BillThompson

I really do think that saying that standards have changed is a misnomer that loses sight of the individual interpretation taking place. The standards may have changed for you, but who's to say they've changed for the fan sitting next to you? That's why I don;t think there's any way to say that across the board any sort of subjective standards have changed, because there are people who would say, "No, my standards haven't changed." That makes this a never ending open question, and perhaps it would be better served by spinning off into something along the lines of, "What are your personal standards for a wrestling match, and have they changed throughout the years?" From there a more defined discussion of how to view older wrestling could take place, but this is all probably just me.

I will say this much, discussions like this are why I love this board.. We're going deep into a topic and I'll take this sort of discussion every day over commenting on news and rumors from the world of wrestling.

I think my main issue at this point is that subjectivity and objectivity are not being differentiated. As I said in my last post (which posted at the exact same time as yours so I know you hadn't read it before your post) objective elements do not change, whereas subjective elements change all the time. I think a disconnect has developed, at least from how I'm interpreting what I'm reading, where people are referring to subjective elements as if they are somehow objective. With that being the case, the answer to the original thread question is that yes, there are objective standards in wrestling. However those elements have nothing to do with the quality of a match and there's really no discussion that can take place based on those objective standards. There are subjective standards that change, but those are on a case by case and person by person basis. Those do lead to much great discussion, because interpretation is the life blood of art in my opinion. I think at this point we're arguing over subjective elements and trying to say "No, my opinion of these subjective elements is right." That's not really constructive, and misses the point of the subjective elements being discussed. That's just my take though.

Can you honestly tell me that somehow the base roots of wrestling being to entertain and make money have changed? Or that the base root for every wrestler to bump and supply fake offense have changed? Those are objective elements within wrestling, they do not change and never will change. What you keep talking about are subjective elements, which grow out of the objective standards that never do change. This is true for any art form in any medium, wrestling is no different. The means of which to entertain & make money have changed. Best of three falls title matches which were worked like total amateur style shoots and went 90 minutes used to be the norm. People filled baseball stadiums to watch stuff like that. Try that today. By your theory, it's the same basics of entertaining and making money, right? You're referring the method of delivery, which has never been an objective standard. That's the same as film switching from black and white to color, the method of delivery changed (although just as in wrestling the old method never actually went away and is still used from time to time), but the basic concept the method is trying to achieve did not change. Subjective elements can change and morph over time, objective elements can not because objective is something that is hard and true throughout time.

Can you honestly tell me that somehow the base roots of wrestling being to entertain and make money have changed? Or that the base root for every wrestler to bump and supply fake offense have changed? Those are objective elements within wrestling, they do not change and never will change. What you keep talking about are subjective elements, which grow out of the objective standards that never do change. This is true for any art form in any medium, wrestling is no different.

I think we agree on more than we disagree. If I'm reading your posts right, you're arguing that there is no objective standard because everything just comes down to tastes or "biases." I'm just taking that a bit farther by saying that those "biases" can be broken down into different ways of interpreting, which are in themselves by the viewer's prior experiences. Since people are constantly having new experiences and fans with new perspectives are coming, that's how I see that standards can change. To bring this into where the topic seems to be headed, that WCW cruiserweight thing you mentioned is a good example of how standards can change in ways that have little to do with advancing athleticism, since it's understandable that in the 90's when people were still popping for big men that a large section of fans would have a hard time taking juniors style seriously, but then a few years later with the rise of MMA and De La Hoya doing massive PPV buys, Rey Mysterio and Jeff Hardy become two of the biggest stars in the industry. You can pretty much break everything worthwhile that can be said about this topic into this: 1. There is no "objective standard" to evaluate matches, only subjective interpretation 2. Interpretations are shaped by prior experiences 3. New experiences mean interpretations can change 4. Therefore, standards can change How can there can be disagreement about something so simple? Some of these replies I've read in this topic from people who do seem to think there is some objective standard are ridiculous. We can't say it's not "fair" to go back and reinterpret Eddie/Malenko without 1995 eyes because they weren't working for "1995 eyes." Saying that they were would imply that they were working for anyone in the world in 1995, even with people with no prior experience watching wrestling who would have no idea about the symbolic value behind any of the moves. Would it be "fair" for such a person to evaluate Eddie/Malenko? If not, exactly what prior experience would they need for it to be fair? It's nonsense to try to assign some objective criteria for evaluating wrestling. Wrestlers have matches to entertain people who want to be entertained and that's it. Saying "it's not fair to say this match isn't good in 2014" is absurd because you're basically saying "It's not fair to say this match didn't entertain me in 2014." I don't have a WON subscription so I have no idea exactly what were the Meltzer comments that spurred on this argument, but I would like some elaboration on what people mean in saying that he sees "no value in re-evaluating old footage." Is he saying that there is something wrong with people watching old footage and forming different opinions than what he had at the time? If not, I don't see where the problem is. If we accept that there is no objective criteria, the natural conclusion is what I mentioned before where me calling a match good means the same thing as "this match entertains me." If Dave says that Brody entertained him in the 80's then he entertained him in the 80's and nothing can be said to change that because no one here is 80's Dave. I don't see why some people have such a hard time with this. There can be an objective standard that is viewed through subjective eyes. To use the film analogy, it's an objective standard that something needs to be filmed. You can add tools such as sound, static, cuts, editing, CGI, etc. but those are subjective elements added to the objective standard of something being filmed. (And I'm not getting into a film stock debate here, by film I mean everything form the oldest cameras to new GoPro's, and filming a blank screen like Derek Jarman is still filming). Now, let's take that over to wrestling. The objective standards of wrestling are that the goal is to entertain and make money. More objective standards are that wrestlers will be expected to bump, to act out fake offense, etc. None of that is subjective because those are not items open to interpretation. Things like selling, psychology, athleticism, moves, etc. are most definitely subjective and open to interpretation. It's not subjective that a cameraman is filming a movie, what is subjective is whether or not his filming is of any quality. It's not subjective that two wrestlers have stepped into the ring to entertain and make money where they will bump and provide a contest with fake offense. What is subjective is whether or not the selling, psychology, moves, structure, etc. work for any given viewer. To me this is simple, there are objective beginnings in every form of art. We don't discuss those however, because in general terms the objective beginnings are boring and can't lead to anywhere beyond what they are. The subjective elements are what bring about discussion because disagreement can, and should, be had.

Interesting, I just upgraded my iTunes on Sunday, but still had the issue. Of course I had downloaded the Lucha ep before I upgraded, so I'll have to see what happens with any future upgrades.

This is basically what I was coming into the topic to say, except using film instead of video games. The thing is, I'm not anti-moves or anti-athleticism. I can see the advantage that athleticism can give to a wrestler, but at the same time athleticism doesn't matter to me anywhere near as much as selling, psychology, working to the crowd, understanding the moment, etc. These are the basis for every match, and while athleticism can change the way they are implemented it doesn't change what they inherently are. In this sense athleticism is like the add-on to the tool belt, it can enhance the actual tools but by no means is it an essential item. This gets to the root idea of standards changing, and the more I think about it the more I don't think that standards change. The way someone sells may change, how athletic wrestlers are may change, but the standards we hold wrestling to does not change. A great match from 1952 remains a great match because the standards haven't changed. By the same token a match in 2014 can be great or interesting because it is being judged by the same standards. This isn't the same as context, because every work of art needs some form of context. However, there can be standards that stay the same, no matter how many new add-on's are given to the old tools.

This is my scenario as well. I download through iTunes onto my iPod, and every time the episode glitches. The Lucha episode stopped and had to be restarted about seven times, until I finally said I'd had enough and moved on to something else.

My list changes all the time, especially based on what I'm watching at the given point in time. Lately I've been knee deep in 1995-1997 WWF and WCW PPVs, so this list reflects that, 1) Owen Hart - He only has a handful of matches where I would say the complete package of the match is memorable. However, in every match of his I've seen Owen does neat stuff and works his tail off. He's always way over with the crowd, and is easily one of the best heels I've come across, super funny on commentary to boot. 2) Bret Hart - I feel like I've shortchanged Bret for years, and I thought he was great before. He's able to do great things with such a wide variety of wrestlers, and his transition from face to heel is something to watch. Also, and I'm probably in the minority here, but he's the real star of 90s WWF, not Shawn Michaels. Bret could do his own thing, and wrestle interesting matches with interesting people, and often limited people. I've found that Shawn needs a strong gimmick or a great worker to have matches that are worthwhile. 3) Ultimo Dragon - Not sure how I missed the boat on him years ago, but I love his move variety and his pure dick nature as a heel. The way he just stomps guys down is a pleasure to see, and when the time comes he can certainly hang with anyone in their era as far as kicking it into second gear goes. 4) Mankind - Foley's initial run as Mankind is really interesting to watch unfold. He manages to get over the psychology of him being a guy who doesn't feel pain and works that into all of his matches nicely. More than anything Mankind is a breath of fresh air in the WWF, a guy who is unhinged, talented, and a threat to anyone on any night. He manages to get some great stuff out of a really lazy Undertaker, and when he's given his time against the more "technical" wrestlers he melds his style with theirs to produce great results. 5) Steve Austin - Oh, how I miss the Steve Austin from 1996-1997. Before the neck injury changed him into a pure brawler, he had the ability to go with anyone. His feud with Bret is edging towards being possibly the best feud I've ever seen unfold. Austin is able to get over the idea that he's tougher than anyone and that he wins almost in spite of his skill. The talent is there, but it's secondary to his drive and desire to win and the fact that he wants to show he doesn't need respect. Just about everything Austin is doing at this time is electric, and that damn neck injury had to come and screw it all up.

Sad to say guys, but as much as I am digging the Super Show I'm gonna have to cash out until whatever the glitch is that causes the episode to randomly stop and start back up from the beginning is fixed. It's a small thing, but it is frustrating to have to constantly be fast forwarding and hoping that I remember where the episode was at before it stopped itself. So, keep up the good work discussion wise, and hopefully you can get this glitch figured out.

The opposite could also be applied as well though. How many people do we all know who dismiss modern wrestling without seeing it simply because it's new? I mean, look at guys like Jim Cornette and Jim Ross and their attitudes towards modern wrestling. As much as I love Cornette I hate listening to him talk about modern wrestling because it always boils down to, "Modern wrestling sucks because it was better in the past. I don't even watch the product but because it's not the wrestling of the past I can tell you that it sucks." The middle ground is what needs to be found, that place where people are able to recognize that whether modern or old there has always been and always will be great, terrible, and everything in between wrestling.

This is, as you say, a loaded question. It's similar to what I encounter from some people in my work as a film critic. There are those who refuse to watch anything pre-1970s because the movie business has changed so much that they find movies from before that decade too hokey. The thing is, the years keep on changing, as there are now people who say the same thing about movies from the 70s and the 80s. I think this analogy can be taken and applied to pro wrestling, because pro wrestling is an art form just like the movies. In that respect the medium of delivery and the performances change over time, as does the audience and their expectations. The question for me becomes, what can, or should, the audience get out of watching older wrestling? It's important that we accept that wrestling has changed. Match structure, layout, bumping, selling, and many other aspects have changed. However, a few important aspects have not changed. The ultimate end goal is still a match that intrigues the viewer, entertains them, and makes them want to come back for more. The wrestlers are still putting on a performance using the tools of their trade. The audience is still expecting to be entertained and to watch something that at the very least has a basis in the roots of pro wrestling. This entails holds, selling, bumping, and so on. The medium of delivery may have changed, the tools may have been augmented, but it's still the same tools attempting to accomplish the same goals. Accepting the above as true I would have to say that standards have changed, but that doesn't preclude one from being able to go back and watch a French Catch match from 1955 and enjoy the entertainment being provided. This is where context comes into play. Knowing the context of a match can't be overstated. It may not work today to see someone get a pin from a Side Headlock throw, but taking into context the way a match was worked in 1955 it makes perfect sense for a match to possibly end on a Side Headlock throw. Context guides our present viewing just as much as it guides our past viewing. Nothing in wrestling exists in a vacuum, it truly is a sport, or art form, where the present builds off of the past. From that perspective it doesn't matter if standards change because a wrestling fan should be able to go back and watch old wrestling and relate it to the present wrestling they are watching. Bias obviously comes into play, but that is part and parcel with pro wrestling being a subjective art form. The subjectivity of pro wrestling is why two fans from the same era who are of the same age can greatly disagree on the quality of a match or wrestler. It's a given that fans will bring their personal bias to any wrestling they watch, whether it's from the present day or the past. The trick is to recognize that the bias is present and to realize that a Buddy Rogers match from 1948 may not enthrall you because you have a bias against the style he works. It's perfectly fine to say that the Rogers match you just watched wasn't any good, but just realize that your own bias may be fueling your viewpoint more than you realize. Not sure if this is what you were looking for, and honestly there's a lot more I could say, but I keep getting distracted by a problem at home. I'll certainly return to this topic later as I look forward to hearing what others have to say.

I recently started a topic about when sloppiness is welcome or adds to a match. Today I was watching some early 90's Scott Steiner as well as Marc Mero/Leif Cassidy from In Your House 13: Final Four. What I was watching got me thinking of unacceptable sloppiness, but more to the point how much the sloppiness that hurts a match actually bothers us. The Scott Steiner stuff was spurned on by me reading some of Scott Keith's thoughts on early 90s Steiner and realizing he had such a crush on the guy that he would overlook all of his sloppiness. In the infamous Steiners/Iizuka & Fujinami tag the beginning of the match features Steiner badly blowing a couple of Suplexes, and generally looking like a tool. This appears to be a common thread in the majority of early 90s Scott Steiner, where his timing is off and he blows a Suplex spot or two in every other match. Most times it's not a big deal because he blows it in a way where the victim still lands in a position of impact. That would fall under the acceptable sloppiness label. Sometimes though, the guy will land on top of Steiner or fall to the mat with very little force because of how off Steiner is in his timing. This bugs me to no end as I feel its unacceptable sloppiness and exposes the fact that wrestlers need to work together for things to work. It didn't seem to matter to Scott Keith though, as every time Steiner would screw up a move Keith would call him a god and write about the moves as if they had been hit just as intended. The Mero/Cassidy match I bring up because it has a few glaring moments of sloppiness. Mero goes for an Enzuguri where his foot barely connects with Cassidy's shoulder, let alone his head. Cassidy sells it like the move has connected with his head. There are a few other moments, such as both guys being off on an Arm Drag and the end result being that they kind of just tumble to the floor. The Enzuguri is mainly what I'm interested in though. Obviously it's Mero's fault for not hitting the move correctly, but how much blame should be placed on Cassidy for selling it like he had been hit in the head? You combine both men's efforts and you have what I would consider an example of unacceptable sloppiness and an exchange that does shine a bright light on the fake aspect of wrestling. Maybe I'm wrong, and it's a simple reaction time issue where Cassidy was already ready to sell the headshot and didn't have time to react. However, it seemed to me like he did have time to react, and in that moment he should have adjusted and sold the Enzuguri as having hurt his shoulder, not as a head shot. It would have made it a more believable moment for me, and while still sloppy it would have been of the acceptable variety. Sorry for all the rambling, and I'm not sure if I'm getting my point across. But, in the most general terms, how should the wrestlers deal with sloppiness that isn't acceptable and makes the business look bad? How should we deal with it? Does it matter or is it something to be considered on a case by case by case basis?

Awesome, can't wait for that one.

That reminds me of something. RVD had quite a bit of heat on him back when he first debuted for WWE in 2001 because he kept busting people open with stiff kicks. I think the word you're looking for is sloppy, not stiff.

I'll admit, I'm in a rock and a hard place with a story like the Hickerson/Condrey/Tojo. When I heard the story I knew two things at the same time; 1) it was a bad thing and akin to rape, 2) I laughed mightily because I found it funny. Some of it probably boils down to the abilities of Cornette as a storyteller, and the fact that the story does come across as one guy fucking with another guy for comedic effect as opposed to any sinister goal. Still doesn't change that Condrey forced himself on Hickerson, and that does constitute rape. I guess this makes me a shit kicking heel, or terrible person depending on your point of view, because while I do recognize the wrongness of what went down I still find myself chuckling about the whole thing.

It's most of them, American and foreign. When the USA puts their resources behind an international sports endeavor there's really no one else who can compete, that's why often times they still put on good showings with less than quality athletes. Maybe it won't happen, but I'm not about to go against a bevy of people within the sport who know way more about it than I do.

I know we all like to attribute the overproduced nature of the shows to Vince and his desire to micro-manage everything. However, NXT is Trips' baby, and in most ways it has the same overproduced and micro managed style as the main programs. I had always hoped that stuff like the announcers parroting someone in their ear would go away with Vince, but I think it will only stay the same with Trips.

Actually, most analysts say it's only a matter of time until the US wins the World Cup. They have a far larger talent pool and the ability to produce more elite players than every other country, it's just a matter of them putting it all together. I can't remember which British analyst it was last year who said, "The US is becoming a force in our sport, and they will be a force for many years, because once they start winning, everyone else is in trouble."

Ugh, Hanson, I just listened to an interview with him a couple of months back, what an egotistical prick.

I'm more interested in present day stuff, but talk of the past would still be interesting. I'd love to hear him go deep into NXT and the developmental side, specifically whether guys only have one shot or if they are of the mindset that sometimes the timing isn't right and maybe a guy/girl will do better when brought back into the system at a later date. I'd love to hear him respond to John Cena's assertion that if guys can't make it in the developmental system they have no then they don't belong in the WWE period. Talk about the changes to the present system, what the training consists of, that sort of stuff.

Had he not fallen ill where do you think Brian Hildebrand/Mark Curtis would rank in the pantheon of all-time great referees? Maybe I'm alone in my assessment of his ability as a ref, but I thought he was outstanding and in the late 90s was easily the best ref working in North America. I know it's always dodgy when people talk about wrestling seeming real, but Curtis made the matches seem more real. His reactions to power moves, to a guy getting hurt, the way he moved around the ring to be in position, and the way he sold the importance of nearfalls, he was great all around. For my money he's the natural successor to Tommy Young as far as the best referee in North America goes, and I don't think a referee in North America has come close to touching him since his untimely passing.

Shield were also NXT gimmicks, weren't they? In the case of Rose I think that WWE is showing why they react too quickly sometimes. Maybe the Rose character will flop, but giving him two weeks and declaring him a flop, that's terribly reactionary. A character needs to be given a small amount of time to grow, develop, and connect with the audience, not everyone will form a connection right away. I don't see Bo's current gimmick being tailored to the NXT crowds, but it is built around the reactions he was getting in nXT and that could be a problem. WWE was smart to take a Bo character who was struggling and go with what the reactions were telling them. The reason he may struggle in WWE proper is because they are playing the character as if he's already familiar to the WWE crowds as a failed babyface. He's not, so while I believe the character should be a good character anyway, they are cutting out an important chunk of his backstory and I can see that hurting him. We'll see what the future holds for people coming up from NXT, but with the Wyatt's and Shield firmly entrenched in the main event picture I'd say it's recently been a very large success character wise.

Lucha Triple Threats are, for me, an exception to the rule. The non-tag nature of Lucha tag matches, as well as the tendency of Luchadores to retreat to the outside on a regular basis in singles matches makes them baling during a Triple Threat the norm, as you pointed out. I think though, that there's still a focus issue in Lucha Triple Threat's, as the stip takes away from the stringent one guy/team versus another guy/team that I vastly prefer.