overbooked

As so many wrestling books are essentially straight, chronological biographies I'd like to see sequels that are more personal takes on what wrestling means to the wrestler. That could be a broader philosophy of wrestling, or how they approached working, what they think good booking looks like, where they see wrestling goes next. It would be good to get those wider perspectives.

Anyway. Back to the pro wrestling. And back to winking at aliens. Following this theory, does this mean we can't fully appreciate/critique pro wrestling if we don't understand the context and culture it takes place in? And then, we only can if we understand the intentions of the wrestlers involved? If so, that rules me out of appreciating or critiquing virtually any wrestling.

There is definitely room for both, in terms of consuming and in terms of criticism. I enjoy both approaches, and have reservations about both. It is why there can't be a universal standard, and I think that is a good thing as by reading different approaches to the same thing I learn more, and learn more about my own response to whatever we're talking about. I guess it is useful to understand a critic's frame of reference and/or terms of engagement, but is unreasonable to expect everyone else to follow that too.

I think there could be a whole thread just covering this. I'm not sure I'm completely sold on the current trend for "deep dives". I can see how it serves a purpose with a GWE-type project, and satisfies the itch for the obscure in an age where very little is obscure. However, when it leads to a narrow worldview, then there is a lack of understanding of the wider context that "deep dive" falls within. Plus, it makes music/wrestling whatever sound like hard work, rather than something that makes life better.

Interesting quote. I think it makes a strong case for there being less of a common culture than ever before, which in turn means there is less obvious "mainstream" to rebel against, and also makes "universal standards" even trickier to define and work from. Perhaps the odd (maybe unique?) thing with wrestling for the general population is that over the last 35 years, wrestling has gone from being a subculture with many genres to (for many people) being just the WWE - at least in North America. Even if there wasn't universal access to different promotions, they did exist, and so everyone's experience of wrestling depended on where they lived, so there was less of a common culture than there is now. However, in terms of wrestling criticism and those who practice it, wrestling has become a far, far broader subject as there is so much more footage, and such a diversity within it. There are far more schools of thought amongst a certain type of Internet Wrestling Fan than there was 15 years ago, when in some circles saying you liked 80s territorial wrestling was a controversial, ideological stance.

You may be right. However, I don't think subcultures in wrestling/music/whatever are as clearly defined or widespread as badges of identity as they were in 1986 or 1996. I think defining oneself as Someone With Broad Tastes is more of a thing now than 10 or 20 years ago. More choice can, perversely, lead us into an even narrow worldwide, I concede that. But I don't think that is a universal thing.

I think there is something important in this. In wrestling, or anything else, what you liked was a badge of honour, or a way of defining yourself, as much as just what you found enjoyable and worthwhile. I'm not sure if that ideological base to taste is so strong now. In the past there was a scarcity to everything - you could only buy so many records, videos, whatever. And so it was harder to be "eclectic" and easier to follow a particular path and spend a lot of time with one genre. I think there was also a closer ideological element in the production too - bands were more politicised, wrestlers held particular philosophies more. Now we have so much choice and so much access the terms of engagement have changed. And often there is less of an ideological or political charge to what is being produced. So it is far easier on a practical and philosophical level to enjoy a wider variety of anything without worrying about "selling out" or misdefining yourself. I suspect we're also less likely to define ourselves by what we don't like. There is so much to discover that is good we spend less time consuming the bad stuff. In the past there was much more of a common culture. When the pop charts mattered that was something to rebel against. The story arc of the smart fan in the nineties was reacting against the ubiquitous WWF by discovering all this great stuff hidden elsewhere. There is less of a need to rebel against the mainstream when the mainstream is less all-consuming. There are fewer opportunities for inverted snobbery (a key element in all this, and I don't see it as a negative term) when everyone can consume everything. Circumstances have changed how we define and engage with taste. Or maybe Taste=Personality is much more of a teenage trait and we've all grown out of it.

"Artificial guidelines" are a pretty handy tool to wield when arguing on the internet. They don't make for great criticism.

The review can definitely be negative, or a plain rant. They are often the most entertaining ones. I could rewrite my post above to include "I also think reviewing or criticism more generally is more interesting and worthwhile when it properly analyses art/food/wrestling within a sensible context to understand why it doesn't work, how it doesn't work, and what it might mean to us, or why it fails to mean anything." I suppose the only issue is when we set out to write a hatchet job, rather than going in with an open mind, or conversely go into the process from the "joyful" position. I guess different personalities take different approaches, and are more likely to spend time on writing glowing reviews, or scathing ones, so there is that bias too. The pressure of consistency is a tricky one. I suppose we as readers get to know what critics like and what they don't, and so can read them through that lens. As critics what do we do? I think we probably just write through the problem. The more we write, the more we evaluate, the more we understand our own tastes, biases, critical positions. I guess then we're also in a position to make more interesting (and hopefully novel) connections between different texts, where our insight can illuminate both, rather than just saying "A is like B but not really as good". I suppose I enjoy criticism that ultimately reflects on the critic as much as the subject.

A review can (maybe should) reference beyond the realm of the text. But it doesn't make that reference in isolation - the reference is there to make a wider point about whatever is under review. That might be in order to show similarity, contrast, or to make a value judgement. However, with lists it is more a case of throwing together a band of disparate items and trying to make sense of it all, and essentially comparing apples with oranges for the sake of comparing apples with oranges. And so the debate becomes all about ranking systems and rules and the actual subject matter ends up neglected. I also think reviewing or criticism more generally is more interesting and worthwhile when it properly analyses art/food/wrestling within a sensible context to understand if it works, how it works, and what it might mean to us. When it becomes an exercise in "What is better - A, B or C?" the whole thing becomes a lot more boring, and ultimately simplistic. I'd much rather read someone reflecting, analysing and explaining how and why the sushi joint makes them happy, or the jazz album moves them, than why the sushi joint is better than the burger joint or the jazz album is better than the punk EP. If they do that by referencing other relevant things, great, but that doesn't require some sort of universal standard, just a level of empathy and intelligence.

Isn't the issue here less one of reviewing any one thing (be it a wrestling match, jazz album, or sushi joint) and more an issue around our pathological desire to rank everything? In the case of an individual review we probably wouldn't bring up completely unrelated items in the spirit of universality. The lucha review needn't mention a shoot style show, the jazz review won't reference death metal, the sushi review won't compare the tuna roll to the cheeseburger you can buy in the next town. Any reference to anything else will make sense within the particular context, as a means of making a point about what is under review. However, once you start making lists you're bound to hit problems as they are subjective and full of issues and contradictions. The discussion then becomes one around rules and semantics rather than the actual stuff. Which is why I much prefer reviews to lists, and why I find ratings pretty reductive and problematic too. I want the writing to make the argument, not a number within an arbitrary system.

I definitely have a particular "head" for certain types of wrestling, be it lucha or old-school territorial stuff, so that I can accept and appreciate the style, and can forgive or overlook some of the shortcomings or inconsistencies the style has. However, I'm not sure I have a "head" for everything. That might be because certain styles veer too wildly from my worldview of What Wrestling Should Be, or might be because I haven't taken the time to understand the context and internal logic of a particular style. There can't be a universal standard as not only do the times/places/styles have different demands, so do every one of us watching it. There is a unique set of circumstances for each match (who, what, where kind of thing), and a unique set of circumstances for each viewer (are they watching live or 30 years later, what else have they watched, what are their preferences etc). While there is something in wrestling adapting to the audience, I think truly transcendent wrestling does something more transformative, surpassing or challenging the expectations of the audience. That is what creates heat, mark-out moments, riots even, as opposed to the clinical smarky reaction of "That played out how I wanted and expected it to play out". But is hard to quantify an emotional response, and even more so when "audience" can mean "people in the crowd" or "people watching on TV" or "people watching on streaming service decades later".

A bit late to this, but what a fantastic show, and I think one of the best guests on an Exile, or any PWO podcast for that matter. I'd love to hear Kris and Barry do another show soon. Thank you.

People don't just view wrestling through its matches, though. A lot of people focus on workers, others focus on promotions, TV shows, and entire years or decades worth of footage. It seems to me that there is already plenty of variety out there. Which writers/bloggers/etc are writing well, without falling back on match reviews? I'd love to pointed in their direction. If anything, this thread is a call for variety - in how we approach pro wrestling, and then, in the ways we write about it.

As others have noted, wrestling's discussed/critiqued in ways far surpassing mere match synopsis all the time. That said, match reviews are getting short shrift in this conversation. DVDVR/Segunda Caida were/are match reviews as high art. The context of a match and date are really just a springboard for talking about wrestling however the writer is capable of tackling it. Even the bell-to-bell isn't a confined beginning or end point when you see the best of our peers at work. Sure, there are reviews in some places that are too focused on simply writing down the play-by-play of moves. But I likewise think there are folks here and elsewhere who prattle on with vague, needlessly obtuse theories that simply read as self-aggrandizing. When I read eight paragraph essays of why someone liked or didn't like a match via an attempt to coin capital-T Theories, I'm reminded of H.G. Frankfurt's "On Bullshit", which clarifies how bullshit is neither true or untrue, but an attempt to cloud thoughts in such word salad that they're technically irrefutable, or cause your audience to just shrug and surrender. The happy medium in match reviews would be to capture what happened while contextualizing it in your own original, entertaining voice. Which many fans have thoughtfully done for decades. I'm not sure I buy that there's such a thing as a "sophisticated form" of writing, or the idea that match reviews aren't one. There are sophisticated and unsophisticated writers, and we shouldn't be fooled in either case by crayons or a quill. I'm a big fan of the DVDVR/Segunda Caida styles of writing, where while a "match review" is the leaping-off point, it is far more a general riff, or an insight into the writer/viewer, or whatever else. However, I think this Gonzo-esque writing is only one direction wrestling writing can move in, and match reviews as the predominant currency for wrestling writing perhaps limits the writing styles we see. There aren't that many "genres" or "schools" of wrestling writing, and not that many truly great writers who would be an enjoyable, enlightening read whether you'd followed wrestling for five minutes or 50 years. I see a "sophisticated form" to be an original, entertaining voice, and also to be a form that steers clear of capital-T Theories (although I think there is plenty of room for theory, or borrowing theories from other forms, if done right), bullshit, or whatever cloudy, vague nonsense we have all come across, and have all probably written at some point. I just think there is still a lot of untapped potential in writing about pro wrestling where it is tackled from different angles, in different ways with the sort of clarity and humanity that could help us engage with the medium even more.

That complexity is what makes the focus on matches so understandable, yet also so inadequate as a way of articulating how wrestling works.

I like the idea of building up a "grammar" of wrestling, and I can live with that being harder to rate. The real issue I have with star ratings is they become a replacement for proper analysis, either from the person making the rating, or the person criticising it. Taking a broader view of what wrestling is and what makes it work seems a more interesting exercise than fussing over 1/2* here and there (although I do appreciate star ratings are a useful shorthand). I think breaking down each element, seeing how they work together, or even just focusing on one underappreciated aspect, is a worthwhile enterprise. I also agree purpose is really important to matches, so even if the focus remained on the in-ring, you need to proper assess the broader context to see how well a match worked. A great match can still work with no context, but pro wrestling as a form relies on that interplay between purpose/context/matches etc. A holistic view on wrestlers would be interesting too, especially as I do think those promos, skits and angles do then have an impact on how we watch the matches that follow. These aren't isolated skills or events. They all influence one another.

I think there are a few things to cover here, and this feels like an exercise in getting the questions right as much as finding the answers. The predominant mode of critiquing wrestling seems to be rating matches on the ol’ star rating system. Aligned to this is the match review, which more often than not is an intro, followed by play-by-play, concluding thoughts, star rating. I know there are exceptions. Is this focus on matches the right way of critiquing wrestling? While in the in-ring action is generally the most important aspect, it isn’t the be-all and end-all of pro wrestling as an art form/performance/spectacle. Promos, angles, skits and VTs all play their part, as does commentary, pre- and post-match formalities and shenanigans, look and feel of the arena/studio etc etc. From a narrative perspective, any sort of decent pro wrestling story arc takes place over months or years, not just over the course of one match. And that is before you start weaving in any behind-the-scenes stuff that may have had an impact on what happened in the ring. In this light, match reviews feel pretty reductive, or at least offer a disproportionate focus on one aspect of what pro wrestling is. While “having good matches” seems increasingly an aim of pro wrestling, I’m not sure that was always the case, or will always be the main goal. So, are we missing a trick just viewing wrestling through its matches? And how else could we construct a critique? And would this lead to a greater variety of wrestling writing? While there is some great wrestling writing out there, it feels like there aren’t that many modes of writing about wrestling. And for wrestling analysis or appreciation to take the next step it feels like the writing needs to adopt more sophisticated forms than a match review.

Another great episode with another great guest. I hope Jim didn't keel over at the end, he sounded pretty ill! Add me to the list of those who enjoy the 1980s episodes, an era that seems endlessly entertaining, and that deserves some closer analysis.

No, smarks haven't taken over X-Factor, and I wouldn't recommend it! X-Factor has also lost viewers in recent years, so I'm not sure it is a great business model either. I think my view is that I don't know how wrestling could exist in a form palatable to you (and I) in 2016, at least in the US and UK. Old-school booking didn't work as a financial model in the 90s, and would need a serious rethink and different presentation to work now. That ship has sailed, and now wrestling=WWE, and WWE are making a load of money so really don't need to change.

I think the thesis is more "we were all ironic then", and that wrestling failed to move on or offer something new. X-Factor is a funny one. Sometimes it feels like genuine heat, sometimes pantomime booing/cheering. And X-Factor has its own band of smarks, analysing and critiquing it all - just check out the Sofabet site. Or any number of conversations among normal people querying the tragic backstories or wondering about the motives behind sending people home.

If everything stays old-school, then of course the wrestling landscape would be different. Critically/artistically, it would almost certainly be more to my tastes. Economically, I'm not sure how much of it would be left. Plenty of old-school promotions went out of business. While financial mismanagement, oil crises or whatever else could be blamed, that model certainly wasn't bullet-proof. Also, you could make a case that WWF made a huge leap financially for embracing the mood of the era with the Attitude stuff. It chimed with the mood of the time. Old-school wrestling, by its very definition, wasn't going to appeal to younger audiences, and you can't rely on the older crowd forever. Bookers that abandoned their principles could reach new people. I think it is also worth noting that the WWF changed the whole business model for making money from wrestling. There was more to be made from TV deals, PPV, merchandise. And those revenue streams needed to appeal to an ironic, cynical, young crowd with disposable income and years of spending and brand loyalty ahead of them. Old-school booking works for a house show model, less when you make wrestling a "product" and a brand. And with people more likely to stay at home than go out for their entertainment anyway, that model became pretty limited. I don't think outside bookers and execs helped matters. Certainly from a critical perspective. But I don't think "wrestling people" were doing a grand job either, as being dogmatic and within the wrestling bubble isn't the best way to do business, especially if you want to reach more people. While Vince may have killed the territories, so did changes in how television worked, and many failed to adapt. Take Vince/WWF out of the equation and I'm pretty sure many territories would have still gone out of business.

I don't think irony was invented in the 90s. However, I do think that from the mid to late 80s onwards irony became far more mainstream and accessible, and there was also a move to irony for irony's sake, rather than as a counter-cultural tool. I think GoT and Breaking Bad are perhaps moves away from that - there was the New Sincerity as a reaction against irony overload, and as you say, there is a growing trend for fully immersive, consistent worlds. We're not in a permanent state of Irony. However, wrestling made its shift in that ironic era/phase, and has struggled to move past it, to what works in the current culture, and what would work for pro wrestling. As I said before, everything is pro wrestling, except pro wrestling. But wrestling has always been way behind the times.

I'm going to try to keep this short so it can't be misunderstood: - I blame the bookers entirely because they failed to control the crowds and pandered to their worst instincts. I'm not sure I buy this. However, first a disclaimer - I agree there has been some terrible booking over the years. However, terrible booking is not something that appeared in 1995. It has always been there. And I'm not convinced any booker can completely control a crowd, let alone control a crowd in a way that completely over-rides any wider cultural shift taking place, such as a move towards irony and self-referential post- meta- stuff pervading the mainstream. Go and watch virtually any classic 1980s angle. Now look at the crowd. At least someone in there will be goofing off. Now matter what drama preceeded it, watch as the camera pans the audience prior to a Memphis ad break. Someone in there will be pulling faces, or laughing, or generally mucking about. Now, the booking didn't pander to that, but it didn't stop that behaviour either. Second disclaimer - I don't think that wrestling moving away from playing it straight is A Good Thing. It is hugely problematic on all manner of levels. However, I don't see how any faux-sincere entertainment form survives from the 1990s onwards by playing things straight. Magic shows didn't. Even consciously fictional entertainments adapted. Wrestling was already looking dated anyway. It had to change, even if that change wasn't desirable from a critical perspective. Plenty of promotions played it straight in the 80s and early 90s and still went out of business. So, while booking is a factor, it seems strange to ignore wider cultural factors. It also seems strange to ignore the socio-economic stuff too. Audiences were changing. The working classes were changing. Methods of consumption were changing, as was what was being consumed too. The general public is very different in, say 1998, to what it was in 1975. It is different again now. I don't think there is a one-size-fits-all approach that works for wrestling. More that there was a particular combination of factors around cultural tastes and socio-economic trends alongside particular trends in booking and working that created a perfect storm from, I dunno, 1978 to 1988 that created a form of wrestling that many of us enjoy aesthetically. To blame booking for its decline is to ignore all the things that made it happen and make it work in the first place.

A few genuine questions... What percentage of your standard WWE crowd know who Dave Meltzer is? What is primarily to blame for All That Is Wrong About Pro Wrestling Today - bookers or the wider cultural shift? Has there been a change in the socio-economic make-up of a pro wrestling crowd? And is this a factor?