S.L.L.

No he doesnt. In certion aspects he sees similarites but to say he thinks they are the same thing simply isnt true. He has outright said in the past, in no uncertain terms, that MMA is what pro wrestling would be if it were legit. Admittedly, that's not the exact same thing as "MMA = wrestling", but it's close enough. It pretty much is especially when you compare it to some bouts in the early part of the century. It really, really isn't for reasons that I've gone over elsewhere, so I'll direct your attention here. Although I've never hit upon.... ....OK...having a pretty good familiarity with early wrestling and an understanding of MMA, I see they're similar in that they involve two people fighting...or two people who at least look like their fighting...and three-way matches were happening as early as 1900, so it involves at least two people who at least look like they're fighting. What am I missing?

No he doesnt. In certion aspects he sees similarites but to say he thinks they are the same thing simply isnt true. He has outright said in the past, in no uncertain terms, that MMA is what pro wrestling would be if it were legit. Admittedly, that's not the exact same thing as "MMA = wrestling", but it's close enough.

All qualities over than a basic grasp of storytelling and the ability to play a role effectively are overrated when they're treated as being positive qualities in and of themselves. It's not what you do, it's the way that you do it.

At times? Try telling any non-fan that the foremost expert in the wrestling field believes pro wrestling and MMA are the same thing, and see what kind of reaction you get. I've done it. It pretty much told me everything I needed to know about Dave's connection with reality.

I am way past the point of taking the WON HOF seriously at all. That said.... Loathe as I am to give credit to this guy, I don't think this is true. Cena had been programmed against plenty of heels by that point, and none of them really took, because they were all designed to show him up in some way or another. Edge had a great character that was pitch-perfect to be a Cena foil, and I don't think that should be underestimated. I mean, round one of that feud was followed by Cena/HHH, which undid any progress that the Cena/Edge feud made in one fell swoop. Then they put him back up against Edge, and it really solidified him as the top dog in just the way they needed, and subsequently paved the way for WWE to have it's biggest money making year ever in 2007. If you're going to push Edge as a serious HOF candidate (and you probably shouldn't, but I'm not opposed to putting him on the ballot), I think that's the point you have to hit - he gave Cena the boost that HOFers HHH, Kurt Angle, and fellow nominee Chris Jericho couldn't, and as a direct result, the WWE had something of a mini-boom that saw them make more money in a single year than they ever had before in company history. It's the reason why - after "and you could have a great argument he was [a better worker than Murdoch]" - the thing that really jumps out at me from Meltzer's write-up is his claim that Edge "did more with his talent". I can think of very few wrestlers in recent memory who squandered their talent more than Edge did. Putting aside that he's shit in the ring, he had an act that proved not only to be a viable draw, but one that was tailor-made to oppose the company's new top star. He established what should have been a template for what a "Cena-era" heel should be, and how a "Cena-era" main event feud should have worked. That was a remarkable accomplishment that should not be underplayed. But how did he follow that up? He jumped to Smackdown and completely abandoned everything that made him compelling so he could re-invent himself as "The Ultimate Opportunist" - a poor man's Nick Bockwinkel mixed with a poor man's Bob Roop mixed with the overwrought, unconvincing "psycho" pantomime of Victoria. What a waste.

I tend to think of both as guys with relatively short peaks (though Cena's career is definitely far from over), but Cena definitely peaked higher. I'm leaning Cena, but we need a few more years before we can get a real definitive answer. Probably true. That said, as much as I hate the man's post-comeback work in general, Cena/Michaels has always been a really strong match-up. Man, I can't believe there are still Brody defenders in '09. I mean, I watched a bunch of World Class, and one of the big revelations there was that Brody was actually tolerable and would actually sell for his opponents in that territory. Genuinely shocked to find a place where Brody actually met the bare minimum standards for being a good wrestler. Necro all the way. Danielson has been one of the most consistently strong workers of the decade. Dynamite was a flash in the pan, and one that I'm told didn't age well at that. If if I went back and found his New Japan stuff held up, I'd still be hard-pressed to put him above Danielson.

Again, that's all true, but.... 1. That's turning valid criticisms back on people. 2. That's still turning criticisms back on the people who were actually making them in the first place. This is turning invalid criticisms on people who were not making them, and who had in fact acknowledged those criticisms as invalid previously. That's not Terry complaining that Flair does the same old shit in every match and then pointing out Terry does that too. That's Terry complaining that Flair does too many shooting star presses in his matches and then turning that complaint on Ricky Steamboat. It makes no sense.

Ah, I see. Still, I'd think if you've been on the other side of it, you should know how stupid it is and know better than to do it yourself. I don't know. At times it's kind of fun to toss the criticism of one thing back in the direction of something else when there's a parallel. I certainly have some fun with it when I see wrestlers doing stuff that's "uncool" or "goofy" or "awkward" when Backlund does it. And I could see having some fun when one of the wrestlers you enjoyed in a "rethinking" or "revisionism" movement is slagged as being trendy to toss it at the next group of wrestlers who go through that process. John Well, it's one thing when an invalid criticism is thrown towards something, but then the people making the criticism turn around and praise something else for which the same criticism was actually valid. I mean, one of my "favorite" things about the big furor in '07 over whether Cena had become a great worker or not was watching people rag on him for being an uncool poseur with weak offense, who made unconvincing superman comebacks, and had a weak looking finisher, and then watching those same people talk about how Shawn Michaels was still one of the best in the world. I don't really see how the Lawler/Fujiwara/Dustin "trends" are any different from the Destroyer/Backlund "trends" outside of who started them. Not even being tossed back at the guys originally making the accusations of Destroyer/Backlund trendiness. Being tossed at guys who think dismissing these things as "trends" is a wrongheaded approach. I think I see where El-P and MJH are coming from now, but I'd like to think they know better than to accuse others of trendiness because an entirely different group of people accused them of trendiness under identical circumstances. It's less tossing people's criticisms back at them and more "if John McAdam jumped off the Empire State Building, then I guess you would have to jump off the Empire State Building".

Ah, I see. Still, I'd think if you've been on the other side of it, you should know how stupid it is and know better than to do it yourself.

I think we're agreeing in general, but I'm not sure I follow you here. I like The Destroyer and Backlund, and even if I didn't, I wouldn't just dismiss their respective fandoms as being "trendy".

No doubt, but you know me. I just can't resist it when someone sets it up on a tee for me like that.

"Maybe" is very hard to read as "no, that's silly". Ok, want to play quote game. I'll play it if you will. You just forgot to quote what I said just afterward : Ok? Not really. The ideas didn't clearly flow from one to another. You are bad at this game. First reaction to the dated stuff: "Maybe. That doesn't make it less valuable." "That doesn't make it less valuable" and "and what is the point?" can mean the same thing: regardless of X, Y doesn't change. But in this case, you're arguing that "Takada as a great shoot-style worker" may or may not be a dated idea, but even if it is, it is still a valuable idea. Why? "The Night of the Hunter" is one of my favorite movies. It was a critical and box office flop on it's initial release, and Charles Laughton was so devastated by it's failure that he never directed another movie again. Is that really valuable knowledge when judging the movie today, or is it just an interesting - if unfortunate - bit of trivia? Second reaction: "The idea that Fujiwara was one of the greatest workers in Japan is very trendy. Doesn't make it more valuable than the other." Putting aside the question of whether or not the Fujiwara fandom is "trendy" or not for a moment, I'm still left puzzling over the value of "trendy" ideas vs. possibly dated ideas. I still think "American Beauty" is a great movie, but there was a time when people were talking about it as one of the great accomplishments in cinema history. An overstatement to be sure, but not convinced that it's a less valuable idea than the dated idea of "The Night of the Hunter is lousy". At least, it wasn't in 1999. Third reaction: "It has became trendy to praise Fujiwara and Lawler." I'm sure it's sheer coincidence that these "trends" started after a great deal of footage from both men was uncovered and disseminated to people who had never seen it before. Maybe a lot of people who had not been exposed to a great deal of their work previously decided that they were great independently of what other people thought. Nah, that's impossible! It must be a trend! Fourth reaction: "I echoes the feeling MJH expressed early in the thread, I'm absolutely not convinced by Lawler's case, and although Fujiwara was ridiculously underrated for a long time, I don't see the "greatest japanese worker ever" argument at all, just like I don't see the "Takada wasn't a great worker" argument at all." You're entitled to your opinion, certainly. Doesn't mean that people who disagree are just following trends. Fifth reaction: "Of course it's trendy. The Dustin Rhodes stuff was trendy too." 18 years and counting...that's one hell of a trend. Sixth reaction: "Don't get me wrong, it had a lot of positive (like all the DVDVDVR sets), but there's always the will to get the vaunted "forgotten great worker" from under a rock, and it leads to hyperboles." I'm not gonna lie and say it wasn't cool to "discover" Jimmy Garvin while working on the Texas set. That said, not like I did it because I really wanted to discover a guy. I mean, I did want to do that, but I wasn't going to if there wasn't someone there worth discovering. Don't hear me singing the praises of Magic Dragon or Al Madril or Brian Adias. Don't hear me talking up The Great Kabuki as someone who hasn't been given a fair shake. There's no great conspiracy to change people's perceptions of certain wrestlers. That change is happening on it's own. Seventh reaction: "Same things with music and cinema. Burn what you worshipped and get some new Gods. It's human." So....good? Bad? Indifferent? "The Night of the Hunter" still sucks? It doesn't suck, but the idea that it does still holds value? Help me out here. Eighth reaction: "I don't think objectivity and measure are prevalent in wrestling analysis. wink.gif" Meaning what? Who's not being objective, and how can you tell? Who's not being measured, and how can you tell? How long does the Lawler/Fujiwara thing have to go on before it's OK to say that they're amongst the greats? 18 years? At least? Ninth reaction: "Holding onto 93 opinions? What? If I believe right now that Takada was a great worker, that makes my opinion "dated". I find this pretty silly." This was in response to Tom asking about your first reaction. It does not answer his question. "I find this pretty silly", as it's presented, seems to be pretty clearly referring to your interpretation of Tom's question, not to the "dated idea" thing as a whole. It does not even begin to read as "Wait a minute, it's just silly." There's no "wait a minute" moment in there. Nothing to suggest you've come to realize the whole argument is silly. It reads as you dismissing Tom's question - or rather, what you thought Tom's question was. In summation, you don't tug on Superman's cape, you don't spit in the wind, you don't pull the mask off the old Lone Ranger, and you don't argue semantics with me.

I came around to acknowledging The Monkees were a great band. I didn't have to do it at the expense of my Beatles fandom. I tend to find the "Monkees > Beatles" argument a bit loopy, but I don't think people who feel that way generally do so as a direct side effect of Monkees fandom. The anti-Takada sentiment didn't develop as a direct result of the Fujiwara re-evaluation. They both sprung out of the DVDVR 80's Other Japan set, but that's the only real connection. One project, but two separate realizations: they noticed Fujiwara was a lot better than they had previously realized, and they noticed Takada wasn't as good as they remembered/as his reputation suggested. I didn't take part in the Other Japan set, and in truth, my exposure to Takada over the years has been fairly minimal. My exposure to Fujiwara is still fairly minimal as well. Both guys have left a positive impression on me, but I'm willing to reconsider them with more footage. It would seem silly not to. From my own experiences so far working on the 80's Texas set, one of the big revelations has been Jimmy Garvin, and one of the big disappointments has been David Von Erich. But those are two separate ideas. I'm not tearing down David to build up Gorgeous Jimmy. Garvin stands up on his own. No conspiracy necessary. I prefer to watch the wrestlers in question and come to my own conclusions. What do you need to be cautious about? What do you stand to protect by not jumping on the Lawler/Fujiwara/whomever bandwagon if you watch their matches and decide that they're good? And the Henry/Michaels thing is a perfect comparison - open-minded people watching wrestlers and drawing their own conclusions. Then say that. The issue with the word "fad" is that it inherently suggests a lack of merit. That you'll be interested in this for a little while, and then you'll move on to something else. So if you actually genuinely feel some way about something, and have given it some degree of consideration, then someone calling it a fad smacks of dismissiveness and an unwillingness to consider a new opinion. Not to say you're necessarily doing that, but words mean things and all.

No, I said I found the idea of it being "dated" was silly. Again, your own words in the second line.... "Maybe" is very hard to read as "no, that's silly".

You acknowledged that the idea of Takada as great shoot-style worker might be dated, but even if it was, it was still valuable. Whether or not you still like him is a separate issue. If it was hypothetically dated, why would it still be valuable? "It's a Wonderful Life" was overlooked upon it's initial release. Is knowing that really important when judging it now?

Ummm...the Dustin Rhodes stuff started in '02, and in '09 he's still recognized as great. Hell, even now the Goldust/Seamus feud got a bunch of positive reviews. If it's no longer trendy, then it's because it became conventional wisdom, not because he was a passing fad.

Man, if the "typical WWE worker" were as good as Rey has been since signing with them, I'd probably still watch all their weekly programming. But that aside, people making more measured criticisms of Rey acknowledge that he's done well adjusting to the "WWE style", but still aren't interested in his current work because they find that style dull. I wonder how exactly they would define that style, and why it would tend to make matches in that style dull. I think that El-P, who made the comment, meant that Rey Jr. basically "lowered" himself by adapting to the WWE style. If so, I agree with him. That still doesn't really say anything...how does adapting yourself to the WWE style automatically "lower" you? That's all good and well, but "it's all subjective" is supposed to be the beginning of the discussion, not the end of it. Also, there's the matter of sub-styles - Konnan, Perro Aguayo, Cien Caras, Pierroth Jr., and Killer all worked 95/96 AAA style, too. While there are some large, overriding shared traits, I don't think any of us would argue they were working the same style Rey was. It really shouldn't be "95/96 AAA style vs. 2000's WWF/E style" as much as "95/96 AAA undercard high workrate style vs. 2000's WWF/E upper midcard designated workrate ghetto style". Personally, I tend to think of it less in terms of the style a wrestler works than the roles they play. I know you don't mean it like this, but saying Rey reached the pinnacle of his abilities working the role of high energy undercarder heating up the crowd for Killer matches really feels like a damning criticism of him. Just eyeballing it, the first obvious difference I see in the styles is the flashier offense of the 95/96 AAA undercard high workrate style. I don't want to get all "MOVES~!" here, but I don't think I have to, because it's 2009, and if you still prefer that style, you obviously found something there once the shiny newness of it all wore off. I don't deny that something is there...I just don't see what it is that makes it inherently better than 2000's WWF/E upper midcard designated workrate ghetto style.

This is an excerpt of something I wrote about Rey shortly after the Benoit murder/suicide, which should explain my temperament. I think this all still holds true. People can like and dislike whoever they please, but a guy changing styles over the course of his career isn't really a criticism of that wrestler in and of himself, particularly if he takes to that new style very well. A lot of criticism of current Rey tends to read as "Rey used to wrestle one way, now he wrestles another way, therefore it's bad", which is a really ignorant, closed-minded way of looking at things. Man, if the "typical WWE worker" were as good as Rey has been since signing with them, I'd probably still watch all their weekly programming. But that aside, people making more measured criticisms of Rey acknowledge that he's done well adjusting to the "WWE style", but still aren't interested in his current work because they find that style dull. I wonder how exactly they would define that style, and why it would tend to make matches in that style dull.

I suppose that's true. Then again, it's TNA. I'm not sure I can think of anyone who feels so vitally important to the company that they can't be replaced. Just seems like AJ probably isn't one of the first guys you would point to for folks who should be on the chopping block, not that that's what you're saying. Last two non-WWE shows I watched in full were Destination X and the CZW 10th anniversary show. Both were pretty bad shows partly salvaged by two good matches - undercard scrappy smaller guy vs. larger tough guy match and a main event title match. Sting vs. Kurt Angle was shockingly fun outside of the goofy finishing sequence. Still got smoked by Eddie Kingston vs. Drake Younger, as neither Sting nor Angle really looked as capable as Younger, and Younger was pretty clearly the lesser guy in his match. Gap between Styles vs. Booker and Pinkie Sanchez vs. Drew Blood was smaller, but the CZW match still gets the duke pretty easily. Still, not sure you could replace AJ with Pinkie and have it work as well. He is replaceable, but I get the sense it would be easier to replace Sting or Angle with The King of Diamonds than to replace AJ, for whatever that's worth.

A lot of people scream when they're in pain. Since wrestling matches tend to involve people causing each other pain, I can't be too shocked or bothered when people scream every now and then. Also, society seems to have established this idea that women scream more than men do, so can't be too shocked or bothered when women scream more often in their matches than men do. All of this is really besides the point, though, as I don't think the problem exists to the extent that some people are claiming it does. I mean, screaming used to be a big part of Melina's gimmick (and something she pulled off well, as tomk pointed out), but not really something that she relies on much any more. There's a bit of it, but there's a bit of it for a lot of wrestlers, and I don't think it's that big of a deal. It's not like she's Manami Toyota or anything.

The little bit of TNA that I've seen this year suggests that they're marginally more watchable now than they've been since Russo came back. From Russo's return through the end of 2008, saw a grand total of one match (Harris/Storm Texas Death) that I really gave a shit about. This year I've seen two, which, apropos to this discussion, had Jarrett (vs. Angle) and AJ (vs. Booker). So it has kinda gone from being 2000 WCW where nobody gives a shit and nothing is worth watching to being post-peak AAA where most of it is shit but there are a few gems scattered about if you care to look for them. I'm not saying that having Jarrett in power hasn't been disastrous for TNA, but getting rid of him and AJ when they're two of a small handful of guys who will actually give a shit in the ring every now and then isn't going to make it a better show. And while TNA booking needs to change, changes don't always end up being for the better. I really, really can't imagine a shift in power from Jarrett to Angle being a change for the better. And I can't even begin to imagine why they would even consider tossing out West. Even if you don't like his announcing style, West is TNA's #1 fan. West is a guy who sat in on booking meetings where they read letters from people complaining about their shows, and said that they must have been written by paid WWE shills, because there was no way anyone could possibly find fault with TNA. It's wrestling. Bookers and promoters love having their egos stroked like that. Why would they get rid of him? Has West suddenly become disillusioned with TNA? What gives? Did you see TNA-era Jeff Hardy? You don't like AJ, but TNA-era Jeff Hardy was a guy who should have been able to make a difference?

It's very hard to say what will happen when Vince dies, other than that I don't see the climate being right for an All Japan/NOAH style promotional split. Even a bunch of guys jumping to TNA en masse seems kinda unlikely. I think it's more about how stable the Stephanie/HHH marriage remains once they're in power. Shane feels like a non-entity. I think he's basically content to just go along for the ride these days. I don't see him making any serious moves.

Advertisers want the male 18-34 demographic. Advertisers don't want the wrestling fan demographic. 1 - 1 = 0 None that I can think of, so you've got me on that one. Still, the advertiser thing is a red herring since TV ad revenue is the least significant source of income they have, and the most significant advertising they do on TV is for themselves. I should preface this by saying that I don't have the hard evidence of what demographic is buying what, and am largely going on anecdotal stuff like the company's biggest draw being really popular with kids and not nearly as popular with adults, which you would think would suggest something. That said, worth pointing out that kids generally don't buy any of that stuff, not even the Cena merchandise. Parents buy all of that stuff at the behest of their kids. If you were very, very deeply in denial about where wrestling is on the cultural significance hierarchy, yes, you would think that. Otherwise, you realize that Shaq is about as high as they're ever going to go. Who do you think they're going to be able to get that's drastically more culturally significant than ZZ Top? Jimmy Carter? Except they didn't actually start doing that stuff and hyping up the family friendliness to media outlets until a good year-and-a-half after Benoit, which kinda eliminates that as a rationale. I guess you could point to Linda McMahon being put on the Connecticut Board of Education, but even there, you would think the criticism leveled against her would be "she's the CEO of a god damn wrestling promotion", rather than "she's the CEO of a god damn wrestling promotion that produces programming inappropriate for children". So putting aside conspiracy theories with questionable backing, the logical explanation would be that they are directing the company towards the market that seems to be the most interested in the company right now. So the continued presence of that isn't evidence against my argument? That's a relief. How are we defining "raunchier days"? I mean, the WWF/E has really been gradually toning down their content pretty much since Russo left. Peak of their "raunchier days" was 1999, and it seems impossible to say they haven't made drastic changes to their business model in that time. You can still see vestiges of it for years afterwords, but by 2004, pretty clear that they no longer see that as an important part of what they do.

WWE's primary target audience is still Males 18-35 (or is it 34? I can never remember the particular arbitrary number), since those are both 1.the most likely to watch any wrestling show, and 2.generally craved by advertisers as the demographic which spends the most money on superfluous junk shown in commercials. Advertisers crave the male 18-34 demographic, but they also tend to avoid wrestling fans like the plague, so that argument kinda cancels itself out. Also, it's not like there aren't a shit ton of people who got rich by peddling stuff to kids, too. For their television income, they are kinda fucked just by virtue of being wrestling. That's why successful promoters tend to focus their attention elsewhere while using TV to sell the fans on things that will actually make them money like PPVs and house shows and merchandise. Seeing as how Cena is the top dog in that regard these days, only makes sense to shift attention towards the demographic that buys his stuff. Well, with Ted, there's a good storyline reason to bring him in. But other than that, yeah, it kinda does. If it didn't, they probably would've brought in Seth McFarlane instead. How many relevant celebrities can you think of who would lower themselves to being on WWE programming? Can you think of 52 for an entire year? Also, it's not like kid's shows have to be designed to appeal to kids and kids alone. Was Animaniacs not a kid's show because they told a lot of jokes kids wouldn't get? Or Rocky & Bullwinkle? Or Sesame Street, even?

Seth Green voices a supporting character on Family Guy and is the creator of and a regular voice actor on Robot Chicken. So the two big projects he has currently keep his face off of TV, which means unless you're old enough to care about voice actors and authorship, then Seth Green is pretty anonymous to the younger audience that WWE is turning to. Which isn't to say he's irrelevant, but the name "Seth Green" carries less weight to WWE's target audience than the name "Chris Griffin" does. And "Chris Griffin" doesn't even carry the weight that names like "Peter Grifin", "Lois Griffin", "Stewie Griffin", and "Glen Quagmire" do. Not sure how the name of - at best - the fifth most culturally relevant character on Family Guy is more relevant to the WWE's target demographic than Beyonce or Lady Gaga. And that's not even the name they got.