Wrestling Psychology

gimmick

Right, this is spawned from the Kurt Angle thread, so as not to derail it entirely.

What, IN YOUR OPINION, constitutes wrestling psychology? You can be as simplistic or scientific or whatever you wish in your answer.

My view on it has always been how the match is portrayed and starts as early as a pre match promo.

For example, possibly the worst psychology I have ever seen going into a match was in ROH in 2007. Gen Next had just broken up, and Jack Evans was myseteriously attacked. It was evident soon that his attacvker was former stable mate, Roderick Strong. So they had a match. Now, for this match you would not expect Evas to go about his usual pre match schtick of doing abreak dance to the ring after skipping to it in the first place. He was about to face a former mate who attacked him from behind. His entrance blew any realism the match could have had.

Psychology is also attention to detail of a match. A wrestler has to remember that he has just been in a 5 minute ankle lock, or that he has just taken 10 back breakers in as many minutes. If he does not do this, it makes his opponents prebvious offense seem rather pointless doesn't it? Sure, he may have a burst of Adrenalin and go nuts, but as we all know, Adrenalin wears off rather quickly.

Anyway, thoughts, and pick mine apart to your hearts delight.

yours with warmest regards
gimmick.

flahavaj

Ah psychology. Theres so many varying opinions on what this actually means that its gotten to the stage where i don't think there is any satisfactory definition.

To me, I think its about trying to do that things that make the most sense possible and that follows on from what has happened previously in a storyline sense. Simply put - trying to be as realistic as possible within the confines of pro wrestling.

So as gimmick says if people have had a hateful feud builing up to a match, it makes little or no sense to work a match where theres loads of pretty mat wrestling and technical stuff - they should be trying to tear one another apart. Or tying in the reason for a feud in to the finish to a match

It also takes in stuff like varying your offence to suit a particular match. I don't think someone should be able to pick up the Big Show and toss him about like a rag doll. A wrestler with good psychology should sell the fact that he's 500 pounds and practically impossible to shift. Why do people remember Hogan picking up and slamming Andre? Because they used good simple psychology: they sold his size in the build up to the match. They had Hogan fail to pick him up on a few occasions prior to the match and created that doubt in the minds of the fans. When he did finally pull it off you got one of the seminal moments in wrestling history and opne of the all time great pops for what in reality was a simnple body slam. That to me is good psychology.

Heyman repeated the trick decades later with Brock and Big Show, where there was a doubt whether Brosk could F5 him: when it happened in their match it got Brock even more over as a monster - to the extent that he was actually able to lose the match but still come out of it looking like a beast.

Also good selling is a massive part of psychology to me. I f*cking HATE when theres ten minutes of pointless matwork at the start of a match, which then is totally forgotten in the final stretch. Its one of the more annoying things about ROH tbh. If someone has been working over the leg, then the guy taking he offence should at least make some attempt to limp afterwards or struggle to hit some of his moves bacause of the pain. One of the greatest displays of selling of this type was Kopbashi in the famous tag with Misawa vs Taue/Kawada where he sold his injured leg like a champion. It just makes a match altogether more satisfactory for me and makes both wrestlers look better. Arn Anderson for me was the master of this kinda stuff.

Of course theres a big danger of going overboard with talk of psychology as well and get all wanky and smarkish about it. At the end of the theres so many basic things in wrestling that make no sense at all anyway like running the ropes or moves that hurt yourself as much as your opponent,so its difficult to get to worked up too much over it either.:pac:

jaykhunter

Gimmick and Flah have excellent points, completely agreed, here's my two cents :

Treating the match with due respect - if it's against an inferior opponent, the same, or a much stronger opponent, treat it as such. However special precaution should be taken if mocking a weaker opponent - and if that's the case, he should look competitive in the match, unless you want to kill that guy's push. In that case, he shouldn't be wrestling a top tier guy. (e.g. Cena squashing/tapping out both Miz and then CM Punk last year)

Wrestling a style according to the match/feud. "Who's the best wrestler" -- athletic competition. "I friggin' hate you" - brawl. (Kurt Angle vs Jeff Jarrett I and II were very different matches; both according to where the feud was)

Wrestling in the appropriate style that will most give you the highest chance of success. Working on the right body parts, relative to the wrestler -- eg working on Michaels' back or Triple H's quad. Working on Big Show's legs. Doing power moves if you're much bigger than a smaller opponent. Using your speed if you're the smaller opponent. Using the 'right' style relative to your opponent would yield the highest chance of success. Therefore it should be employed. i.e. unless you're a noted fantastic wrestler, don't try to out-wrestle Kurt Angle.

A wrestler's body language should convey the emotion he's supposed to be feeling, angry, sad, happy etc; which should match the feud. Orton's probably the best in the business right now, and one of the best ever. His facials are amazing.

Selling and remembering to sell the right body parts and implementing it into the match (eg Cena can't do the FU --at least the first time-- as his shoulder had been worked on)

Doing and saying things in character. Of course it helps if your character is defined! The guy who's recently beaten Cena a few times, and injured Triple H, should not be running away backstage from Nexus. God dammit! That didn't help anyone.

Selling the serious threat of your opponent, and the magnitude of the championship -- the most important thing in the business. So, Cena doesn't care that he lost the WWE Championship, just because he knows he'll get a rematch? PATHETIC. If two wrestlers have a match, and it's obvious that one guy will lose, there's no point to the match. Cena, laughing off Sheamus as a threat, and also being serious about him is a direct contradiction. STOP IT!!

Never burying a wrestler's actual faults -- i.e. don't bloody wisen up the audience to Justin Gabriel's lack of promo ability. A lot of people will believe what WWE conveys to them. If you mention it, and it's true, and it's not refuted, you've killed his character. If you tell the marks that (eg) Ezekiel Jackson can't wrestle, if it slipped under the radar previously, it certainly won't now. And now they definitely can't stand watching them. Saying Daniel Bryan can't speak; and having him cut great promos is a fantastic idea, though.

Having storylines and emotions that make sense -- it annoys me that Cena 'feigns' being the underdog in repeatedly being in matches that he's previously won. Like him flattening Batista twice --easily-- before their match at Over The Limit. Did anyone think Cena could lose? Did WWE do anything to make you think that he might? And did he win? No ****!! Useless. Here's where booking clashed with psychology. Well, Batista shouldn't have been jobbed out so hard. Or, Cena should've taken his next match lightly; and so Batista should've taken steps to tip the scales in his favour. However none of that was done. And that's why nobody cared.

Try to win the damn match. One thing that really aggravates me is the booking of a lot of cage matches. Take Morgan/Hernandez Cage match. Morgan was 'afraid' of Hernandez in the cage match. He has a chance to leave and win the match. He stops before exiting, and re-enters, presumably to inflict more pain. Why not --since you're heel, obviously-- step outside, win the match, and then go in and beat up Hernandez? It makes no bloody sense. It's not even like when Anderson in 2010 (or McMahon, back in 99) flipped the bird at his opponent before he left, which supposedly clouded their judgment enough to come back in.

Heh, turned into a Cena-bashing session, lol :pac: I'm sure there's stuff I've forgotten but there ya go

gimmick

^ Excellent posts both above.

gimmick

Must say, I am disappointed in the response to this, given what had been said in the Kurt Angle thread.

Mr.Nice Guy

Just saw this thread now actually. Well without repeating what was said in the other thread, to me wrestling psychology is just another description for being able to work a match well. I think the reason why this is so divisive amongst wrestling fans is because, utimately, we're watching a fictitious contest and the things that draw some people in and render them captivated will conversely put off others who feel certain things expose a contest as fictitious. What working well is usually is subjective.

For example Shawn Michaels getting beat up for ten minutes then doing a nip up and jumping up and down will bring an audience unglued. It could be argued this is poor psychology because it doesn't make sense to the match which is a fair criticism, but personally stuff like that doesn't bother me if it's designed to get fans invested. That's the difficult thing about pro wrestling though. The lines between realism and entertainment are always going to be blurry and what some fans accept, others will have trouble with.

When guys don't sell certain moves it does bother me. I think a notable example of this was when Cena fought Michaels at Wrestlemania and Michaels worked on a part of his body, I think it was his leg, and after ten minutes Cena forgot to sell it. I can see how that stuff detracts from a match and could be considered poor psychology. On the other hand, if it was the finish of a match and Cena did his signature moveset and no sold all the while, I'd have no problem with this as I could justify it to myself as adrenaline, fans motivating him etc. (when the reality of course is he's giving the fans what they paid to see)

I do believe then it's hard to define as it's different things to different people. I think that was the point Michaels was making in his book based on his conversation with Blanchard. In the end I think one man's poor psychology is another man's top class entertainment.

paddyismaddy

well for my few cents worth to me it would be how well two wrestlers can work off each other and with each other to tell a story in their match if that makes sense

jaykhunter

gimmick wrote: »

Must say, I am disappointed in the response to this, given what had been said in the Kurt Angle thread.

I reckon that this is quite an intimidating thread; i guess you could risk exposing your (possible lack of) understanding of wrestling psychology by answering it. Which is why I reckon it's not got a great response rate. That and we've pretty much covered everything lol :pac::pac:

waltersobchak

jaykhunter wrote: »

I reckon that this is quite an intimidating thread; i guess you could risk exposing your (possible lack of) understanding of wrestling psychology by answering it. Which is why I reckon it's not got a great response rate. That and we've pretty much covered everything lol :pac::pac:

Tbh everything was covered in the first few posts, and also its hard to argue any of the points as everyone was pretty valid and spot on..

jaykhunter

waltersobchak wrote: »

Tbh everything was covered in the first few posts, and also its hard to argue any of the points as everyone was pretty valid and spot on..

well i was worried i'd sound like an idiot so i thought it through before posting :pac:

Jolt2007

jaykhunter wrote: »

I reckon that this is quite an intimidating thread; i guess you could risk exposing your (possible lack of) understanding of wrestling psychology by answering it. Which is why I reckon it's not got a great response rate. That and we've pretty much covered everything lol :pac::pac:

Yeah, pretty much this on both counts haha. I'd go along with what's been said here and it's been put better than I ever could put it. I guess the easiest way to define psychology for me is, when done right, it's what makes me get lost in the drama of the match and it makes me forget I'm even watching pro wrestling.

Balasubbie

I'm curious and that's all but gotta ask, how many in this thread have worked a match in front of a paying public?

gimmick

I know I have not, but why should that stop anyone from asking or answering the question?

waltersobchak

Balasubbie wrote: »

I'm curious and that's all but gotta ask, how many in this thread have worked a match in front of a paying public?

Since when do you just have to be a Wrestler to understand wrestling psychology?

jaykhunter

I haven't. It's just what I've learned from watching wrestling for 20 years.

It's a list of points that help us suspend our disbelief and to maximize our enjoyment when watching a worked pseudo-sport television show.

Reganio 2

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

For example Shawn Michaels getting beat up for ten minutes then doing a nip up and jumping up and down will bring an audience unglued. It could be argued this is poor psychology because it doesn't make sense to the match which is a fair criticism, but personally stuff like that doesn't bother me if it's designed to get fans invested. That's the difficult thing about pro wrestling though. The lines between realism and entertainment are always going to be blurry and what some fans accept, others will have trouble with.

That's one thing that always got to me, Ric Flair considered one of the greatest the business has ever seen, I don't think I have ever enjoyed a match of his as it always goes the same way and especially he does that stupid fish flop thing, it really ruins it for me, but then some people love it.

Balasubbie wrote: »

I'm curious and that's all but gotta ask, how many in this thread have worked a match in front of a paying public?

We are on the internet, I could easily say I am Stone Cold Steve Austin in Ireland on a trip and you can't tell me I am wrong, does that make my point more valid? I don't think so.

Vince135792003

gimmick wrote: »

What, IN YOUR OPINION, constitutes wrestling psychology? .

Whatever works to get people emotionally or audibly into a match, preferably by not killing yourself.

gimmick

Balasubbie wrote: »

I'm curious and that's all but gotta ask, how many in this thread have worked a match in front of a paying public?

Was there a point to this question?

weareallmarks

jaysus lads

psychology?

that died the same time kayfabe did....

dont think too much and just get into the match.

gimmick

How do you figure that? If a match has no intelligence to it, how can you get into it?

weareallmarks

gimmick wrote: »

How do you figure that? If a match has no intelligence to it, how can you get into it?

then you gotta ask 'what is psychology' ?

is it believeing and protecting your gimmick or making it look real?

to me cena has great psychology but his actual in ring work isnt great...

but in saying that, noones work looks real...

the way it works is the japanese whack each other hard and dont sell, the americans work looks weak and they do sell...

but noone can take 1 punch and sell it like it hurts because if you punch me on the jaw i am going down and maybe not gettin up....so suspension of disbelief is needed....which kinda ruins psychology.....

die hard 1 had great psychology

jaykhunter

weareallmarks wrote: »

dont think too much and just get into the match.

Wrestling psychology is required to make us get into the match. You might not be able to put your finger on it, but you know when psychology isn't employed and it all looks a bit phony. The thread is basically a list of things that sell wrestling as real, not a performance.

In a nutshell i'd say wrestling psychology is the actions of a wrestler that makes us believe that the match is real.

Balasubbie wrote: »

I'm curious and that's all but gotta ask, how many in this thread have worked a match in front of a paying public?

"Unless you've laced up them boots, your opinion means nothing" is an age-old stock comment designed to fob-off differing, valid points of view from a wrestler to non-wrestler. It angers me when said wrestler uses it as if it's a valid point -- attacking the person and completely circumventing the argument. It's lazy, cheap and absurd. By that logic it means that f&£*&£ Jenna Morasca knows more about wrestling than Dave Meltzer.

I guess that makes JR, Cornette and Heyman's opinions invalid too.

I'm sure you didn't mean it in a cutting tone, but rather an inquisitive question, but I thought I'd chime in on where that question is leading!

jaykhunter

weareallmarks wrote: »

but in saying that, noones work looks real...

the way it works is the japanese whack each other hard and dont sell, the americans work looks weak and they do sell...

but noone can take 1 punch and sell it like it hurts because if you punch me on the jaw i am going down and maybe not gettin up....so suspension of disbelief is needed....which kinda ruins psychology.....

They're fair points actually. Wrestling by it's nature is counter-reality, as punches don't equate to black eyes, sustained injuries etc. It's basically a hyper-reality, with bigger physiques, over the top characters and spectacles.

If it's actual reality you want, UFC's your best bet. Where one punch equals one punch. We accept the limitations of the sport --since it's required because many wrestlers actually wrestle many times a week, amongst other factors-- but it's a different fundamental aspect to pro wrestling than in-ring psychology.

Anyway I don't wanna derail the thread but there ya go