BillThompson

Just watched this match, and it's really great stuff. I'm came very close to giving this match the highest rating possible, it's that darn great. I still shake my head at the fact that Ohno never made it to the WWE.

Well, indeed. That's why pro-wrestlers, and I mean pro as *professional*, usually think these guys are marks. They're just as professional as any guy in the WWE, notoriety does not equal being a professional. That's like telling an EMT on a volunteer department that they aren't a professional because they don't do the job full time or get paid for it.

The only ones on the present roster I think are actual workers are Natalya, Emma, Paige, AJ, and Alicia Fox. Charlotte, Sasha Banks, and Bailey all look to have the goods in NXT. Alexa Bliss and a few others also look to/have been said to have potential. I think with that base great things can happen.The question is if they are willing to run with those women and accept that Nikki Bella is just a valet, and sadly I don't see that happening.

Watching that segment I don't understand how anyone could come away preferring Sable in any fashion. Physically Sunny outclasses her, but in terms of having a personality, understanding the angle, and being in on what is expected of her as a wrestling personality Sunny's vibrant performance completely outshines Sable's flat take,

You're not putting on a show for an audience that is present to see you perform your art. There's absolutely no difference between a pro wrestler and a theater actor, film actor, street artist, writer, etc. They are all employing a craft they have learned to express an art and engage an audience. Pro wrestling allows individual and group expression from the performers, and even artistic interaction from the audience. To say that pro wrestling isn't an art and that pro wrestlers aren't artists is to say that movies aren't art and that film actors aren't artists. Besides, your entire argument falls apart when you look at any independent wrestlers. The guy down the street from me who wrestles every weekend as Rapier the Clown isn't wrestling to make money. He's wrestling because he wants to explore the art form of wrestling and entertain an audience with his art. The same can be said of the majority of promotions present in the world, because whether or not they intend to make money most of them don't. If pro wrestling is purely a money making business then the indie wrestlers making no money would stop wrestling and the promotions that never make money would stop putting on shows. They don't because they love the art form of professional wrestling and using the artistic platform of wrestling to express their artistic side.

No. But pro-wrestling's only goal has always been to draw money. Period. You can make music, litterature, cinema, painting for the sake of it, for experimental researches, to express yourself, to protest against injustice, to stay alive, to heal other people. Pro-wrestling never had any other aim but to get money from its spectators. Pro-wrestling is basically psychological mass manipulation. The "pro-wrestling tell stories" argument has become amazingly overstated in recent years. The stories pro-wrestling tell are amazingly simplistic and limited, and aimed right at the reptilian brain. Bad guy = boo. Good guy = cheers. Bad guy cheats = me sad and angry. Good guy beats the shit out of bad guy = me happy. It's a low-brow form of entertainment born from the carnivals, it can be fascinating and great to watch, but no great wrestling match can be compared to a great work of litterature, cinema or music. Nor it shouldn't, because it's different. Now, if you want to compare the pro-wrestling industry with other entertainment industry which are using cinema, music and litterature to generate money, then it's another thing, but it's another point of comparison. And pretty often, most of the biggest money generators in the entertainment industry are shit pieces of "art". I don't believe that's true at all. Wrestler A and wrestler B don't enter the ring only hoping to have money. If that were the case guys like Chris Jericho wouldn't seek out opinions on their matches, keep track which matches they were in that they think are great, etc. A promoter wouldn't care about the quality of his/her show, but we know that they do beyond making money. If money were all that mattered Vince McMahon would have kept a guy like Zeus around because his angle and his movie had made the WWF a big profit. But, they didn't, because aesthetics and the artistic side have always mattered in wrestling. One can make money while attempting to present something artistically pleasing, I'd say that's the backbone of the wrestling business.

Pettengill spent most of the segment very obviously looking down or straight at Sunny's breasts. Then there was the issue of whatever substance Sunny put on her breasts because it made it look like someone had just finished having their fun with said breasts. All in all it's quite the startling change from the way WWF presented sexuality before that. Sure, there's things like Sherri offering to blow Warrior, but even that is presented with a slight hint of ambiguity. The Sunny SummerSlam '97 segment screams, "Look at Sunny's breasts, aren't they great? And that shiny wet stuff you see glistening on her breasts, that should be your jizz, don't ya know."

Art and making money are not mutually exclusive. Movies are made to make money, but they are also works of art. Books are published to make money, but they are also pieces of art. Wrestling is performed to make money, but it is also art. You can replace money with other factors, such as scoring women/men, gaining favor with politicians, etc. There can be ulterior base reasons behind art, but that doesn't stop it from being art.

Sunny at SummerSlam '97 is the WWF's first attempt at being insanely over the top sexual, right? I mean, she's not even really in her top, and it is quite awesome. Easily puts Sable to shame in that segment. Funny thing is, I know the Divas and women in wrestling in general would get way more over the top, but there's something about the way that Sunny found the line in her WWF work and pushed it as far as possible that I find way more appealing than anything that came after.

Agreed. Pro-wrestling isn't music (hell, not even pop-music), pro-wrestling isn't litterature, pro-wrestling isn't cinema, pro-wrestling isn't painting. Pro-wrestling doesn't express anything. It's not an art. At best it's a craft industry, and some great workers are terrific craftsmen. Pro wrestling is the very definition of art. It's along the same lines as literature, movies, TV, etc. It expresses emotion, creates an engaging relationship with the viewer, tells a story, etc. Those are all facets of art, and wrestling is a tremendous form of performance art.

Of course none of this has anything to do what with what I'm saying, but sure! You don't see the futility or pointlessness of going back and criticizing a live review of Bash at the Beach 1997 that Scott Keith wrote 17 years ago? Why does it matter that he wasn't hip on lucha back in 1997? Based on a match review of a forgettable match that occurred 17 years ago. Sad. Actually, commenting on old movies and wrestling matches has everything to do with the argument you concocted. Keith's writing from 1997 is no different than a wrestling match from 1997, it's something that exists and can be commented upon. Why does it matter to you if I comment on something Keith wrote years ago? This policing of the board that you seem to be engaging in strikes me as belittling and pointless. The board has admins for that sort of thing, let them do their job. And that's a swell job you did of assuming that I'm dredging Keith's thoughts up. What I'm doing is rewatching all the PPVs on the Network. Now, I didn't bother to write my thoughts down years ago, but I used to be almost exactly like Keith, and was a big fan of his. Reading his reviews of these events help to highlight the frame of mind I used to have and show me how much I have changed and grown as a wrestling fan, while Keith hasn't in any fashion. This thread exists because a lot of us think Keith is a terrible entity in the world of professional wrestling. That means his present and past stuff will be bashed/appraised/reevaluated/whatever. It's nothing to get in a huff over.

Don't ever watch an old movie and provide an opinion on it then. Certainly don't watch a match that's old and provide an opinion. Apparently there's a shelf-life on published works that I wasn't aware of. And, I'm not attacking Keith. I've contacted him many times and let him know what I think of him as a writer and as a wrestling commentator. When I read something from him that strikes me as especially stupid or hypocritical I may choose to come to this topic and post about. Thus I am furthering the reason this topic was created and I see absolutely no reason for anyone to get worked up over a less than stellar opinion of Scott Keith being offered up.

Yes, stupid is stupid, doesn't matter when it was written.

Because I feel it doesn't get the talk/respect it deserves, especially in comparison to RoH, I'm starting a Pro Wrestling Guerrilla project for my website. Anyone have any suggestions on what wrestlers to watch out for as I move through their earliest shows (I've only seen PWG in individual matches here and there and not much from their beginnings)?

Yep, knew that when I posted the quote, not sure why you're bringing that up though.

From Bash at the Beach '97, Way to really show you are interested in even paying attention to the match there Scott. (Of course, the whole "I don't care for this style comment pisses me off when Keith will rave about said style at other times when it suits his needs to appeal to the workrate demographic.)

Thank god you have a good relationship with your family because you save all of your wrestling viewing for when you're on the clock at work. LOL. We get a lot of downtime in between saving peoples lives, it's a sometimes perk of the job.

Yes, I think drawing is extremely overrated, and for me it's a metric I don't even take into account. I will take into account how over a guy seems to be with the crowd, but I don't care how he/she actually drew as a talent. That is something reserved for the actual money making aspect of the business, not the side that I believe truly matters, which is the artistic aspect of the medium.

It's performers putting on a choreographed show for a viewing audience, how can it be anything but art?

Wrestling is an art form, that's how we view it, it's not producing any objectively consumed product. Drawing doesn't matter to me because drawing power has no place in the subjective art form of wrestling. At the end of the day I receive no benefit whatsoever from how much a wrestler draws so it matters not a lick to me and it brings about absolutely no worthwhile discussion. As I said previously, were I an executive this would be different, but I'm not, so drawing and money in the wrestling business are a moot point to me. The best analogy is film, and the idea that somehow Michael Bay should be positively judged as an artist because his films make 700 million dollars, or Terrence Malick should be negatively judged because his movies usually hover around the 30 million mark, and often lose money. Using such a metric in a subjective art form is foolhardy I find, and I consider it to be a waste of my time. (I'm making sure to use lots of I and my here by the way, because I realize it matters to some, but I find it absolutely worthless.)

I'll never understand why we care what someone draws. Vader's ability to draw didn't change how great he was in the ring, and for me at the end of the day that's all that really matters. Were I an executive with a promotion then drawing power would be an important matter, but I'm not, so it isn't.

I know I used to be guilty of this, but now I try to phrase things differently. Terms like "doesn't do much for me", or, "I've never seen much in this wrestler" are much more open for discussion and reflection than flat out writing off someone. Of course the greater point is that there are those of us who have grown in our critical appraisal of wrestling and those like Keith who are still stuck in that dogmatic, and reductive, mindset. (I should also say I don't mind the dogmatic approach as much when accompanying reasons for said approach.)

Actual words typed up by Scott Keith, in reference to Lawler as a wrestler, not a commentator, and this was in 1997 when Lawler still had it.

The rise of numbers in wrestling has been troubling, as I honestly don't feel it's something that adds much to interesting discussions.

I tend to be an obsessive sort. When I'm in a wrestling phase I will watch tons of wrestling, a movie phase tone of movies, etc. That being said, I spend lots of time with my family, so when I'm on shift at work I tend to watch wrestling. With my wife I watch TV shows we like, the occasional movie, and I read comics with my daughter and other books with my wife. Plus, I've always got baseball to distract me, because I'm a huge Cubs fan. Basically it depends I guess, but I think I spread out my interests enough that wrestling gets its due but is balanced out by my other interests.