FedEx227

I do think a fundemantal issue with this entire discussion is people getting too upset at the idea of "standards changing" and if that somehow means that what they loved from the past or what they love doing is somehow discredited or worthless. That's not even remotely close to true. Rosemary's Baby is one of my favorite movies ever, but I have no problem knowing that if I showed it to one of my younger cousins they would be absolutely bored out of their mind and the twist ending would do nothing for them. Why? Well shit, he just saw Captain America and X-Men, explosions, loud noises, quick moving, he's playing on his iPad every 30 minutes,etc. Do I really think I can plop him in front of a movie for two hours and keep his attention? Does that make MY enjoyment of it different? Not at all. At the same time, I recognize given what my cousin grew up on, a slow-building 1970s thriller isn't going to quite do it for him. Even if it's an expertly crafted movie, he is raised in a totally different atmosphere than my parents or I was. Or hey, maybe he's like me and really takes a liking to the movie even though he saw it 30-40 years after release, he loves the concept and starts diving into 70s cinema.

Well, let's stick with baseball because I think that's the one sport where you can truly make an argument that things haven't evolved for the better. Anyone who says basketball is worse is clueless, ditto for football so let's do baseball. Baseball goes through cycles more than any other sport. We had an era dominated by pitchers so offense was down tremendously, that evolved into an era where the best way to score was through "small ball" which meant low strikeout numbers and more stolen bases, bunts, etc. Slowly this evolved into the steroid era where offense was at an all-time high, fields were at an all-time small and pitchers were at an all-time bad. Home runs everywhere, sky high numbers, records being broken, etc. As of late, we've seen a bit of a correction but the evolution and integration of SABRmetrics into front offices has changed what was once acceptable for offenses, defenses, pitchers, etc. Gone are the days of truly "craft" pitchers who didn't get by solely on speed, in come the flamethrowing youngsters who blow people away with strikeouts. Hitters more than ever look to walk, strikeout or hit an extra base hit. This has led to games taking a lot longer (people taking more pitches), historically high strikeout numbers and less balls in play than ever before. To many, this is a devolving or getting worse. It's certainly less exciting than 1970s or 80s baseball, the games take longer, less people are watching, etc. In that example, you could say the sport has become less entertaining but athletic ability, training, development and so on is at an all-time high.

I'm jumping in a little late to this, I should've came right off the bat as it's a super interesting topic. I think standards absolutely do change and I think Tom nailed in on the first page when using the baseball analogy and that's how I see it. Baseball is largely unchanged throughout history but the play, the way players play, the way the players look and how they score runs or how they pitch has altered dramatically. Wrestling isn't totally different and standards are a matter of context. Dylan's initial post talked about the art of reviewing past matches/events and if that's even possible with standards changing... it absolutely is. What it requires though is you to understand context. Understand that a suplex is a bigger deal in 1975 than it is in 2014 just as a 98 mph fastball was a huge deal in 1960 but now every Harry, Dick and Tom in all 30 major league bullpens can throw 98. Does that make a guy like Bob Feller less important or good because he threw 90+ and now everyone does it? Absolutely not, he's important because of his peers and the context of his performance comparative to others of that era. Guys shouldn't be punished for an era, even with evolving standards. What CM Punk does in a ring, in 2013, to me has no effect on how you should properly grade or assess a Lou Thesz match. Sure, they have similarities but the methods and with that, the standards have absolutely changed. I understand the psychology largely "hasn't" changed but the delivery methods absolutely have. That's where the sports analogy comes in. Is Troy Tulowitzki better than Honus Wagner because his career SLG is .512 and Wagner's is only .467? No. SS in the 1900s weren't asked to hit home runs, they weren't supposed to or they flat out couldn't based off the dimensions of the field. Honus among his peers is an all-time legend, Tulowitzki isn't.

We're excited to be joined on the podcast by former NWA World Heavyweight Champion and World Tag Team Champion in both WWE and NWA — Rob Conway! We cover a multitude of topics including Rob's work in New Japan Pro Wrestling and the National Wrestling Alliance, adapting to the Japanese style, the awesomeness of Bruce Tharpe, what it's like to wrestle at the Tokyo Dome and much more. We also discuss his beginnings in the wrestling business, his run in Ohio Valley Wrestling, his debut in World Wrestling Entertainment, "The Con-Man" and so much more. http://www.voicesofwrestling.com/2014/05/05/rob-conway-nwanjpw/

We rescheduled this interview for today, so I'll jot down these questions an try to get to as much as I can. Thanks!

Do I have the same access to stuff pre/post? Like... post can I still watch indies via YouTube or iPPV and pre I'm stuck with whatever is on my TV, tape traders, etc.?

Unfortunately his agent didn't do a great job of communication with Conway so we weren't sure when we were supposed to call. Thus, the interview didn't happen yesterday but we are in talks directly with Rob to have this happen again sometime very soon. Thanks for the questions, we promise we'll get to them if we have the time and if the interview does actually happen.

Jericho vs. Triple H from 2000: MODERATOR'S NOTE: Removed YouTube link of WWE-owned footage.

I've been talking about this at length on recent podcasts and on Twitter since I believe true heels are starting to make a comeback to mainstream wrestling. Which to me is heels that are bad, but think they are right. Heels that clearly do the wrong thing, but they think they are doing the right thing. For years and years, WWE focused on guys that were evil to be evil. Someone like Edge knew he was being a dickhead and didn't care, his gimmick was I'm an asshole. The best heels are always justifying their actions to themselves. Flair and The Horsemen would lose a match then talk a few days later like they never lost. They are irrationally naive to themselves which makes us mad because they are lying or being deceiving.

I'm hoping he gives them a "bloodbath"-style shower of flakseed.

I forgot what month it was, maybe May or June, but the title changed 5 or 6 times in a month bouncing between Jarrett, Nash and Flair. Some in the same night. Title history is obnoxious in 2000 WCW

I actually came here to ask this exact question. I couldn't put an exact time or date on what Lawler could have been doing. I'm guessing Man on the Moon or he was sick. That was an interesting episode of Raw. I forgot how insanely paced 1999 shows were, they honestly didn't give the viewer two seconds to breath before cutting to the back, cutting to a vignette or cutting to the next match.

But make sure it's an even tan lest you want to be berated on national TV constantly.

HEY-O!

Right and about half way through this study I realized I should just do the main event of every PPV because that does a better job of 1. drawing the buy and 2. has a far better chance of fluctuating. I dont think it would be too subjective if I just took the final match on the card and considered that our "main event" but then you have issues like No Way Out 2001. Is HHH/Austin Three Stages of Hell the "main event" or is Angle/Rock (which went on last) ?

Very interesting. I may have to mess around with that and see if we get anything interesting in those results.

Thanks. I was hoping the conclusion would be a bit better or at least more fun but yeah, no correlation. Result is essentially most WWE PPVs fall into a 2-2.5 range on average regardless of how many buys. There's also a much larger debate about buys dictating when an event looks good on paper and what looks good on paper being completely subjective. It was fun either way, if anything it was great to laugh at Invasion 2001 and In Your House: Great White North.

Certainly. In Chicago, it's almost become a self-awareness from both the crowd and Cena that we boo him when he's on TV but it's a love to hate scenario. Once the cameras are off, dark show-wise, people cheer for him or at the very least don't boo and let the kids have their fun.

You are correct he is the lead PBP for Orioles, no longer with ESPN. I don't think he does NHL on TV anymore but if you've played the NHL video games, you've heard him!

I think Dave is also forgetting the diversity in who attends these shows. House shows as we should all know by now are predominantly children and their parents whereas Raws and PPVs will skew a little older with PPVs grading out much older. That could also be a huge reason for the difference in reaction.

Was once the top baseball announcer for ESPN, college football and NHL. He's a big name in the sporting world.

Here's my third-rate attempt to be as cool as mookieghana looking at the correlation between Dave's star ratings and buys. You can look at this a few different ways: Are shows that receive a high number of buys better shows than those that receive a low amount of buys? How often do shows do well on PPV and actually turn out really good? How often do shows that do poorly on PPV end up being horrible? Full study: http://www.voicesofwrestling.com/2014/03/11/buys-and-star-ratings-a-love-story/

http://twitter.com/davidbix

Bix retweeting everyone correcting him is pretty spectacular. Yet, he got to write a book on wrestling.

Not to mention that Bret Hart's gripes with McMahon in early 97 and obviously the screwjob set the stage for the Mr. McMahon character. He very, very obviously had an influence on the Attitude Era and how it progressed.