BillThompson

Check back to the first post where I'm gonna list everyone mentioned here or online so far, feel free to add in your thoughts about any wrestler mentioned.

Someone else mentioned Bigelow and I recall him being pretty good right away, but he never reached that great level for me, as much as I liked him.

Was watching some more Volk Han today, and that got me to thinking of the general notion most people put forth of, "He/she has only been wrestling a year, give them a break" Not saying I disagree with that sentiment, but there are exceptions and that's what I'm interested in. What wrestlers do you think got it right out of the gate and were basically top notch workers right away? On Twitter we were bantering a but about this and so far we came up with Volk Han, Bryan Danielson, and Jun Akiyama. Any others anyone can think of? P.S.: Since this is me you know I'm only referring to in-ring work with this question. Volk Han Jun Akiyama Bryan Danielson Bam Bam Bigelow Kurt Angle Brock Lesnar Psicosis Vader Owen Hart Barry Windham Jumbo Tsuruta Brian Christopher Dragon Lee Cavernario Mika Akino 1-2-3 Kid Magnum TA Hiroshi Tanahashi Johnny Gargano Dustin Rhodes Jaguar Yokota Mike Modest Carl Greco Yuki Ishikawa Cassandro Dynamite Kid

I agree with the supported part of what you're saying. I have some crazy opinions, but I always back them up with what I think is sound reasoning. I don't expect others to agree with me, and I honestly never pay attention to whether I am in the majority or minority, I just form my own opinions and go from there. Where I would disagree is that an informed opinion that is in the minority holds less weight than an informed opinion that is in the majority. That's pretty close to acceptance of groupthink, which is something I think is damaging to art appreciation in all mediums. For me, an informed opinion is an informed opinion, and I accept it even if I disagree with it wholeheartedly. It's not something I find arrogant, but just a part of the critical thinking process.

Thanks

So, I can say Good Charlotte is better than The Beatles and there is nothing wrong with that statement? It's my opinion, so it's all cool? Well...yes? I mean I personally would disagree with you, as I imagine a lot of people would. But that doesn't make either of us right or wrong. You're perfectly entitled to think that. You can think anything you want, doesn't make it right. There is no argument you can make for this being the case. You can enjoy Good Charlotte more all you want, but doesn't mean they are better. The argument has been made, many times now. Art is subjective, therefore someone can easily think Good Charlotte is better. Every aspect of music is subjective and left up to the whims of the consumer. You can disagree, think such an opinion is crazy, but an argument has been made, and someone somewhere thinks they are better and they are not wrong for thinking that; no matter how much you want them to be so that your idea of what is better can be justified.

Any chance you could give me some background info on this match as it's not showing up in any of the database's I use for reference/research. The four participants I got, and the promotion is Atlantic Grand Prix Wrestling, yes? But, was there a name for their TV show or in lieu of that do you know what arena the match took place in? And do you have any idea on a date for this match and what title is being defended here?

I know the majority of us post on Twitter, but it would be helpful to place the poster on here with the profile on Twitter. Usually I can do that no problem, but in some cases I know someone followed me because of PWO but I can't figure out who they are on here, I have a few Twitter handles, but I'm only listing the one I use for wrestling. So, let's have em, for those of you who do have Twitter, what's your handle. Mine is, @MOTYPod

And you believing that your take is the only correct take isn't narcissism? Art is driven by thinking outside of what is deemed normal, and by exploring the world in a way that others may find odd, or even incorrect. I think that a cloud is art, therefore it is art to me. You falling back on social collectivist theory doesn't do anything to dissuade me from thinking as such. It just shows me that your take on the world is a very rigid one where you cannot accept someone or something that doesn't fit into said take. That's fine if that's your take, but it's not my take. We turn to the sun, the stars, the sky, and the moon for inspiration. We do this because they are full of art. and awe, and wonder. My take is that the world is full of art, you spouting off social collectivist theory isn't going to change that.

I don't understand your need for everything to fit into neat and tidy boxes. --You may think Gigante is a terrible bumper, I may think he is a great bumper. We both have our reasons, and this mere difference of opinion is enough to show the fallacy of objectivity in art. --Repeat the above for every bullet point you presented. There aren't any criteria that exist for me, because the application of art is something I find to be very fluid. Bret Hart botching the Ringpost Figure Four Leglock and falling on his head may on the surface appear to be objectively bad. But, where does the match go from there? Are they then able to work that spot into the match in a way where it fits the narrative and becomes not a botch but a genuine part of the match? Or, look at matches that are rough around the edges. If you say there are objective criteria for how a Vertical Suplex must be executed then any deviation from that is a mark against the match. It's been my experience that slight deviations in the Vertical Suplex can add to the match, and what one views as a badly executed Vertical Suplex I can view as a moment that adds flavor to the match; or vice versa.

Definitions & concepts are by their very nature nebulous and changing. Words change, languages change, art changes, gender norms change, etc. The eye of the beholder principle works because of how art changes from person to person and throughout time. Art is subjective because it is so nebulous and almost beyond definition. I mean heck, even in this discussion I am limiting art by attempting to affix it to the argument I am making. You know what I did today Parv, I looked at a cloud and declared it art. It was fairly easy to do, and it was pretty darn spiffy to sit there and bask in the wonderment of natural art. Now, I'm sure you will say it isn't art, that's of little concern to me. I'm more concerned with the cloud, what it evoked in me, and what it could evoke in others. I'm open to the idea of anything as art, and thus the possibility of beauty in anything and everything. There is art in that cloud just as there is art in a punch from Jerry Lawler. The quality of that art is a different debate, but the art is present because I don't believe the definition of what is and isn't art can, nor should be, fixed in stone. That's far too limiting, far too small of an outlook on life and art. You being rigid and unwilling to compromise your worldview isn't really my problem. I'm not seeking to change you in any way. You choosing to limit yourself and the world you live in is your choice. But, you ascribing your worldview onto others is problematic. If someone sees something a certain way and it's not hurting anything, then I don't see the need for the constant name calling and condescension. You are by all means entitled to your opinion on art, and I am entitled to mine. One of us is lashing out and calling others nutters for their take, and that really says it all in my eyes.

Sure it is, the art is found both in the artist and in the person consuming the art. If someone were to listen to Jimi and the Gent play and provide reasoning for why they thought the Gent was better I would accept their opinion on the subjective topic. That doesn't mean I have to agree with their opinion, but I can accept an opinion without agreeing with it.

I think they are, since what Dory is doing in the ring is creating art. But, it's more about how you are framing the original question. You're applying an interpretation to the question of art, one that is based on the idea of societal collective thought. I'm doing the same with Dory. is this an apple? That's a question with a clear answer. Is this money? Well that's a little trickier. It might be money for these people at this time but in other times it has no function as currency. Clearly there's no "in my opinion" about it because either it's money or it isn't. Is this worker great? More of a clear opinion question. A value judgement. The art question is more like the money question. I disagree, both the worker and the art question would fall into an opinion based realm. Bollocks they do. The status of something as art isn't a matter of opinion. For example, there are certain things that aren't art: science, for example, explicitly isn't art. Nature, for example, explicitly isn't art. So it is a concept that has some sort of stable signification in something other than someone's opinion whereas "is this worker great?" only exists as an opinion. I think you are confusing the fact that art is subject to interpretation and that we can have opinions about works of art with art itself. I think you are choosing to take an incredibly limited view on art. You're quick to lash out when your worldview is challenged. In someone's hands anything can become art, even science and nature. You may not see it, and again that's fine, but myself and others do see it. Besides, you've already damned your own argument from the start with your Coke can example. That Coke can most certainly can be a piece of art, depending on a lot of factors. It's all in how someone chooses to see it and treat it. You are choosing to not treat it as art, but others will treat it differently. That's the beauty of art, and why it is without limitations. Never said any of that though. An artist can indeed make a ton of money. Other people misinterpreting previous posts of mine doesn't change what I actually said. The difference is this: 90% of successful wrestlers place a high importance on the money. Art is way down the list, if it's there at all. Doesn't mean they don't work hard at their craft, take pride in it, etc. Whereas, there are actors who - yes - make a lot of money, but the majority of the long-lasting successes (not all) genuinely identify themselves as artists and make a conscious effort to create art. Some have the "one for me, one for them" approach where they'll rotate a big studio flick with something more artistic, but they use that big Hollywood money to fund the art. Local indy wrestlers who work for peanuts are the same as actors in college plays. Good stuff some of the time, but not really true professionals yet. I don't include the bigger indies like TNA, ROH, etc. when I say that, just the really local ones. I'm generalizing, obviously, but you get the point. You did say that, and you're saying it again. Money means nothing in this conversation. I honestly don;t see why you keep bringing it up. Every artist wants to make money with their art. They intend in some way, or hope rather, to make money with their art. Whether it happens or not doesn't effect their status as artists. There are wrestlers who make a lot of money and those who don;t, both are artists. This is true in every single artistic field.

You and I are of completely different minds. Art is, and always has been, in the eye of the beholder. One person's trash is another person's treasure. You can sit here and tell me that The Departed is a master class in filmmaking and I'll tell you that I found the film to be incredibly inept. I can tell you that Prince is a horrible musician who couldn't find a note to save his life, and you can tell me that he's the most pitch perfect singer you've ever heard. Art is subjective, it is up to the individual, and there is no objective standard by which to judge art. What you are seeking are absolutes, clear lines of demarcation. Those are the death of art because they inhibit art, appreciation of art, exploration of art, and discussion of art. Any piece of art can be great, just as any piece of art can be terrible, and any piece of art can be two very different things to two different people. Arguing otherwise is, in my mind, missing the very spirit of art and trying to mold it to a worldview that it simply does not fit. And Parv, no one is pretending. People can disagree with you and think your take on something is incredibly stupid (which I wouldn't say about your take on art, it's more limiting than it is stupid) without pretending. It's condescending of you to repeatedly bring out that argument when people disagree with you. Take a chill pill and relax, it's okay to disagree without accusing others of pretending.

That's not art though, that's ascribing standards which do not exist in the medium. Because if that's the case, then you say, "Pineapple Express is great, the way that they filmed the intro was pure class," and I can't say anything in return because you can't argue an objective standard. I'm not saying we can't argue. I'm not using it to shut down arguments and I also don't have much evidence for it. It just seems fishy to me that the more someone gets into an art the more their views change and a lot of people's views converge. I think the opposite happens actually. The more people explore art the more they realize it's okay to think differently. You need not accept Citizen Kane as a classic, or even think it's a well made film. Or, you don't have to bash Michael Bay just because everyone else does, you may discover facets of his filmmaking that you feel are worthy of the highest merit. The subjectivity of art breeds difference of opinion and difference of interest. It's why we all can like so many different things, or some of the same tings, or nothing at all.

The comparisons you're throwing out don't wash CS. In any artistic field there are people who will work for less. There are amazing artists whose main driving force is making money and putting food on the table. None of this precludes them from being an artist. Based on what you are saying actors aren't artists, musicians aren't artists, and so on and so forth.

That's not art though, that's ascribing standards which do not exist in the medium. Because if that's the case, then you say, "Pineapple Express is great, the way that they filmed the intro was pure class," and I can't say anything in return because you can't argue an objective standard.

how do you think you can objectively define "quality"? this is the issue people like jimmy redman and myself have. i flat-out don't think it's possible. the issue is that seeing merit in anything requires you to buy into a surrounding value system that prizes the qualities you think are "objectively" important. and that value system itself may not necessarily have any objective arguments in its favor, or have strong arguments against it. for instance, i could easily picture someone not rating any 90s AJPW ***+ because of the long-term effects of the style. they would basically be saying "celebrating these matches is implicitly celebrating brain damage, and that's such an important issue to me that it overrides anything the matches themselves have to offer". and i think that would be a perfectly reasonable viewpoint as long as it's applied to other culpable wrestling out there. i don't see any concrete case for "the art and the personal are separate" being inherently more valid than "the art and the personal are linked". or imagine someone who doesn't get much out of even the most celebrated wrestling stories, like magnum-tully. this person has also been desensitized to highspot wrestling. so they end up seeing the corniness/weirdness as the creative heart & soul of wrestling, and could consider a lot of 80s WWF straight-up better than the stuff i've mentioned in this post. if they can explain why they've ended up turning the smart-fan value system on its head, how can you say their opinion is any less relevant than anyone else's? I have never said objectivity can be achieved. In fact, I'll say for the third time in this thread that knowing that, I still think it's worth striving for, knowing we'll fail all the while. It's not about liking what you like. Everyone should like what they like. But "I liked it" and "It was good" are mutually exclusive. As one example, I liked Angle-Show at Backlash 2000. It wasn't a great match. That's not me establishing that I'm objective, that's me making an attempt to be objective. An attempt. If people have different takeaways, that's fine. It's up to everyone to figure out how they are going to rate, watch and talk about wrestling. But where people lose me is when two wrestlers do the exact same thing and one gets criticized for it while the other gets praised for it. That's the kind of objectivity I like to see at least attempted in match reviews - not factually correct opinions (that idea is laughable), but not trashing matches solely because of predisposition against the wrestlers, or the fans of the wrestlers, or the promotion it happens in, or some other environmental factor. It's not about objectivity for me. It's about consistency. And really, "fair" is a better word than objective here. It bugs me when I think people aren't giving something a fair chance. If they are, whatever takeaways they have aren't going to get too many objections from me, even if they are drastically different from my opinions. Just because we can't be completely objective does not mean there is not an objective basis for good art. Yes, it does. There isn't a single aspect of art that is objective. Even down to the tiniest level quality is open for interpretation. That's why one person can say they love the way Cesaro hits the Big Swing; that it is technically sound, has ample rotations, etc. Someone else can say that the exact same Big Swing doesn't have enough spin, that he over-rotates, etc. There is no objective standard for art, only subjective interpretation.

I think they are, since what Dory is doing in the ring is creating art. But, it's more about how you are framing the original question. You're applying an interpretation to the question of art, one that is based on the idea of societal collective thought. I'm doing the same with Dory. is this an apple? That's a question with a clear answer. Is this money? Well that's a little trickier. It might be money for these people at this time but in other times it has no function as currency. Clearly there's no "in my opinion" about it because either it's money or it isn't. Is this worker great? More of a clear opinion question. A value judgement. The art question is more like the money question. I disagree, both the worker and the art question would fall into an opinion based realm.

I'm only going to say this once, but I find you to be someone not worth talking to or conversing with in any way. You're wasting your time by formulating responses to anything I say, as I will not be responding back, after this one time.

This is true, but the same is true of wrestling as art. If we want to expand the ecosystem we are dealing with then I believe that the "You're being a narcissist if you think wrestling is art" argument falls apart because there will be more than enough people who think differently. I don't believe in the theory Parv is putting forth.

I think they are, since what Dory is doing in the ring is creating art. But, it's more about how you are framing the original question. You're applying an interpretation to the question of art, one that is based on the idea of societal collective thought. I'm doing the same with Dory.

Then why do you spend so much time pushing Dory as a good wrestler? You think he's good, no one else does, so he isn't. Ill-advised example On my part? It fits your example perfectly. In our little eco-system here you are the only one who pushes Dory as a great worker. No one agrees with you and sees value in him as a great worker. Thus using your reductive approach to art he's not a great worker, and you're being a narcissist.

Then why do you spend so much time pushing Dory as a good wrestler? You think he's good, no one else does, so he isn't.

Bix, Loss, and a few others made my points for me pretty much. I stand by my statement; wrestling is art. It's something being done as a form of expression, where narratives are being built, stories are being told, and craft is on display. Denying that behind smokescreen comparisons and "Jeez, you really want to call this crap art?" or "It's a business, that's not art" is all rather reductive. Trash is art, low brow is art; the intent to make money does not stop something from being art.