Steenalized

Jarrett was clearly going to win that the entire time. The whole match was the Jeff Jarrett redemption story while some other guys fall around.

Haven't watched TNA in about three years since I saw a few episodes of Impact back then. No clue when I saw a TNA PPV last. Yet here I am, waiting to see Jeff Jarrett.

Finally getting back to watching Memphis after a several month delay. I'm at the Bam Bam Bigelow run in 86 right now and loving it. I don't care if he never really improved, Bam Bam looks amazing for someone so green.

That post is pretty evident that you're not exactly not sensitive. I don't know what views you hold right now will end up being laughable to younger generations decades from now. I'm not magic. How do you not see the humor in an old woman asking a crude question, particularly one that marks her as dated and behind the times? Dave didn't tell the story as a "haha, you sure are right," type of story either. She has become the punchline. Actually, you not even seeing the humor in it isn't an issue, it's your inability to even grasp why others might find it funny, then assert that everyone else is patently wrong. Get off the high horse, I guarantee you that you use some term or have some thought that is offensive or demeaning to someone somewhere. Hopefully you have enough stores of righteous indignation to immediately drop that and change, or maybe realize that humor isn't 100% a form of oppression. Some of what you say is true, but it isn't so cut and dry. Sorry guys, PWO, I'll end my comments on that topic there.

Probably because not everyone is so sensitive like you. And because someday you'll probably have antiquated views that young people find humorous, just like always.

Maven and Nidia hung around for like 4-5 years. The winner now will likely last a few years, but most of them will be buried down in NXT.

Generally, I agree with all that you just said. But I do take issue with "It's simply not true that every person has THEIR OWN unique criteria." They very clearly do, you just admitted it in your next point. If we were to somehow Venn diagram every wrestling fan that posted here, there'd be tons of overlap in the middle, but everyone will stick out somewhere that others don't. I agree that when there is such a major overlap for people, most people, that it's a pretty impotent argument to say everyone has a completely different view. They don't, there are obvious trends and common views. But everyone does weigh everything differently, value certain things that others hardly care about. That is clear subjectivity. Wrestling fans also do not have a robust, formalized process for grading matches the way you do in your academic setting. Well, perhaps a few do, but I trust you'll agree that the vast, vast majority don't. It's a far more informal process, subject to the whims of the viewer, like Will pointed out recently. You can change your rating of a match a day later whether on rewatch or contemplation because you realized you were tired before and something bugged you more than it should have, or any infinite number of variables. So yes, I agree that there are 'common standards' to rating wrestling. But those standards are (1) subjective (obviously) and (2) subject to change both within individuals and within groups, particularly over time. The differences, the places where our Venn diagrams of opinion are not overlapping, that's where the debate comes in. All in all, "wrestling is subjective" is a bland, largely uninformative statement, but it's still more accurate than "wrestling is objective except it's not but I'll use that as a shorthand." EDIT: And FWIW, your El Gigante fan may have once existed, but it likely was a child holding that opinion.

I'm not at Bill's level of 'all subjective values are equally valid.' If I think El Gigante is a better wrestler than Flair because he's taller and scarier looking, than clearly my subjective value: (1) ranks him above Flair and (2) is so unique to me that it's a waste to discuss why he's "better" than Flair. What I'd be looking for in a wrestler is so far removed from what you value that we aren't even using the same terms even if I use the same word to assign an ordinal rank. Like Loss said earlier, 'it's subjective' is the start of a conversation, not the end of it. But that conversation didn't need to include a smug potshot at anyone who openly acknowledges that no two people have the same criteria.

What always seems strange in these discussions is that the side who argue for "everything is objective" always do so in a way that ignores their own subjective selection of criteria that they use to rate and rank. The irony and the arrogance are not lost.

Bam Bam Bigelow started hot out the gate.

The OED and dictionaries don't set definitions of words, they codify them after common usage. I actually agree with your point that nature is not art, though I cut that back by saying it is easy to find artistic qualities to nature (mainly, beauty or some other aesthetic merit). As for wrestling, I'd put it as an art. Maybe a shallow/low brow art form in a societal context, but heavy handed moral messages and tropes are still art, even if they're not the equivalent of a Renaissance masterwork in paint or sculpture. The form itself is still art even if you're trying to make money off of it, or treating it and its consumers as beneath you so that you only give the lowest necessary performance possible while still being relevant.

If Hulk Hogan did a Burning Hammer, that would be worth at least a star. He probably did it in Japan during one of this workrate classics.

Didn't mind Rollins' promo, with the caveat that I automatically hate the opening 20 minute promo no matter what it is. Ambrose and Sheamus should deliver big.

Crazy indy spotfest in the best way and, coupled with the angle afterwards, Owens looks like he's going to be big.

No real thoughts on that one. It's not that they've killed the MITB match dead, I still enjoyed watching it and the crowd was pretty hot, but nothing stands out anymore. Wyatt vs. Reigns has my attention only because I want to see which one is officially toast.

Let's put it this way. If you dove into a shallow pool head first and smacked your head against the bottom, you're going to hurt the top of the head. But it's the neck that's taking the serious damage.

Dave himself called him the 'king of the two star matches' before on WOL some time back. And he's not a historically important draw either. Unless he has some insanely positive influence I'm aware of, this is a big no.

"You would think Vince, in general, would want everyone on his roster, male and female, to reach their full potential and make him money, but apparently he doesn't." The part in just italics I agree with. The thing is, Vince likely doesn't think that the divas, small guys, and foreigners have much potential to fulfill or much money to draw. Some of these reasons are more foolish than others, but JvK has done a good job explaining why Vince thinks this way. The bolded part I disagree with. I sincerely doubt Vince sees someone, anyone, that is on his roster and says "screw it, I hope he doesn't draw a dime for me." If he wanted that, he would just cut the guy or gal.

Rusev's fall in the last 3 months has been the mid-2010s equivalent of Evolution: the thing that's made me stop watching WWE (and wrestling in general) for a while.

Sheamus was on fire before his injury, he's been as good of a worker as the WWE has for a while.

He completely changed his style and look for that match, playing an entirely new character. Doesn't seem like a lack of adaptability to me.

Same here, and I bailed out after Big Show/Reigns since I have zero desire to see yet another Randy Orton main event. As much as I loved Wrestlemania, I have zero interest in the current product.

Rusev has been their best heel by far for the last year and this is a company that is chronically short on heels. Turning their one great heel act fact for no real reason is a terrible idea and makes it that much harder to set up effective feuds.

Unbelievably bad match given how much these two have clicked in the past and how highly I think of them. Gimmick totally killed what they have. And Cena's now 2-1 against Rusev, this time cleanly. Good thing he got that Wrestlemania win too.

Realistically, they'd either be fighting outside a bunch of hotels or brawling in a car stuck in traffic on I-90. Either way, it should've happened.