Under the influence of one Pulse Glazer, I spent some time this week using my knowledge of storytelling in wrestling to write a guide on it. Enjoy!
What is storytelling?
Storytelling is simply the wrestlers telling a story through their wrestling, in the ring. They can do many things to tell their story (which we’ll look at later), and circumstances surrounding the match/going into the match can help tell the story too (which we’ll also look at later).
What’s the point of storytelling?
There are many, many points of storytelling, but there is always one main one. That is to build drama in the match, thus keeping one more interested in the match. One would be more interested on a match that has drama than a match that hasn’t.
A basic example of a story used to build drama is wrestler A (most definitely a heel) attacking and sufficiently damaging wrestler B (most definitely a babyface)’s leg in a match. The drama is created by how or whether wrestler b can make a comeback, despite his hurt leg.
How will he work around that hurt leg? Can he overcome the pain in that leg?
Those questions give the match drama, and keep one’s interest (say one is interested to see how wrestler B will make his comeback).
Psychology and storytelling – is there a difference between the 2?
Yes, but it’s a minor difference. Storytelling is the wrestlers telling a story to build drama in the match. Psychology is merely wrestlers doing things to help tell the story. For example, wrestler A executing his strategy on wrestler B is using psychology. What that strategy is and the surrounding circumstances of the match (ie backstory) provide us with the story of the match.
For a more precise example, wrestler A dodging/reversing all of wrestler B’s moves is using psychology. That psychology builds the story of wrestler A knowing wrestler B really well (ie knowing all of his moveset).
2 different ways to explain storytelling
Is there more than one way to explain storytelling in pro wrestling? A normal story in a pro wrestling match can be summed up in one sentence, ie “the story of the match was the young underdog trying to get the upset over the cocky veteranâ€Â. Then there’s the deeper way of summarizing the story, (frequently used by Pulse Glazer) that consists of a sort of play by play of the match, saying what happens (but not necessarily calling the moves, eg. “so and so used his speed to gain the advantageâ€Â) and explaining why whoever did it, what the consequences were etc.
Here’s a more detailed example, using Shuji Kondo vs Katsuhiko Nakajima from AJPW – Feb 17th, in an AJPW Jr. Heavyweight Title Match. By the way, try your hardest to track down and watch this match from anywhere, because it’s really really really super awesome.
Type 1: This match had the old epic story of the bigger, cocky veteran heel (Kondo) vs the young underdog (Nakajima) trying to get the biggest win of his career.
It’s a simple way of explaining it, but it makes perfect sense.
Type 2: Kondo has ran through every challenged for a year and a ½ now, so he starts off cocky expecting nothing from ‘just’ another challenger (Nakajima) for the belt. Nakajima gets over how serious this is to him by showing he’s done his homework on Kondo, having an answer for all of Kondo’s usual mind games. Kondo gets pissed at this, gets more aggressive and works over Nakajima’s neck. This also a nice touch, as Kondo isn’t just working over any old body part, he’s trying to slow down Nakajima and eliminate the possibility of Nakajima’s Bridging German Suplex finisher.
Nakajima makes a comeback when he dodges a lariat on the outside (where Kondo’s arm hits the ringpost) and goes nuts on Kondo’s arm with his high kicks. The next 5 or so minutes consist of Nakajima destroying Kondo’s arm, which is also a nice touch for he’s trying to eliminate the possibility of Kondo’s almighty King Kong Lariat finisher.
If Kondo was thinking straight, he wouldn’t have tried the lariat on the outside by the post. But he did, not expecting anything out of the challenger. That pretty much epitomizes the story of Kondo not taking his challenger seriously enough.
Like all matches, they build towards the bigger moves. Now the finishing sequence isn’t just one big MOVEZ~! fest, oh no. Kondo is weaker and pretty much can’t use his arm at this point. But because he’s so confident in himself and his King Kong Lariat finisher (that has put people away for nearly 2 years then) he keeps going for it. Nakajima isn’t weak enough to take it (if Kondo would have taken him seriously earlier maybe he would have been), so Nakajima blocks every attempt and does MORE damage in the process to an already sufficiently weakened Kondo.
After some (awesome) nearfalls, Kondo finally hits the King Kong Lariat, but because the lariat itself is weak (due to Nakajima’s kicks to the arm), and the fact Nakajima isn’t weak enough to be put away by it Nakajima pops right back up after being hit with it! He hits a big kick to head, then connects with his Bridging German Suplex! 1 2 3!
Nakajima connecting with his Bridging German Suplex also epitomizes the story well, because if Kondo took Nakajima seriously earlier he could have weakened his neck so much that Nakajima couldn’t actually execute that hold.
Now obviously, that method is far more complex, but explains the story in more detail than the first way.
So the question is, are both of those valid explanations of storytelling in a (given) wrestling match? An explanation of storytelling in a given match has to explain the story of the match, and both of those (despite doing it differently) explain the story of the match, so yes, both of those are valid explanations of storytelling in a given Pro Wrestling match.
Backstories
A backstory is an important part of storytelling. It revolves around something that happened between the wrestlers (in a given match) before the match took place. For example, wrestler A attacked wrestler B’s leg with a steel chair in a parking lot somewhere after a given show. When their match comes up (say on the next show) wrestler A viciously attacks wrestler B’s leg from the get go. The backstory is wrestler A knowing wrestler B has an injured leg (before the match).
Basically, backstories help strengthen regular stories. With a backstory, a match can tell a more compelling story (with issues between the wrestlers before the match has even started), thus building more drama and keeping one more interested in the match at hand.
Another way to think of backstories is the circumstances surrounding/going into the match.
Storytelling in spotfests and exhibitions
A spotfest is a match which solely consists of moves and nothing else. It can be 10 guys flipping around the ring for no reason whatsoever or 2 guys just exchanging wristlocks with no rhyme or reason on the mat. Spotfests tell no story whatsoever.
An exhibition match is a match that tells a story (every match apart from a spotfest tells a story), but has no backstory. For example, a tag match (in an international tournament, let’s say) can tell a story of one team’s double team work being better than the others, although both teams have never interacted before in any shape or form, thus no backstory.
Is selling essential to tell a story?
No. Whether selling is needed to tell the story depends on the match. For example, a match’s story could be wrestler X going after wrestler Y’s injured leg. If wrestler Y doesn’t sell it throughout the match, the story is nullified. So for that match, selling is needed to tell the story.
But wrestlers can no sell pretty much everything to tell a story. If the story of a match is a small cruiser trying to take down the big man using (weak, for he’s only a small cruiser) strikes, the big man can no sell every strike to signify the small cruiser chose the wrong strategy going into the match.
Is sticking to roles/characters important in storytelling?
Certainly. Say a wrestler cuts a promo on his debut show, saying that he’ll do anything to win (in the ring). Then, in his debut match, where his opponent has an injured leg (he suffered the injury before the match), he does not focus/attack that injured leg, that’s going against his character of doing anything he can to win.
The best example of a wrestler sticking to their character to help storytelling is Triple H’s ‘cerebral assassin’ character, where he’ll (intensely) look for the injuries his opponent possesses or the openings they give him, being a cerebral assassin in a pro wrestling ring.
The significance of a finish
The finish in a match is (most of the time, excluding spotfests) the climax of the story being told, which involves or concludes that story.
Example: Wrestler A and wrestler B know each other incredibly well; both men know each other’s movesets inside out. Every time one wrestler tries to hit on of their well known moves, the other wrestler will reverse it. For the finish, wrestler A debuts a brand new submission hold, and wrestler B taps to it. This concludes the story of the match well, as wrestler A realized wrestler B knew his moveset inside out, so he debuted a brand new move, (that wrestler B would not know how to reverse) and it proved successful.
Does storytelling use kayfabe?
Yes, all stories are told in kayfabe, all stories told portray pro wrestling as real.
For example: Wrestler B has an injured leg going into his match with wrestler A. Wrestler A knows this, and attacks that injured leg (like one would do in a real life fight).
Now, most people know wrestling’s fake (as in planned). Most people watching that match will know wrestler B’s leg isn’t actually injured. The wrestlers know the audience know wrestler B’s leg isn’t actually injured, but they’ll tell the story regardless. That’s how storytelling uses kayfabe.
What makes a good story?
Seeing as the point of story is to build drama and keep one’s interest in the match, if the story builds drama (ie the live audience reacting) and keeps the audience’s interest (ie if you’re interested in seeing the story unfold) then it’s a good story.
The story must also make sense. For example, wrestler A and B have wrestled each other many times. Wrestler A has one all of the previous matches using his power moves on the smaller, weaker wrestler B. If wrestler A goes into that match and doesn’t use his power moves that have led him to victory so many times before, that story does not make sense. That will build no drama (it will just confuse the audience), thus it wouldn’t be a good story.
Of course, storytelling is a very, very vast topic, that can be looked at differently by everyone, but I hope you enjoyed reading my grasp on it all. Peace!
