Dylan Waco

When you watch entire eras of wrestling and/or wrestling promotions or wrestlers careers it is very rare for the word "dated" to come up. I doubt it has come up more than a handful of times in the whole of the 80's projects threads, maybe not even that many. If someone says they don't think something holds up for reasons of athleticism I wouldn't necessarily argue against them without knowing the particulars. But I would identify it as a personal taste/bias and not indicative of some non-existent universal standard.

What Dave said in that particular instance was one case of a consistent viewpoint he's made for years regarding viewing old footage. in isolation it can be viewed a couple of different ways, but taken as a whole I think it's clear Dave doesn't see the point of watching old footage, at least not in "project" form. I don't think Athletic/highspots v. psychology/storyline is a particularly helpful way of looking at things either, but when the "standards change" crowd keeps talking about athleticism and moves when talking about the changes in standards that's where the conversation is going to end up.

I don't think it's nearly that simple or deliberate, but I do think Dave has adopted a position that allows him to deflect or ignore criticism about these things. I'm not saying that's the sole reason for his position, or even necessarily a conscious reason for it, but in a thread where people are being accused of being defensive, it seems odd to ignore the fact that Dave himself would have great reason to be engaging in defensive reasoning.

Nowhere in my post did I suggest people shouldn't "check stuff out from the past". You seem to have this same idea that Dylan does that believing standards change also means you believe there is no merit to watching old footage. I have no idea why the two of you are automatically so defensive about this. Never did I say standards changing meant it wasn't worth watching old footage. I watch plenty of old footage myself. As far as re-checking conclusions from the past, this is the slippery slope. Meltzer said he doles out his ratings in the moment, and will not go back and check them for two reason. One, he feels it's only fair to rate the match in the moment, in context. And two, he doesn't care enough about it to do so. He seems content to let his ratings stand. I agree with his first reason, and I respect the second. Personally, I think you could go back and rewatch things and "rerate" or change your view on them, but this is the slippery slope I talked about. I'll give an example. When the Malenko/Guerrero ECW match originally aired, I thought it was the greatest thing I ever saw. I watched it like three times that night, then me & my friends watched it over & over again for a week. I watched it about a decade later, and it broke my heart how badly it help up through 2005 eyes or whatever year it was. A major, major part of what made it so great to me in 1995 were the cutting edge spots and sequences that I wasn't as familiar with. By 2005, those things that I was so impressed with were no longer as impressive. It was still a good match, but it didn't blow me away the way my mind's eye remembered it. Does this mean I changed my opinion on the match? Not at all. I still consider it one of the best matches I ever saw, because it was. It doesn't matter that it doesn't hold up. They weren't working to impress 2005 Joe Lanza, they were working to impress 1995 Joe Lanza. The standards changed in what was cutting edge & fresh by 2005, and to me that was a large part of the appeal in 1995. Just because something doesn't hold up (and most, but not all, things will likely cease to hold up at some point) doesn't mean it isn't good anymore. It just has to be viewed in context. This is why you hear things like "That was a great match for its time", or "That was a great match, even by today's standards". You can toss around the MOVEZ stuff if you want, but it's funny that you indirectly call me lazy for my argument, when to me there is nothing lazier in a pro wrestling debate than people who toss around "MOVEZ" if somebody likes an athletic match or style, as if psychology can not exist if good athleticism is displayed or state of the art moves are used. Talk about bias & laziness. God forbid wrestlers leave their feet or use advanced throws. Must automatically mean they don't know psychology. And it instantly means they can't sell, which is the the most overused, misused, unfairly applied, lazy trope around. Grab a hold, kid. Eyeroll. But yes, like it or not, athleticism in wrestling is one of the things that does move forward, and yes, the advancing athletic standards are a part of what leaves some matches behind in terms of not holding up. If you want to equate advanced athleticism with MOVEZ, that's YOUR laziness, not mine. This new board is nightmarish for breaking up things and responding in quotes or I'm an idiot. Possibly both. Anyhow, taking this point by point where relevant: Firstly I would note that if I'm being defensive it's only because I'm taking Dave's argument seriously. Dave believes that it's unfair to judge old wrestling through modern eyes. He doesn't believe that this can be done fairly because people have seen too much, "standards have changed," and new biases have formed in favor of certain elements that aren't present in older matches. This is not an argument about Dave's star ratings, Dave going back and watching old footage, Dave responding to criticism by admitting that perhaps he overrated something, et. Really this argument has little to do with Dave's particular tastes, but rather Dave's view - and a view that I THINK is shared by you Joe (hard to tell to be honest) - that there is extremely limited value at best in exploring old footage. For Dave it doesn't matter if you try and learn the context, if you watch everything in one grouping and compare it directly to other stuff from the same promotion and/or period. It's all tainted by "modern eyes" so there is only so much you can take away from it. While I certainly think one can make the argument that you can't precisely replicate the feeling or context of certain matches, feuds, et, I think it is bizarre to argue that there is no real value in reevaluating old stuff or even watching newly found footage. The idea that it is hopelessly compromised, or historically shaky because of "changing standards" is a viewpoint that I think this mighty convenient, hopelessly flawed, and not consistently applied. The most obvious problem I see with Dave's argument is that it assumes that everyone shares his biases. This simply isn't true. Do the majority of wrestling fans share Dave's biases? Impossible to say, and largely dependent on how you measure fans. In my view it's completely irrelevant one way or the other. The fact is that some of us don't care about athletic offensive spots to nearly the degree Dave or Joe Lanza do. Do they hurt a match? No. Are there matches that have been enhanced by them? Yes. Do I think 630 splashes and Ricochet dives are suggestive of a higher standard (or even a changed standard in terms of what I want to see) in wrestling? No way in hell. Hell, I like Richochet fine, but I've never seen a Ricochet match that would have finished in my top thirty on the AWA 80's set. I imagine I could find a whole lot of people who would agree with me on that point. While the standards for what is a more visually impressive spot may have changed (even that is debatable and dependent on preference), I don't see how the standard for what is good and bad has changed much if at all. I also think it's interesting there is an allegation of defensiveness being made here, and yet you (Joe) have been extremely dismissive of the notion that Dave might have anything to be defensive about. I think we are all defensive to one degree or another, but it's Dave's sacred cows and opinions that have been challenged regarding stuff like TM/DK, Brody, et in recent years. The idea that his position might not at least in part be defensive strikes me as remarkably naive at best. I know I'd be at least somewhat defensive if I was in Dave's shoes, and I can't imagine who wouldn't. I also don't thing Dave applies his argument consistently, because if he did he wouldn't do history pieces. Ever. On the moves thing, I could care less if people prefer modern wrestling to old wrestling because they like more athletic offense. But that's reflective of a personal bias, not reflective of a universal standard. That strikes me as a completely uncontroversial point, which is why it's so mind boggling to me that you are resistant to it. Why are you so defensive about that? Also Jimmy Snuka's dive is remembered for two reasons. One is that it was a huge spot for the time. The other - and equally important - is that it was treated as a huge moment, and it is a moment which has been treated as such for years and years. There were other huge spots and moments that occurred during roughly the same frame that aren't remembered nearly as well - even in matches that are regarded more highly (Final Conflict for example) - because they haven't been replayed, promoted, et. to death. Context, promotion, presentation, et. All these things are huge and central to wrestling. Tanahashi's splash isn't over huge as a finish because Tanahashi is uniquely talented, it's over huge as a finish because it was protected and treated as a huge finish. People yawned through a twisting plancha on the last indie show I went to not because it was an unimpressive spot, because it was meaningless filler.

All that deserves a much more detailed response, but it's worth noting the guy you have argued is the best big match wrestler of his generation uses a finish that would have been borderline cutting edge...In 1988.

I don't think the difference is quite that defined, BUT I would note that every instance I ever see of "standards change" being invoked (aside from OJ's relevant points in this thread about lucha match structure) focuses almost exclusively on athleticism/flashy offensive spots.

Another point is who creates the concept of what is suggested by "modern eyes" bias? Who has pushed the "athleticism = quality" viewpoint? Has it arisen organically, or is it something that has been championed?

Also note that I don't consider there to be any universal standard, which is sort of the point. More later

I"m at work so I won't be able to answer this fully until this afternoon, but I do want to reiterate that I have never once argue that Meltzer or anyone else should go back and change star ratings. I don't care about star ratings and don't use them myself. What I do care about is people having a willingness to at least consider the fact that certain accepted points of view may be missing something, that certain great workers may have been "lost" because of where they worked, lack of footage, et. I don't think it's terribly surprising that the foremost opinion maker of old (and even today albeit to a much lesser degree) would be resistant to this, just as the consensus historians and revisionist historians were never going to agree on certain things. This doesn't just extend to ring work either. Debating him on certain things related to the AWA (High Flyers relevance as a drawing act, what markets were the weakest, et) illustrated to me that a lot of what Dave was going on was based on his own biases and direct experiences living in the moment and not necessarily what the facts actually tell us. In no way do I mean that as a dig at Dave because we all do this, but he's got the loudest voice through which to trumpet this things.

Random side thoughts... One of the most over finishers in modern wrestling is a fireman's carry. Another is a guy hitting a running knee. They are over because of context and presentation and because of how they are integrated into the matches. During the 90's when the luchadores first started coming into WCW I remember being stunned by my "non-smart" friends at school who thought the offense of guys like Rey and Super Calo looked stupid, phony and weak. These were dynamic, fresh, seemingly exciting spots, and yet during a hot period for wrestling nearly every friend I had at school thought that this sort of offense was comically absurd. Why was this the case? I don't know for sure, but I suspect it had a lot to do with context and presentation. On TM/DK the point can't be stressed enough that a large group of people watched the matches in context with other NJPW matches and as a group didn't like them very much. There were plenty of TM matches I preferred speaking for myself, same with DK. Hell I was talking up DK v. Fujinami over DK v. TM matches from the first time I saw any of them. But the point is those matches weren't thought fondly of compared to other matches from the exact same period in the exact same promotion. The point of this thread has nothing to do with wanting Meltzer to re-do star ratings fwiw.

Well part of the purpose of this thread is to get to the bottom of what people mean when they use the "standards change" argument or when they discuss how to evaluate or look back at past wrestling "through modern eyes." I don't think we all mean the same things. My general point of view is that the standard for what makes a good match doesn't necessarily change just because movesets now are more athletically impressive (or to take another example I don't think bumps have to be bigger now because Foley got chucked off a cage). I worry less about the "revisionist" attitudes on things like TM/DK in part because of my own biases, in part because of how those revisions often come about, and in part because I wonder about how they became accepted/received wisdom in the first place.

Are we talking about standards here or tastes? Or is there no difference? To me there is. More later

Admittedly this is an open ended question that can be answered several different ways depending on how you look at it. Still the subject has come up several times recent. Most notably it was mentioned by Dave Meltzer on an episode of WOR which led to a lengthy twitter debate I engaged in with Joe and Rich from Voices of Wrestling. I was set to let this one sit for a while, but it came up again on the latest VOW podcast, and since twitter is an awful medium for meaningful discussion on a subject like this, I thought it was worth starting a thread to discuss it here. One thing that I think is important to note right out of the gate is that if we accept the "standards change" argument, I'm not sure where that leaves projects or discussion based on older wrestling footage. After all, if "standards change," and it is unfair to evaluate old matches with "modern eyes" (Meltzer's favorite talking point on the subject), what value is there in talking about old footage at all? Furthermore if "standards change," what value is there in writing revisionist histories/biographies about wrestlers or events that are based on understandings that would have been alien to the people/events being discussed? It seems to me that the "standards change" argument logically leads to a sort of uniformity of opinion, whereby even if one does have interest in looking back, one must concede that their views carry a unique bias, and that conclusions drawn from them are somehow less credible than they would have been if they had been formed in "real time" with what they are viewing. Perhaps not surprisingly this view is the exact view one would expect to find among tastemaker(s) whose opinions and views on past events and matches are being challenged with much more frequency than at any point in history. Having said all of this, NONE of the above means that standards do not change. In fact to some degree this is a personal question, as reflected in the responses and comments of Joe and Rich on their most recent podcast. During the twitter debate I made the point that the "standards change" argument, is a point that is reflective of a particular point of view about what constitutes good wrestling, a viewpoint that Joe, Rich and Dave Meltzer (generally speaking) seem to share. It is notable that when I made this argument on twitter, both Joe and Rich didn't buy it, with Joe in fact calling it "bullshit" to suggest that Dave Meltzer's views on the subject reflected an individual bias toward certain forms/styles of wrestling. This is important because it suggests that the "standards change" argument is something that they see as universal and global in scope. In other words - if I am following their argument correctly - they are not talking about a change in personal tastes, but in fact a change in some sort of objective or at least consensus based standard for what constitutes good wrestling. There is a ton more I could write on this, but I think now it is important to cite Joe and Rich from their most recent podcast. I do not want to misrepresent what was said and am not quoting, but I believe the argument used was effectively this - as innovation has led to flashier wrestling offense (I believe Flamita was cited), older finishing holds like side headlock throws have become outdated. While in the context of their time those spots may have seemed believable and even exciting, in the modern context finishing a match with such a spot would seem dated, and the spot itself is generally treated as filler. Therefore "standards change," and it is impossible to fairly rate, discuss, analyze, et. a match from the 50's because the context is too different. You can look at that point many different ways, but to my eyes I fail to see how it is a point that says anything about some universal "standard" that has changed. What it does suggests to me is that Joe (the one really driving home the point) has a personal bias toward innovative, flashy spots. On the other hand someone like myself has a bias toward tight, believable, matwork. To that end I would just as soon see Timothy Thatcher deliver a visually impressive, impactful and strategically logical headlock throw, as I would see Flamita do a leaping rana. But even the particulars of the spots in question are not what really interests me. Instead I am most interested in the context of the particular spots. Why is Thatcher doing what he is doing? Why is Flamita doing what he is doing? The internal context of a match does NOT change, even if the external context does. Do "modern eyes" really preclude us from understanding the psychology of a match? Do they make it difficult to understand the history or storyline that contributed to the context of the match itself? Is it really impossible, or even extremely difficult, to analyze an older match merely because it's older? And going further than that, if it is true that these matches were worked for particular people at particular points in time and thus it is unfair to judge them unless one was a part of that place and time, how far does that window extend? NJPW ran a show last night in Japan that was reviewed by Joe from VOW. I read the review and enjoyed it. But Joe is not Japanese. Is he the target audience? Does that even matter? Going further if I watch the show next week has the window closed? What if I watch it in a year? To take another example, what if a house show is taped by a fan, who shows it to his friends the next day? Those wrestlers certainly weren't working for any cameras, or intending their efforts to be seen by people outside of that building that night. Does that matter? While some of these questions may seem silly to certain people, I think if you are interested in wrestling criticism and discussion, this subject is a very important one that deserves to be seriously thought about and discussed. If Joe or Rich feel I have unfairly presented their opinions, I invite them to joint the debate and correct any errors I have made on that front. I also hope that this will not be seen as an attack on them or their website, which is not at all my intent. The point here is to try and get to the bottom of what the "standards change" argument means and doesn't mean for sites like this one which focus so much of their attention on wrestling of the past. (please forgive shitty grammar, spelling, et. I wrote this in a hurry, on two hours of sleep, as I'm walking out the door for work).

I guarantee ROH will get some good houses out of Bad Influence.

I don't disagree with that - which is why I think this is a futile exercise. Especially in a company where the brand image is what it is

I actually think if they wanted to find a formula that might have a snowball's chance in hell of appealing to a more wealthy demographic they should do the exact opposite. Turn up the misogyny, run with racism, go batshit with homophobia, transphobia, et....but make it all part of a transparently fake "evil" that to be overcome by a complex, but interesting, "babyface." Of course the key here is that you can only do this with much better writing, you would likely alienate a lot of current fans, and it very well could backfire. But making wrestling a live action Breaking Bad, or something that hipsters could feel comfortable fetishizing to the same degree is the only way I could see a wealthier demographic pulled in. Which is another way to say I think it's impossible.

My best on interviews pick might be Mean Gene. I'm almost positive I will vote for him in the Best Non-Wrestler category. Thinking about promotion of the year this year is interesting. I tend to have a weird calculus for that award in that I don't generally weigh my enjoyment of a promotion as the key criteria, but I also don't think it's just the "who made the most money" award. What I try to do is look to see what promotion has shown real growth, or expanded their base, or succeeded where they seemingly should have failed, or have made some strides toward achieving meaningful business goals that appeal to their core audience while also showing an expansion of the base audience and/or the potential for that expansion. Operating by that standard I have a real hard time seeing my favorite two in ring promotions (WWE and CMLL) as viable contenders at all this year, and I think NJPW would need a real successful showing at the G1 Final Dome Show - something that I think is increasingly less likely as time goes on - for me to feel comfortable tossing them a vote. Instead I find myself looking at two promotions I generally don't care much about in Dragon Gate and ROH. DG is not my cup of tea at all, but they are pretty clearly the number two in Japan at this point, and they seem to be delivering to their core audience in a way that NJPW arguably hasn't been this year. They draw well - not great - and I'm not sure there is real opportunity for growth, but they definitely aren't losing ground or falling on their face in embarrassing ways. ROH has more of a buzz around it than it has in years. There paid attendance numbers are up, fueled in part by guys like Hero and Styles returning, and they are about to pick up Bad Influence which is an act that will likely have a similar effect. The NJPW relationship led to two successful iPPVs (a miracle for ROH), and two legit sellout crowds. They also poached TNA's Brooklyn stadium show this year. I'm still not sold ppv is a good idea fro them at this point, but if those shows just do decent, it would be a net gain for them. It's actually arguable at this point that ROH is the number 2 in the U.S. Of course that doesn't mean a lot in the grand scheme of things, but considering where they were a year ago, it says something about them (and TNA).

New Japan coverage in this weeks issue, reads like TNA coverage.

There is so much PR that could be dumped into this thread. The Colon/Hansen stuff is the best, but the Colon v. Ayala feud is incredible too. Colon and Abby's insane match from 91 that is on youtube is there best bout, and among the best and most unique brawls I've seen. I may comb through the PR thread soon because there is some other stuff from the early 90's that I remembered thinking was excellent. Invader 1 and Eric Embry had an awesome brawl down there as well that comes to mind from the late 80's. LA Park v. Mesias both I and II are matches I prefer to the LA Park v. La Parka, and the first of those is probably one of the best five-ten singles matches I've seen in the last five years. And then there is this which is one of my favorite matches of all time. Angel Blanco Jr./El Hijo del Solitario v. El Hijo Del Santo/Villano IV TXT 2/25 YES Fucking five thousand times YES. I will wait for the pro-shot to be sure, but right now I have this ahead of Casas v. Panther fairly easily. That is not a knock on Casas v. Panther either, this match is just fucking awesome. Totally wild, escalating brawl, with all four guys juicing, some of the nastiest punches ever, some crazy spots and a great finish. Villano IV was just insanely great here hitting two wild topes where he splatted on the floor, eating some sick chairshots, selling gut kicks and punches like he was being crippled with pancreatitis, showing awesome fire and his own brand of stiffness during the face come back, clinging onto dudes for single legs when he had nothing left to give, et. On top of this the visual of his bloody head was insane as it looks like Abdullah the Butcher after taking shrapnel from a clusterbomb. The rudos were really tremendous asskickers here, stalking around like total pricks and throwing some savage shots. Blanco has an awesome standoff exchange with Villano IV both during the match and in the tremendous post match brawl that are up there with my favorite moments in wrestling in the last ten years. Solitaro has been a great foil for Santo over the last couple of years and really was tremendous, coming off as a guy livid at the existence of Santo in particular. At one point he crushes him with a punch to the chest that Santo sells like Solitaro is Ox Baker and he is a desperate Fritz Von Erich trying to get more cash flow to pay off his kids coke debts. Later he takes an awesome bump off of a revenge chairshot and his timing on that finishing spot was perfect. Speaking of which Santo was fucking Santo. He is the real deal. He can take punishment, bleed buckets, hit his highspots, sell his ass off, make his comebacks, et and it never stops being exciting. His dives looked great, he had the aforementioned Fred Sanford sell job, he was just right at playing the victim but without relinquishing the nobility of his name and act. And man that finish. What a champ to take that chairshot and splat after that much blood loss and that crazy a match. Getting stretched pretty tightly for the fall was a nice sacrifice as well. Post-match brawl with blood soaked guys competing to get hepatitis by smacking each others heads around was also tremendous. Good luck topping this 2012

Bryan has been less over for a while now. Still easily the most over guy in the company, but they haven't done him in favors in recent months

Feel bad for Bryan. Given how WWE operates and the nature of the business and media now if he's gone through the Summer the idea of him being a long term breakout star is pretty much shot to hell.

Awesome stuff. I can not wait for the e-book. This is the sort of writing that I wish we saw more of.

Does he see The Shield as a potentially game changing unit that paved the way for the Wyatts, more trios matches in the WWE and possibly a revival of factions in the WWE?

I have enjoyed the Magnus and Abyss matches. Didn't see the Roode match. But my point is that I wish he had someone of a higher level to work against.

Wrestling is also way less hot in Japan than it used to be, to an almost absurd degree. And hardcore fandom is FAR less of a monolith than it was before (i.e. the number of people who publicly are indifferent to NJPW heavies today v. the number of hardcore fans indifferent to AJPW heavies back then seems to me to be much larger).