I’m gonna start covering AEW shows when I can, I’ll be attempting to keep up with Dynamite and the PPVs at the least. Why? Well, I don’t like AEW, so it’s not out of enjoyment. I just need to get back into watching wrestling regularly and, more importantly, talking about wrestling. While I don’t like AEW, I like WWE less, and WWE is barely pro wrestling so there’s less for me to talk about.
I love pro wrestling. I do not love watching pro wrestling, I love the idea of pro wrestling. This is said badly: I do love watching pro wrestling. When I say that I don’t love it, what I mean is that I don’t love all wrestling and I don’t just watch wrestling that doesn’t connect with me. I haven’t been watching regularly for years because most wrestling does not appeal to me. The last promotion that really grabbed me was New Japan Pro Wrestling in its golden period under Okada, but that’s over now and New Japan stinks.
So why am I covering AEW? My ambition is to run wrestling. I don’t know how that’ll happen or if it’ll happen. It probably won’t. But I’m covering AEW so that I can think more about my ideas of what I want to see in wrestling. This is also why I’m going to be doing commentaries on audio from the Voices of Wrestling Flagship podcast fairly frequently as well. More than anyone else, I feel that Lanza and Kraetsch think deeply about wrestling. I don’t always agree with them but they are usually good at explaining trends and they at least prefer to think in a more sophisticated way than who is a fan of who and isn’t it cool that this happened (though they do that too, that’s what being a fan is).
I’m not going to be doing in-depth match reviews. Instead, I will briefly recap the matches and any angles I feel are worth recapping, then I’ll summarize and pick a point that I want to expand on. After that, I’ll do a commentary on ideas pointed out in the Flagship’s Instant Reaction Live podcast in a “question-and-answer” format.
Full Gear Review
Did not see the pre-show, not interested.
Four Way Tag: Didn’t care. Kings of the Black Throne by far the best act, makes me take the titles less seriously since they can’t simply face a competitive team. Private Party not on their level. ★★☆☆☆ (2 stars)
MJF vs. Strong: Not a big fan of MJF in the ring because he brings too much stalling etc. I get that that’s the point but that doesn’t mean I enjoy it. ★★★☆☆ (3 stars)
Moné vs. Statlander: Mostly remember lots of gurning and some sloppy spots. Because I was supposed to take the gurning seriously, it made it impossible to enjoy. Match lost me, NR. 🛇
Page vs. White: Power of fandom vs. “heat”, dueling chants; what if everyone was cool? Great call from Turner, refusing to let Page just break the count after forcing it out to 9. Bad call not breaking the hold when White got to the ropes. Existence of finishers makes random moves (like uranage) not work as potential finishers. Nigel must have been so annoyed – he tries to cover for Jay White’s “inverted figure 4” by saying he can’t quite see what it is, then Excalibur and Schiavone both call it, but they don’t understand that the way White has it on, the figure 4 aspect is a hindrance to any legitimate hold, so they are trying to show Nigel up but making themselves look like idiots to anyone who grapples. Out of nowhere finish: difference between intra-match story and inter-event story (and inter-match story). ★★★★☆ (4 stars)
Ospreay vs. Fletcher: Ospreay came out first with a trash fit and then Fletcher said “hold my beer”. Crown is way too much right now, but it is an okay looking crown. “Stundog millionaire” is too gimmicky to call as a regular move; better for presentation to develop “technical” names for moves, though they don’t need to be too technical-sounding, even “flipping stundog” would be better. Pretty good match. ★★★★☆ (4 stars)
Garcia vs. Perry: Perry wrestles like he is bigger than he is, which is probably my least favorite type of wrestler (see: Shane Hollister). Match lost me, NR. 🛇
Ricochet vs. Takeshita: Reliance on synchronized spots can often go wrong; possibly such things should be left for wrestlers’ second+ matches rather than their first so each has a good idea of the other’s reactions in a single (may be past Ricochet & Takeshita’s first, have to check). Work was too slow, eventually lost me, NR. 🛇
Swerve vs. Lashley: STOP GURNING. It was okay. ★★★☆☆ (3 stars)
Moxley vs. Cassidy: Lost me with the shrug and continue punches, too cartoonish. NR 🛇
Reprise
Would have liked the show worse if I’d had to sit through it.
Page vs. White felt like the hottest thing on the show, though I am biased because I have a point to make: I think we should cut it out with heels and faces in wrestling.
I think the reason that Page vs. White had so much crowd interest is that both guys are presented as cool first and foremost. The heat was not based in one of them being good and the other being bad, it’s based in both being cool and specific fans preferring one or the other. I think that’s a better road to take when trying to make a hot product: just make everybody cool.
That doesn’t mean everybody needs to be “good”, or that there should be “shades of gray”. Just don’t bother about that stuff. When you are telling a story, pick out who your protagonists and antagonists are. Don’t worry about coding them as heel or face. Just make them cool/interesting. Some people will feel cooler as “villains”. Some people will feel cooler as “heroes”. Circumstance can figure it all out. But you shouldn’t rely on “telling stories”, your first goal should be to show cool things that people want to watch.
Further, I think outright heels/villains work best with a captive and invested audience which they disrupt, so these types should be pretty outweighed by the number of people who are just cool. If you’re going to have an outright heel, they shouldn’t be the reason that you come see the show, otherwise that implies that their villainy is popular, which is exactly the thing you don’t want out of a villain (or they are perceived as a hero).
Commentary on Instant Reaction Live
Rich talks about “why can’t you just put good wrestling on TV”
I think you can. Add 2–3 more tournaments to the schedule. They don’t all need to be marquee tournaments, but there should always be a tournament happening or being anticipated. This gives you a reason and a context for you to have more straight matches, and it also helps you isolate your straight matches from your story matches. What the worry is, I feel, is: “will people be interested in that?” The fear is that wrestling fans do prefer the wackiness etc., and this is reflected in a lot of wrestling talk. If you crowdsource what is good about wrestling, you will probably get the “variety show” answer, which supports the idea of putting more of that on TV. To do something different you need to have a totally different vision rather than just chasing the market.
Rich talks about writers justifying their own jobs
This is reasoning on the level of “stores use the round up money to get themselves tax write-offs”: it would make sense if it was true and it accuses the people that you don’t like. Obviously it’s not the case. What’s much more likely is what I said: they are deciding things by focus group, by looking at what people are saying they want and just trying to produce that. The writers are there because the creative direction is “please the existing wrestling fan, i.e. the WWE fan” and that kind of show needs writers. This argument does tie in a lot with the general idea that the WWE is trying to control perception etc., as them pushing out this idea that sports entertainment = pro wrestling helps them further control the market and effectively corner AEW from succeeding. (Full disclosure, I used to think the round up thing was true until recently, which is why I use it: the reasoning is deceptively attractive.)
Joe talks about dichotomy between TV and PPV, which has great matches up and down the card
I believe I heard this in a shoot interview but it feels like the prevailing wisdom is that TV and PPV are very different, and PPV’s primary purpose is as the payoff: giving people what they want. That doesn’t mean the TV has to be bad, but it’s possible that people believe that the TV and PPV need totally different, even opposite, philosophies in order to succeed. Since WWE has the market share in TV, it’s possible that they believe that in order to move forward in TV, they need to copy what WWE is doing. This is obviously a bad opinion but it seems to be a reasonable theory.
Joe talks about Full Gear possibly being one of their best houses, supercards apparently still doing well despite crap TV
Supports the idea that TV is primarily for garbage advertisement rather than for “compelling viewing”; one problem with pro wrestling ratings is that companies are currently being guaranteed most of their contracts, so they are not relying on week to week ratings as much as previous eras relied on show to show houses, which means what is more important arguably is prestige and general viewership, not necessarily continual high performance. More important for AEW to be able to turn it on when necessary than for them to be producing all the time. That said, I think this view relies on the myth of star power & it factor. What I mean is this: you can go along doing this sort of thing if you assume that what you need is for one star to just break out and then everything shoots up with them. And that is how it often appears. Your “main” stars like Stone Cold and the Rock will get the credit for ushering in a boom period. However, for those stars to pop, everything else around them needs to be humming as well. Think about ideas like the churn in comic books, or the idea that “overnight successes” often put in years of work getting to where they are. You can’t produce slop continually that wouldn’t allow a star to show themselves, you have a better chance if you produce a compelling product which will bring people in to notice the star. That’s the reason that, even in a guaranteed contract situation, it does not pay to “slum it” in the ratings.
Joe discusses the PPV viewership (presumably we don’t have it yet)
Good to differentiate them, esp. b/c PPV audience is superficially similar to TV audience
Joe talks about being disappointed that Death Riders went for “regular heel heat” with the Moxley/Cassidy finish instead of presenting Moxley as an absolute killer
Could obviously speculate about a too many cooks situation; one thing about having too many cooks is that we shouldn’t assume anybody is incompetent or malicious, just that there are too many visions. Perhaps “too many chefs” is better; I think you can utilize as many writers as you want as long as you are directing them and not being directed by them. Labor-wise, don’t be afraid to let someone sit out for a while if you know that you will need them later; do what you need to do to retain them rather than pretending that you can go short-handed. Aside from the too many cooks thing, this is another example of going for morality play over rule of cool. Wrestling should lean towards rule of cool.
Joe talks about Jim Ross burying the commentary/referees
You have to tell him to knock it off or let him go. I get it, you want the prestige, but prestige is an illusion. By always bringing him out, you’re preventing one of your own people – who is likely to actually promote your product properly – from reaching near to his status. He might be an asset if he was always on his game, but if he isn’t, he may be hurting your commentators from achieving the cachet they could achieve.
Joe talks about the Costco Guys adding little
Rule of cool; don’t try to “add new fans”, just use outside people if it would actually be a cool addition to your show for its own sake
Rich talks about the heat in the Moné/Statlander match, saying that the heat for Moné should be that she’s great so she shouldn’t need to cheat but sometimes she gets lazy
I don’t think the heat for “credible heels” is that they could win but get lazy, I think the heat is that as an honest competitor you have to be open to losing. A heel who cheats is going outside what a real fair competition is. It’s also not simply “a dastardly thing to do”. When a heel cheats, the result of the match no longer gives you (in kayfabe) a good idea of where the people stand. It wasn’t proven that the cheater was better according to the agreed competition. It doesn’t settle anything; the conclusion of the question is put off. That’s where the heat of a cheater comes from.
Joe talks about Hangman getting his heat back by attacking Jay White after the match
I think this kind of cheapness in order to “get heat back” doesn’t make anybody look cooler. I agree that it works as far as not letting Hangman seem “weak”, but I think it’s possible to evolve past being so reactive. Let Hangman take a loss and come back when there’s something cool for him to do, don’t rush to equal out what you’ve just done.
Rich talking about Fletcher’s star aura
True. Wasn’t a huge fan of the look but like I said, point is to look cool in general, not to appeal directly to every person. He kind of looked like a giant baby so maybe the gear needs a bit of work but he also looked main event.
These were all the points I thought interesting to make a note of. I don’t have anything else to say for now.