Matt D

No one's saying you don't need context. Most people are just saying that it's not all that hard to get the context and just because something was lauded 20 years ago doesn't make it inherently laudable even relative to other things from 20 years ago that weren't lauded at the time.

I really feel like the money in Punk is to have him be the jaded, jealous heel. Bryan took what he wanted, the Wrestlemania Main Event, being the face of the company, the best in the world, etc. I think that Punk doesn't want to play ball at all though, so it's moot.

One of my other favorite talking points is that anything, from good punches to lucha matwork to two counts to dives to legwork to thumbtacks to bleeding to a complex comedy spot are all tools, and the thing that matters the most in wrestling is what a wrestler does with the tools available in order to tell a story. By standards are you just saying that the tools are different? I do think that the audience's expectations are different too. Are you saying that's because of the tools? Oh wait, we should frame this in a structure and agency argument. The tools are in the structure but so are things like whether you're forced to have a 3 minute match or you get to have a twenty minute match. Then the agency is what they do within that structure. The actual choices they make. I love structure and agency arguments.

I kind of wanted to bring up Final Fantasy X as a sign that innovation/advances aren't always good, because that game is made almost unplayable by the advent of voice acting/in-game cinematics that involve animations where you can't skip through dialogue like you could in previous games (because it's too tied to the voice acting/animations). So you're left just staring at the screen for minutes on end instead of being free to move through things at your own pace and PLAY the damn thing, which is otherwise a pretty compelling game with a good character building system and engaging battle system. But it feels like it's not really pertinent to where we are now that we've hit the "Sometimes standards do get worse" point of agreement.

Actually, now I'm not even willing to accept what I said as the sum up anymore. I do think that there's an objective standard to a good wrestling that doesn't change which is that "1.) Everything the wrestler does (utilizing the tools that are at his disposal) means something to the overall whole of the match and you can draw a narrative throughline through it all, and 2.) that narrative throughline is compelling." That's my opinion of what I think an objective standard is. That's different than subjectivity I think, but it's a tricky line to walk. I know that Dylan mentioned various things (like build to big moments) and that's his idea of what he thinks the objective standard for every match. That's my idea of the objective standard of "This is what a good wrestling match is." That doesn't' change. I think the standards for "This is what the vast majority of people who discuss wrestling currently think a good wrestling match is." do change.

You can't bingo half of my sum up and not the other half!

To sum up the note: Yes standards can change. Sometimes they get better. Sometimes they get worse. It's generally hard to pin down. However, standards changing is a wildly terrible reason not to reevaluate or discuss things and really not all that important in comparing and contrasting wrestling through the eras either on a business or an aesthetic level.

Standards can change in a negative way, no?

"You," being "Will" is a fairly good starting point yes. That was a loaded question, I'll admit. I'm serving my own agenda here.

Do we think Rey was better in 2009 than he was in 1996, even though he was far more broken down in 2009?

They were never actually trying to get Axel over.

I watched two episodes of Get Smart and now Five Characters in Search of an Exit is on the Twilight Zone. On the other hand, I don't even entirely know what I'd want to catch tomorrow morning on youtube. Maybe just Bo and Adam Rose?

Raw tonight. If they're in Des Moines then I wouldn't be too worried. If they're in Philly, I would.

Where are they?

As for athleticism as a trait for a wrestler to have, I think in general of course it helps a lot. It gives you more tools to chose from as to what you do in the ring. At the same time, I think it can be something of a primary resource curse. Guys rely on their athleticism to get pops and don't work on their selling, timing, structure, etc. Kurt Angle to me is exhibit one for that class. A crutch! Exactly. Also you learn way more from watching a guy at 48 than at 32! Ok I'm done.

I feel like the first time that Dave said anything vaguely excited or interested in CMLL in a hell of a long time in the WON was this: "The Busca en un Idolo tournament has really been something when it comes to innovative moves. On the 5/9 show at Arena Mexico, they had an awesome match where Cachorro beat Hechicero via submission with the Fujiwara armbar, with each getting 33 points. In the next match, which had its spectacular moves as well, but wasn’t nearly as good,... Wrestling in CMLL right now is way down in popularity, but they’ve got guys who are innovating like crazy both at the top and coming up." That's what makes them worth talking about again, apparently. Innovation (and you know, spectacular moves but I think the innovation bit is more important).

And sometimes because you can do things doesn't mean you should or that it leads to the best narrative choices.

We did do a long note about "what is good wrestling?"

It would be so amazingly unproductive for me to pull the "athleticism is a crutch" card right now.

I don't think we can totally dismiss athleticism. If you were to compare the Shield, for example, with 80s WWF tag wrestling then I think a big difference in the standard of quality would be athleticism, and I suppose moves too. A lot of workers who we think are great at psychology or storytelling were originally lauded for their athleticism. Bihari always likes to say that older lucha fans likely felt the same way about early 80s Casas, Fuerza and Santo that we felt about Mistico, etc. So, athleticism has always played a part, much as it does in real sports. The reason why most 90s wrestling was originally praised was because 90s wrestling ratcheted up the athleticism. I think this is an important point but not an exclusive one because there are also workers who were originally lauded for their athleticism that we don't look back at as being great with psychology and storytelling. Is it worth looking at whether the opposite was true? No one gave Slaughter credit for bumping like he did in 90-91? That seems like sort of a dead end road though unless people feel otherwise.

I get the mindset behind it, absolutely. I just look at it from a practical point of view, like I do most things. I generally come into these big arguments in a "Will this help us or hurt us in having a constructive, interesting conversation?" Amusingly, my personal bias was pretty strong in how I framed my comments like I did, which was probably not entirely fair or complete. But yes, no need to derail!

So wait, does that make SFX fans into Deathmatch fans?

If you're not part of those groups, you're probably going to view them through 2014 eyes. I don't think Meltzer is wrong on that point. This is probably very true, but if that's the case, then you probably wouldn't be viewing them in the first place, and if you were, you wouldn't be doing so to the level that you start having a discussion with someone the equivalent as Meltzer. He's right, but only about an argument that is completely irrelevant, basically, a blanket dismissal that completely misses the point.

And more importantly, like Will said, a well-crafted story is a well-crafted story no matter the form of entertainment.

My gut says that this is part of the problem of Dylan framing this through a Meltzer argument. While it's an overstatement, part of me really thinks that Meltzer really thinks we have to be talking about the latter because, to him, the former doesn't really exist. It's Bigfoot. Guys just did "what felt right" or "what popped the crowd" without really giving it thought, etc. You can't easily engage him on these levels so framing this whole discussion with him in mind seems like a problematic starting point.