Question for Karl

[leonp1981]

How much of an average match is scripted?

Obviously the finish is, but do they choreograph the whole thing, from start to finish?  Or do they plan the big spots, then the wrestlers themselves improvise the rest?
I'm after just a general idea of how much the guys have to remember going into a match, cos remembering every part of a 30 minute match is pretty impressive.

P.S. I'm not looking for any breaking of kayfabe!

and just to help you think...

 

[Karl Kox]

Used to it was only the finish and that was it.  If a guy had a good idea for a high spot then they would go over it.   
Now guys like the Undertaker can go out and improvise but some one like younger guys may not be able to.
After watching the ladder match last night I'm sure a lot of that was planed out.

Also now days the ref could be passing along stuff from the back that is given threw him on his ear piece.

Who knows how much they let them do now. When my dad was wrestling most of the time they were just told who was going over and they would come up with their own finish unless the finish was going to play a major role in a story line.

[leonp1981]

So do you think it's better to have it all planned out or not? 

I'd think that making the guys figure out the match once they get in the ring would make them better wrestlers.  If someone in the back has told them what to do, then guys with poor ability can 'hide' because they don't have to think for themselves?

Also, what happens then when you get two big ego's in the ring, and they disagree on a move or something.  Is one guy 'in charge' or does the ref step in if that happens?

[Karl Kox]

So do you think it's better to have it all planned out or not? 

I'd think that making the guys figure out the match once they get in the ring would make them better wrestlers.  If someone in the back has told them what to do, then guys with poor ability can 'hide' because they don't have to think for themselves?

Also, what happens then when you get two big ego's in the ring, and they disagree on a move or something.  Is one guy 'in charge' or does the ref step in if that happens?

Usually the elder more experienced will call the match. If Undertaker and Jeff Hardy are wrestling Taker would call the match. .I think it is probably better to have it mostly planned because there just are not a lot of great workers any more IMO.   

[leonp1981]

Usually the elder more experienced will call the match. If Undertaker and Jeff Hardy are wrestling Taker would call the match. .I think it is probably better to have it mostly planned because there just are not a lot of great workers any more IMO.   

I noticed on raw last night, during the 'All Star Tag match', at one point the ref was shouting something at Jericho, and he turned to the ref and said, "I'm calling the match here!".  I don't think the camera's were supposed to pick it up, but Big Show had a little laugh on the apron.

Thanks for the answers Karl.

[Playboy]

Usually the elder more experienced will call the match. If Undertaker and Jeff Hardy are wrestling Taker would call the match. .I think it is probably better to have it mostly planned because there just are not a lot of great workers any more IMO.   

Thats exactly what Randy Savage & Ricky Steamboat did for their big WM 3 Intercontinental title match. One of the best matches I have ever seen, for sure. Mind you, Rick Flair and Ricky Steamboat had a series of "on the fly" matches in 1989 and they were incredible matches to watch. I always viewed Ricky Steamboat as a solid performer.

[Montague]

When fans ask Steamboat about his all time favorite match, his usual response is his 1989 series of matches with Flair.
He acknowledges that WM III was phenomenal, but it was 16 min. of rehearsed A-Z.
He considers it much more skillful to do an adlibbed 1-hour Broadway such as his Flair feud. 

Back in strict Kayfabe days, all that mattered was the end result the audience saw.
Now that seemingly everyone is “smart,” many of today’s wrestling fans may consider the degree of planning in critiquing a match.
 

[Playboy]

When fans ask Steamboat about his all time favorite match, his usual response is his 1989 series of matches with Flair.
He acknowledges that WM III was phenomenal, but it was 16 min. of rehearsed A-Z.
He considers it much more skillful to do an adlibbed 1-hour Broadway such as his Flair feud. 

Back in strict Kayfabe days, all that mattered was the end result the audience saw.
Now that seemingly everyone is “smart,” many of today’s wrestling fans may consider the degree of planning in critiquing a match.
 

I personally preferred the steamboat / flair fued. Awesome matches.

[Montague]

Is it because of the matches themselves, or because you know the backstage stuff behind them?

In other words, are you considering the (lack of) rehearsal in your critique? Or is that not a factor, and you're merely judging the end result?

[leonp1981]

I enjoy a match because it's good.  If it's done by good performers, it's exciting, near falls, counters, etc. and it flows nicely, then I enjoy it.  I only asked about the planning side cos I find it interesting, it has no bearing on how I view the match. 

[Montague]

That is EXACTLY how I feel.

[leonp1981]

I don't want to think about all that stuff, or know too much, cos it would ruin my enjoyment.  I never read any spoilers, I avoid the articles about Smackdown before I've watched it.  I like to know what's going on, but I'm still a fan, and that's more important.