
picture from guresmania.net
As I mentioned at the end of the previous post I've learned a lot about the wrestling industry, particularly the art of being a heel and the mastery of ring/crowd psychology that it entails, from Steven Johnson and Greg Oliver's excellent book "The Pro Wrestling Hall of Fame: The Heels."
This is the third in a series of "Pro Wrestling Hall of Fame" volumes written by these two men.
The first two are The Canadians, which I sadly haven't read yet, and the Tag Teams which is also extremely good.
I want to transition into an ongoing series of posts regarding psychology and how the business has changed in myriad ways over the past 20-25 years by posting comments from one of the damn-near unanimously acknowledged all time masters of psychology, Jake "the Snake" Roberts.
Johnson and Oliver interviewed The Snake for their chapter on "Heel Psychology" and he said some very interesting things about the importance of the referee's role in establishing proper heel psychology and, ultimately, legitimate or "true" heat. Roberts said:
"To be a good heel, you've got to use the referee. When I say 'use' the referee, respect the referee. It makes no sense if a guy doesn't listen to the referee because then the heat goes on the referee; it doesn't go on the heel...Sort of like if you've got a sniper in the bell tower shooting kids in a playground, and you've got a policeman next to him. Who has the heat? The policeman; he's not doing his job"
This is one of those things that after you read it, you're shocked at how simple and seemingly obvious the insight truly is, yet embarrassed that someone had to point it out.
Pro Wrestling Illustrated and their entire family of Kayfabe magazines used to refer to heels as "rulebreakers"and that's exactly what the Snake is talking about; how can you be a heel or a villain when there is no authority to establish rules to break in the first place?
Simple. But when I read that it took me by surprise. That's what was missing in the Attitude era of 15 chairshots to the head, and the initial ECW (which I loved) heyday of barbed wire and tables--referees!
Sure there were people in those eras that fans loved to loathe, but now I understand why some veterans say that a certain level of legitimate or "true" heat is no longer attainable.
In some ways that's a good thing, though. The days of riots in the Omni where Flair and the Andersons had to cut a harrowing, perilous path to the dressing room, and Larry Zbyszko getting stabbed on his way out of Albany arena stand as bygone testaments to the power of "true" heat. They are also awesome testaments to how skilled at manipulating our emotions these men truly are. Thus the fascination. I'll admit that heels causing riots sounds vaguely romantic from the safety of my keyboard years down the line, but there is absolutely nothing cool about somebody getting maimed or killed just for being too good at their jobs.
But back to generating"true" heat on a smaller, semi-sane scale. Steve Austin broke the mold in many ways. He carved out a sort of anti-hero, anti-establishment character that was bound to absolutely no authority, so how could someone work against him and drum up heat of their own if the referee, as the Snake lamented, was just in the ring for tradition's sake and/or to get stunned and otherwise take bumps?
The pendulum has swung back a little in the other direction in what many refer to as the PG era in WWE programming, but I believe the devaluation of the referee's role lies at the core of some negative changes the industry has undergone in recent years.
That pure pissed off aggravation of seeing Tully Blanchard and/or Randy Savage winning gold over someone you just "knew" was the superior wrestler just because the sorry, sad-sack ref didn't notice the roll of coins or brass knucks was such a great, dare I say, healthy release of anger and indignation.
Postscript (In case anyone ever actually reads this):
I sent this post to a friend of mine and he quoted the last sentence about the 'refs not seeing the roll of coins...' and said, "Isn't that part of the act?"
Of course it is.
I have delusions of grandeur and literary pretensions to indulge...so I'm sorry if the point (there was one) got lost in a lot of overwrought writing.
To be succinct:
The guy with the snake is saying the 'act' suffers when the referees role is diminished and/or minimized.
Pro Wrestling Illustrated and their entire family of Kayfabe magazines used to refer to heels as "rulebreakers"and that's exactly what the Snake is talking about; how can you be a heel or a villain when there is no authority to establish rules to break in the first place?
Simple. But when I read that it took me by surprise. That's what was missing in the Attitude era of 15 chairshots to the head, and the initial ECW (which I loved) heyday of barbed wire and tables--referees!
Sure there were people in those eras that fans loved to loathe, but now I understand why some veterans say that a certain level of legitimate or "true" heat is no longer attainable.
In some ways that's a good thing, though. The days of riots in the Omni where Flair and the Andersons had to cut a harrowing, perilous path to the dressing room, and Larry Zbyszko getting stabbed on his way out of Albany arena stand as bygone testaments to the power of "true" heat. They are also awesome testaments to how skilled at manipulating our emotions these men truly are. Thus the fascination. I'll admit that heels causing riots sounds vaguely romantic from the safety of my keyboard years down the line, but there is absolutely nothing cool about somebody getting maimed or killed just for being too good at their jobs.
But back to generating"true" heat on a smaller, semi-sane scale. Steve Austin broke the mold in many ways. He carved out a sort of anti-hero, anti-establishment character that was bound to absolutely no authority, so how could someone work against him and drum up heat of their own if the referee, as the Snake lamented, was just in the ring for tradition's sake and/or to get stunned and otherwise take bumps?
The pendulum has swung back a little in the other direction in what many refer to as the PG era in WWE programming, but I believe the devaluation of the referee's role lies at the core of some negative changes the industry has undergone in recent years.
That pure pissed off aggravation of seeing Tully Blanchard and/or Randy Savage winning gold over someone you just "knew" was the superior wrestler just because the sorry, sad-sack ref didn't notice the roll of coins or brass knucks was such a great, dare I say, healthy release of anger and indignation.
Postscript (In case anyone ever actually reads this):
I sent this post to a friend of mine and he quoted the last sentence about the 'refs not seeing the roll of coins...' and said, "Isn't that part of the act?"
Of course it is.
I have delusions of grandeur and literary pretensions to indulge...so I'm sorry if the point (there was one) got lost in a lot of overwrought writing.
To be succinct:
The guy with the snake is saying the 'act' suffers when the referees role is diminished and/or minimized.
No comments:
Post a Comment