overbooked

I don't want 2016 to look like 80s TV wrestling. In fact, I doubt it could replicate that model in a fully post-kayfabe world. However, 2016/17 TV could (and to be fair, sometimes does) learn from what worked with 80s wrestling and borrow where appropriate. Retromania/nostalgia is definitely a reason I enjoy watching old wrestling. I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with that. And I generally avoid criticising the current product(s) as there are so many alternatives out there for someone who wants to watch wrestling, and has half an idea about what kind of wrestling they enjoy. But I can still find younger fans' reactions odd or confusing. That's what happens when you get older, right?

All of this. The focus on matches, to the detriment of all the other glorious bullshit that goes under the banner of "wrestling", is a great shame and waste. It is a really reductive view of what makes wrestling so much fun, and means we end up with a narrower view of how it can move people. If star ratings, match reviews and lists were no longer the predominant means of critiquing wrestling I think we'd get more interesting and diverse takes. The greatest hits approach distorts things historically and critically.

I wonder if there has ever been a time when "match quality" as a concept in and of itself has been valued so much? I think in the past the memorable matches haven't always been the "best" matches, but have been historically significant (title changes), great spectacles (Hogan/Andre) or emotionally cathartic performances (a face finally getting a win, or a big angle taking place). The truly memorable matches then combined all of the above. And so "match quality" as the main currency of wrestling fandom is going to alienate some older fans. I would rather watch several hours of Memphis TV or Worldwide than a disc of recent MOTYCs. But then again, I'm probably in the minority in enjoying wrestling more for the whole show than just the matches.

In a properly post-post-kayfabe world does anyone really care who wins and loses? Or do they just care about match quality? I'm just wondering if things might have mattered more in the past and were more memorable because of a real emotional reaction. However, listening to some recent podcasts on territorial stuff there's always been old guys like us moaning about the modern product and waxing lyrical about what happened twenty years ago.

I think it is fairly standard to attribute meaning and significance to events in your youth. I'm sure many of us do that with music, sport, TV as well as wrestling. Everything means more in childhood and in your teens. However, I think scarcity helped too. I think the sheer volume of wrestling today, rather than the product itself, makes everything feel more transient. We can very quickly move on to the next thing. We're not waiting each month for an Apter mag or a VHS. But the current fans' eagerness to attribute significance to modern wrestling, to fight that transience, is really interesting. I think the "IWC" was far more negative about contemporary wrestling 10-15 years ago.

I think the key to criticism and debate is to understand where the critic is coming from. What is their philosophy? What do they like and dislike? You then have a better shot of understanding where they are coming from and engaging with their perspective. There isn't one true view of wrestling, or any other artform. For instance, if I know someone watches wrestling for the kitsch, camp and daftness then I'd start to get why they might favour Khali over Hart.

I do get that Trauma I/Canis Lupus isn't for everyone, so what was the (other) best lucha match of 2016?

I feel like I've been banging on about this lately, but this does seem like one of those matches that highlights how people approach watching wrestling in different ways. If you're looking for some objective Ideal of what you think wrestling should be then I can see how you might be disappointed. This isn't an obvious workrate/psychology/etc puzzle to unpick. However, if you look to watch wrestling primarily to be moved emotionally, I think the match is far more likely to click. So, I get the criticisms. But it fulfils what I look for in wrestling, which is some form of "real" that goes beyond selling, match structure etc.

Never heard anyone describe the match that way, that's a very interesting take. I completely disagree with it, but interesting. I really don't get that either. I'd love to hear more. I didn't see the turn-taking or forced epic stuff.

There's an obvious risk in that explaining why it is so good that we'll veer back into Lucha/Puro Thread of Hell territory, but... I think this match transcends your usual, standard wrestling criticism. It is about something far more moving and intangible than moves/selling/psychology. And so I think it works if you want a match to manipulate your emotions rather than tick-box your workrate or psychology expectations. I think mask matches are the ultimate stipulation as losing the mask is the ultimate peril and a permanent one. We all wear masks in life, so seeing this play out, seeing someone exposed, humiliated but essentially showing their real true self is cathartic. Seeing the journey to that point is pretty cathartic too. This match does all that so well, and really the blood and chairs are just window dressing around the story of two men protecting their masks, their identities, their souls, and doing whatever it takes to do so. I was so drawn in, even on second viewing, that I couldn't see the nuts and bolts as to how they made me feel the way I did as they suspended my disbelief. I was utterly absorbed and in the moment. That a match in 2016 can do that is pretty astonishing.

I really enjoyed Delta/Galactar. Not quite Trauma I/Canis Lupus, but then again, what is? I think what I most liked about Delta/Galactar is that it is a great case study of how mask matches are really ensemble pieces and not just about the two guys fighting. You really need the seconds to play their part, and the referee. And finally, you need the right crowd to really make it feel important. The crowd were amazing, and if I gave out star ratings I would have added a * to whatever my rating was for the crowd reactions alone. I just watched Caristico/Histeria for the mask and it was nowhere near as successful. The interactions with the referee and seconds felt clunky, I couldn't tell if the referee minded them using chairs or not (which made any "hide the chair" stuff fall flat) and there just wasn't enough hate and passion and drama for my liking. Meanwhile, I'm really enjoying IWRG at the moment. You never know if you're going to see a classic or a complete shambles, but I think that is half the fun. The Imposible and Relámpago feud has been outstanding so far. Their non-title match at the start of the month was brilliant in and of itself (I could easily see it as one of the top 10 lucha matches I've seen this year), but also set up future matches really well. Their interactions in the recent weird relevos suicidas/mask match made made that match ultimately worth watching. They keep ramping up the hate, and I can't wait for the title match, and could well see a mask match in the future too.

Wrestling doesn't exist in a bubble and it would be a shame if we had to discuss wrestling as if it does. There are external influences (political, cultural, social etc) that have made professional wrestling what it is. There are also external critical frameworks that can be useful to apply to professional wrestling, especially as the theory/language around criticising wrestling is fairly limited. I'm not sure the topics are the issue. It feels more like the tone and behaviour at times is the problem. Fundamentally, people need to be civil and respectful. They also can't act like trolls and then get offended when the board self-moderates and calls them out on that. I think this board is one of the few places taking wrestling discussion and criticism forward in an interesting and worthwhile direction. It would be a huge shame to stifle that just because some people on some occasions struggle with acting in a decent, human way.

Well, have it at. What are you waiting for? Talk about cultural imperialism. I really don't get this. My positions in this thread have been: 1. People who aren't into lucha have come to the conclusion that it sucks / is not for them (phrase it how you want), for whatever reason. 2. The reason it didn't have prominence historically, was probably a combination of Mil Mascaras wanting to keep himself special by keeping other luchadores off cards, and the LaBelle LA territory going under and then being bought out by Vince by 1983 severing the key link between US wrestling and lucha. I noted that Southern territories had Mexican workers who were not luchadores. And on the flipside Japanese promoters having strong ties with the NWA and post-WW2 Japanese heels being a thing in the US, kept the association between Japan and Wrestling precident in the minds of fans. All of these things rather than cultural imperialism seem to explain it to me. 3. We are better off talking about matches and challenging old narratives through the assessment of matches than in having these conversations about workers or styles. I think the board is at its best when it has done this. I do believe that these theoretical discussions get us to the point of being "utter wank". You haven't really wanted to engage on these fronts. You've wanted to go over GWE, you've wanted to accuse me of being a conservative and anti-intellectual, you've wanted to talk about canon and whatever else. These have all been your harping points. If people seriously believe I'm the problem, rather than you, it is time to remove myself from this community entirely. I'm not necessarily decided on the whole cultural imperialism thing, however, when an established member of a discussion board goes "It's not anti-intellectual to mock the idea that a suplex is a form American imperialism or that a reverse knife edge is symbolic of Japanese cultural capitulation post-Hiroshima. These claims are absurd and someone needs to tell you that they are. Say stupid shit and expect to get called out for it. Tis the way of the world." that kind of kills the discussion. You can see that, can't you? I mean, I thought this board was meant to be a place where that shit doesn't go on. "People who aren't into lucha have come to the conclusion that it sucks / is not for them (phrase it how you want), for whatever reason." Can you see that the "for whatever reason" part is actually interesting, complex and doesn't have one simple answer? I also think it is the route of the initial question posed. My reading of the initial question is why do smart fans not like lucha when they do love puro. I don't think this is really about the wider (wrestling) public as both puro and lucha are still super-niche. I think the more interesting question is why do hardcore/smart/smark fans who are aware of lucha choose not to watch it and discuss it. This is especially odd in 2016 where it is easier to watch free lucha than almost any other wrestling product, although obviously there has never been so much choice (reason one, perhaps). I think there are a few lines of enquiry - this isn't exhaustive, and there will probably be a fair few generalisations in there... 1. Puro has (some of) its roots in US wrestling, so puro gets more love as it is more familiar. This may or may not be your "cultural imperialism" angle. Puro had US workers involved from the outset and US workers have continued to play a key role, albeit one that has evolved over the years. So, Japanese wrestling has very similar rules to US wrestling and is thus easy to pick up quickly. It also features a lot of familiar faces. And while it has developed its own tropes over the years (fighting spirit etc) these aren't really inherently alien concepts. 2. Lucha is unfamiliar. There are different rules. Some of the "grammar" of matches is different. Six-mans can be hard to follow. There are fewer recognisable faces. The referees can be annoying at first. All of these seem like reasonable barriers, and ones that don't exist to the same extent in puro. 3. The evolution of smart fandom. I'm thinking more of the early to mid 80s here, a time where a lot of the orthodoxies of smart fandom were established and codified. Puro had a huge impact on fans during that period. It became the standard, and perhaps even the norm for "good wrestling". Here's a fun little thought exercise - how would smart fandom and the orthodox ideas that underpins it look if Japanese tapes never made it to Meltzer and instead he watched a load of say, lucha and World of Sport? I think the early experiences of a handful of influential thinkers/writers had a huge impact on how we all now think about wrestling. 4. Wrestling fans watch wrestling for fundamentally different reasons. I tried covering this several pages back. But essentially, I think there are (at least) two distinct schools of wrestling fan - one more susceptible to puro, one more susceptible to puro. I think it is important to acknowledge that we don't all have the same motivation for watching wrestling. We all look for different things, and take different things from it. That makes a single "truth" pretty much impossible. 5. Linked to the point above, we all have different formative experiences of wrestling. You say you tended to view wrestling as an American thing. My first experience of watching wrestling was on World of Sport. I imagine that has shaped both our worldviews. If you grow up on WWF, puro isn't that huge a leap but lucha might be. I found lucha less alienating because I grew up watching two-out-of-three falls and funky matwork and all that stuff. 6. Lucha fans could be better advocates of lucha. I think this may be linked to point 4. I think the broad characteristics of a puro fan lead to them happily analysing, pulling apart and praising what they watch. I think many lucha fans have very different mindsets, and are less likely to do that as they are less interested in the nuts and bolts and more in the emotional impact. But clearly lucha fans could do a better job evangelising. 7. And linked to point 6, I think it is easier to analyse why puro works and have heated debates over that. It is really hard work articulating the more emotional elements of lucha. The language of smart fandom - psychology, selling etc - lends itself well to puro. There is less of a shared language to communicate why a mask match matters and works as a spectacle, for example. 7. Non-lucha fans need to realise lucha libre is not a homogenous mass. Writing off 80 plus years of wrestling, and the diversity of styles, matches and workers within that, is pretty absurd. I don't think it would be as accepted if people just said "American wrestling sucks", but I might be wrong.

Wow. There you go again. I'm pretty sure you and you alone don't get to dictate the terms of engagement or scope of discussion here. Edit: for JVK.

Us lucha fans could certainly do more to evangelise. But it is a real shame that this thread was derailed so quickly. "Lucha sucks" isn't a critique. There could have been a really interesting discussion on cultural imperialism. I tried to suggest several pages back that there are fundamentally different schools of wrestling fan, to explain why lucha isn't so popular. There are so many angles to look at this, to understand why lucha is a struggle for some people, and to also nail down the various cultural, economic, social and personal reasons why we love wrestling. However, when there is a lack of empathy and when some people are convinced there is a single truth to wrestling such discussion is far too difficult to sustain.

I've been working on a longer piece around Why Wrestling? and I think the paragraphs from it below offer some sort of explanation, although like any theory I appreciate it is probably pretty flawed... I think there are two predominant schools of thinking. I'm painting some pretty broad strokes with a pretty broad brush here, so bear with my generalisations. Obviously individual fans take a little from column A and a little from column B. But there are distinctive ways fans engage with and then analyse professional wrestling. School one. The Objective School. I was tempted to call them the Meltzer School, as I think a lot stems from him and his contemporaries, but there is more to it than that. Your practitioners of the Objective School are looking to identify and then find the Ideal. They work around critical orthodoxies - that what matters is psychology, workrate, selling. They try to define those terms to a point where there is a standard point of reference to judge every match and every wrestler. This means they can rate matches and make lists. Lots of lists. It is essentially one huge effort to take something wholly subjective and make it objective. I think at its heart is the enjoyment to be had in decoding a text - in this case a wrestling match. It is satisfying to see a well-executed story. It is just as satisfying to pull apart the text to work out what worked and what didn't, especially with the safety net of those theories around psychology, workrate etc. Within that critical common ground there can be an "Objective" conclusion. It is a neat and tidy thought exercise, and an exercise that works better with some forms of wrestling than others. Classic mainstream US and Japanese wrestling come out well from this kind of analysis. Matwork offers an easy story to critique ("He sold the leg!"/"He didn't sell the leg!"). 1990s All Japan offers more complex narratives with callbacks to previous matches providing a very satisfying intertextuality to acknowledge and critique. The Objective School methods are pretty dispassionate, by their very nature. It is less about being moved by a match, more about working out how. Which brings us to... School two. The Emotional School. A lot less about the Ideal and much more about the Real. To some extent it is like the drug addict forever looking for the high of the first hit. The Emotional School are on a doomed crusade to find a place where wrestling is truly real again, which unless you pack up your bags and head over to MMA is obviously impossible. This is a nostalgic School. Wrestling was better when it was in a studio, when the fans genuinely cared, when the VQ was wonky. It is the crowd going wild in Memphis, the masks being ripped in Mexico, the bloody brawls in Crockett. The thinking is less around those critical orthodoxies, more around a set of values - a form of wrestling where it feels like everything matters, one that prioritises emotional manipulation and connection over athleticism and spectacle. The Emotional School doesn't see professional wrestling as an academic exercise but much more than that. Professional wrestling can tell us something about our lives, can makes us feel less alone, can bring us closer to feeling something almost spiritual. The best professional wrestling offers something elemental, intangible, magical. This is not something to rate or rank, but more important than that. It can be analysed, but the truly great stuff transcends that, just as the greatest art is always more meaningful than the criticism that surrounds it. The Emotional School generally see wrestling as Art. The Objective School often disagree. They are looking at different things.

How about getting each guest to pitch a question, or perhaps more interestingly, a contrary view. You then have the discussion where they have to win round the other guests. That way you don't have to think of new topics each week, and the fun would be seeing what the guests come up with, and how well they defend their stance.

Always at home, but from what I remember I was generally sitting at the dining table eating a late lunch, as I was often at clubs and stuff in the morning.

I would want to build up a style where people genuinely care who wins and loses, where they love some wrestlers and hate others, and if only for short while start to believe again. This doesn't mean a load of horrible shoot angles, more just reasserting kayfabe in a subtle way. It is no good saying "This is real!" as that just draws attention to the fact that it isn't. Instead, I'd want the workers to generally keep quiet outside of the bubble of pro wrestling. The announcers just need to play things straight - call what is front of them, know when to raise the excitement and when to keep quiet. I think creativity perversely benefits from limitations. I also think pro wrestling needs a coherent and consistent internal logic. So, I'd focus on a one hour TV show, maybe a new take on studio wrestling. Three matches, three promos. Ten minute time limits for TV matches, first two matches on the show to build people up, the last match almost always the Television Champion defending the title. Promos are important - there needs to be workers who can talk, and talk naturally and without a script. If they can't, then they need a manager who can. The promos should be short, snappy, memorable. This is all about showcasing characters people care about. Fairly obvious stuff, but it needs to be done well. There would be a world champion, but he would only wrestle house shows and do the odd TV promo. The titles are the focus and any feud or angle is ultimately linked to a title, or working up the rankings to get a title shot. There needs to be a hierarchy of wrestlers. The young guys at the bottom, who lose more than they win, but are presented as having plenty of talent, but needing more experience. The grizzled veterans of the midcard, who know how to snatch a win and are looking for one last shot at glory. The main eventers who are presented as the best sportsmen, the biggest characters. Ideally the TV champion is a heel who does more to avoid losing than trying to win, using that time limit to his advantage. The world champion is a face, and carries himself as an ambassador for the sport. There would be a commissioner, but none of the tired heel owner stuff. Instead, a legendary worker who acts as conscience for the promotion, maintains order (and the internal logic) and stops fans getting too disillusioned when the heels are on top, as there is at least someone out there looking out for honesty and truth and all that stuff. In terms of the in-ring product... Make every move count. Anything the wrestlers do in the ring should serve the overall story they are telling. And ideally less is more. Wrestling should feel competitive, not two guys taking turns to execute a series of moves. Keeping it simple will make the big spots matter more, and will also mean fewer injuries, so more opportunities to make more money with more wrestlers. More bullshit. I think the true heart of pro wrestling is bullshit. Stalling, bailing out, begging off, jawing at the crowd, little sneaky cheating. All generate an emotional reaction. All make you hate one guy and love the other. Great wrestling incorporates delayed gratification. A move means a whole lot more if it has been teased for the whole match. You only get the thrill of the chase if you have to wait for the guy to get caught. Avoiding too many clean finishes. Make the most of time limit draws. Have cheaters more readily disqualified. Let the heels scamper off to the locker room for a countout victory once in a while. Create more uncertainty over how the match will end. Make clean finishes matter.

Doesn't all this just show that: 1. Star ratings, while a handy short-hand, really aren't a great way of articulating how good a match is. 2. The ranking culture to which star ratings are so linked leads to a really reductive way of critiquing wrestling, as ordered lists, MOTYs etc are valued more than genuine analysis and insight. 3. Dave is a great reporter and historian, but not so great as a wrestling "critic".

As someone who listens to a lot of podcasts can I co-sign the comments about authenticity. I like hearing people being themselves, I have trouble listening to people acting up as presenters or "personalities". I would add that there is a real art to being a podcast host. Truly great podcast hosts don't actually say much - they are there to facilitate conversations and get the most out of their guests. That means doing a lot of research, asking open questions and listening, listening, listening, so you can capitalise on a particularly interesting train of thought from your guest. It also means holding back sometimes, far better to get your guest to say the interesting fact than to trample all over them in an attempt to show you know what you're talking about. With multiple guests, there is also the job of refereeing - reigning in those who are talking too much and bring in those who are more shy or slow to make a point. Definitely listen to other podcasts from other genres - listen to how Melvyn Bragg on In Your Time manages really smart people, isn't afraid to act dumb, but also brings people into line when they veer off the subject. Finally, avoid in-jokes. You never know when someone will start listening to a show. It is good to be inclusive.

Selling is the story and the offence helps tell the story. So, offence is just a means to an end, the end being someone being in so much pain that they can't kick out/choose to submit/walk away etc. So, while they are both important I think selling is at the heart of what pro wrestling is. It brings an emotional connection that makes a match meaningful, as we can relate and empathise with pain and struggle more than we can with moves. It is what makes people care and believe.

Interesting theory, and you could apply those moral intuitions to most pro wrestling storylines I reckon. It reminds me of the Seven Basic Plots theory. However, the moral intuitions are still ripe for interpretation or differing responses over time. Take Authority/subversion - there's that old cliche that one man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist. You can quite easily cast the face as authority or as the one doing the subversion. Even within that framework of intuitions you are dependent on the relation between intention, failed intention (getting the wrong thing across, or something else across, inadvertently) and the individual's ability to decipher the intention, to tune out those failed intentions, and not bring their own baggage to it and thus their own narrative. With so many variations between production and consumption it is hard to be binary about these things. There are several touchpoints where the narrative distorts. There are also several ways to play with those assumptions and toy with the consumer, which is one reason why wrestling is so great.

It's tricky as a lot of this comes down to preferences and personal philosophies, but I think my ideal form of wrestling involves wrestlers doing the minimum required to tell a story. Anything that gets in the way of the narrative, or destroys the suspension of disbelief ("Nobody would kick out of that!") ultimately leads to excess. I guess excess is also something that raises unreasonable expectations for future matches, as it leads to a style where volume is the appeal, rather than the story, and that approach requires greater volume over time as the novelty wears off. I think there is also a more practical consideration, where excess is essentially what might limit that worker in the future. If they are risking their ability to work night-in, night-out it is excess.

The problem with people crying "Political correctness!" is they are often working on the principle that they can say what they like with impunity. That, and they don't like their own prejudices being pointed out. It is no good advocating free speech and then complaining when someone uses their free speech to criticise yours. You can say what you want, but you have to live with other people calling you on it, and in the case of a journalist like Meltzer, you should be ready to defend or apologise for your choice of language. Language does have a wider impact. Normalising offensive language helps normalise offensive thinking and offensive behaviour. Political correctness, when done properly, is more about holding people to account for what they say, of ensuring they can't just say what they like without any consequences. It is also a call for some decency and humanity. This is less about policing language and deleting words, more about us all being considerate, empathetic human beings. Back to Meltzer and pro wrestling, I think language is particularly important because wrestling has such a problematic history full of racism, sexism and homophobia. Even now, pretty horrendous anecdotes and stories are laughed at and laughed off (countless "ring rat" stories), overtly racist or homophobic figures in the industry are forgiven or condoned ("Well, he wasn't racist to other wrestlers, so the KKK stuff is OK") and more. I think any wrestling writer, especially a professional one, should at least have that context in mind and be ready to explain any questionable language.