Dylan Waco

There is a part of me that feels like they will use the Elimination trios to crown a new champ. Yes it would "give away" the fact that it will come down to one guy on each team left, but I could still see them doing it and putting the belt on HHH to set up HHH v. Bryan.

I think generally speaking many spots look more athletic then they did in the average match in say 1984. But you could easily argue wrestling was more athletically demanding in the picture sense of the term then.

Does this apply to when you're praising matches or when you're criticising them? I mean, if I praised Flair/Kerry would he tell me my praise means nothing because I wasn't there? If I praised it without understanding the context would he tell me I don't know what I'm talking about? Or is it only when people criticise a match for being dated or not holding up that he plays the context card? Is it okay for us to praise French catch, or should we not do so because no-one's ever done so in the past? Or can we praise French catch so long as he don't use hyperbole like "French catch was the best wrestling in the world in the 60s"? In the example I cited I was praising the High Flyers

I don't really disagree with any of this, but one thing I would note is that I think Dave's position is one that closely coincides with his own biases as a fan. I.E. Dave really likes stuff worked like say Davey Richards v. Michael Elgin, and an older match with less stuff (moves, nearfalls, less of a quick pace, et.) - while something Dave may have loved at the time - is not going to fit THAT sort of individual standard.

If Joe was always arguing about the elements of wrestling and referring to them as "standards" then the debate with him is pointless for the most part. I was never arguing about those things and I don't think that's what Dave Meltzer means by "standards." In fact I know it's not what he means because he always refers to these things in the context of discussing rating, reviewing, analyzing older matches. When pressed he always will make the case that without knowing the context you can't properly discuss these things. And then if you push him farther he will play the "wrestlers say this" card or "you weren't there." I'll give an example. Last year Dave and I got into a minor spat over the High Flyers. I mentioned in passing that they were an underrated team who have a lot of plusses as HoF candidates (or that's how I remember it) while being careful not to advocate for them specifically. Dave responded by saying they were okay, but didn't really get over big, and would get booed and mocked when he saw them live. Now I have no way of knowing if Dave is lying, misremembering or telling the truth about what he saw in the Bay Area. But here is what I do know. I had just watched all the 80's AWA footage that exists. I had spent tons of time talking and reading the work of AWA historians and fans who grew up/lived through that run. I could see the live crowds reacting huge to the High Flyers, and I could see the live attendance patterns of shows they main evented (particularly in hot feuds) being very good, frankly much better in terms of big buildings than a lot of more highly touted HoF candidate teams. I pointed out this Dave publicly and privately. His response was basically "you weren't there so you don't know." While I think it is fair to say there are some things that have to be experienced in person in order to appreciate them on a visceral and intense level, I thought then, and think now that to be that dismissive of something on the grounds of "you weren't there" is not only extremely unproductive, but the exact opposite of what a wrestling historian should be doing (to be fair to Dave I don't know that he sees himself as a historian per se, though he absolutely is, and a great one at that). Notably when I pulled a quote from Jim Melby about how highly he regarded Brunzell/Gagne as a unit that was the end of the conversation. It was an appeal to an authority Dave respects and maybe that's why. Maybe he was just tired of dealing with me. But it was a fitting end given how Dave - and those with general opinion - often treat the issue of "context" and thinking about old matches/history. Again it's important to note that this is not about Dave really, but the idea that follows from this argument, which is an argument that I see a lot of places. I agree with Matt's point about every match (or damn near every match) having some sort of context that helps with understanding things, which is why I think it's completely ridiculous to apply this argument only to older matches. Another sub-argument that is related is the issue of style bias and just bias in general. It's funny because Joe recently went on a rant on the VOW podcast about selling, a rant that he expected me to completely disagree with. But even though I favor selling as much or more than any other component of a wrestling match, I wasn't bothered with his rant really because I think it hit home on the important truth that we often cut slack to certain guys/promotions/et we like that we wouldn't with others. That's a completely fair point and one I think we should consider. It should also lead to more debate and discussion not less. How does that relate to all of this? Well one of the other things that Dave (and Joe to in this case) will say is that just because you aren't a particular fan of a style, that doesn't mean you shouldn't give credit to guys for working to accomplish what they set out to do within a style. Here I think the big picture point is correct - DG should not book for me, and the guys should work for their audience. I myself will give credit to DG for that, particularly from a business perspective. But what I won't do is change what I believe is the minimum standard for a quality wrestling match to fit a particular style. Why? Because while I can acknowledge that different things are for different people, I don't have to believe - and don't believe - that all styles are created equal.

I was always talking about standards as the way to judge a match and I believe that is the way Dave generally uses the term too. More on context and Dave's way of using that idea later

Are you ready to tell me that the Stecher match is representative of modern wrestling? If standards don't change, it should be, right? I don't think there is a universal standard of good and bad, because I don't feel the need to bolster my subjective views, by referring to them as objective. Having said that I do have a standard that I apply to basically all matches. I am not in a position to watch that match now so I can not answer whether or not that standard applies

I don't have to use extremes to make my point. I can use the standard bearer's of the industry. The top two stars in U.S. wrestling use a fireman's carry and a running knee for a finish. The top two stars in Japan use a frogsplash and a clothesline. My favorite worker in Mexico uses a La Magistral cradle as his "kill shot." These aren't exceptions as I could run down a huge list of guys who use relatively basic spots to finish people. They are able to do it because of the context/presentation of the individual spot, and the ways heat have been built in the matches around that context. While I agree that there is no universal standard (with Bill), when I am talking about the baseline for good wrestling I am talking about those elements. They don't really change so far as I can tell. I agree with Tim Cooke's point on Dave Meltzer. For reasons that I can't really blame him for, you really can't have an interesting/good argument with him about these sort of things online. Not only has Dave hunkered down into a position on this subject, but he assumes that most of the people willing to go tit for tat with him on anything are either idiots, being willfully obtuse, or just trolls. I have gone tit for tat with Dave both privately in emails and publicly on his forums (and other forums). I'd like to think Dave respects me enough not to be totally dismissive of the things I say, but the argument Dave has made here goes FAR beyond Dave himself (as I said earlier in the thread) and absolutely does speak to the value of discussing old wrestling, wrestlers and matches. I am more than willing to admit that I have my biases as a fan, and I absolutely have a vested interest in arguing against the viewpoint Dave has expressed. Just like anyone who is paying any attention would see that Dave has a vested interest in arguing against any sort of re-evaluation of wrestling canon's that he effectively created (and actually if Dave stopped there I wouldn't have near the issue with it but that's a separate point). If you read my first post I don't think it's full blown martyr at all, but then you are a guy who has a schtick largely built around saying those who disagree with you are "mental" and/or fleeing from discussion because the argument is circular. Admittedly I will debate something to death, even if it is completely uninteresting to most readers.

I don't have to use extremes to make my point. I can use the standard bearer's of the industry. The top two stars in U.S. wrestling use a fireman's carry and a running knee for a finish. The top two stars in Japan use a frogsplash and a clothesline. My favorite worker in Mexico uses a La Magistral cradle as his "kill shot." These aren't exceptions as I could run down a huge list of guys who use relatively basic spots to finish people. They are able to do it because of the context/presentation of the individual spot, and the ways heat have been built in the matches around that context. While I agree that there is no universal standard (with Bill), when I am talking about the baseline for good wrestling I am talking about those elements. They don't really change so far as I can tell.

I will say that I do enjoy Joe's martyr act manifesting itself a couple of pages ago, then radio silence, then a return as a sort of Sean Hannity-like angry man avenging the common sense point of view Personal standards are irrelevant. That's a fancy way to say taste. None of us are in control of changing standards. It just happens and it is out of your control. Anybody who says "standards haven't changed for me" is either talking about personal standards of what they enjoy (taste), or is being willfully ignorant. This isn't nearly as complicated as some of you guys are making it. Things evolve. How can this even be argued? I'm slack jawed at stunned at some of the things i'm reading in this thread. To keep my sanity intact, I just keep telling myself that some of you guys are misunderstanding and thinking i'm saying modern = better, and failing to understand that what i'm pushing here is context dependent. Nothing stands still. Things move forward, for better or worse. Standards will always change. Personal standards are what you have consistently cited. Just because you don't acknowledge this doesn't mean it isn't true.

I'm having a brutal week, so it's hard to answer some of these things the way I would like to, but I would note that the caricature Joe presented of old wrestling, is just as bad as the caricature he accuses others of presenting about "MOVEZ." I think one thing we can learn from watching old footage (or new footage of MOVEZ guys if you are on the other end) is that these stereotypes are often times way off point. This may seem like an unrelated point, but it's key to me because when I think about the basic standards of what it takes to have a good match I can think of no reason why they wouldn't apply to matches in both 1950 and 2000, even if I prefer the way a match is crafted in one promotion v. another.

Actually Torito v. Hornswaggle is my legit pick for feud of the year.

Highlights of the show were divas, midgets and a Sheamus/Del Rio match. Think about that.

I'm not so sure of this. Mike Quackenbush said they had interest in Reckless Youth and himself but they declined joining ECW because of the drug culture in the back. A lot of those newer indy guys might have passed on working there for similar reasons. I wouldn't believe anything Quack said.

My favorite two video games of all time are Galaga and Yars Revenge

I've said it before, but generally speaking I think innovation is the least important thing in wrestling, and I prefer formula to innovation 99 out of 100 times.

The finish to Kerry/Flair sucked cock for any time. The level of stars involved is what made it work. Your point about Starrcade was fundamentally about offense as I recall (and I didn't agree with it). Forgive me for ignoring your echo of OJ's point in lieu of the non-stop references to athleticism/offense which you now are pretending you were forced into making.

Eric Bischoff got the heel authority figure over

None of the top heels are over right now, aside from Bray who isn't even really a heel

Joe, athleticism and offense is the only thing you've brought up when this has come up both on twitter, on your podcast and in this thread. I can't make your arguments for you. No one in this thread has argued wrestlers aren't capable of doing new/different things now.

Another point worth making is that one can acknowledge the difference in styles, and also believe that not all styles are created equally.

How is acknowledging style bias as being real - something I have never once denied - the same thing as claiming you can't compare across styles? Your stance has everything to do with bias, and you can't even see it because you are unwilling or unable to acknowledge that your viewpoint on athleticism/moves is not indicative of a universal standard.

By presentation I mean that there has to be some sort of structure that you can at least follow which makes sense for the promotion in question.

I don't see any reason why athleticism would be an inherent advantage, beyond a certain baseline one needs to not look completely ridiculous (i.e. ability to run the ropes). Athleticism can and does often help matches, but I don't think better athletes are necessarily more likely to be better wrestlers. And some of my favorite wrestlers were/are outstanding athletes

Answering Will: "I'll retract this if I find your answer later in this thread but what are the standards you think have remained constant from say... 1983 until the present day? I think we have already established that what people want from their wrestling is a matter of taste." The general standard of what I consider a good match is pretty close to universal. At bare minimum it has to have solid presentation, building of heat, milking of big moments. How these things are done may change from era to era or promotion to promotion, but that is skeleton of what I look for whether I am watching something from 1948 or 2008