concrete1992

Goodness me I do love some lists. Good stuff.

World Council is debating the issue.

I don't see it that way, or at least read it that way. Wrestlers themselves just appear to be better athletes in the big picture compared to back whenever. Which isn't saying wrestling hasn't or isn't about extreme athletes but over time athletes have gained a greater ceiling for their athleticism. I think it is easy to just state "MOVEZ" but things such as the speed which Mascara Dorada runs around the ring or the strength Cesaro exhibits with some his pop-up uppercuts go beyond simply "Well now they can hit a 450 splash every match and no one finds that A)incredible B)out of the norm". PS Highlighting "moves" in that manner is indeed the best way to get a point over.

So when you checking out some lucha there TH.

Nothing else matters outside of the potshot against Kofi. I agree with inoffensive. But he's inoffensive in the largest company in DA WORLD!

My conclusion is this topic really doesn't hold value. YAY! Cause the thought of "standards changing" is being interpreted to this weird point. Like I think core values have stayed the same but the tools being used are different. Does that mean standards have changed? X says yes and Y says no. I will say random great from 1982 can not be just a great for the context of his time but in the grand scheme. Then again there may be wrestlers who were considered great because of "innovation" at the time that is a style that really just stays in history because of a guy like Ricochet. Ricochet might be one of those, "great flyers for his time" kind of guys. I think that is a modern bias in itself. Do I think Ricochet is neat cause he's doing things others aren't or do some of the things really hold up? I don't know since I don't necessarily think like Dylan and others who can almost instantly view wrestling on a flat line. That isn't me exactly. I mean, I can be swayed by the awesome move I haven't seen before. PS Got sidetracked while writing this so not exactly sure where I left off so I'm ending it there. K!

I'm constantly cheering faces and jeering heels at my local shows but seems like the only way most others know how to show any interest is through chant. I saw sat through a 20+ minute Chris Hero vs. Colin Delaney match clapping and cheering most of the time cause I was enjoying it. Most others sat on their hands. then going towards the closing stretch they felt like cheering "This is Awesome!". To be fair I joined in on cause I was enjoying myself but why aren't these people showing their joy during the match that is what they call awesome? It is so supremely annoying.

Not really. Bob Feller is a better pitcher than the 100 random modern day middle relievers who throw harder than him, even though Feller would be worse than those guys if he was time warped into 2014. It doesn't matter how well Feller would perform in 2014, it only matters how he performed in the context of his own era. And in the context of his own era, he is an all time great. It is not fair or even relevant to compare his skill set to modern era pitchers. It is not his fault the standards changed over the course of 60 years. This is not apples to apples with wrestling, because wrestling is not a real sport, and is a performance. But the idea is similar. The performance standards have changed over time. It's up to you to decide if you think it has been for the better, and it is up to you to understand the context if you wish to compare what Jack Brisco did to what Ricochet or John Cena or MItsuhara Misawa or Sami Zayn or Masada does. BLARGH! It was more that it isn't an apples to apples comparison. With baseball, if you throw a picture from 1980 into 2014 then they wouldn't perform statistically well or whatever. For a sport it is all about being great for your time. You don't need to be stronger, faster, whatever than whatever is current. With wrestling you can have a 1980s Lawler be awesome then throw a 50+ year old Lawler with less tools than before into 2011 and still be awesome. Being stronger, faster, or whatever isn't of that great of importance. The performance transcends time so you can compare a 1970s match to a 2014 one. I know you don't like to though Joe. Which in itself is fair. At this point I agree standards change but at the same time I'm not exactly sure if I agree with the way we're looking at standards as a whole haha.

The hindrance with a real sport analogy is standards changing does mean better. Well especially the way you just used it. A higher amount of people throwing 95+ MPH is a direct improvement. Granted I don't watch as many sports as I did in my teens so you might be able to strengthen that up for me with ways the players play that might not be an improvement over their predecessors. I'm sure there probably are.

I'm on the, it is unacceptable it disrupts the flow of the match, bandwagon. You can be sloppy and still have it flow well. Trying to re-do a spot is like a comic trying to re-do a joke he flubbed but his ability to improvise can make up for the mistake and sometimes more-so.

Yeah, I was typing that as the whole agreeing thing about "Standards don't always change for the better" was going on haha. But yeah, not being able to skip that sorta stuff is a good example. Also, completely agree. Not a big fan of discussing the latest SCOOPZ

That seems to be the hardest part of this whole thing. What are the "standards"? Is it simply the core values that make up the art form or is it about the whole package? If there were to be a wrestling TV show pop up tomorrow and it was standard definition, had generic looking graphics that looked like they got pulled from some sort of Microsoft template, and was filmed in a high school gym then it wouldn't probably wouldn't meet the standards of a wrestling show. Presentation isn't an art form or the sort but nailing down the meaning of "standards" would greatly enhance my comprehension of this whole thread. I believe the basics of wrestling still hold true but wrestling is different than it is from years gone by. But I don't know if that classifies a change of standards versus just a general change of what is presented/can be presented. You can deliver a pixelated indie platformer with super responsive controls that would not seem out of place in the NES or SNES era but a modern gamer could find as much joy from it than anyone else would have from that NES/SNES era to today. But what we expect from that genre really hasn't changed which is possibly why its value still holds. Same with RPGs. You can deliver a FF3 type of game in 2014 and those RPG fans will still love it. Maybe I've just went into a tangent that really doesn't mean anything in this topic but maybe it'll add a hair.

Is John Cena Call of Duty? Consistently good at what it does and though massively popular there are pockets that truly dread it. Okay, maybe a question for another time and place.

Are you sure that is a glitch with the player and not with the browser or whatever? Cause I used Chrome and had absolutely zero issues.

I'm not sure if an actual answer can really be argued cause a lot of this question depends on your view of several different things. Well I'm not long form enough to really develop of fabulous thought but I'm probably going to end up reiterating a bunch of points. I try to look at it as the way we evaluate isn't so much different from how we may have evaluated 10-20 years ago but maybe the components that make up the standard have altered bias. Want quality match structure but do you prefer one layout versus another? Like bumps but does Silver Star's splat get you blood pumping like Ishii dropping someone on his noggin? Feels like we are evaluating similar between people and time but the way we enjoy certain aspects is different(tastes). But hey, maybe I'm totally off base haha.

I'm going to write more but I feel like we just got news anchored. GREATNESS!

Always try to get some people to abandon their perception of the style and try it. This is now just gonna be what I tweet people. Fantastic stuff.

I like how this starts nice and all like "We can have different opinions and that is awesome" and then ends making me feel like something is supposed to be wrong with me. But yeah, as of right now Cena vs. Wyatt is leading WMOTY for me. It reached absurd levels of absurdness. Kane vs. Byan wasn't anything I really enjoyed. Felt EXTREMELY(no pun intended) corny.

Voted for Zayn vs. Cesaro for being great and all. I'd keep NXT in there. Serial Network shows I think should stay in general.

That seems fair all around.

Can we link to the pick then when it is decided? Probably would make things easiest.

Feels like Neville's title win has been downplayed, probably because the stream died for the win, but PAC of ALL people winning a title in the main event of a show in the WWE universe is one crazy thing. I'm interested to see how they do these bigger NXT events going forward. Arrival certainly felt like a good first impression from the opener being great, the women's match being the best WWE women's match since the last Emma vs Paige match which was the best women's match in WWE since I don't know when. Then they main evented with a ladder match. Pulling for gimmick PPVs because GIMMICKS... and I'm weird.

Just gonna leave 4 Corners Radio right here... http://4crwrestling.com/ Yeah...

Is there a true reason for the "closing"? The idea of it closing for financial reasons would force me to think that Quack is the most inept businessman that has ever lived.

So got home from classes and sprinted through these. Okay so I found at least elements of all these fun. Gonna do some ranking because LISTS: 5.NAO vs. Rhodes Brothers(Cage Match): Well Rhodes bothers I was enjoying and then that ending happened...O_O 4.Sheamus vs. Ryback: OK, so this was a LOT better than I would have thought. Fun big man match. Sheamus is still a jerk and Brogue Kicked Axel. Started laughing my arse off with Ryback going airborne. The Brogue Kick counter was swell. 3.Big E., Kofi, Rey vs. SHIELD: I don't remember the last time the Shield put on a trios match I didn't enjoy. Same apply hears. Rey gets to come in off a hot tag and looks awesome and Big E gets a hot tag throwing some BODY around. 2.Daniel Bryan vs. Randy Orton: Enjoyable main event that got time. Had a big-ish feel to it. 1.Daniel Bryan vs. Cesaro: So not at the length of the Orton match but I tend to favor shorter stuff. They had a good chunk of fun stuff like UPPERCUTS and it is Cesaro vs Bryan. What's not to like?