W2BTD

I will say that using people like Norman Smiley, Regal, Del Rey, bringing in Lance Storm, etc, is a good in theory because these are people well versed in many styles. The problem is at the end of the day, it's the WWE Performance Center teaching WWE style. And there will come a day where the entire roster is made up of PC trainees, which could mean a future of an entire roster made up of Darren Young's & Mojo Rawley's & CJ Parker's & whoever else, who only know what WWE showed them, and it could make for a very bland, generic, monotonously sterile working style.

It's way to early to assess the success of NXT or the performance center. There are some early signs that due to the smaller, smarkish Full Sail crowd, some acts are getting over better in the small room than they can on the main roster. Every indie has the charming home town act that 300 people go insane for, but would never work for a broader audience. This is a trap they will have to avoid, and may have already fallen into (Rose). People are raving about the performance center, and obviously it's an impressive facility, but i'm not so sure that is a better environment for up & coming wrestlers than working all over the country, or even the world. I think the performance center is great thing for people like Sami Zayn or Sami Callihan or people who clearly already know how to work and just need to learn "WWE things", like how they want you to do promos, or when it's ok/not ok to look into cameras, or how they want you to convey yourself pre & post match, etc. There are a million subtle nuances that fans don't even notice anymore on a WWE produced television show. The best workers in the world (which Zayn arguably was when he signed) still need to learn these things and master them before they are thrown on TV. But in terms of training wrestlers off the street, such as college football players or models or green indie guys? Jury is out. Sure, it's a cool building with all sorts of great tools, but i'm not sure Bill DeMott & Joey Mercury training you from scratch and never learning anything other than what WWE wants to show you is better than cutting your teeth on the road like has been done forever. The best workers & most over acts in NXT are almost always the good indie workers they sign, and not the "WWE assembly line create-a-wrestler" off the street types. Let's pump the brakes on the performance center & NXT until we have a few years worth of evidence, is all i'm saying.

As I work my way back through 1988 & 1989 Clash's & PPV's (particularly the Clash's), the running theme is that The Fantastics are the best workers on nearly every show they appear on. I remembered them being really good, but they were really, REALLY good. And '88-'89 may not even be their peak. I'm a Midnight's fan but The Fantastics blow them away during the period. Anyway, I couldn't find a thread, so here it is. Let's talk about The Fantastics. Interested to see what people think, and i'll have more detailed thoughts later.

I do not think that if you are a better athlete, that makes you a better wrestler. Or that since better athletes reside in one era as opposed to another, that this means the wrestling has to be better as a result. BUT, what I do firmly believe, is that stronger athletes have a firm advantage over weaker athletes in potentially developing into or becoming better wrestlers. Obviously the weaker athlete can overcome the athletic advantage of the stronger athlete, but the very first tool i'm choosing if i'm building a wrestler is supreme athletic ability. Other things can be taught or developed, but a great athlete has natural advantages and the ability to do things that the weaker athlete can not. It's a sliding scale. The weaker the athlete you are, the stronger you have to be in other areas.

If you consider wrestlers athletes, and I do, then yes, there is no question wrestlers on the whole are better athletes now than they were 20 years ago, 40 years ago, 60 years ago. Unless you can prove that wrestling was pulling from more athletic pools in the past than wrestling does today, then this has to be the case. And even then, i'd still side with the modern wrestlers being better athletes. Humans are always getting bigger/faster/stronger. Athletes in every sport on the planet are better athletes than the people who played those sports 20 years ago. Compare Olympic records from 1994 to 2014. Or 1974 to 1994. For every Backlund, Brisco, & Gagne you can counter with Angle, Benjamin, Lesnar. You can always find exceptions and outliers but athletes are always getting better, it never goes backwards.

Actually I kind of like Kofi, so I apologize. He isn't great or anything and he never improves, but he's inoffensive. Sorry man.

To go back a few pages to the baseball analogies, Red Bastien or Antonino Rocca would be Bob Feller, Jimmy Snuka or Tiger Mask would be Nolan Ryan, and Ricochet or AR Fox or Flamita or Dragon Kid or Evan Bourne or ACH or Mascara Dorada would be Justin Verlander. And Kofi Kingston would be in AAA. Or something like that. I just wanted to take a shot at Kofi.

LOL, exactly. What i'm saying is not terribly complex or controversial, but somehow it's being dissected to an irrational degree for what it is. It really is a basic, simple point.

These will be in a somewhat chronological order as I think of them: time limit draws near falls gimmicks masks elaborate robes elaborate ring attire heels & babyfaces rope running leaping off of the turnbuckles using the turnbuckles as a weapon visually impressive looking holds that would not be effective in a shoot throws more complex finishes more exciting looking highspots flying head scissors as state of the art flying managers heel managers cheating cheating heel managers blood foreign objects valets promos brawling outside of the ring no DQ matches closed fists angles post match brawls pre match attacks run ins matches that don't take place in a ring tag team matches six man tag team matches eight man tag team matches elimination tag team matches babyface in peril top rope splash as state of the art flying signature moves as finishes head drops stiff bombs table spots fire inter-gender matches entrance music moonsaults as state of the art flying MMA holds tapping out to submit pyro theatrical storytelling/psychology heel authority figures wacky flipz & topes as state of the art flying You get the idea. I can list a million more. At some point in time, each of these things failed to exist. All were created or innovated to add more excitement to the matches or in some cases, the presentation of the matches. New moves, different pacing, new layers of psychology, whatever. And over the course of time, when these changes pile up, you end up with a change of standards that is very hard (if not impossible) to go back from. If you eliminate everything from this list, you are left with two bland looking men exchanging worked amateur wrestling holds. Had wrestling never evolved, had the standards never changed, we would still be looking at two bland men exchanging worked wrestling holds. How is this so hard to understand? The standards are constantly changing. Good or bad doesn't matter. Personal taste is irrelevant. The standards change whether you like it or not. That's how the world works. Things evolve. Nothing stays stagnant.

See, by admitting you need context, that is inherently admitting that the standards have changed. Otherwise, the context wouldn't be needed.

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 think there is a universal standard of good & bad either. That's part of the problem here that nobody can seem to grasp. I am not saying that modern = better!! I am also not saying that old matches can not be enjoyed. I am also not saying that old matches can not be broken down or judged or rated or analyzed. I AM saying these things need to be done in context, because standards ch-well, you know. This is the divide. This is the one facet of this where I agree wholeheartedly with Meltzer.

I absolutely will flee when it becomes circular. Because at that point, what is the point? Both sides have made their case, and if nobody is budging or even understanding the other, why repeat the same things over & over? That would be ment...well, you know. But in all seriousness, I do think it's crazy to take a stance that standards never change. I don't even believe that you believe that. It isn't possible. I believe that you are bogged down in the minutia of the very basics of wrestling psychology largely remaining intact, and clearly agitated about Meltzer marginalizing something you enjoy. So here we are.

Are you ready to tell me that the Stecher match is representative of modern wrestling? If standards don't change, it should be, right?

Sometimes, a conversation can be far too complex for its own good, which leads to missing the forest through the trees. This is one of those times. Somebody tell me that the 1920 Joe Stecher match I posted is representative of what you watch on USA on Monday nights or in VFW halls on a Saturday afternoon or on USTREAM at 3am, so I can chalk this up to insanity and move on. I prefer to accept that things change and evolve over time, including the standards of which these things are held to. Dylan, there can't be a more common sense point of view than that. And its funny that you accuse me of doing a martyr act, when this entire thread only exists because Meltzer sent you into full martyr mode, because you feel incredibly slighted at the idea that something you enjoy was marginalized (breaking down & enjoying old footage). Let's be fair here. And i've stated about a thousand times in this thread alone that jst because I feel standards change, does not mean old footage can not be analyzed & enjoyed (I do both). So if you have a bone to pick with Big Dave on that front, go pick it with him.

Dylan, i'm using extremes to attempt to make my point, because i'm clearly not getting through with people. I don't know how many times I have to say it, but I agree that the basics of storytelling & psychology remain largely (but not identically) the same. It's the means to tell those stories or achieve a response from crowds or create excitement in a bout that have, and always will, constantly evolve & change.

If standards never changed and wrestling never evolved, RAW would look like this: This conversation is bordering on mental. Is this an elaborate troll? If so, you guys got me.

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. I don't really disagree with any of this, which is why the sports analogies don't really work beyond the idea that you can and should respect the greats of the past despite the fact that they aren't, by the most technical & strictest of definitions, as good as the players of today, and the idea of that being irrelevant in evaluation.

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.

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.

Can you honestly tell me that somehow the base roots of wrestling being to entertain and make money have changed? Or that the base root for every wrestler to bump and supply fake offense have changed? Those are objective elements within wrestling, they do not change and never will change. What you keep talking about are subjective elements, which grow out of the objective standards that never do change. This is true for any art form in any medium, wrestling is no different. The means of which to entertain & make money have changed. Best of three falls title matches which were worked like total amateur style shoots and went 90 minutes used to be the norm. People filled baseball stadiums to watch stuff like that. Try that today. By your theory, it's the same basics of entertaining and making money, right? You're referring the method of delivery, which has never been an objective standard. That's the same as film switching from black and white to color, the method of delivery changed (although just as in wrestling the old method never actually went away and is still used from time to time), but the basic concept the method is trying to achieve did not change. Subjective elements can change and morph over time, objective elements can not because objective is something that is hard and true throughout time. What you are referring to as the "subjective elements" are what i'm referring to as "standards". We are essentially saying the same thing. The standards (subjective elements) to achieve the basics (objective elements, as in stoytelling/psychology, to draw money etc) is what changes. Not the core basics.

Bingo. Although I will say, I think standards changing do make it very difficult to compare wrestlers & matches from drastically different eras to one another, but that's an argument I have with Dylan all of the time and probably requires a new thread. I'm not even comfortable comparing wrestlers from the same era who work drastically different styles.

Absolutely. I've brought that up a million times.

The part about your argument that I do not get is this: if you feel standards change, that means that 1989 wrestling is worse than 2014 wrestling. That just isn't true. If standards change, then things are getting better. There are parts that are better and there are parts that are worse. False. I never, ever said or made the argument that wrestling constantly gets better over time. I said standards change. For better or worse. Two totally different things. You may very well prefer to watch that 90 minute best of three falls world title match I alluded to consisting of 90% matwork contested by gimmickless men in plain black tights. It is 100% opinion based whether that is better or worse, but it is indisputable that standards have changes since that was the norm.

Can you honestly tell me that somehow the base roots of wrestling being to entertain and make money have changed? Or that the base root for every wrestler to bump and supply fake offense have changed? Those are objective elements within wrestling, they do not change and never will change. What you keep talking about are subjective elements, which grow out of the objective standards that never do change. This is true for any art form in any medium, wrestling is no different. The means of which to entertain & make money have changed. Best of three falls title matches which were worked like total amateur style shoots and went 90 minutes used to be the norm. People filled baseball stadiums to watch stuff like that. Try that today. By your theory, it's the same basics of entertaining and making money, right?

What this comes down to, is Dylan and some others are insulted because they are equating the idea of standards changing & evolution to rendering the analysis of old footage moot. Well, that isn't true, and i'm not entirely sure why that conclusion was jumped to. Of course standards change. No, the very basics of psychology and engaging the audience do not, but the means of which to achieve that certainly change & evolve constantly, and always will. And that doesn't render watching or breaking down old footage meaningless. Why would it? Things considered state of the art or progressive in 1975 are no longer state of the art or progressive in 2014, and things state of the art or progressive in 2014 won't be in 2050. Doesn't mean we can't go back in 2050 and break down what occurred in 2014.