Bayley, This Is Your Life!" segment on an episode of RAW.
Much like The Rock/Mankind segment almost twenty years earlier, Bliss brought out several people from Bayley's past, who talked down on Bayley. Through a combination of poor writing and worse acting from the participants involved, Bayley was portrayed as an inept and immature womanchild incapable of growing up. This led to their Kendo Stick On A Pole match at Extreme Rules 2017. Trust me when I tell you the less I say about that match, the better.
No words are necessary. Why I provide this as example of bad storylines in wrestling is quite simple, really: The Execution. See, normally in a wrestling storyline, the dynamic between the face and the heel should go as follows: heel besmirches face, face defends themselves and one party comes out on top with the loser still looking strong in the process. This angle failed to do that and then some. At no point during this feud did Bayley look at all strong, or at the very least capable of being strong. From beginning to end, she was booked to be absolutely weak, with Bliss being the sole participant to get over in the feud. This feud is another reason why so many people are quick to judge WWE's Creative Team these days. The sheer ineptitude and lack of quality control behind it is simply astounding.
Overall Effort
Even if the story is ludicrous and the in-ring quality isn't up to par, there's at least some decency salvaged if both competitors involved are giving it their full effort and doing their best to create a halfway-okay product. But every once in a while, we'll two competitors giving absolutely zero shits about being even remotely entertaining. Even though I don't have many examples of this off the top of my head, the one that immediate comes to mind is Brock Lesnar vs. Goldberg at WrestleMania 20.
This should've absolute money, and it certainly appeared so on paper. These were two juggernauts of wrestling who absolutely steam-rolled their in almost no-time flat; Goldberg with the Spear and Jackhammer, Lesnar with the F-5. Seeing these two powerhouse in the ring at the same time, it should've been an absolute delight. Then we heard the news; both men were leaving the company after their 'Mania match. Goldberg's contract was a short-term one, and above all else, he was dissatisfied with how WWE had been using him. Lesnar, on the other hand, was pursuing a career in the NFL, his relationship with the company ultimately strained. Because of this, the plan was for them to have one final dream match with Lesnar coming out on top.
But that's not what happened. Both men said "fuck it," went into business for themselves and put on a sub-15 minute clunker, eschewing the power and brute force they were known for in favor of lazy rest-holds and counter moves. Both men were being booed out of the building, forcing Creative to change the ending to have Goldberg winning before both men were laid out with a couple of Stunners courtesy of guest referee Stone Cold Steve Austin. The image below perfectly encapsulates what the end product was like as a whole: cold, unfeeling middle fingers from two disinterested individuals.
And that's all it can take to make wrestling bad. Putting two individuals into a situation they don't give a shit about and asking them to fake it, with neither party doing so.
So What's Dumb Fun and What's Just Plain Dumb?
Any form of entertainment will have a slew of guilty pleasures. There's movies like Troll 2, trashy reality television like The Jersey Shore and books like the Fifty Shades Of Grey series. As expected, wrestling will also have its array of guilty pleasures. Matches/segments/etc. you sit back and make fun of with your friends (insert wrestling fans not having friends joke here). But what makes certain wrestling moments insipid entertainment and others absolute piles of dogshit with no semblance of amusement?
Well, it has to have some form of charm to it. Take for example, The Dungeon of Doom, a WCW stable that existed in the mid-1990s and their feud with Hulk Hogan. The idea and story was so incredibly goofy, but executed with 100% seriousness. As a result, we had funny shit like the Monster Truck Sumo Match, The Doomsday Cage Match, Hulk Hogan being surprised that cave water isn't hot, and above all else, THE YETAYY! (Seriously, how can you look at that monstrosity and not crack up at the stupidity?)
And while we're on the subject of WCW, let's not forget about the company as a whole in 2000. Buff Bagwell's mom on a forklift, Miss Elizabeth being Vince Russo's personal property due to a contract clause, 3 Count and Tank Abbott, David Arquette as World Heavyweight Champion; the list goes on and on and on. WCW 2000 was just one giant shitpost; trolling everyone, whether that was the intention or not doesn't really matter. It's one giant, messy spectacle you can't but simply marvel at. It's an anomaly of dumb fun.
But what happens when there isn't any charm to it? When it isn't fun at all and just becomes a chore to deal with the stupidity. Well, the matches I highlighted above (Hogan/Warrior, Bayley/Bliss and Goldberg/Lesnar) are all great examples. They all just seem to lack any semblance of heart or fun. Pole matches are inherently wacky, but Bayley/Bliss just seemed like an insult. Hogan/Warrior was too much of a slog to find entertaining and there was zero heart for Goldberg/Lesnar, so any hopes of fun are immediately dashed.
That's why they fail where Dungeon of Doom/etc. succeed at being entertaining bad wrestling. No one seems to be having any fun with it. It's what happens when people who take themselves too seriously are told to have some fun. They don't know what the word means, and as a result, the product is dumb and lifeless with no intrinsic value.
The Objective/Subjective Nature of Wrestling
But at the end of the day, it's nigh impossible to outright call any part of wrestling objectively bad. You're always going to find someone who enjoys a match or segment that many might deride. So how do we figure out the line between objectively bad wrestling and something that's just the product of various individuals' opinions? And is there a line at all? That's a tough call, given how entertainment as a whole is almost 100% subjective.
Take for example, the main event of WrestleMania 6: Hulk Hogan vs. Ultimate Warrior. For many, it's one of their all-time favorite matches; an absolute spectacle that features two larger-than-life figures in the world of professional wrestling, the atmosphere absolutely electric. For others, it's an absolute snoozefest that features twenty minutes of plodding in-ring work, ultimately providing no entertainment whatsoever.
And the same can be said for The Rock vs. Hogan at Wrestlemania X8. Some lose themselves in the dreamlike atmosphere and give in to the spectacle, while others scoff at the idea of it and deride the ring work as being stale and unimpressive. It just boils down to what we like as wrestling fans; some live for passionate crowds and an energetic atmosphere, others are in-ring absolutists and many others like a good combination of the two. It's hard to find objectively bad wrestling because there's always going to be one person who enjoys something most hate, whether ironically or unironically.
Wrestling fans as a collective need to come together and realize something: we all have tastes unto ourselves. No one's ever going to 100% agree with someone else and we shouldn't get so defensive about something so intrinsically silly like professional wrestling. It's not worth the stress and aggravation. I know I'm just repeating the same bullshit a lot of people say, but for the most part it's true. Love what you love and understand that some people may not see eye-to-eye with you. And if you do encourage them, do your best not to take it personally when somebody says they don't care for your particular tastes. Loosen up and enjoy it, people.
But even with that being said, I still stand by my merits that the King Of The Road match is objectively a masterpiece.
Sources
http://www.sportingnews.com/us/wwe/news/brock-lesnar-wrestlemania-20-goldberg-stone-cold-steve-austin-match-33-34/105jrhoef51vf1lbrf6h3goy6i
No comments:
Post a Comment