Posted in: Doctor's Orders
Doctor's Orders: A Brief Essay On Wrestling Style
By The Doc
Jul 25, 2015 - 2:56:44 PM




QUESTION OF THE DAY: What is your preferred wrestling style? Cite your best example.


A Brief Essay On Wrestling Style


I've been part of the online wrestling community for a long time and, to be honest, I don't think it's ever been better. Intelligent people from across the globe are expressing their views in eloquent fashion and are getting the attention that they deserve for it. With the variety of opinion never greater, the debate has never been stronger as to what wrestling style constitutes the best brand of performance. WWE Battleground was the microcosm. On that card, you had six distinctly different examples of how to construct a match. Yet, instead of becoming the hallmark example of diversity in the modern WWE product, it prompted the same usual derision that has come to be expected of the internet wrestling fanbase.

So, on the topic of in-ring style, what are your expectations for greatness? Have you ever sat down to think about it? Because, frankly, it stands out like a sore thumb to me that a lot of fans get locked into a particular mindset of what a pro wrestling match should look like and will praise to no end the style that they prefer and bash to no end the styles that they dislike. And I ask, "Why?"

LOP's Samuel 'Plan wrote in his latest column that, in regards to WWE storylines, we should all "find a way to make [them] work for [us]." I love that quote, in large part for the lesson it teaches all of us fans who think on a little bit deeper level than the average viewer. That lesson is to enjoy ourselves. The old saying goes that "if you don't like it, don't watch it." Some of you probably hate that expression, but I've grown to support the general sentiment behind it, which is that life is too short to complain incessantly about one entertainment medium instead of finding another that you better enjoy. Perhaps a more constructive take on that adage, though, is "if you can't find a way to make it work for you, then choose another form of entertainment."

It is on that last point that I want to expand. I think it would behoove all of us to find a way to appreciate various wrestling styles. To analogize, I personally enjoy all sorts of movies. I can't wait to see Southpaw, I just saw Trainwreck (Cena is good), and I've already watched the three biggest spring/summer franchise continuations/reboots (Avengers 2, Jurassic World, and Terminator). My preference may be for the gritty drama like Southpaw, but I very much appreciate a good rom-com or blockbuster and I can generally recognize, after watching so many films over the years, the great, good, average, and bad movies of each category. The same goes for wrestling matches. And, after having watched so many of them since I started reviewing WWE for LOP in 2004, I have a great appreciation for a great many styles and an understanding of the great-to-bad range of performances.

I've stated in columns before the basic elements found in a good wrestling match, common to all styles. Drama, plot twists, a competent climax, good execution, some semblance of purpose (psychology), and selling are the hallmarks; crowd energy, time to work, and a good back story are huge bonuses (athleticism helps too). Some styles simply place stronger emphasis on certain aspects of the formula. Take Cena vs. Owens, for example. It was a series of matches that, as well as anyone ever has, utilized the false finish to create a lot of its drama and put the onus on the wrestlers to empty their move arsenals to create plot twists. Bringing back the movie analogy, it was Jurassic Park (not World); an all-time classic example of its style. I take issue with the idea that it - and matches like it - won't hold up against time's test.

Conversely, Wyatt vs. Reigns was a more cerebral encounter that relied on psychology to create its drama. If you claim such an effort "boring," I assume you're more into Fast and Furious than the Oscar-winning Boyhood, but it featured all the elements that made Cena vs. Owens great - it just emphasized a few of them differently. Sheamus vs. Orton was an interesting case because it had hardly any hype behind it, lowering the ceiling of its ultimate achievement accordingly. It was like going to a movie that you knew hardly anything about, thus giving it a blank slate. With a boost from an enthusiastic crowd, they worked a methodical match that progressively built to its acceptable climax. A pleasant surprise to be sure. New Day vs. PTP had to pick up the pace; it worked for them. You get the picture. Every match brought something different to the table (including intangible elements not mentioned in the previous paragraph).

Why marry yourself to one certain style instead of trying to enjoy them all and just having a favorite? We all know that wrestling is no longer tailored to one particular demographic, despite the annoying insistence that it's a kid show by some of the more jaded enthusiasts. I say "embrace it." Some stories are going to be more basic and their payoff matches told in similarly simplistic styles. Others will have more depth. Don't get me wrong; certain matches are going to suck and I'm not suggesting a wrestling fan utopia, but your preference for a different style does not make the cut for reasons that a match isn't good. Sure, wrestling match reviewing is subjective, but only to a point; ain't nobody going to mistake King Mabel vs. Diesel for Bret Hart vs. Diesel if they know what the hell they are talking about, alright.

The thing is: it's OK to enjoy the equivalent of seeing a rom-com on Friday and an Academy Award nominee on Saturday and to appreciate what each brings to the table.


WWE Battleground Review

WWE is on a roll lately. Battleground was a noteworthy show for several reasons and, coupled with an enjoyable Beast in the East program the likes of which I'd be happy to see more of in the future, July has been a better month on the calendar than it usually is for WWE. Finn Balor vs. Kevin Owens (**** 1/4) set the tone for the Match of the Month race on July 4th and everyone last night worked hard to stake their own claim for the honor; there is a thoroughly enjoyable competitive atmosphere in WWE that has been building over the last couple of years. Also, WWE produced such a good show at Battleground despite two of the hottest acts on the roster right now, Cesaro and Dean Ambrose, being MIA; it speaks to WWE's increasing depth. We may well be on the brink of the most competitive era we've seen in a long time.

Battleground started with a really good match between Randy Orton and Sheamus. I was not expecting much given their history of rather mundane efforts on PPV, but they had about as good a match of that methodical orientation as a pair can have in a 17-minute bout with limited back story. They got the crowd hyped for the night as the opener is expected to do, but did it better in the style that they wrestled than most have done this year with faster pace. I never figured I'd say this, but I'd be up for another match between the two at Summerslam (*** 1/2). The New Day and PTP did well to continue the PPV's momentum from the curtain jerker, sans for a couple of really obvious botches (the worst being Titus blatantly switching positions so he could be the victim of outside interference). The quality of performance across the board is so strong nowadays, though, that a match can have a gaffe or two and still deliver overall. I thought that they delivered overall last night (**3/4).

Bray Watt vs. Roman Reigns was a tremendous performance. That's one of my favorite matches of the year, thus far. I said recently on my podcast that I felt both men would benefit from this feud no matter who ultimately won. I had a feeling that, based on the Wyatts vs. Shield matches last year, Bray and Roman would work exceptionally well together. So, after a 22-minute bout full of brawling and creative counters culminating in a good finish that keeps Reigns on the chase - which is good for him - and Wyatt looking strong (and cunning/ and resourceful), I stand by all of my pre-match assertions. Wyatt vs. Reigns could be a classic feud for the current generation (**** 1/4).

The Divas were given a chance; and they made the most of it. It wasn't perfect and it was definitely not of the quality that I hope we will eventually see carry over from NXT (the matches of which are aided by strong storylines), but it was 11-minutes of action that stayed clear of the "Divas" stereotype and looked more like three competent female wrestlers. I thought Brie did just fine; I felt that necessary to point out after seeing some of what I've read about her work last night. She added a dimension that made the match more emotionally resonant given that she's representative of what we're hoping the division puts as much distance from as fast as possible. Banks and Charlotte showcased just a small bit of what they're capable of. If there are two elements that the women need most to change their circumstance in WWE, it's more time to work (mission accomplished at Battleground) and in-depth feuds that people care about (remains to be seen). We're halfway there (***).

John Cena and Kevin Owens had another barnburner. I wish that had been the main-event frankly. When you get three straight PPV matches between two wrestlers, it's easy to compare them. I thought that the crisp execution at Battleground was an improvement on the Money in the Bank effort, but we're comparing a bunch of 4-and-1/2 star matches here. The bottom line is that Cena vs. Owens has been an awesome summer surprise. Their feud came out of nowhere, delivered on the mic and in the ring, and we'll see where they go from here. I could watch them wrestle for another three PPVs. Make it a Best-of-Seven. It's Smackdown Six-caliber in its presentation, meaning that they pack so much action into the time they're given that it would be simple for a critic to go to town on the number of moves; don't miss the psychology and story, however, because it's there and it's great, too. For this style of wrestling, nobody has done it better in a long time than Cena and Owens. Yes, in case you were wondering, I'd have preferred that Owens had won, but he looked great in defeat (**** 1/2).

The main-event was crap. It was building to something enjoyable and then Taker showed up. I have mixed feelings about The Deadman. On the one hand, I was marking out and just as excited as the incredibly enthusiastic STL crowd; boy did they ever love them some Taker. The potential is there for a Taker-Lesnar rematch to be far more interesting with The Phenom playing the underdog role for the first time in a long time. On the other hand, Taker looked every bit of his 50+ years. And who was clamoring for a rematch anyway? I'm very much in "wait and see" mode on this and the next opponent for Seth Rollins.


Check out "The Doc Says" on Wednesday for more thoughts on Battleground, Summerslam 2015, and this week's episode of Tough Enough