Loss

I watched a documentary on the Sexual Revolution (which they loosely considered started by The Kinsey Report and lasting from the legalization of the birth control pill through AIDS) a few years ago. In the late 70s, American culture was getting more permissive. You saw it in the pop culture with disco gaining popularity. Places like Studio 54 and Plato's Retreat are iconic. Gay liberation was a hallmark of the time, and a few years earlier, abortion was legalized. In the early 80s, we saw the rise of the Moral Majority and there was a lot of fear around sex post-AIDS, so you'd get a lot of news coverage that said stuff like, "Nowadays, more people prefer exercise classes and gyms" and movies like Fatal Attraction and Cruisin' were made, which had a far more cynical take on sexual freedom. Newt Gingrich was pushing legislation to quarantine gay people, which is one of the great forgotten stories of American politics. There was a cultural shift. Sadly, this article is behind a paywall, but the cover photo, dated 04/09/84, says it all: http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19840409,00.html I think wrestling can thrive in a more permissive culture too, but for what the WWF was aiming to present at the time, it really was the perfect cocktail.

I'm still bitter he didn't just stay The Genius 2.0.

Interesting how Manias that aren't well-received are usually followed by good periods, while Wrestlemanias people love are usually followed by bad periods. Compare 2013 and WWE right now to 2014 and 2015 post-Wrestlemania.

I still think a well-executed clothesline is my favorite wrestling move, especially if it comes with a spin bump. Think John Cena vs Daniel Bryan at Summerslam 2013.

I'm so glad you are here, and I totally don't mean that in a condescending way. I genuinely mean it. You make me think, and it's really appreciated. Not just because of issues related to your gender either. You're a knowledgeable wrestling fan with a perspective I respect. P.S. -- I've always wanted to read a list of your Top 100 Post-Attitude Matches. I hope you'll create that one day. I've thought that for a while, I just haven't said it.

They have corrected the issues with Reigns since Wrestlemania by presenting him as a heel. They haven't done a traditional turn, but it works better that way -- he's not giving fans the satisfaction.

So anyone who enters this folder later understands, topics with [GWE] at the beginning are topics that were started as part of the Greatest Wrestler Ever project. Eventually, we will turn that folder into a read-only archive, which means no additional replies to existing threads. However, I moved conversations that I felt like could be explored more and also fit this folder's mission. There were threads like JvK's BIGLAV thread, but I felt that was more GWE than this since it was specifically designed with the purpose of ranking wrestlers within the project, so I left it there.

I think this was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, yes.

I don't know if there's anything to this, but I'm starting this thread so the topic can be explored more. The death of the territories and rise of the WWF happened in a similar time frame to companies like Wal-Mart putting so many local businesses out to pasture. I'd like to look at FCC regulations regarding cable television and labor laws passed in the 80s that were more favorable to big players, and the impact that may have had on the territories. In other words, I'd like to explore the politics of cable television's rise. It also seems like there's stuff here worth exploring as it relates to the death of manufacturing and the impact that had on the culture, and as such the types of babyfaces and heels presented within pro wrestling. Folk heroes like Dusty Rhodes and guys next door like Tommy Rich were replaced with people we were in awe of rather than being able to relate to, like Hulk Hogan and the Ultimate Warrior. I'd also like to tie the end of the sexual revolution to the rise of the WWF. When I say that, I mean that the AIDS epidemic largely sent people from obsessing over sex to obsessing over fitness. It also shifted attitudes to the right, which played into Hogan's popularity in the Reagan era, which we've touched on before. There was a body craze not just limited to wrestling in the 1980s, so in so many ways, the culture was at just the right temperature to ensure the success of the WWF and Hulk Hogan. I realize this is a lot of thoughts swarming and may be better served as multiple threads. But that can be sorted out later. In the meantime, I'd like to use this thread to try to work all this stuff out.

Oh, I would also count a Shield three-way separately.

I was thinking about this and here's what I came up with: - Brock Lesnar rematch - Returning Seth Rollins - Dean Ambrose after an Ambrose turn - John Cena This makes it clear there is zero reason for him to go dropping the title at any point in the foreseeable future. He's half of the four biggest matches they can do at this point. Are there any I'm missing? I think there are others they could build up to be at that level, but those matches are mostly ready to be taken off the shelf and delivered at a moment's notice.

Oh, jdw actually did that write-up. I have yet to see the match, believe it or not. The Shawn Michaels-Mr. Perfect match at Summerslam '93 is abysmal, and not only that, but their house show run (as we have it on handhelds) in the months leading into that match is pretty bad too.

That was my plan. I'll go through GWE, and there are a few other threads I wanted to send here also, but if we've had any before that people think fit the mission of this folder, please link to them in this topic so I can easily move them.

In storyline though, AJ and Finn aren't old friends. The Bullet Club and Devitt had a falling out, and AJ debuted as the newest member. They weren't in the group at the same time and didn't cross paths IIRC. If anything, I'd expect Anderson & Gallows to turn on AJ setting up Balor's debut (not as "The Demon" but as his "Balor Club" character) and a program vs. AJ. Remember, those guys never turned on Devitt, but they did turn on AJ in NJPW.....and WWE for a change is playing off things that happened in another promotion I think they could also do AJ/Balor vs Gallows/Anderson and copy the Flair-Sting thing from Halloween Havoc in '95 to get there. They are loosely playing off of New Japan's history, but I don't get the sense they are insistent on maintaining continuity at every level, nor do they need to be concerned with that.

Apologies if this has been pointed out already, but even men are exploited in wrestling in a way that's at odds with feminism. I feel like most feminists would have a field day with wrestlers as independent contractors as a way to get around providing health insurance and a pension. They aren't unionized, either. There's also taking steroids so they look good in underwear and their bodies are more marketable for action figures, not to mention the laughable idea that they have to be "credible", especially in a company like the WWF that has always had a very tongue-in-cheek presentation anyway. Feminism is generally concerned with exploitation of all people, not just women. Wrestlers are selling sex and violence. I've seen lots of feminist critique of the jokes about Chris Christie's weight, so it seems like this would be of interest. And from my understanding (and I fully admit that I'm a novice who just reads a lot of stuff online), feminism is just as much about the exploration of masculinity as it is a political movement to support women.

More than a Politics-N-Wrestling folder, I see this primarily as a wonk folder where we keep ourselves open to everything if we really want to do a deep dive. However, I was chatting with someone who saw it primarily as a safe spot to discuss how how sociopolitical issues intersect with pro wrestling. So how do you see it? This is brand new, so I figured we can define it and flesh that out together. This came up because I'd like to move the criteria topics from GWE here so they can be bumped, since eventually GWE will become a read-only archive. However, if this is meant to be more about pro wrestling as it relates to sociopolitical issues, that's not really as clear a fit. So I'm throwing it to the group so we can iron that out together.

That's my big issue. I wouldn't have a problem with it in a world without domestic violence.

I think the duo turning on AJ with AJ calling his old friend Finn for help and doing a tag feud is also a possibility. That's what I like about this -- there are multiple directions they can go.

I have given this a lot of thought, because while I do like the idea of this forum, there are two factors that are of utmost importance to me: (1) Pro Wrestling Only remains Pro Wrestling Only (2) It's equally easy to engage in these topics and avoid them altogether So I ask that you keep all such talk in this folder only. If you see something in another folder that you think intersects with this folder's purpose, rather than respond there, please start a new thread here. You are pretty much free to talk about whatever you want and fully engage each other, as long as the core focus of each topic and post remains pro wrestling. Also, if you have an opinion of someone as a racist, sexist, homophobe, classist or other bad thing based on their comments in this folder, I ask that you forget that characterization when interacting with those same people in other folders. Call them out to your heart's content, but please just do it here and nowhere else. This board is filled with smart and kind people, so one reason I feel confident about this is that I trust everyone here to stay as true to this as possible. If I feel like this is changing the whole board in a negative way, I will have to pull the plug, and I really don't want to do that. Posting guidelines out of the way, let's see where this goes!

Haha, and jdw, you posting that is a pretty transparent attempt to get him back. You like him, admit it.

They feature Stephanie heavily because they think presenting a working mother as running the company is the key to changing their public image. That begs the question of why she isn't a babyface, but I think that's a big part of why she's so featured. They have hired a PR firm specifically to sell Stephanie to the public.

This is the best-booked main event program they have had in a few years, and now that they are just going with the boos (I think what they are doing is *waaaay* more effective than a traditional heel turn would be), Roman Reigns really is a great champion with an edge. With Styles and his Bullet Club friends, Styles could turn and join them, they could turn on him and feud, or things could stay exactly as they are, and all would be viable and make sense. They are setting up things around each of the titles also. I actually love the dynamic of these three superworkers feuding while somehow *The Miz* keeps squeaking out wins as a beneficiary of circumstance. The women's title change -- when it happens -- will get a ginormous pop and be a big moment. They are hopefully setting up a renewed push for Rusev and Lana. They are trying to make something out of a roughshod tag division. Pretty much every feud up and down the card is at least fresh. I know the pattern, and eventually the bottom will fall out and WWE won't be very good for a while. But I'll enjoy the ride for now. I could do without Shane and Stephanie, but even they aren't directly involved in the title program, which is a big plus. Oh, and imagine still thinking Shane is the better TV performer. Stephanie is and pretty much always has been.

Military Industrial Suplex!

So what should we call this new folder? I'm looking for a play on words that also at least makes vaguely clear what the purpose of the folder is. I'm not happy with any of my ideas so far: - Dumber Slam - Wonk If You Love Wrestling (I could tolerate this one, but I don't love it) And one so bad that I hate to even share it, but I *must*. I'm proud of its horror: - Council on Gore and Relations Anyway, I'm opening up suggestions. As soon as we can get a name, we can start the folder.

No one has to rank anyone they don't want to rank, nor should they be expected to do so. That said, if you would at the very least check out people who your fellow posters seem to like, we sure would appreciate it, whether you decide it's your thing or not. I'm not comfortable pushing it farther than that.