This week, I've noticed quite the debate going on about whether or not someone should win a match based on the fact that they didn't really "address" the match that was at hand.
Personally, I don't find this at all to be a defining factor in whether or not someone should win a match, but maybe I'm wrong for believeing so.
When I first got into this deal, that's all that I thought it was about. Wrestler A fights Wrestler B, they talk trash on each other and whoever does the better job of trash-talking wins the match. It's what I did for years as Steven Shane, and, admittedly, it brought me a great deal of success.
However, once entering the FW community and even trying my hand at another character, I've begun to feel totally different on this topic. I remember some of my LVW RPs for Web Browser didn't say shit about the match at hand, yet Browser was rather successful in LVW.
In my own fed, UCW, I see a lot of RPs that do more character development than actually talking down the opposition. It seems as though these guys really understand what this hobby is all about and that's entertainment. In the real wrestling world, people are given gimmicks and then they follow up on that. It may be sort of a lost art from what there was in the early 90s, but still, it is seen and known about.
I remember watching Papa Shango promos and wondering what the hell he was talking about damn near everytime. On the flip side, if you watched too many Ultimate Warrior promos, you began to wonder just what an annihiliation by another man's hands really looked like. Maybe that's why Shango and Warrior had such a long feud back in the day, simply to equal each other out.
Anyway, the debate was sparked this week about certain wrestlers committment to an angle that was being run. Because Wrestler A doesn't give a damn about facing Wrestler B, it means that Wrestler A shouldn't get the win because he's not even focused on the match. And I can see why someone would want to think this way.
However, where I have a problem with it is when Wrestler A's gimmick is to basically no-sell whatever it is that his opponent is doing, simply because he thinks he's that much better than everyone. It's nothing against Wrestler B. You could bring in Wrestler C and Wrestler D for a three-on-one match and Wrestler A would still think that he was that damn good and could defeat them all.
The thing I'm looking at here, and possibly looking for some feedback, is what should hold the most weight in determining who should be successful at this game we play?
I realize that everyone is going to think their own way and that it is quite possibly the way that everyone should look at it, but that's their prerogative. I'm just basically looking for a decent debate here that could really enlighten everyone on what everyone else looks for when they judge who should win a given match.
Personally, I'm looking for the guy that does the best job of making me believe his character and his committment to what he says. I know that sounds rather general, but this is the way I look at it.
For example, let's say that quite possibly the two most polar-opposite wrestlers in the world go one-on-one. Roderick McRatrick versus Beast. I love both of these characters for their given ability to do what they do best. Roderick is amazingly funny while Beast brings more intensity to the table than damn near anyone.
Now, in this example, Roderick brings absolutely the funniest stuff I've ever read from him. He throws a few shots at Beast, but his main idea is to make me roll on the floor laughing. Now, in a crazy occurrance, Beast is thrown off his game by this and still establishes his dominance and what he plans to do with the match, but doesn't really make me hate Roderick the way he does with everyone else.
Personally, I think that Roderick has done the better job of establishing his character and, therefore, gets the win in my book because his comedy was spot-on, as usual and because Beast didn't really counter his points (probably because there were none).
What about you? Do you think it's possible for a comedy gimmick like McRatrick to get over in this hobby? Or are we so business-driven that only the most focused on the goal are going to get the job done?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I've talked to a few people about this, and I've told each of them the same thing. For me, going up against a straight comedy character is the hardest opponent for me to face. For one thing, they give me virtually nothing to play off of, and that's what I like to think I'm really good at. I take what people give me and turn it around on them, but comedy characters give me nothing.
To me, a comedy character can go through an entire match and say absolutely nothing of significance, but if they're funny they'll still have a good chance of winning. I feel almost helpless against them because it's almost out of my hands whether or not I can win. If they're on, I'm done. If they're off, then I get the duke.
Personally, I have a hard time putting a comedy character all the way up to the World Title level, but it's not impossible. And I'm certainly not the only one voting either. I know a lot of people out there love them.
Great post. It's tough to deal with this issue because there are times when I feel like I'm being true to my character and another person just trash talks and beats me.
One thing I hate is the fact people think you only need to be talking about your feud or your match. Sometimes, you are in a match with somebody who you aren't feuding with. Sometimes it doesn't make sense for a character to talk crap because it isn't their character.
Once again, great post. Food for thought... and I like it.
I've been in on this debate before {and Shane, glad you thought of me in your example :) }, I feel the best promos are a mix of character building and match focus.
Build your character. Please. Spend some time on him/her, show us what their all about, cause if you don't, then you don't make your character mean anything to the rest of the readers.
However, don't do it so much that you totally lose focus on your opponent and make me think that while your character can do a night at the improv, just standing there and cutting jokes and one liners isn't going to do it for me. There has to be a focus to take that content and in some way direct it your opponent or your match, otherwise, it's just a stand-up act.
One of the best of all time at this is JA, who has done stuff like the "Dudleyville" promos back in the day in A1E. Fantastic comedic stuff - everyone in the fed was rolling around laughing at it, but JA still found a way to take that whole thing and focus on his opponent with it.
To keep using Tom as an example, look at some of the other characters he's done. Joey Baggadonuts was great when he came in, but soon fizzled out because it was the same comedy over and over, and focus on the wrestling wasn't there. Same with Roderick McRatrick. RMR was a different character, to be sure, and was absolutely brilliant in his own right, but again, the focus on the matches wasn't there, and not as much success was realized. The JA character is the perfect example of how to make something funny, but still work on your match.
I think you'll see that out of all of the top guys in our hobby - Dan West, Phil, Roger, Gilkison, Brunk, Tom, Steve, and fast-rising guys like the Two Shanes... all these guys have the ability to be their character, and develop their characters to tell fantastic stories while still focusing on the in-ring content at the same time.
All of these guys - and their characters - wouldn't be the same if they didn't. A singular focus would only make them half of what they are.
Just as a random aside, Roderick McRatrick's original purpose was to make fun of everyone rather than winning matches. He singlehandedly saved my interest in e-fedding :)
But where has this debate been raging? I'd like to see the threads for myself so I can read and put my two cents in there...
...and those two cents are that you need to build heat as well as develop character. The two are equally important in eW. If you do too much of the former, you're generic and talk about wanting to train and bang your girlfriend all the time so that you can beat everyone because you're better than everyone. (Incidentally, those were the kinds of characters I was aiming to lampoon as RMR at first :p). If you do too much of the latter, it's all masturbation.
The hobby is as much for cooperating with other people as much as it is for writing for yourself. Those who strike the balance between the two are the most successful and get the most out of it.
I hate RPing against straight-up comedy characters. Always have, and always will. I think the reason stems from my style of writing, which isn't meant to be blatantly outrageous and off-the-wall like the way Holzerman writes with RMR or Jeff writes with YYJ or Ford writes with High Flyer. I can write some funny stuff, but you're never going to see Troy in the situations that the other characters find themselves in. It works for some, but not for me.
Can comedy characters succeed? Of course, just look at the aforementioned names. But, like Phil, I always feel like they never really give me anything to work with (except in rare instances), and in a writing hobby where quick-wit and personal digs are king (and queen >=)), I think it's really necessary to have some sort of pulse as to what match a character is in and who their opponent is at some point during the RP week.
Of course, this isn't to say that expository pieces should be ruled out entirely. We'll take BigDog's first RP of the week in the MCW tag match. BD has no history with his opponents, knows little about them, but still keeps the spot topical to what's going on. If BD was facing, let's say...Gladiator (by the way, Jarret, mentioning Steve and not me? SHAME! SHAME, SHAME, SHAME!), I don't expect this RP from him. I expect him to tear the Roman a new one given their long and storied history.
For me, exposition in match RPs for feds like EPW, which have a clear separation of what's expected in a match RP and what can be done in a character-development RP, should be used if/when necessary and should help lead into the crux of why this character is here in the first place. If the piece leads off in five different directions, never comes back to center and never really mentions the opponent or the match or anything really at all, chances are I'm not going to enjoy it, even if it's funny. It's like, "hey, yeah, you made me chuckle, but why exactly are you here instead of in a comedy club?"
I enjoy the occassional senseless, nutty RP just as much as the next person, but I think there are enough creative minds and writers out there who can turn the ordinary trash-talk RP into something rather brilliant and funny without being overly insane and unhinged. To each his or her own, though, but if I'm given the choice to put over Wrestler A who gave me brilliant trash-talk or Wrestler B who gave me blase comedy, it shouldn't be too hard to figure out who I'd put over.
Post a Comment