Questioning a widely held notion about Steve Austin.

[Uncle Chester]

There seems to be some sort of accepted mistruth regarding the moveset of SCSA especially when making comparisons towards modern day workers, in particular John Cena. People have to realize Steve Austin was not the wrestling wonder so many regard him as (this only applies to his work after the neck injury). We constantly have to hear people whine and bitch about the versatility of a moveset of todays workers and the glory days of SCSA wrestling.

This my friends is absolute bullshit. Steve Austin could have been quite possibly one of the most boring in ring workers(after the injury) of the decade, I say this because as much as people want to praise him; Austin had no more than 4 or 5 moves in his arsenal that he would normally use. Forgive me if I miss any: gut kick, stunner, stomp, elbow drop, clothesline. Now Austin had some damn fine brawls using the style but generally his matches were lackluster and relied on overbooking to convey excitement. A painful reminder is his match with Jericho when Jericho won the Undisputed championship.

Now compare him with someone like Cena whose arsenal is limited but is diverse enough in it's purposes that Cena can still have a great match without it being a bore. Austin could, even with his painfully generic moveset have a great story and create good drama but he could never keep my attention long enough to feel the complete story and drama payoff's in his matches. Give us your thoughts ladies and germs!

Cheers,

Chester.

 

[RD_21]

Well I am generalise but to me it's obvious that everyone know Austin didn't have 50 000 moves but he had more than The Rock and Cena for sure. He had like 10 moves that he was using but the problem aren't the wrestler or their ability it's Vince dumb mindset that a face need to get beat all match and do 5-6 moves that people recognise so they feel at home and that's bs. When a guy become heel he suddenly lead the match and has a 1000 moves.

 

[Strong Style X]

Austin had a fairly big moveset prior to his neck injury. The injury caused him to mostly rely off his brawling arsenal however. Which is quite ironic because I'm sure the majority of you didn't know that Steve broke Masahiro Chono's neck in Japan using a piledriver causing Masa's wonderful technical skills to go out the window and having to reinvent himself as the charismatic brawling heel he became with a more brawling-based moveset. I guess karma caught up to Steve because the same ended up happening to him not too long after. Steve was a decent technical wrestler but by no means one of the best. His moveset was mostly altered due to his injuries.

 

[SyndicateSaint]

While, not a huge fan of SCSA..he's alright I guess... you have to remember it was his gimmick to have such a limited moveset. He's supposed to look like he came out of a bar brawl. Think like The Sandman, only not drunk for real. I also posted somewhere else on a topic about the "5 moves of doom", and mentioned that people expect particular things at live events. For photo ops and the like. Remember when he had to wrestle Chris Benoit and he couldn't punch him? That was a pretty decent match, and we saw a bit of "Superstar" Steve Austin from the ECW days.

Austin had a fairly big moveset prior to his neck injury. The injury caused him to mostly rely off his brawling arsenal however. Which is quite ironic because I'm sure the majority of you didn't know that Steve broke Masahiro Chono's neck in Japan using a piledriver causing Masa's wonderful technical skills to go out the window and having to reinvent himself as the charismatic brawling heel he became with a more brawling-based moveset. I guess karma caught up to Steve because the same ended up happening to him not too long after. Steve was a decent technical wrestler but by no means one of the best. His moveset was mostly altered due to his injuries.

Thumbs up for that wrestling knowledge. I actually preferred Chono's brawling style BETTER after the injury. But, it is ironic about what sometimes happens in wrestling.

I also neglected to mention, are we talking about the FIRST SCSA injury? Where Owen Hart reversed piledrivered him? Or when he got hurt later on?

 

[LokiCobain]

^And then karma came back around to Owen Hart...

ANYWAY

The moveset debate in general seems to be exaggerated. What was Hogan's moveset? The biggest names in the business got where they are on charisma, not "skills". It's fake wrestling, it's not the Olympics. Skills are essentially meaningless. A skill in wrestling is being able to perform a move realistically yet safely. While a diverse moveset adds excitement and variety, the REAL purpose of the moveset is to push the character. Character is way more important than moves. Hulk Hogan was a hulk, so he hulked up and did a leg drop. That's it? At least the F5 was awesome. But Brock had way less character, and thus wasn't half the superstar Hogan was.

Cena, The Rock, Austin...these are all guys who made money. Kurt Angle and Chris Jericho, while their matches are actually great, and both with relatively diverse movesets, didn't have the charisma and draw power that Cena/Rock/Austin had with lay-fans. Don't get me wrong, I love Angle and Jericho way more than the other 3, but I was watching wrestling before them, so they didn't need to "draw" me in.

Familiarity is what gets pops. When Orton does that sweet backbreaker, people cheer. When the Rock looked around and raised the eyebrow, people went nuts. People even got excited for "Ballin'!" A handful of familiar moves helps "define" the character that they're trying to promote. In a weird way it makes up for all the excitement lost in the rest of the match.

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

I don't want to be rude Chester but this is absolute bullshit. Firstly search the internet for some star ratings and if you don't even want to do that check out KB's reviews or Xfear's star ratings here on the forums itself. As you will see there a lot of Austin's matches have been rated as ****+ by X or have been given a grade higher than A by KB. As you will also see most of Austin's great matches have a higher rating than Cena's great matches and Austin also has more ****+ matches than John Cena.

Also I do not know which Stone Cold you are talking about. Even after his injury I have seen Austin use suplexes, superplexes, sharpshooters, boston crabs etc. I am glad that you have mentioned Vengeance 2001 where Chris Jericho won the undisputed title. Well if you watch a match from earlier that night which features Austin taking on Kurt Angle in the semi finals of the world title tournament, you will find that Austin actually hits Angle with 5 consecutive German suplexes.

And as many other posters will point out Austin was a master at selling as well as psychology. Austin always sold injuries very well and one punch from Austin would get a bigger reaction from the crowd than a shooting star press does. Austin used the correct moves at the correct time. Even though he was a brawler mostly you will find that he could have very different matches with different kinds of wrestlers. For example he could have an all out brawl with Triple H, who is mostly a brawler, and did so at No Way Out 2001 and he could have a technical matchup against Chris Benoit as he did on Smackdown in May 2001.

Moreover Stone Cold's gimmick and look was that of a badass redneck. So why should he use an Indian Deathlock or a 450 splash anyway? As proof would tell you he drew a lot of money, had a ton of great matches and when he was wrestling it was every wrestler's dream to wrestle against him as many wrestlers have pointed out in interviews during the attitude era.

So maybe you did not enjoy Austin's matches but that is not the opinion of most people.

 

[Via Armbar]

I'm not sure if you've noticed but a very large majority of the top stars in the WWE and professional wrestling in general all rely on the set of moves for every match. I've never quite understood where the idea that the headliners were all pulling off never before seen moves and spots in their matches came from. Eventually there's new spots, new moves and what not but when a wrestler makes that transition from mid-card talent to top billing you can almost plan on their usual spots. From the WCCW days to now, fans want to see those familiar spots the same way they wait for those memorable catch phrases. Flair, Austin, The Rock, Michaels, Cena...all have their spots.

Regarding Austin in particular, he kept many of the same moves and spots throughout his career. The Stun Gun finisher he used to use in WCW was still used in the WWF/E as well as the Thesz Press. For me personally Austin has always been somewhat underrated as far as his in ring style and work goes. Eventually known as a brawler I always thought he brought a nice fluidity and technicality to his brawling style other brawlers haven't used. Most don't regard him as a great technician but his older work shows a lot more of his arsenal.

 

[Slyfox696]

This my friends is absolute bullshit. Steve Austin could have been quite possibly one of the most boring in ring workers(after the injury) of the decade,

Because the number of moves you use is directly related to how boring you are. That's just silly.

I don't want to be rude Chester but this is absolute bullshit. Firstly search the internet for some star ratings and if you don't even want to do that check out KB's reviews or Xfear's star ratings here on the forums itself. As you will see there a lot of Austin's matches have been rated as ****+ by X or have been given a grade higher than A by KB. As you will also see most of Austin's great matches have a higher rating than Cena's great matches and Austin also has more ****+ matches than John Cena.

Well, if KB and Xfear say it to be true, it HAS to be true. After all, it's not like either of them have a bias against John Cena.

That may be the stupidest argument ever, "well, random guy on the Internet who watches wrestling and reviews it for free said...". Seriously? You're going there?

Austin had a fairly big moveset prior to his neck injury.

Who cares? What does moveset have to do with quality? I STILL don't understand the IWC's notion that the number of moves you do replaces your ability to tell a story in the ring, play your character, connect with the audience, sell your offense and your opponents, etc.

Moves are important ONLY in that they need to match the character performing them. Austin was your typical American Bar Room Brawler, so he does a lot of punching and kicking and striking. And he was a fantastic wrestler.

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

Well, if KB and Xfear say it to be true, it HAS to be true. After all, it's not like either of them have a bias against John Cena.

That may be the stupidest argument ever, "well, random guy on the Internet who watches wrestling and reviews it for free said...". Seriously? You're going there?

I was not talking about KB or X exclusively but most reviews that I have read on the internet, and I have been reading reviews since 2001, have rated Austin's matches pretty highly and higher than most of Cena's matches. When something is said a lot of times by a whole lot of people, some of whom who have been involved with the wrestling business for years, you tend to value their opinion a bit. Or you might conclude that everyone's opinion is shit and yours' is the only opinion that matters notwithstanding collosal proof against your notion. I tend to take the first of those routes.

And I am basically saying that Austin was a great wrestler just like you are, and so I cannot make out why you have a problem. I mentioned Cena because the OP used him as a point of comparison.

 

[Strong Style X]

Who cares? What does moveset have to do with quality? I STILL don't understand the IWC's notion that the number of moves you do replaces your ability to tell a story in the ring, play your character, connect with the audience, sell your offense and your opponents, etc.

The number of moves doesn't have to do with quality. Nor do I remember ever mentioning that. I suggest reading my posts thoroughly before making replies to it that have close to nothing to do with what I wrote. Does the number of moves = greatness? No. Familiarity is what differentiates wrestlers from one another. That being said; having a big arsenal of moves adds more flavor to a match. It adds for more surprises rather than seeing the same moves over and over.

Take Cena for example. Sure, he has a giant crowd following in kids and whatnot. The repetition of his moveset enables them to follow his matches easier. That being said; are you ever surprised when watching a Cena match when he pulls off moves? All business aspects aside, looking at pure ring-psychology: people like Cena are predictable. From a psychology aspect, wouldn't wrestlers know when/where EVERY single one of his moves were going to come up?

That being said; limited arsenal =/= bad in-ring performer. Take Keiji Mutoh for example (known to some of you as Great Muta). At Mutoh's age and with his horrible knee conditions he had to change his arsenal quite a bit to avoid risking hurting his knees. He still performs some of his old moves on occasion. He developed an arsenal based around attacking the legs mostly. From one position, Mutoh will strike you with several different moves. You never know which one to expect. He has several moves for that ONE same position and repeats them over and over; but it's still interesting because you don't know which one it will be. Yet it is still familiar within a fairly small arsenal.

Small arsenals =/= a bad wrestler. But a weak in-ring technician with a small arsenal is too predictable which kills the psychology. That being said, WWE isn't built off of in-ring psychology THAT much and is built around a younger audience who are more familiar with Sports Entertainment style of wrestling. There's no need to cater to any other audiences then.

Now thanks for taking my quote completely out of context, hope this clears it up for you though.

 

[Slyfox696]

And I am basically saying that Austin was a great wrestler just like you are, and so I cannot make out why you have a problem.

The problem is that another person's subjective match ratings have no business in any discussion on objective quality. So what if KB gives three * to Austin and two to Cena? How does that matter?

And by the way, if we are going to start talking about stars, Cena has MORE than his fair share of stars from Meltzer, which seems to be the leader of the rating system. Just sayin'.

The number of moves doesn't have to do with quality. Nor do I remember ever mentioning that.

Who said you did?

I suggest reading my posts thoroughly before making replies to it that have close to nothing to do with what I wrote.

Likewise, since I never attributed that position to you. I just took what you wrote to make a point. Perhaps you should spend less time being offended about something which didn't happen, and spend more time seeing the big picture.

Does the number of moves = greatness? No. Familiarity is what differentiates wrestlers from one another. That being said; having a big arsenal of moves adds more flavor to a match. It adds for more surprises rather than seeing the same moves over and over.

I disagree, but your statement is merely based upon personal preference, so whatever.

Take Cena for example. Sure, he has a giant crowd following in kids and whatnot. The repetition of his moveset enables them to follow his matches easier. That being said; are you ever surprised when watching a Cena match when he pulls off moves?

I'll ask the same question of you with regards to Undertaker, HBK, HHH, Hulk Hogan, Ric Flair, Steve Austin, The Rock, Bret Hart, etc. Were you ever surprised? Of course not. In fact, I would argue John Cena probably pulls out new moves more than any of the guys I just named. I don't understand your point.

All business aspects aside, looking at pure ring-psychology: people like Cena are predictable. From a psychology aspect, wouldn't wrestlers know when/where EVERY single one of his moves were going to come up?

Doesn't mean they can stop them. Back in the '98 NBA Finals, the crowd knew that Michael Jordan was getting the ball at the end of the game. People watching at home knew it. The Utah Jazz knew it.

Still couldn't stop him from scoring.

Small arsenals =/= a bad wrestler. But a weak in-ring technician with a small arsenal is too predictable which kills the psychology.

No it doesn't. Psychology is the ability of a person to play their character in a match. John Cena/Steve Austin, as the All-American brawler (John Wayne style) SHOULD be using limited movesets and SHOULD be using punches and kicks. Doing a variety of grapple holds and submissions would actually be what kills the psychology.

That being said, WWE isn't built off of in-ring psychology THAT much

Unequivocally false. The WWE is COMPLETELY based around in-ring psychology. TNA for years based itself around athleticism, ECW made its living off people killing themselves...the WWE makes their living with storytelling and in-ring psychology.

Now thanks for taking my quote completely out of context, hope this clears it up for you though.

Likewise, since only one of us actually mistook something the other said.

 

[Strong Style X]

When you quote something from someone's point and then go on to say things regarding the quote; it's only a logical reaction for a person to assume that you're replying to me. Apparently logic isn't quite your forte though. To each their own though.

As far as the names you listed, I don't find the majority of them to be that entertaining and I find most of them to be overrated and boring. However, HBK can be an exciting and surprising wrestler at times. The others? Not so much. But as I mentioned, most of them were based off the familiarity aspect. Nothing wrong with that.

As far as comparing countless wrestling matches to one basketball match (although I get your point), it's kind of a weak comparison. In WWE and TNA, the wrestlers never anticipate the obvious from their opponents. How is that believable?

And you're right; psychology of a character is one important aspect, sure. I was talking about in-ring psychology though and I made that fairly clear. There's a big difference between the two; as I'm sure you know. WWE wrestling tells in-ring stories, don't get me wrong. But I highly doubt they'd be able to do so off of in-ring psychology alone. Hence why most of their programming is talking. The workers don't rely off telling a story in the ring as much as they do with a microphone. But that's there style and it works for them. I agree that doing a variety of random holds and submissions kill psychology; but not meaningful ones. It sounds like you're defending the lack of skill these men have to tell a story in-ring. A physical struggle, actual chain wrestling, working on areas of the body without being over-the-top and comical. I'm not saying WWE isn't capable of doing that; but please compare WWE to a company like All Japan and tell me which product has the more superior in-ring psychology. Please.

For the most part, WWE can't tell a good story without a microphone and until I see otherwise in the ring I will refuse to believe it. The majority of their roster/product is not capable of doing that in a realistic and believable way IMO. WWE no-sells majority of the punches and strikes thrown and yet a move like The Cobra is unstoppable. Sure, Santino is a comedy character: I know. Now surely you can see my point?

Austin's moveset worked for his character. That's for sure though.

 

[PhD]

I think people are somewhat missing the spirit of the OP's point which is that the Attitude Era did not represent some kind of vanguard for "quality" in-ring work, as defined in comparison to today's product, in which main-event wrestler's are frequently shat upon by the IWC for their limited move sets. The important conclusion, which seems to be agreed upon in consensus here, is that a diverse moveset does not equal good ring psychology, which is the number one factor in producing an entertaining match.

I think an interesting question is why wrestler's like Angle and Jericho, both of whom are incredibly charismatic, never got over the way guys like Hogan, Austin, The Rock, Cena, etc. did. To take, for example, a match from RAW earlier this year, between Jericho and Cena. For the duration of this match, which I'm guessing ran about 15 minutes, Jericho consistantly countered the 5-moves-of-doom, which added an incredible degree of complexity and excitement to the match.

Perhaps we should be acknowledging that all the great wrestlers with limited movesets (whatever the reason may be for said condition) must rely on the Jerichos, Benoits, Michealses, Angles, etc. of the world in order to build their legacies? I think we can all agree that the idea of the exceptional individual is perhaps the most bullshit notion about pro wrestling, because no wrestler can achieve greatness without a worthy nemesis (or nemeses). The all-time greats are always part of a dynamic ecology of performance, and their success is more an ability to capitalize on filling the right kind of niche in that system, rather than achieving an abstract standard of greatness in terms of individual ability.

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

Perhaps we should be acknowledging that all the great wrestlers with limited movesets (whatever the reason may be for said condition) must rely on the Jerichos, Benoits, Michealses, Angles, etc. of the world in order to build their legacies? I think we can all agree that the idea of the exceptional individual is perhaps the most bullshit notion about pro wrestling, because no wrestler can achieve greatness without a worthy nemesis (or nemeses). The all-time greats are always part of a dynamic ecology of performance, and their success is more an ability to capitalize on filling the right kind of niche in that system, rather than achieving an abstract standard of greatness in terms of individual ability.

The point is that the Michaels' and the Angles' of the world have a pretty limited moveset themselves. HBK had a pretty set finishing sequence from what I remember and Angle also has a definite set of moves. The thing is moves are not a parameter to judge a guy's in ring talent. There are things that are more important than just the number of moves that a guy possesses. That thing is in ring psychology and the ability to draw the crowd into the match. A great wrestler may have a plethor of moves or he may have just three moves, it does not matter either way.

 

[klunderbunker]

Well, if KB and Xfear say it to be true, it HAS to be true. After all, it's not like either of them have a bias against John Cena.

I'm more or less completely neutral on Cena. I've never gotten the insane criticism he gets. I don't think he's the best of all time or really even in the discussion, but he's definitely great and has gotten better over the years.

Anyway as to the point of the thread, this is laughable at best. Like Sly said, the amount of moves a wrestler does has zero correlation to how entertaining/exciting they are. Hogan had what, five or six moves he would use, and he's the undisputed most popular wrestler of all time. Austin is the same and is a close second. All these guys CAN use a ton of different moves, but that's not why the people came to see them. You don't go to a concert to hear obscure songs that no one but hardcore fans know the lyrics to. You go to hear their hits. Same concept here: you get the same stuff because that stuff works best.

 

[PhD]

The point is that the Michaels' and the Angles' of the world have a pretty limited moveset themselves. HBK had a pretty set finishing sequence from what I remember and Angle also has a definite set of moves. The thing is moves are not a parameter to judge a guy's in ring talent. There are things that are more important than just the number of moves that a guy possesses. That thing is in ring psychology and the ability to draw the crowd into the match. A great wrestler may have a plethor of moves or he may have just three moves, it does not matter either way.

Fair point, but you were far more likely to see something innovative from those guys (for example, just in the last year, Angle's moonsault from the top of the cage and Michaels' moonsault onto the annouce table) than from the major stars. Some people would degrade this as "spot monkey" material, but the fact is the guys who weren't big risk takers still get the benefit of the extra creativity of their in-ring counterparts when it comes to having a great match.

Also, while Michaels and Angle both had their distinct finsiher sets, its unrealistic to expect something different every week on RAW, while it is reasonable to suggest that there is a difference between, say, a really athletic maneuver on a PPV, and a maneuver involving a prop or weapon. Both might get the same crowd pop, but they offer a difference in degree in "wrestling ability" to me. I'm probalby out of my element at this point in the discussion, but I think there is further nuance that can be teased out of the points made already.

 

[nutt]

^And then karma came back around to Owen Hart...

ANYWAY

That's a horrible thing to say....

But to the topic at hand for no spam...Austin was so over, it didn't matter if all he did was gut kick, mudhole stomp, clothesline, punch, thesz press, stunner.

But if you want me to be a smartass, I'll watch Summerslam 1998 tonight and list every move that he does

 

[Klown_Karnage]

Alrighty, I'm going to do my best to ignore the sniping back and forth and give my views on the original poster. The fact is, Uncle Chester, you've got a fairly good point. SCSA had his proverbial "5 moves of Doom" or however many...but then this is pretty much true of just about everybody else. Yes, we have several wrestlers who are known for their "diverse moveset" and all that happy horsesh-- but when it comes down to it, each wrestler has their own list of seven to ten common moves. It's unavoidable and it's done to see to it that the fighting style of each wrestler is appreciably different from another.

I'll give an example. I once was watching a very old school match between Dean Malenko and Eddie Guerrero, and this, I believe, was not even WWE. The two of them were uncorking move after move, stuff that was eventually used by other wrestlers as finishers (superkicks, STF, etc.) Later on, however, when WWE began putting things down to a "scientific formula", even Guerrero and Malenko had their own limited collection of moves. That's just the way it goes. Can't have wrestlers biting other wrestlers' styles, can we?

I've heard SCSA praised for many things, and deservedly so, but a diverse moveset isn't one of them. That isn't what he's known for, at least to my knowledge. He's known for his promo work, his brawling, his ambushes, his willingness to go through massive amounts of punishment, and his extreme intensity in playing out his character, especially when matched with equal intensity from Vinnie Mac. Your point, Uncle Chester, is indeed valid, but frankly nothing new so far as I'm concerned.

 

[Yarrie]

Yeah SCSA didnt have a million moves, but he could sell them, I am in no way a fan of his, but most wrestlers use the same moves over and over again. I agree that John Cena gets crap for his '5' moves, I think he is just as entertaining as SCSA in the ring. I prefer the high flyers that make you go 'holy crap I cannot believe they just did that', you are never going to get that from SCSA and Cena, but they are still fine to watch.

On a side note I can not believe LokiCobain could even say that about Owen, that is disgusting. I hope some bad karma comes your way.

 

[Slyfox696]

When you quote something from someone's point and then go on to say things regarding the quote; it's only a logical reaction for a person to assume that you're replying to me.

You're kidding right? Are you honestly going to sit there and tell me you've never been part of a conversation in which one person says something, and you use that person's statement to add your insight on the topic? Seriously?

What if I had put "In that same vein", or "Going along with this"? Would you have felt less threatened little one? Would that have made everything nicer for you? Would those four little meaningless words have suddenly turned what you perceived to be a threat into something that's okay?

Don't be silly. I don't give a rat's ass what you assumed, I'm telling you what it was. Kindly apologize, and we'll be on our way.

Apparently logic isn't quite your forte though.

This coming from the person who got defensive about something that wasn't even said. Yup, YOU'RE the one to defend the concept of logic. Get real.

As far as the names you listed, I don't find the majority of them to be that entertaining and I find most of them to be overrated and boring. However, HBK can be an exciting and surprising wrestler at times.

Fair enough, how often does HBK surprise you? Hell, HBK is far more predictable in the ring than Cena is. He used the same match formula for years, used the same moves, etc. His "surprise" moments was when he would do one of his backflips off the ropes, which we saw all the time.

Michaels is hardly the worker to bring up when talking about incorporating a variety of moves in a match. Then again, for the last several years, HBK was only slightly above average in the ring, except on those rare occasions he actually seemed interested in working a good match, which usually came when he knew that if he didn't, he'd get outworked.

As far as comparing countless wrestling matches to one basketball match (although I get your point), it's kind of a weak comparison. In WWE and TNA, the wrestlers never anticipate the obvious from their opponents. How is that believable?

You're in the wrong conversation buddy. If you're wanting to discuss how believable pro wrestling is, start a new thread. But what you described has been true of pro wrestling for over 50 years. Obviously, there are times where a wrestler DOES anticipate another wrestlers moves, like Dolph Ziggler countering Cena's flying shoulder block and his FU this week, or like everytime Shawn Michaels tried to connect with Sweet Chin Music on the first attempt, but overall, wrestling has ALWAYS been about asking "why didn't he see that coming"? Because it's a show, jackass (and since I know you're ultra sensitive, I wasn't speaking to you in particular, just as a general comment. I'd hate for you to misinterpret what I'm saying again).

And you're right; psychology of a character is one important aspect, sure. I was talking about in-ring psychology though and I made that fairly clear.

As was I, and I thought I made it fairly clear as well.

In-ring psychology is COMPLETELY about playing your character. Remember how I talked about guys like Austin and Cena doing punches and kicks because it fit their character? That's in-ring psychology. I'm not sure what exactly you think in-ring psychology is, but feel free to post it, and we can discuss where you may be mistaken.

WWE wrestling tells in-ring stories, don't get me wrong. But I highly doubt they'd be able to do so off of in-ring psychology alone. Hence why most of their programming is talking.

WHOA, you're talking about two very different things. In-ring psychology and promoting are completely different. Talking is about promoting, building interest into a match so people will take the time and possibly the money to watch the match. In-ring psychology is how the wrestlers behave once they are in the ring, in accordance to their character and the goal the workers are trying to achieve in the match.

If we have Wrestler A we're trying to get over as a monster heel, then the in-ring psychology for the monster heel is high powered strikes and slams against a smaller opponent, who for his part will usually try to use speed to win the match. Ultimately though, the psychology of the match will result in Wrestler A dominating the majority of the match, his opponent have a quick flurry of offense towards the end of the match, only to be countered by a devastating and hope dashing finish by the heel. That's just basic in-ring psychology for the monster heel and his smaller opponent. And it's also telling a story, the plucky little guy against the overwhelming monster heel.

The workers don't rely off telling a story in the ring as much as they do with a microphone.

Again, I think you're mistaking promoting and wrestling stories. All promotions use storylines to promote a future match, but promoting a story and wrestling a story are two different things. I'll give you an example:

Everyone remembers HBK vs. Cena from Raw right after their Wrestlemania encounter. The story of HBK vs. Cena building up to Wrestlemania was two guys who didn't trust each other necessarily, but were still working together in the interest of self-preservation and in respect. But ultimately, it was about being WWE Champion. That was the story. Cena won, and then a couple of weeks later, they had a rematch (likely because Orton was sent home for discipline reasons).

The promotion for the HBK vs. Cena feud was as I mentioned. But the story of the match was much different on Raw, than the story of the feud. The story of the match on Raw was a back and forth affair, with Cena always being just a little ahead of HBK, and slowly wearing Michaels down, but Michaels absolute refusal to lose again to Cena. One thing I'll always remember is the moment when Cena is on the outside beating on HBK and he looks to the referee and says something to the effect of "he won't stay down", which was very powerful in the story of the match. HBK's resiliency vs. Cena's dominance more and more became the story of the match, with HBK finally outlasting Cena to get the win.


Promoting and the story of the match are two completely different things. Now, many times they are intertwined with each other (like Cena vs. HHH feud from Wrestlemania 22), but they don't have to be. They are separate concepts.

But that's there style and it works for them. I agree that doing a variety of random holds and submissions kill psychology; but not meaningful ones. It sounds like you're defending the lack of skill these men have to tell a story in-ring. A physical struggle, actual chain wrestling, working on areas of the body without being over-the-top and comical. I'm not saying WWE isn't capable of doing that; but please compare WWE to a company like All Japan and tell me which product has the more superior in-ring psychology. Please.

I don't watch All Japan (which is probably why I'm not stuck up and pretentious about wrestling), but I have seen my fair share of ROH matches which are supposedly about chain wrestling and holds and stuff, and the WWE blows them out of the water. It's not even close. The WWE in-ring psychology is far and away better.

In-ring psychology is not based upon the style of offense which is chosen for the match. That's such an incredibly limited way of looking at wrestling, which I actually said in my first post that I quoted you in.

For the most part, WWE can't tell a good story without a microphone and until I see otherwise in the ring I will refuse to believe it.

Just using John Cena alone, I've given you two examples. And using Cena alone, I could give you many more examples. His matches against Umaga, Khali and Lashley, for example, are full of great storytelling. HBK vs. Undertaker 2, as overrated as it is, has good storytelling. The WWE is FULL of good in-ring action.

The problem the WWE has is not with its workers, but rather with its announcers. WWE announcers are HORRIBLE at relaying the story of the match to fans at home, mostly because they don't know how to do it. Even Jim Ross, when he first got to the WWE, had to learn how to tell the story in the ring. That's one of the reasons I consider Gorilla Monsoon and Jesse Ventura to be the greatest announce team that I've ever been heard, because those two guys laid out the story of the match so clearly even a blind man could see it.

The problem is not with the wrestler's ability to tell a story (well, not the good wrestlers anyways...every promotion has bad wrestlers), but rather the ability of the announcers to convey that story. If you remember one of the reasons the WWE didn't like Joey Styles (and fans got pissed about it) is because he just called out the names of the moves, and didn't bother to let people in on the story that was going on in the ring. Fans got pissed about it, but really? I don't need an announcer to tell me the names of the moves, I know the names already. I want someone to put the story into words. That's what an announcer is supposed to do.

The majority of their roster/product is not capable of doing that in a realistic and believable way IMO.

There hasn't been a roster in the history of wrestling in which the majority could do that. But the best workers always can, and always have, and they've done it in the WWE far better than they've done it anywhere else in America over the last several years. And probably the majority of promotions worldwide, if I were to simply guess.

WWE no-sells majority of the punches and strikes thrown and yet a move like The Cobra is unstoppable. Sure, Santino is a comedy character: I know. Now surely you can see my point?

Not at all. Wrestling is entertainment. The fact it's entertainment doesn't change how the entertainment is produced.

Austin's moveset worked for his character. That's for sure though.

Absolutely it did, and good way to be on topic. I'll use it too.

The fact is Austin's moveset did work for his character, and for the reasons I've been discussing, it's why Austin was still a great wrestler, despite limited moveset. It's because, as we both agree, the number of moves you use has absolutely nothing to do with how good you are. I can go outside right now with a friend and create a DVD for Slyfox's: The man of 1002 holds right now. But it wouldn't make me a good wrestler.

On that, at least, we agree.

 

[ABMorales787]

Question Austin's moveset? Why? There's a big difference between only knowing 5 moves and knowing how to use 5 moves. Yeah, I know. Weird but true. Take a Pokemon game for instance. Every Pokemon you use is limited to only 4 moves. Meaning, you need to think what attacks that particular Pokemon should have. You have to think well and have a good strategy that appeals to multiple situations. That's what wrestler's such as Steve Austin and John Cena rely on. Their moves can be adapted to any given situation in the ring. They are simplistic yet adaptable to any situation which is why they rely on them so much. It's a formula based system which works to keep the match believable while also feeding on the crowd. That's what a drawing wrestler does. He draws in the crowd through their reactions. They are the one's who tell the story. That's their objective. Sell stories and merchandise. If you want a wrestling clinic, most of the time that's what the mid-card and upper-mid-card are for. Because those matches aren't normally meant to be as story-driven as main event matches.

Both Stone Cold Steve Austin and John Cena have their limited movesets, but that's not what matters. What matters is how they use them.

 

[Uncle Chester]

My main point was fans hailing Austin as a wrestling wonder and then calling todays workers like Cena and Orton shit. If I were to use the same criteria to analyze the 3 wrestlers I couldn't honestly say Austin was better, I just couldn't.

I recognize the fact Austin was very good at storytelling and psychology but all I said was to he could never keep my attention long enough to truly get absorbed into the match and realise the payoff in the end. This was due to the dullness of his moves and usually nothing else.

Am I saying Austin didn't have great matches of course not but I find the praise given to him, especially regarding non gimmick matches, undeserved.

A quick note about Hulk Hogan; he was actually a good technician in Japan (where that actually matters) but generally boring in North America.

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

My main point was fans hailing Austin as a wrestling wonder and then calling todays workers like Cena and Orton shit. If I were to use the same criteria to analyze the 3 wrestlers I couldn't honestly say Austin was better, I just couldn't. .

I think that most knowledgeable fans do recognize John Cena as a decent in ring worker. The criticism he gets is more for the staleness of his character and sometimes for the fact that at one point in his career his matches followed more or less the same formula of getting beat up for the first part of the match and then winning in the end out of nowhere. Austin's matches did not follow a one dimensoinal formula most of the time.

Orton is criticized mostly for being slow in the ring. Brawling is fun only when the brawlers are fast paced. Orton is a slow brawler and therefore not fun to watch.

So as you can see moves have nothing to do with why the two are criticized.

I recognize the fact Austin was very good at storytelling and psychology but all I said was to he could never keep my attention long enough to truly get absorbed into the match and realise the payoff in the end. This was due to the dullness of his moves and usually nothing else.

Um, not to sound condescending but do you watch wrestling for the moves? Then I suggest that you watch gymnastics or figure skating rather than wrestling. The thing is wrestling is a theatre to show the struggle between good and evil and most fans watch it to see good finally triumph over evil. Moves are not exactly the most relevant thing as far as pro wrestling is concerned. The only deal with moves is that they should correspond with the wrestler using them in such a way that it makes sense. For example brawlers should mainly use punches and kicks to get the job done but if you are a technical wrestler it would make sense to submission holds, work on body parts etc.

Am I saying Austin didn't have great matches of course not but I find the praise given to him, especially regarding non gimmick matches, undeserved.

I disagree. Check out Austin vs Angle from Summerslam 2001 and Austin vs Benoit from Smackdown sometime in May 2001. Both are fantastic non gimmick matches that SCSA has had.