Cap

William Regal would be my pick.

Yeah. Aries is good at working big and really good at making his offense believable against bigger guys. He is going to do just fine. Shame he didn't get out for more of the summer tournaments. I imagine he has a no compete clause...

I am not 100% sure if I actively cried, but I have been choked up quite a few times. Flair's retirement, Kobashi's return, Dragon's retirement, Dragon's ROH farewell speech, Eddie's tribute, Savage/Liz reuniting... those are the ones that come to mind.

Not sure if this belongs on recorded date or aired date... either way... http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?/topic/38469-trevor-lee-vs-michael-elgin-mvw-summerheatcwf-mid-atlantic-632017/

Would going up against Cena and Cena going for the record BREAKING title reign push some fans to Roman though? I am not really sure. I think they could wind up with a split and very passionate crowd.

I am also really thinking of getting a burner to at least back everything I have up. My stash is more or less organized, but in lots of different media. One summer I am going to dedicate time to backing everything up digitally... but that will not be this summer.

Omega vs Okada III with a 30 minute limit sounds perfect to me. These blocks are really pretty great. A lot of great matchups and a lot of great potential finals. I haven't had the service for a while, but I may pick it back up for this.

Reigns vs Cena for the title (esp for #17) sounds awesome. As much as Brock/Reigns II will be great, I am no sure there is a bigger main event they could do. If they do it right they will get the crowd face-melting hot for this. Brock vs Braun sounds good, but Brock vs AJ or Joe (again, if the first one goes well and they slow build it) would be preferable to me. I am imagining they are thinking more about Braun though.... maybe even Cass if they really do love him as much as the rumors indicate, but I really hope that isn't in the cards for 'mania.

So the scuttlebutt is that Reigns vs Lesnar is being moved up to SummerSlam and Reigns vs Cena may take its place at Mania. To a lesser extent I have also seen rumors that they were going to hold off Styles vs Nak for mania and now may move that up. None of that is particularly surprising, but if we get Reigns vs Cena at SS, what do we get from Brock at mania....? vs Joe (blowoff to a long term feud)? vs AJ? vs Nak? vs Balor? vs Braun ? vs Rollins? vs Cass? vs Bray?

I'll probably skip 18 all the same and update to a ps4 in the next year. I mostly just use my ps for streaming services anyway.

I absolutely loved GLOW... so so so so good. Binged it this morning and afternoon. We weren't planning on it but we got hooked in. It is so good, filled to the brim with one liners and tightly wound narratives. It gets wrestling, even when it kind of pokes fun and critiques it, and that was what where it could have really disappointment. It is one of hose wrestling things that I can enjoy equally with non-wrestling fans I enjoy having those in my life.

As long as he doesn't derail Nigel or cut into his time, I am ok with it. Nigel has been fantastic.

I would agree with this, with emphasis on the bolded part. I would also use the word "craftmanship" as far as to describe what pro-wrestling is. But again, terrific post. Thanks... much appreciated

haha... Funny you brought up Barthes discussion of wrestling. I have been brainstorming a piece in defense of "Peak" as a way of evaluating and analyzing (thinking primarily of some of the discussions going on in GWWE) and then that morphed with some of the stuff we were talking about here and I downloaded it and reread it this morning. I think this whole conversation is going to wind up resonating within that piece to some (maybe a great) degree. I am pretty sure the direction I am going with it would be dismissed as me attempting to validate my own tastes/interests though, and I am completely ok with that. It is just a hypothetical thing that may or may not ever go from my brain to my computer. It is, however, pretty clear to me that we just don't see the terms and the relationships the same and we all seem to recognize the greater futility of any sort of "debate" on the matter. I am no more interested in convincing El-P that wrestling is art than he is convincing me the opposite. That doesn't mean I don't enjoy exploring the conversation a bit… aaaannnnd I want to work through some of these thoughts.... With that in mind., this is all likely quite boring and overthought, but…. I don't see how wrestling is without content and even still I am not sure that a supposed lack of content disqualifies it from being art. The idea that art is form and content is just one understanding of art, but sort of narrows the lens of communication in a way. What about disruption? There are those that would argue that art's primary function is to disrupt and sometimes that comes in a form detached from a system of meaning, from which then new strands of understanding and meaning develop. Some would say art doesn’t have to mean anything so long as it disrupts convention and moves people (not something I completely buy into, but it is an argument). And to that point, I am not sure what "artistic content" is really. I mean I can speculate, but I am curious about what constitutes "artistic content" that wrestling doesn't have, or more accurately, what wrestling can't have. What is the thinkable, material, or emotional thing on the other side of the sign that wrestling lacks? I could be convinced that most wrestling actively is not art, but I am not sure I can be convinced that the from is incapable of producing art... just as I may not regard all films as art, but would obviously regard some films as art. For me the point of the sign is a good one. I have always really loved that wrestling has sort of quasi-created its own meaning system (more or less what Barthes talks about). It is of course borrowed from, or perhaps an extension of the cultures wrestling has grown up in over time (for better or worse), but there is a relationship between sign and object (or signifier and signified or whatever!) that is at least somewhat internal to wrestling. I agree completely that we spend the vast majority of our time as wrestling fans focused on the sign and the form (execution thereof, organization, creativity, etc etc). I also completely acknowledge that the form more often than not moves in ways that are expected (at least relatively so). I remember when I was a kid – long before I was too smarky for my own good – I could call parts of matches before they happened. This isn’t a unique skill. We can all watch a match and predict counters, moves, finishers, etc and we can all do it without much mental effort. Even further we know the function of the first match on a card and the last (or at least what they are “supposed” to be). We have an idea of when we think feuds should elevate, turn, or end. Every part of the system (from the micro level to the narrative arches) is guided by convention and the audience demands those to an extent. That is – again – much of what Barthes discusses in his piece, that within the spectacle and all its parts (its characters, the moves, the lights… all those things that don’t exceed the sum) there is a comfortable predictability that we revel in. But to me there is something compelling and artistic in the masterful manipulation of those signs and conventions. My dad used to ask me why I bothered watching if I knew what was going to happen. I am not sure if I explained it this confidently at the time, but in hindsight the answer was “because it is still fun and sometimes I am wrong”. To me, people who surprise me at all levels are impressive, artistic even in the way they engage their form. That isn’t necessarily a break with the broader notion of convention, but it is the implementation and execution that can get and hold interest. Now to me, mere fact that I can identify a meaning system at least partially unique to wrestling is enough to constitute it as a medium with the potential to produce art, not to mention the issue of execution. Even acknowledging that the vast majority of wrestling probably re-inscribes conventions and that there a relatively limited set of stories that can or are told through wrestling (again, mostly by convention), the notion that this is a form which translates stories, characters and emotions through its own somewhat unique meaning system is enough for me. There are those who do it well and there are those who do it poorly and yes that might be largely a matter of taste, but there is a physical craft to it, trends, region/cultural differences, and all that constitutes a form that is if not outright artistic it has the potential for art. However, and this is probably the biggest thing for me, within wrestling there is – at least in my opinion – the possibility that something transcends the conventions. That is, within that constellation of signs it is possible that moments, stories, matches, programs, etc can extend beyond what is conventional for wrestling and impact the audience in a different way. They can move people. Again, this is impossible to quantify, but art always is (unless you only measure by $$$). It doesn’t matter if it only affects one person or 10 or 10 million people, its possible for wrestling – as a form of entertainment and communication – to exceed convention, break with its own mold, tap into emotion, disrupt grids of intelligibility – and sometimes (perhaps at its most artistic) that is not really something that is describable. It just hits you and it is awesome and maybe tugs on your emotions. It isn’t that it JUST demands an emotional response; it is that it does so within its own meaning system and does so in a way that can alter or disrupt that system. For me, wrestling’s greatest artistic potential is in the fact that it has a meaning system and traverses it from time to time and can tap into emotions in a way that moves people, and there is no more carefree enjoyment-centered way to approach wrestling than to admit that it can emotionally move you or make you think beyond wrestling. Of course, this is highly subjective, what is art if not subjective? Maybe not everyone gets that from wrestling, just like not everyone might get that from paintings, film, theater, literature, or even music (I know people who claim they don’t really like music… I don’t trust them, but I know them), but just because signs are everywhere and we can read into them what we want, doesn’t mean that those signs are incompatible with the concept of art. Audiences have a part of the communicative process long before the concept of decoding. The notion that it is a meaning free for all is nonsense. Some might argue it potentially could be, but that is a theoretical trope, not an actuality with any function. Ok, that is more than enough. Again, I don’t care to persuade anyone, and I actually agree with quite a bit of the criticism of the wrestling as art position, but I did want to talk this relationship between sign, communication, meaning, and art from another angle. To me, if film or theater are art, wrestling has to be. I just fail to see what wrestling lacks that "art" has. I fail to see what that "artistic content" is from above. I fail to see how it doesn't communicate, evoke emotion, tell stories, create meaning, disrupt convention, and even sometimes challenge people, but again, I am probably overthinking it.

I agree on this. I am way behind on Lucha Underground, but I love it. I bought the first two seasons on iTunes right before they came up on Netflix. It is such a different thing to me. There are lots of pieces of that I don't love or that are really inconsistent, but the sum far exceeds the parts. They are so outside the box and - as you point out - culturally wired in and current that I can't help but love it. I also saw Dario Cueto (or the dude who plays him, more accurately) on a commercial for one of those companies that comes and cleans up after disasters (I think that is what it was for).

Oh I have no issue with him putting over Black and of course it is clear Itami will be Ohno's next proper feud, but this felt like a match that could have and should have gotten a bigger stage to me. He just feels lost and directionless, and as a result it feels like he has lost a lot of stature within that NXT universe. A win over Ohno doesn't feel - at least to me - like it means that much. I love the direction Black is going and what they are doing with him. I won't even be surprised if they slow build to him being the one to take the belt off Roode.

that is the thing I don't get. I really don't mean to imply that I would be better at it or to be overly critical of other people's work, but the flatness of WWE's writing on the whole constantly baffles me. Sure, they set up all kinds of hurdles for themselves (3 hours of raw... etc...), but with so many writers and soooooo many resources, there just doesn't seem to be an excuse for this. I assume it is more a problem with micromanagement of writers and of the product more than anything because I just can't believe that there aren't talented writers that are passionate about and understand wrestling that can put together something better than what we USUALLY get.

That Black/Ohno match was quite good. It wasn't anything next level, but it was a really good version of a match you would expect from those two. It strikes me as odd to put Black's first big match on a regular episode rather than a Takeover. This was pretty clearly his most competitive match and really could have been built. If this had been in front of a hot Takeover crowd it would have felt a lot bigger and really accented what they were doing. That crowd sat on their hands and felt more like they were going through the motions of responding how they "should" respond. I am not a huge fan of the Full Sail crowd on the whole anymore (another story), but they seemed particularly dead on this episode. Regardless, I thought the match was quite good. This does raise questions about Ohno. My fears about him becoming a short term gatekeeper and then a trainer and signed, at least in part, to keep him away from other companies. Not saying he should have won, but they don't seem to have much interest in building him. Maybe they are doing something similar to what they are doing with Almas, but I am not seeing that yet. He also loses a lot of his teeth in NXT to me. First they got him walking around like an insecure husky kid in a pool. His trash talk is cheesy in nxt too. I still like Kassius Ohno, I just love Chris Hero.

I would buy this. Most I have seen at least assume or imply a classist understanding of what art is. That isn't to say the people making them classist, of course, but the argument - often, at least - seems founded on those principles. It isn't really a question of "is wrestling art" as much as it is "what is art". Both questions have been discussed before. The first one doesn't matter much to me because it doesn't change my behavior and the industry itself isn't at some tipping point of broader acceptance as an art form. The question of "is something art" mostly just provides validation within whatever context it is affirmed (and at best helps that form gain momentum) and in rare cases - when accepted broadly - can alter the material or consumer culture of the medium/form. Wrestling isn't at the point where some sort of definition debate might have material consequence, change how it is consumed or anything like that (at least in my opinion). The second (and I guess the first to a lesser extent) at least can provide insight into the perspective of the person providing definition.

I guess it is probably more a problem with my old man gaming system. I am playing on a PS3. I have been considering an upgrade (I just don't play that many games), so maybe I will get around to it later this year. Thanks!

Haven't watched hulu-smackdown yeat, but I thought hulu-raw was solid. Joe/Reigns has me almost as interested as Joe/Brock. I love them doing the bit about Reigns not acknowledging Joe as a Samoan and Joe screaming "say my name" as he beats on him. Their promo at the beginning of Raw was tops and their match was a nice little preview of something I sure we get in some form on a bigger stage later. Reigns announcing he intends to be in the title match at SS throws an interesting wrinkle in. I assumed they would hold Reigns vs Brock off for Mania (but ya know, wwe). I can see them going for it at SS, or I can even see them giving us Reigns/Brock/Joe in a three way. Maybe Joe costs Brock the match and sets up something more long term between the two of them where they could actually exchange wins maybe... Strowman coming back was fun. I really don't like ambulance matches much, but I am looking forward to them clubbering each other again. I know Cass turning on Enzo was inevitable, but it doesn't do much for me. I like Cass, but the combo is just so good and the split seems premature. I often feel like the WWE uses tag teams just to get to singles competitors and rushes the turns. Feels like they could have milked this a little more, get the audience really invested further in their friendship and their struggle. Ohhh well.... I hope Enzo doesn't get lost in all this. He could pop 205 Live some, but that doesn't really feel like the best way to use his talent.

So I usually wait 3 years or so before getting the next game in the series because the gameplay upgrades are never really worth it. I eventually do it for the roster and because they eventually shut down the online stores. However, I got 2k17 and I am really not impressed with the online created wrestlers for download selection. It has been abysmal. I usually stack my rosters with all my favorites, but the options are really limited and what they do have is often a letdown. I play very casually so it wasn't a huge deal to me, but I am wondering if this was an anomaly or a trend I hadn't noticed because I buy so infrequently. Anyone else notice this? Is it something the WWE has been doing or is it just this particular version. Should I just go back to my old 2k14 game and stick with that?

That was my thing I mentioned on twitter (maybe here, don't remember), though I think it should be primarily on Carmella. All they would have had to do was have Carmella be the center of the whole thing, have her scream for Ellsworth to get her the case. If she really laid on that annoying scream and he seemed scared/overwhelmed while doing it... I would have been all for this because the entire decision would have been hers.

I just don't see "fun carnival form of entertainment" and "art" as mutually exclusive. All "art" forms emerge from something else - functionality or entertainment primarily. At the end of the day it is a distinction that matters very little. You are spot on, first and foremost, it should be about what you like and enjoying wrestling. All the other stuff I mentioned is ultimately a byproduct of discussion and of tastes gaining influence. It happens regardless of if we call it art and it shouldn't affect what people enjoy or how they enjoy wrestling.

Maybe I am being a Dragon apologist, but I kind of read it as "tastes change" and saw him using evolve as more of a subjective, value neutral term. At worst it seemed like he was indicating that the more you watch the more you will start to appreciate different things and discover new things to value. That is all stuff I agree with. The difference between wrestling and those other art forms is that they have broader, if not also much longer, histories of being considered art. What is generally regarded as superior is not a matter of objective value, but of negotiation over time in a variety of spheres. Critics, taste makers, public discourse, sales, profit, history, politics... lots went into the stratification of superior and inferior in various spheres of art and it is always being negotiated, questioned, and evolving (sometimes circularly). Wrestling has some of that of course, but it doesn't compare to music or film or painting or literature. I would say that right now we are in the midst of a real spike period of active critical interest, but the internet creates so much noise, so many people get a public say. It isn't that those opinions don't matter, it just makes it a little harder to sift through. I agree that this is a space to critically engage wrestling as art, and so long as no one is being a dick we can remain - think a very valuable and focused - part in the process of of the aforementioned negotiations. Most people here are pretty good at engaging like an adult. Some aren't.