W2BTD

We're talking about two different things here. You boiled down indie wrestling to unskilled spot moneys doing movez & flipz and badly copying Japan. I was pointing out that there is major, major variance in style & feel in indie wrestling. That is what I thought you were asking about.

Yes, i'm clearly the only one digging their heels in when it comes to this beaten to death topic. C'mon, Dylan.

Chikara, PWG, CZW, NWA SAW, ROH, etc , etc I would argue that my group is more diverse than your group. Chikara is a family friendly character driven living comic book, CZW has toned down over the years but is still a very adult oriented promotion that will break out the blood a good deal, PWG is a super fast paced small room workrate promotion where everybody is constantly trying to top themselves, NWA SAW is traditional southern style, ROH is the progression of the indie style of a decade ago, etc. There is no way you can confuse any of those promotions for one another, the styles are very very different. I am from the east coast, and moved to Texas. The wrestling I see down here is vastly different than the wrestling I was accustomed to in the Philly/NY area. The old territories had the advantage of offering more full time work than today, that is for sure. They also offered a chance to work in front of bigger crowds. But the diversity is still there, and I would argue today's wrestling is even more diverse. A guy like El Generico worked everywhere, and it shows. There is also the differences between working small rooms and large arenas. It cuts both ways. I constantly see ex-WWE wrestlers struggle to adapt to indie style. WWE sends everybody to NXT regardless of skill level for that same reason, but in reverse. It;s not to "teach them how to work", it's to teach them how to work WWE. There is no one set of "proper" wrestling psychology. I think that is a major, major disconnect in these discussions.

Indeed. But to me this has nothing to do with workrate. This is the definition of a spotfest. And a spotfest can also have terrible workrate, meaning sloppy execution, useless stiffness, bad selling, contrived spots, bad setups etc… That's the problem I have with this whole question, I feel like we're confusing spotfest and workrate a bit here (and that is my issue with a lot of exemples you gave in your first post when you refered to what the word "workrate" makes you think about, Matt). Part of the issue is the term workrate has multiple meanings now, as I alluded to in my first reply. And that is coming through in this thread.

Amazing. First of all, if you don't want to have a discussion with me, fine. That doesn't offend me. Don't reply. There are people here I don't want to engage, so I don't. This post is also a good example of why I take large chunks of time away from this board. I hear Loss & others claim they want to diversify the site, but some of you guys are so non-receptive to the non group think that goes on here that you take any contrary posts as some sort of trolling. Sorry if you think i'm just poking you. I re read my post, and I dont think it comes off that way (especially on a site where the smarm level is often set at 100), but whatever. I can see why people like Alan or rovert barely ever post here, and why this site had trouble attracting alternative views. For a site that prides themselves on "we question everything" & "we challenge everything", some of you really don't like being challenged or engaged. Who wants to deal with it?

This is a staggeringly misguided post on so many levels that I don't even know where to start. - The idea that the talent pool is wider or deeper now than when there were 40 active territories doing good business around the US and Canada (not to mention what was going on in Japan, Mexico and Europe) is absolutely laughable. How can you even think that? I'm not even having a go, I'm just completely baffled as to how anyone can actually belief there is *more* "great, exceptional worldwide talent" now than in the heyday of the territorial system. It's bonkers. - The reasons for this are not very hard to see: 1. By the time a guy who came up through the old system of 30, he might have legitimately worked big shows in Georgia, the Carolinas, the Twin Cities, Florida, New York, St. Louis, Memphis, Portland, LA, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Tokoyo. That's big shows, in front of big, paying crowds. 2. Each of these places was run by wrestling people who knew their shit. Guys like Eddie Graham, Sam Muchnik, Vince Sr, Verne Gagne, Bill Watts, and so on -- they could put together finishes, they had guys who knew how to put a match together, they understood psychology. Compare any of those guys to your standard indie promoter and the latter is blown out of the water in terms of knowledge of the audience, practical know-how, knowledge of wrestling, knowledge of work. etc. 3. Talent could gain experience working in front of different types of crowds. Working at MSG was different from working at the Omni was different at working at the Mid-South Coliseum was different to working at the Kiel in St. Louis. Different crowds legitimately raised on different products. Today, the indie crowds are nothing like that. No indie promotion has "raised" its audience. The indie fan in London is the same as the indie fan in Texas. Why? They all grow up watching the same product. Even your diehard hardcores into ROH still have only that as their real basis of comparison. "THIS IS AWESOME". "Holy shit! Holy Shit!" etc. So the idea that that generic indie environment can give you the same sort of on-the-job training as the old territories is totally nuts. Totally. 5. Instead what you get is guys watching wrestling on TV, getting some basic training in how to throw a suplex and do a moonsault, and other such spots, and then going in like headless chickens trying to copy their favourite Japanese stars (or whatever). Let's say a guy is lucky enough to get a contract with WWE developmental. With the best will in the world, do you think that the training they are goinig to get is going to compare with working in front of 10,000 people on real, paid for shows? Seriously? 6. Even if you allow for idea that "raw workrate" today is more than it was in the 70s and 80s, how are you replacing the knowledge and experience? Where does the psychology come from? How can someone accrue the hours in the ring in front of real crowds necessary to acquire a real FEEL for the crowd and how to work them? How do you create ring generals? "Raw workrate" can't substitute for any of that. I don't think the talent pool is necessarily deeper or wider, but I know it's better overall. Especially in the United States. And all of this... Today, the indie crowds are nothing like that. No indie promotion has "raised" its audience. The indie fan in London is the same as the indie fan in Texas. Why? They all grow up watching the same product. Even your diehard hardcores into ROH still have only that as their real basis of comparison. "THIS IS AWESOME". "Holy shit! Holy Shit!" etc. So the idea that that generic indie environment can give you the same sort of on-the-job training as the old territories is totally nuts. Totally. 5. Instead what you get is guys watching wrestling on TV, getting some basic training in how to throw a suplex and do a moonsault, and other such spots, and then going in like headless chickens trying to copy their favourite Japanese stars (or whatever). ...sounds completely ignorant, because it it is. You are someone who hasn't bothered to watch modern wrestling, so you are talking directly out of your ass. Another thing. This idea that psychology was sooo much better in the past is another giant pile of bullshit. Simpler? Sure. Better? Matter of opinion. Just as athletic standards move forward, so does everything else. Psychology that worked in 1973 might not work today, for a million different reasons. The High Flyers & Santana/Martel exchanging side headlock takeover for 20 minutes, or Lawler hiding a chain and playing hide & seek with the ref may have worked great in its time, but now matches like that are largely antiquated. Adapt or die. Or, keep holding on to 1982 while the rest of the world adapts. Both are options.

Saying "I don't care about/I don't need a high workrate" makes zero sense. It would be like saying "I only care about the plot on a movie". Yes, ultimately the psychology is what matters most (sometimes this isn't true, but I don't want to derail this), but why wouldn't you want it delivered in an aesthetically pleasing way? You can tell the greatest in ring story ever, but if the work is lazy or shitty, that's no different than a movie with a great plot filled with shitty actors, a cheap looking set, and a bad director. This idea that "PWO has moved on from workrate mattering" is bullshit. I don't buy that. I believe that some of you may think this is true, but it isn't. You can't move away from workrate mattering. Take a step back from that and listen to how absurd that sounds. Why WOULDN'T you want wrestlers working hard? It makes no sense. Good workrate can never be a negative. You can be missing the other ingredients, but good workrate can never be a bad thing to have. And workrate is the one component of a wrestling match that can most easily cover the other flaws. This is why a short sprinty spotfest will always hold surface entertainment value. "Workrate doesn't matter" is a lie, even if you don't realize it is.

Technically "workrate" simply refers to how hard the participants work, regardless of the quality of the work. Obviously over the years though, it has become a word that has taken on several different meanings. Many times when I write a review, I will say something like "the workrate here was very high, but the story didn't grab me", meaning i'm giving them credit for the physical element of the match even if the story being told (or lack of one) never connected with me. By the strict definition, you can have a great low workrate match, or a terrible high workrate match. Over the years, the term has sort of morphed into meaning something eiher positive or negative based on the quality of the match as opposed to simply the physical effort.

Bill is right on the money. I have been touting Titus all year as a hidden gem. If you have the Network, I strongly urge you to go back and watch all of the Titus stuff from Superstars this year, especially the Big E & Kofi matches Bill mentioned. Good match to match psychology, which is something i'm big on. Titus is equally great rag dolling smaller guys like Kofi or in a HOSS FIGHT with Big E. Superstars as a whole has featured a bunch of good little self contained mini feuds this year. Aside from those two Titus series, you've had the recent Emma vs Alicia Fox three match series, the Justin Gabriel/Sin Cara best of three that just wrapped up, and a few others. I dislike the theatrical over-the-top nature of WWE storylines, so the simplicity of Superstars is a nice change of pace.

WhatCulture, F4WOnline and Fighting Spirit Magainze contributor David Bixenspan joins Joe and Rich to discuss the Non-Wrestler region for the 2014 Wrestling Observer Hall of Fame! This is a category within a category with some very interesting names ranging from “Mean” Gene Okerlund to Jimmy Hart to the promoter and booker ranks with Jerry Jarrett, Jim Crockett Jr and Sr and even wrestling journalism with PWI’s Bill Apter. We discuss who should go in, who we’d vote for, voter trends, possible amendments to the ballot and much more! http://www.voicesofwrestling.com/2014/09/24/non-wrestlers-david-bixenspan/

I like him, but he can be really, really boring. I feel like he lets me down most of the time, especially when he gets overly methodical. His best stuff is in WWF. I loved that run, even if most of it was short non memorable stuff. Along with Christopher Daniels, one of the smoothest, slickest performers ever. He's like breathing silk.

Wrestling historian Matt Farmer joins Joe and Rich to discuss the Mexico region for the 2014 Wrestling Observer Hall of Fame! We discuss who should go in, the addition of trios, voter habits, HOF resumes and much more with one of the preeminent historians of this region. http://www.voicesofwrestling.com/2014/09/22/mexico-candidates-matt-farmer/

Focusing on all time great matches or main events is a little misguided. I'll assume most of us have the Network. Go watch Starracde '83 right now. How much of that brutal undercard would cut it on a WWE PPV today? Those matches don't hold up in large part because the athletic standards are much higher now, and that has nothing to do with wacky lucha dives, state of the art flying, MOVEZ~!, or a lack tope con hilos. The majority of the performers on that show are at a completely unacceptable athletic standard for 2014 WWE. Go watch a 1977 WWF house show. Same thing. This is why the volume of good & great matches today blows away any other era. There is more great, exceptional worldwide talent now than there was 20, 30, 40 years ago, and it isn't even close. The acceptable standards of a major league pro wrestling show have been raised greatly from the opener to the main event. The raw workrate is higher. There are matches on early Starrcade's that would be embarrassing on a small indie level today.

Nobody said you can't draw emotion today. At least I didn't. I said it was harder.

I think this is nonsense. It is infinitely more difficult to generate passionate emotion today than it was in 1977 in front of the slack jawed rubes at the MSC or in 1985 at Techwood Drive Studio. The more people believe, the easier it is to make them care. And a lot of it has to do with the angles. The angles were more effective back then because they were rare. Verne ran one or two per year on TV. Some RAW's have an angle in every segment. There are angles today that would be the hottest thing ever in 1981, that are forgotten by the next quarter hour in 2014. The standards are higher, it's harder to make an impact now. Wrestling created that monster themselves to some extent, but it is what it is.

The answer to most of your questions is kayfabe being dead, not anything to do with wrestling being smarter. If anything, wrestling was dumbed down in that era, because they could get away with it. What is so "smart" about heel Lawler playing hide & seek with a foreign object for an entire match? Or the babyface Lawler formula of selling & selling & selling until pulling down the strap and hitting the piledriver? Just because they could get away with simpler, more basic psychology, doesn't make it "smarter". That is complete & total Pollyanna "back in my day" bullshit. The word you guys are looking for is "simpler", not smarter.

"Wrestling was smarter back then" is just shit people say. Mostly here & DVDVR. Today is tomorrow's good old days.

I'm talking bigger picture, not incremental year to year improvement. To me, a guy with his athletic credentials, who you would think would have a very firm grasp of the mental side of things due to growing up surrounded by wrestling, should have produced a much better in ring pro wrestler. I'm sure he'll lose sleep, being one of the biggest stars ever and all, but this is what this ultra nerdy project is about. Rock always felt like a guy who wasn't as good as he should have been to me.

When dudes are exposed as complete non athletes, I can usually no longer take them very seriously or suspend my disbelief enough to enjoy them. That doesn't necessarily relate to Lawler or why I don't think much of him, but I will say he's very much a late 70's, early 80's type of wrestler, which for me was a pretty dry era loaded with guys who in my opinion would be badly exposed today due to a lack of athleticism. Not so much Lawler, who would probably get over in any era due to his charisma. With that said, I do think Lawler was very fortunate to be in the territory he happened to be in though. Even by the standards of the time, he wouldn't have been as accepted in some other places where the workrate demands were different. I would also argue that from a match quality standpoint, worldwide pro wrestling has never been better than 2013 & 2014. Of course, that's obviously a matter of opinion. I think All Japan glory days would fit right in today, as would vintage ROH (which is sort of cheating, because we're talking stuff only a few years old). Pretty much everything else is being blown to bits by what today's wrestlers are doing in the ring athletically & creatively. As a whole, high level pro wrestlers have never been smoother or as refined as they are right now, and that's because as a whole we're dealing with far superior athletes, and the training is far superior too. There is no more nonsensical & useless stretching taking place, or silly nonsense like not smartening guys up until they hit the ring for their first match. At least not in America. Look at the last two G1's, or something like Cavernario vs Rey Cometa from last night, or Bryan/Cena from last year's SummerSlam. You put this stuff on in 1987 and it obliterates all of it. And Bryan/Cena wasn't even good enough to crack my ten best matches of the year, and a guy like Cometa is hardly considered a world beater (although Cometa would be a legendary flyer with the things he can do had he been around in the 80's. Today he's just another guy.). Dolph Ziggler has TV matches practically every week that would be considered classics if they happened in the 80's. Today, he's an underachiever. The standards are higher now. Much of that is due to athleticism. I'm 100% certain the 50th best match of the year these days would win MOTY most years in the 70's & 80's. But that doesn't matter. It's only fair to compare things in the context of their own time. And it doesn't also mean that sometimes things can't transcend an era and hold up. I'm rambling way off topic now, which is supposed to be Lawler. The rest of this belongs in the dreaded "Do standards change?" thread, I guess.

I have no idea what people around here think of Harley, but I could never understand how this guy was such a major star. He perpetually looked like he was 50, wasn't much of an athlete, was a mediocre promo, and I don't think I've ever seen him in a match I liked. He was the only wrestler I've ever seen that was able to drag Flair down to his level. He was shot by 1980 but managed to stay relevant for almost a full decade after. I'm completely baffled by this dude's success. He's a guy who I always feel like i'm forcing myself to watch. I have total disinterest in him, aside from his amusing wobbly selling.

He should have been better. He was a very good athlete, and he was brought up in the business. Could be a case of a guy being so over, that there was no point in pushing yourself physically or mentally, consciously or otherwise (like Hulkamania era Hogan, who could get away with the most simplistic psychology and minimal physical effort...so, he did). At the end of the day, The Rock was an average pro wrestler with super elite charisma.

I'm confused as to why DiBiase was part of the no vote original HOF class. Not saying he doesn't belong, but I certainly don't see him as a pantheon level no brainer at all.

I am indifferent to Magnum TA as a pro wrestler, with absolutely no strong opinion in either direction whatsoever, but I will say that this man had an elite level mustache.

You might be right, but the idea that you can't possibly think Bigelow is great unless you haven't seen wall to wall Tenta or Blackwell just strikes me as closed minded. I don't think thinking Bigelow being better than somebody like Blackwell is some wacky offbeat opinion. One thing some of you guys have to keep in mind, is that some of these guys being mentioned here, particularly Tenta & Henry, are much higher regarded around these parts than in most other circles. And that's not because people haven't watched those guys wrestle. People just like different shit.

Yes. Watch a young Yatsu work at a level above 90% of the World Class roster circa 1983 or so.