W2BTD

This must be some sort of time warp fantasy land where nothing ever grows, evolves, or changes. Not wrestling, not video games, not movies, not anything. The lengths of which some of you are going to counter the very simple, indisputable (and inoffensive, which is the key here) point of "standards change" is remarkable. You guys crack me up sometimes.

Oh, Dylan. Now this is getting silly & chippy. I mean, you've already agreed with the idea that the athletic standards have clearly changed over the years, so what are we even arguing about here? I've even agreed that simply being more athletic does not magically make a match or a wrestler better. My point, which I have said repeatedly, is that standards change. Athletic, match structures, finishes, whatever. It's up to you to decide if these changes are for the better. My opinion? Some are, some are not.

BS, Dylan. I supported & cited Ohtani's idea of "cinematic" match structure a few posts back. You listen to my show, so you know i've banged that drum repeatedly as well. I also talked about match psychology changing and/or advancing. I cited the Brisco's vs Steamboat & Youngblood from Starrcade '83 as an example of this, even tossing in some examples of the basic transitions in that bout. And that's four guys considered great workers to some degree by different voices. You want more? Let's talk about the finish to Kerry/Flair, since that was already brought up. Flair being KO'd literally forever on a basic punch, or even the cage door slamming, would not be acceptable today as major events in a big time match like that. That's a simple advance in psychology, it's up to you to decide if you think it's for better or worse. If im talking about athleticism a alot, it's because that what you guys are harping on. It's also the most obvious change of standard to point to, because it's the easiest to see.

No, it's just that you guys are hyper focusing on the aspect of athleticism. Of course the basics of good wrestling never change. Telling a story, creating emotion, suspending disbelief. But the methods used to accomplish these things change & evolve. That is what you guys are failing to accept. You can talk about PSYCHOLOGY!!111!! all day long, and nobody is even arguing with you. But the methods to skin the psychology cat have evolved & changed over time, with better athleticism being *one* of those things. That also does not always equal more exciting moves, by the way. But it does mean wrestlers capable of doing all sorts of things they couldn't do before.

I also find it interesting that when I have cited style bias in the past in terms of not being able to compare certain wrestlers in any meaningful way, Dylan claims that's a cop out. Yet on this topic, Dylan is the first to toss style bias into the discussion. My stance is actually pretty simple, and has nothing to do with any sort of style bias at all. I think standards change in wrestling, just like they do in any form of entertainment. For some reason, this is being interpreted as me saying things are getting better (when in fact some new standards have clearly made things worse in my view), or that i'm shitting on the past. That to me is where the disconnect lies.

The presentation has nothing to do with the star rating of the match or the worth of the match. Every match I watch looks fucking old. I would argue that even the WWE's current product looks dated because they haven't done anything since the Attitude Era to reinvent themselves from a presentation standpoint. There ins't one thing I have seen Tanahashi or Davey Richards or Adam Cole do that a prime Brian Pillman or Jushin Liger or young Fujinami couldn't execute. Yet, I love the latter and can't watch the former. Exactly! People like Liger & Pillman & Fujinami are great examples of changing the athletic standard. Not sure why you guys seem so adverse to better athletic ability enhancing matches. Its a pretty simply concept that has held true since forever. (And again, before we go in circles, more athletic does not = automatically better. But athletic standards most definitely have changed, and will keep changing. And to me, it's foolish to think this doesn't matter.)

Film is above all a visual medium. When I was a screenwriting major, it was instilled in us that we had to write visually no matter what type of story we were telling. I watch all sorts of films, but I dislike the "filmed stage play" aesthetic immensely. I don't think we can totally dismiss athleticism. If you were to compare the Shield, for example, with 80s WWF tag wrestling then I think a big difference in the standard of quality would be athleticism, and I suppose moves too. A lot of workers who we think are great at psychology or storytelling were originally lauded for their athleticism. Bihari always likes to say that older lucha fans likely felt the same way about early 80s Casas, Fuerza and Santo that we felt about Mistico, etc. So, athleticism has always played a part, much as it does in real sports. The reason why most 90s wrestling was originally praised was because 90s wrestling ratcheted up the athleticism. I also think a lot of the psychology and storytelling type matches today are wretched because they try to be too cinematic. There's been a big change there and not for the better. But you have to wonder whether they're going in that direction for a reason. Perhaps the dramatic pre-match montage and in-match soliloquies are the new standard. Great post, and I agree that dismissing athleticism is silly. That aspect is never going backwards. Being a better athlete doesn't make you a better wrestler. That's absurd. But it sure as hell gives you an enormous advantage over the shitty athlete. That can not be denied. And I completely agree with the idea of matches these days being way too cinematic. It's a drum I bang constantly on the podcast, but I use the word "theatrical". The Cena/Wyatt stuff, which I think is some of the worst shit to come down the pike in many years, is a great example of this. Same for Bryan/Kane, which isn't far behind. EDIT - In fact, I would argue the theatrical/cinematic style of storytelling is a GREAT example of standard changing, but for the worse. It goes both ways.

RE: goodhelmet I never, ever said everything is automatically better because it is new or current. I said standards change. These are two completely different thoughts. And athleticism is absolutely a valid reason for something not holding up. I'm actually baffled that anybody could possibly think different. For those who don't think standards change, do you not think that certain matches or shows look dated (not better or worse - dated)? That's because standards change! I'm not even sure how this is being argued.

Every time someone types TM/DK, I think to myself briefly, what do Shane Haste & Mikey Nicholls have to do with this? Anyway, I'm not gonna die on a hill defending dave's mindset because i'm not dave. I *think* I have a good grasp of what he was trying to convey, and I think you (Dylan, as i'm not quoting that wall of text to preserve thread continuity) are misinterpreting him. You seem to think he sees no value in analyzing old footage, and as someone who likes to analyze old footage, you obviously got upset about that, because to you that's shitting all over what you do. That's not what I picked up from his comments. I *think* he meant that it isn't fair to change your thoughts on a match in hindsight, because what you thought in the moment is what matters. I never got the idea from his comments that he "sees limited value at best at exploring old footage". But enough about dave, you can take that up with him. A big problem here is I keep reading people talk about "athletic/MOVEZ" type vs "psychology/selling" type. What does that even mean? This is suggesting that if a match is very athletic with lots of action, it means there is no psychology. Or that a mach with a lot of selling automatically has great psychology. That, of course, is total bullshit. I don't believe pacing or how much groundwork you can shoe horn into a match means a damn thing in terms of psychology & storytelling. It all depends what kind of storytelling YOU enjoy. This is where taste interjects itself.

And there is certainly an inherent skill in getting a move like that over in 2014, just as there is an inherent skill in Cena getting over a fireman's carry or Foley a sock or The Rock a weak looking elbow drop. Please do not equate my argument of standards advancing to great workers being able to get by with less is more. Those things are intertwined to some extent, but not equal.

Last night I went to an indie show, and a young wrestler by the name of Sammy Guevara (who you will all be familiar with very shortly), did a moonsault off the top of a ladder inside the ring, to the outside of the ring. This was an amazing spot, done at just the right time in the match, and not only that, it was the only ladder dive done in that 30+ minute ladder match. One of the guys who caught him sold it like he was dead and didn't move for 5 minutes. I feel the context is important, before everybody just tosses MOVEZ at me or accuses him of being an indie spot monkey. Had that same exact spot been done in 1983, the tape would be part of the holy grail of wresting footage, and it would be considered a legendary spot. Do you know how I know this? Because in 1983, Jimmy Snuka doing a simple top rope splash was considered state of the art flying, and his leap off of the cage is one of the most famous spots of all time. What Guevara did last night blows away anything Snuka ever did in his life. But Snuka is (rightfully) considered a legend, and the cage spot is (rightfully) considered legendary and ground breaking. Guevara's move won't cause a blip historically. Why? Because standards change. Not sure why this is even debatable, or why some find this simple concept insulting.

I think this is equivocation and an assumption that lies at the root of this debate. Time moving forward = / = "advancement" There is some weird theory of progress at stake here that I'm just not seeing. Art forms aren't like technology where you can just draw a straight graph of computing power exponentially increasing over time. Just doesn't work like that. I'll admit, my own view is pretty harsh on this: I see the fetishization of the new as an acute form of laziness. It's a very convenient little assumption that means: 1. You have a ready-made excuse never to check out stuff from the past. and 2. (more appropriate to Meltzer), you never have to re-check conclusions you drew in the past. This is just laziness in my view and nothing more. ------- With wrestling, it may be true that the average wrestler in 2014 is more athletic and may do more MOVEZ than the average wrestler in 1983, but who knows how to work better? Who can control the crowd better? Who are the smarter workers? And more to the point, what makes good wrestling? Being athletic or knowing how to work? But I don't want to make any old vs. new claims. There'll be great and shitty workers in both eras. The fact is that any claim for one over the other is a form of fetishization. And both can entail laziness: old guys assuming things were better in their day (so they conveniently don't have to give anything new the time of day), and other guys not wanting to looking beyond the present (and so ignoring the past). Fact is, regardless of the field, there'll be X amount of great films / matches / albums / games / etc. etc. released every single year. You may sometimes get bumper years, you may get more fallow years, but on average there is X% of GREAT things produced year on year, Y% of really shitty stuff and then Z% of all the stuff in between. Anyone who argues otherwise has some agenda they are pushing. And my suspicion is always that the root cause of such agendas is laziness. --------- Is that what is meant by standards in this case, though? All About Eve is black and white, dialogue heavy and shot on set (apart from some establishing shots filmed by the Second Unit and using stand-ins.) The same script shot in 2014 would look dramatically different. So is the argument coming from Meltzer, W2 et al the wrestling equivalent of "better special effects = better film"? Who really believes that? You failed to understand any of the points I made. Maybe because I wasn't articulate enough. I don't know. 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.

Many of the points I was going to make have been made already, but since i'm the one who got Dylan all worked up, and he took the time to make a bunch of cool, articulate posts, I feel obligated to post. This all started when somebody asked Meltzer if he ever goes back and changes star ratings. Meltzer made two points in response: -First, he said he doesn't put a single second of thought into his star ratings after he makes them. He rates the match in the moment, and then never thinks about it again. He doesn't care enough about the ratings to think about going back to change them. -His second point, was that he would never change a rating anyway, because it's not fair to look at an old match and change what you thought about it "in the moment", to what you think about it out of context years later. He used the Kerry/Flair cage match as his example, of a match he liked "in the moment", and it doesn't really matter if he goes back and doesn't like it now (or likes it more, for that matter), because it only matters if it worked for him in context in 1982. They weren't working a match for 2014 eyes in 1982. I agree 1000% with the second point, because I firmly believe in the idea that standard change. In wrestling, in film, in TV, in comedy, in almost any for of entertainment. Shit moves forward and advances. That will never change. We always talk about certain matches that "don't hold up". The reason some matches don't hold up, is usually because standards have changed. The basics of psychology may not ever change (I would argue this point, but it would derail the thread), but the athletic standards certainly do. In the OP, Dylan asked when do the standards change, tomorrow, next week, next year, ???. The answer is we don't know. Things evolve when they evolve, usually slowly and we never really notice it happening. Holzerman brought up Starrcade '83. Almost nothing on that show holds up to a 2014 standard of athleticism, presentation, workrate, etc aside from the dog collar match. I've seen that show probably a half dozen times over the years, and it was strikingly bad when I recently watched it on the Network. I never remembered it being that bad. But it's been years since i've seen it, and it simply doesn't hold up anymore. We've evolved way past shit like the simplistic story told in the main event, or Jerry & Jack Brisco's weak looking attacks and missed splashes qualifying as devastating match altering miscues. At the same time, it isn't fair to judge any of those matches with modern eyes. I thought it was a fairly decent show in its time, and now i think it's a fairly decent show for its time. If that show takes place tomorrow, move for move, in any promotion, it would be universally panned as flat out terrible. Of course, this doesn't mean that nothing holds up over time. I recently watched a Pat O'Connor vs Buddy Rogers match that I thought was really good. It qualifies as brilliant for 1962, when to me wrestling was dull as dirt and largely unwatchable beyond for historical purposes. Part of the problem here, is Dylan seems to think that standards changing somehow makes analyzing old footage null & void, or minimizes the work that he does & many of you do in places like this. I don't think that's the case at all. I also don't think not believing in changing something as trivial as star ratings equates to some sort of style bias, as Dylan alluded to on Twitter. That's nonsense. It just means you don't want to unfairly change your opinion of something out of its proper context, which to me is more fair than criticizing a match that was worked for a 1978 audience because you are watching it in 2014 when your perception is going to be different no matter how much you think it won't be.

Conway and Lagana were there, but John and Christy weren't. Russo left in Feb of 2012 and there were rumblings of Bully Ray popping into creative meetings. 2012 had a lot of solid points, but TNA fell back into some pits. It's amazing to think that Rob Terry has been kept around while Styles, Daniels, and Kazarian have been given their walking papers. Those guys had good contracts, Rob Terry is likely on a very cheap per appearance deal.

Yup. Aside from when I was a kid in the late 80's/early 90's, and the hot in ring period of the end of '12 - '13, WWE has pretty much never given me the kind of wrestling product that I wanted to see. I get far more enjoyment from talking about & analyzing WWE then I do actually watching it. But the fact of the matter is, if you like keeping up with the wrestling business, you have to keep up with WWE. And i'm always interested in their business & happenings no matter how bad the actual content is.

Part of Sabu's charm was that you never knew when he was going to blow a spot. And to his credit, when he did, he would sell the fuck out of it, slowly get up, set his props back up, and do his stunt again. This is why I love Sabu. I don't mind sloppiness/blown spots at all, provided the participants do not ignore the fact that they blew it. Nothing takes me out of a match faster than a blown spot that gets sold anyway, or scrambling to cover for it. This past weekend on the Dragon Gate iPPV from Korakuen, Flamita slipped a little on a springboard move, and barely touched Shingo. Shingo, thinking on his feet, didn't just ignore the strike, but he intentionally chest puffed as if to say "get that weak shit out of here", picked up Flamita, and tossed him with a throw. To me, that botch and the reaction to it added to the match.

I watch RAW, SD, Main Event, Superstars, NXT, Impact, CMLL (Time Warner Deportes version) every week. I catch Championship Wrestling from Hollywood, TCW, & AAW on MaddyGTV most weeks, but if I fall way behind I skip ahead and won't backtrack. I watch every New Japan show that makes tape (I will blow off the occasional generic house show that pops up if it's just random tags). I watch most Dragon Gate, but will cherry pick or skip if I fall way behind. All iPPV's get watched no matter what, NOAH, All Japan, W-1 shows that make tape will usually get cherry picked at minimum. I will completely skip sometimes if I don't like anything on a show. ROH I watch very randomly & sporadically. I go to every live show within driving distance (these days just San Antonio). DGUSA & EVOLVE, I used to buy every show, now I pick & choose. Other puro (mostly DDT, or other random promotions like Zero-1) gets watched if something is hyped by someone I trust. Same for random lucha matches. I used to watch DTU every week, but fell way behind and haven't watched in a while. So that's a ton of wrestling every week. Plus I go to at least one live show per month, usually two or three. With the Network, I will randomly put on an old show now & then as background noise. Recently I started rewatching the Clash's in order. I plan on binge watching World Class & ECW when the libraries fill up (was doing this as they popped up but got annoyed at the skipping around they were doing with the releases because I NEED to watch stuff in order).

The best guy these days is Kazuchika Okada. The dragon suplex in the Togi Makabe match is a great example, but he usually has one excellent last millisecond kickout in his IWGP title matches.

Totally up in the air, but I think Daniel Bryan has to be the winner if the year ended right this second.

I wrote this before this weekend, at exactly the one third point of the year. http://www.voicesofwrestling.com/2014/05/01/the-first-third-of-2014-pro-wrestling-awards/ And oh boy, did one weekend change a lot of things.

If you think that match was good, then there is no point even breaking this down because we are worlds apart in our opinions.

Weird show. I didn't really like anything on it, but none of it was bad except for the Cena/Wyatt match which was horrendous and will challenge for Worst Match of the Year. I think my favorite match was the Torito/Hornswoggle bout.

NJPW "BACK TO THE YOKOHAMA ARENA", 25.05.2014 (TV Asahi Ch. 2) Yokohama Arena 1. Road to BEST OF THE SUPER Jr. XXI: Jushin Thunder Liger, Tiger Mask, Máscara Dorada & El Desperado vs. Ryusuke Taguchi, Alex Shelley, KUSHIDA & BUSHI 2. Special Eight Man Tag Match: Yuji Nagata, Manabu Nakanishi, Tomoaki Honma & Captain New Japan vs. Karl Anderson, Doc Gallows, Yujiro Takahashi & Tama Tonga 3. NWA World Tag Team Title, 3 Way Match: Hiroyoshi Tenzan & Satoshi Kojima © vs. Lance Archer & Davey Boy Smith Jr. vs. Rob Conway & Wes Brisco 4. Special Tag Match: Toru Yano & Takashi Iizuka vs. Minoru Suzuki & Shelton and Benjamin 5. Special Singles Match: Tetsuya Naito vs. Bad Luck Fale 6. Pro-Wrestling vs. Jiu-Jitsu Different Style Fight: Kazushi Sakuraba vs. Rolles Gracie 7. NEVER Openweight Title: Tomohiro Ishii © vs. Kota Ibushi 8. IWGP World Tag Team Title Contendership: Hiroshi Tanahashi & Togi Makabe vs. Hirooki Goto & Katsuyori Shibata 9. IWGP Intercontinental Title - Pro-Wrestling vs. Jiu-Jitsu Different Style Fight: Shinsuke Nakamura © vs. Daniel Gracie 10. IWGP Heavyweight Title: AJ Styles/Michael Elgin (17.05.) © vs. Kazuchika Okada

Champion Carnival 1998 First Round: Steve Williams [14] defeats Gary Albright [8] (10:04) 4/11/98 AJPW Champion Carnival 1998 - Tag 14 @ Korakuen Hall in Tokyo, Japan Champion Carnival 1997 First Round: Gary Albright [6] defeats Steve Williams [9] (11:21) 4/5/97 AJPW Champion Carnival 1997 - Tag 12 @ Okayama Budokan in Okayama, Japan Champion Carnival 1996 First Round: Gary Albright [12] vs. Steve Williams [10] - Time Limit Draw (30:00) 4/1/96 AJPW Champion Carnival 1996 - Tag 9 @ Osaka Prefectural Gymnasium in Osaka, Japan Steve Williams defeats Gary Albright 5/23/96 AJPW Super Power Series 1996 - Tag 5 @ Nakajima Sports Center in Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan They also faced each other in a ton of Tag matches. Cool. Any of those make tape? Surely that Korakuen match must have, at minimum.

Nobody. As I wrote in the prologue in the review, I think the plan is to rotate title defenses. I think there is a good chance you see Okada & Styles on the opposite sides of a tag.