Wrestling before or after 1996?

[BigBadMick]

That was quick! Thanks Loss. What year would we have to use as a divider to make it a harder decision for you?

Can I ask everyone this too?

[Loss]

It's only tough if you divide the 80s.

[Matt D]

i think pre-97 being so heavily favored is a reflection of the core posters' age here

 

i suspect there will be some sort of paradigm shift in wrestling eventually that will lead future generations to see these sacred cows in a much less flattering light. with 90s all japan for instance, i can easily imagine an even greater backlash against "epics" and head drops developing.

 

basically i think of the current unquestioned love for this stuff as equivalent to "rockism" in music criticism, if anyone here is familiar with that concept (with the WON being rolling stone, obv). there are an increasing number of hardcore music fans today saying "no, we don't *HAVE* to accept the beatles as part of the GOAT discussion" and rejecting a lot of ideas the rockists took for granted (e.g. music without ~real instruments~ being lower art). maybe the same will happen with wrestling sooner or later...

 

I think that .. I'm not even sure where to begin here. Maybe read the Bret Hart vs Ric Flair note? Which I wouldn't wish on most people, but that might help explain both how people feel about sacred cows here and the fact that we've got plenty of people who didn't watch, in real time, a lot of the wrestling that they now love, and also that go against a lot of the long-standing dogmatic views of WON-centric or (i hate to raise him so high but) Scott Keith-centric mentalities.

 

Don't get me wrong. i get why you said that. It's just not true at all here.

[Ryan Faulconer]

Make the cut-off at 1997 and it is a no brainer for me. All that lucha. The best period from the Japanese indies...except for Battlarts unfortunately for this topic. Then there are the US territories or Big 3 in the 1980s. There was more variety from promotion to promotion back then. All Japan was one promotion instead of two large (theoretically) groups and a couple of what seem like vanity indies which run periodically with the same talent.

 

In the 2000s we had four different lucha/Hamada's UWF inspired groups alone with MPro/Toryumon - Dragon Gate/Osaka Pro/Kaientai Dojo. Maybe more if you count the Toryumon short lived off-shoot El Dorado and then there is DDT and the undercards of Big Japan I preferred it when everyone worked in the same one or two companies. A more recent example of diluting the talent pool happened in the US scene - first after ECW closed down and then again when ROH fired Gabe Sapolsky. American indies today and going back to 2008. Do we really need all those promotions that seem to have splintered off of ROH's large talent pool?

 

Yeah - I guess pre-1996 would be good enough too. American wrestling became way too disposable and interchangeable during the Monday Night Wars era and later. There is just so much WWE first run TV every single week in 2014. That would be fun enough if we had the WWE Network in Canada. Unfortunately we don't and won't until the magic wizard blesses us with his special broadcasting gifts sometime late 2014 or spring 2015.

[WingedEagle]

I think I'm with the consensus on pre-96, primarily due to AJ, Crockett and 80s Japan.

 

BUT -- I see the case for going with post-96: '97 WWF. WWE/F Attitude era. post-96 ECW, including what I consider the peak of their TV in '96, building to Barely Legal and then the Lawler/Cornette summer. And that's before you get to Cena-era WWe with Cena, Punk, Bryan, Renee Young, Shield, and a host of PPVs with at worst some good+ matches on top. Joe/Punk/Danielson in ROH. The last few years in NJ with Tanahashi/Okada/Nakamura. Plus the future. That glass is not half empty.

[Zenjo]

Theoretically I'd take pre 96 in a heartbeat. It's not just down to what I'd perceive as better quality wrestling. The crowds were so much better pre it's like night and day comparing them. Smark fans are good for the forums, but not as an audience. It's such a screwed up relationship with the audience laying down the law and telling the performers how they've got to wrestle to satisfy them. It should be people going to a show simply to be entertained by the wrestlers.

 

The days of an arena full of marks who really believed in wrestling and had an attention span of over 30 seconds are long gone. They created the great atmosphere's and the magical feel that can never be rediscovered. Unless we all go without the internet for the next 20 years or so.

[Ricky Jackson]

I like the new stuff, but my heart is with 60s/70s oldies on the AM station.

[topropepodcast]

I'd go with pre-96, and it's not that difficult to think about.

 

What if we set the cut off even further?

 

1990?

 

1985?

 

What's your cut off to where you'd take everything after it as opposed to everything before?

[(BP)]

I'd lean to pre-'96 because I've seen plenty of post, and there's so much great older stuff I haven't gotten to. I think all wrestling is good wrestling, but I grew up on WWF/E so it's my comfort zone. I wish I had more time to go through the territories, learn more about '80s and '90s lucha and puro, etc. As it is I barely get time to watch WWE network, and I rarely watch watch Raw in one sitting. Getting shipwrecked with a ton of Memphis, AWA, Portland, AJPW, and CMLL seems like the way to go.

[goodhelmet]

If you set the cutoff date at January 1st, 1991, I would never have the need to watch wrestling after. I love bits and parts after 1990 but I would be ok with living in the 80s.

[El-P]

If you set the cutoff date at January 1st, 1991, I would never have the need to watch wrestling after. I love bits and parts after 1990 but I would be ok with living in the 80s.

 

I'm feeling the urge to use that quote from The Wrestler (you know, when he's having a drink with Marisa Tomei).

[Coffey]

 

That was quick! Thanks Loss. What year would we have to use as a divider to make it a harder decision for you?

Can I ask everyone this too?

 

1989 would be the year that made it really hard for me. Maybe 1990.

 

For me, the "golden era" of pro-wrestling was after Hulkamania started. 1985 or so. I was born in 1981. WWF was the only wrestling that we got in my city, especially for the first few years of cable TV. So if the year was 1989 or 90, my decision would be my childhood memories, or everything after.

 

I haven't seen a TON of pre-'85 or especially pre-'80 footage of wrestling from many promotions as even the stuff that does exist, it's not always great video quality. And I'm only 32, so a lot of it was well before my time, so it's hard for me to put myself in the moment, so to speak, as if you weren't watching it live, week-to-week, like I was as a kid, it's different. Especially when watching it with the eyes of an adult years later.

 

I think the wrestling of today, in ring, is better than it's ever been, at least on the big stage. The Indies are dreadful. But on the big stage, the characters & writing is pretty bad, for the most part. Nothing feels memorable. I see it in the moment & appreciate it. Maybe even talk about it online afterward for up to a week...but nothing seems to stick anymore. In example, after twenty years, The Undertaker just had his streak end at Wrestlemania. Here we are, what, less than a month later? And everyone already seems to have forgotten or doesn't seem to care. Imagine if that happened in the 80s though. It would have been portrayed & seemed like such a bigger ordeal. The only time I seem to think back to stuff that happened is for year-end award voting.

 

As a child though, I remember big moments, even from midcarders. Shawn Michaels turning on Marty Jannetty, Randy Savage getting attacked by a cobra, Jake Roberts going blind from getting sprayed with Arrogance...that was my era, my childhood. Maybe that's how kids today feel & they remember stuff like Kofi's Royal Rumble spots or something but it's different for me nowadays.

 

So I definitely feel like age plays a big role in the decision.

[JerryvonKramer]

Who else loves watching genuine marks in action? Currently watching Dan Spivey vs. Lex Luger from Wrestlewar 1991 and there's a fan in the crowd is so pumped up. He's punching every fist. Love seeing the marks!

[jdw]

-1996 over 1996-

 

Too easy as well.

[NintendoLogic]

The only I see this even being a difficult decision is if you're a really big fan of the Attitude Era, NOAH, and/or ROH. Or current New Japan, I guess.

[jdw]

That was quick! Thanks Loss. What year would we have to use as a divider to make it a harder decision for you?

 

That's a tough one.

 

1990 would be a tough one because it tends to give you just enough of a taste in both directions to let you know what you're missing:

 

* start of Jumbo & Co vs Misawa & Co

* end of Tenryu in All Japan

* clearer elevation of the next generation in New Japan

* end of the run of the Midnight Express

* taste of Flair as NWA Champ

* UWF 2.0's last year

* dawn of FMW/Garbage

* Lucha becoming more available

* Joshi transition year to Bull / Aja / Hokuto / Toyota / Kyoko era

* Liger-Sano end / Liger-Pegasus start

* etc

 

That would be tough.

[victory]

Most are going to pick the era they are the most nostalgic for. Which would be when they were kids or teenagers for the most part. That's going to hold true for music, movies, etc.

 

I'm good with any wrestling from 81 thru 93 or so since that is when I started watching along with when I became more of a casual fan.

[fxnj]

If it's such a no-brainer to pick the 80's over anything from the last 20 years, why spend so much time keeping up with the new shit?

[Loss]

Because at literally anytime, decision makers in wrestling can have a moment of clarity and you can be treated to a great show. As long as that possibility exists, it's worth even halfway paying attention.

[BillThompson]

If it's such a no-brainer to pick the 80's over anything from the last 20 years, why spend so much time keeping up with the new shit?

 

Because some of it is still great.

 

One thing I'll say about this topic, I do feel that too many people are ignoring, or tossing aside, all the terrible stuff that took place pre-1996. There were a lot of horrendous matches, pointless squashes, stupid angles, and so on and so forth that happen in the early 90s, the 80s, and earlier. People bring up those areas of awfulness when talking about present day wrestling, but it seems to be ignored when discussing pre-1996.

[BigBadMick]

If it's such a no-brainer to pick the 80's over anything from the last 20 years, why spend so much time keeping up with the new shit?

If wrestling isn't grabbing my attention, I find it easier to stop watching, step back, let a few things unfold and cherry pick the pimped stuff afterwards. Similarly, I find myself favouring proven, well regarded films and tv shows over something new a lot of the time.

 

I have to remind myself that it's still nice to take a chance that something might get better if you persevere sometimes.....

[dawho5]

People ignore a lot of the bad stuff pre-1996 because most of it doesn't make the DVDs they buy. The bad stuff now is right there on the TV or WWE Network.

[Edwin]

Given the same access I do now to things, I'd go with pre-1996 obviously.

 

There's just so much quality to pick against after.

 

Great territories across the US, great Joshi, great lucha, great Japanese men's wrestling, hotter crowds all around, better booking, etc.

[That Poor Bastard]

II love a lot of the older pro wrestling I have seen. Stuff from the 80's and 90's that I had never seen never fails to find ways to entertain me. Especially stuff like 90-early 92 WCW or ECW's heyday. (I have only seen the stuff put on the WWE ECW dvd releases until recently.) I wish I had more access to the Memphis i missed in the 80's, and the Memphis I saw in the 90's.

 

However, I think I will go with post 96. You never know what is going to happen in pro wrestling, and I dont want to miss out on the next great thing to happen. Also, I know there is a lot of stuff I have never seen from 97-now that I could watch that might be decent.

 

I do have to say that I prefer the aesthetics of wrestling before the 90's boom period.

[JerryvonKramer]

People ignore a lot of the bad stuff pre-1996 because most of it doesn't make the DVDs they buy.

 

That might be true of some fans, but I wouldn't say it's true of the PWO crowd.