Do "Standards change" in wrestling?

[Dylan Waco]

Joe, athleticism and offense is the only thing you've brought up when this has come up both on twitter, on your podcast and in this thread. I can't make your arguments for you.

 

No one in this thread has argued wrestlers aren't capable of doing new/different things now.

[W2BTD]

Joe, athleticism and offense is the only thing you've brought up when this has come up both on twitter, on your podcast and in this thread. I can't make your arguments for you.

 

No one in this thread has argued wrestlers aren't capable of doing new/different things now.

 

BS, Dylan.

 

I supported & cited Ohtani's idea of "cinematic" match structure a few posts back. You listen to my show, so you know i've banged that drum repeatedly as well.

 

I also talked about match psychology changing and/or advancing. I cited the Brisco's vs Steamboat & Youngblood from Starrcade '83 as an example of this, even tossing in some examples of the basic transitions in that bout. And that's four guys considered great workers to some degree by different voices.

 

You want more? Let's talk about the finish to Kerry/Flair, since that was already brought up. Flair being KO'd literally forever on a basic punch, or even the cage door slamming, would not be acceptable today as major events in a big time match like that. That's a simple advance in psychology, it's up to you to decide if you think it's for better or worse.

 

If im talking about athleticism a alot, it's because that what you guys are harping on. It's also the most obvious change of standard to point to, because it's the easiest to see.

[Dylan Waco]

The finish to Kerry/Flair sucked cock for any time. The level of stars involved is what made it work.

 

Your point about Starrcade was fundamentally about offense as I recall (and I didn't agree with it).

 

Forgive me for ignoring your echo of OJ's point in lieu of the non-stop references to athleticism/offense which you now are pretending you were forced into making.

[W2BTD]

The finish to Kerry/Flair sucked cock for any time. The level of stars involved is what made it work.

 

Your point about Starrcade was fundamentally about offense as I recall (and I didn't agree with it).

 

Forgive me for ignoring your echo of OJ's point in lieu of the non-stop references to athleticism/offense which you now are pretending you were forced into making.

 

Oh, Dylan. Now this is getting silly & chippy.

 

I mean, you've already agreed with the idea that the athletic standards have clearly changed over the years, so what are we even arguing about here? I've even agreed that simply being more athletic does not magically make a match or a wrestler better. My point, which I have said repeatedly, is that standards change. Athletic, match structures, finishes, whatever. It's up to you to decide if these changes are for the better. My opinion? Some are, some are not.

[goodhelmet]

Being a better athlete doesn't make you a better wrestler. That's absurd. But it sure as hell gives you an enormous advantage over the shitty athlete. That can not be denied.

 

 

 

I think this is the disconnect. You believe that being a better athlete gives you an enormous advantage. I think you equate athleticism with skill. RVD is really athletic watching him on my TV screen right now.

[ohtani's jacket]

Every time someone types TM/DK, I think to myself briefly, what do Shane Haste & Mikey Nicholls have to do with this?

 

Anyway, I'm not gonna die on a hill defending dave's mindset because i'm not dave. I *think* I have a good grasp of what he was trying to convey, and I think you (Dylan, as i'm not quoting that wall of text to preserve thread continuity) are misinterpreting him. You seem to think he sees no value in analyzing old footage, and as someone who likes to analyze old footage, you obviously got upset about that, because to you that's shitting all over what you do. That's not what I picked up from his comments. I *think* he meant that it isn't fair to change your thoughts on a match in hindsight, because what you thought in the moment is what matters. I never got the idea from his comments that he "sees limited value at best at exploring old footage".

 

 

I don't have a problem with Dave's point of view, but I think it's pretty clear that he doesn't see any value in re-evaluating old footage. I don't think Dave cares about lost workers or undiscovered matches. I don't think he cares about territories he paid no attention to at the time. He cares about what the consensus was at the time. I imagine he sees it as part of the fabric of wrestling history, and I think there's merit in that. Unfortunately, it means he dismisses a lot of stuff he's unfamiliar with, but to his credit he'll defer to a Jose or a Steve Sims if it's not an area he's experienced with. I don't think he's suggesting that people shouldn't watch older footage, but he'd never accept that a guy who all of his peers thought was a great worker wasn't that great and that there were plenty of guys who were better than him. Maybe he's right, who knows? One thing's for sure, he's on a completely different wavelength from many of us here.

 

Not that we're all that extreme. I joined a film board recently that stunned me in terms of how far people would go to find the smallest, most insignificant film from a director and claim it was an unheralded masterpiece better than the director's best work. Informative, but crazy.

[tim]

I also find it interesting that when I have cited style bias in the past in terms of not being able to compare certain wrestlers in any meaningful way, Dylan claims that's a cop out. Yet on this topic, Dylan is the first to toss style bias into the discussion.

 

My stance is actually pretty simple, and has nothing to do with any sort of style bias at all. I think standards change in wrestling, just like they do in any form of entertainment. For some reason, this is being interpreted as me saying things are getting better (when in fact some new standards have clearly made things worse in my view), or that i'm shitting on the past. That to me is where the disconnect lies.

 

I think standards change for what is innovative. Obviously. I don't think standards necessarily change for much else. Malenko/Eddie was impressive to you because it was a level of workrate you hadn't seen before. But at the same time, we all know there were matches going down in 1995 that hold up beautifully and were as full of workrate, athleticism, cutting edge offense, etc. as Eddie/Malenko was. But then again, not all styles that have lots of workrate and offense are the same. A workrate-filled AJPW match is a lot different from a workrate-filled NJPW juniors match. Eddie/Malenko was a juniors style match; were there juniors style matches doing things similar to what that match did at the time, but didn't get quite the recognition? If so, I would say that it should no longer be called a great match.

 

No matter what, you can watch an old match and appreciate a number of things. Selling, match lay out, crowd, timing, how well the offense is utilized, etc. When I watched the 80s lucha set, those dives felt every bit the highspot they were to me. A could watch a beautifully executed, well-timed tope and it would hit me harder than any of the double twisting tornado backflips or w/e that I can see on thousands of indie matches on youtube. I can watch a Jerry Lawler brawl where 99% of the match is punches and appreciate it for the quality of the punches, the timing, the selling, the crowd reaction, any number of things. So I don't think having a higher standard of what is considered high-end offense hurts older matches.

 

So what about those matches that it DOES hurt? When looking at matches that had a rep but are now considered by many people to not be any good I think there's one question you have to ask yourself: was it actually innovative? Because there can be older matches where the offense no longer holds up as high-end, but is still obviously good for a number of other reasons -- even because of that offense and how it is used. So if a match was at one point considered good for its level of offense and athleticism, yet no longer holds up, they obviously didn't do any of the other many things they could have done to make it a good match. They were relying on the novelty of new moves the pop the crowd and get reactions -- again, there is nothing wrong with busting out cool new moves in a wrestling match, but there are many matches that are able to do so yet still be good on a number other criteria. Which isn't something I think can be called a great match. However, if they were legitimately innovative, that takes skill and creativity, so it should still be called a great match.

 

 

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.

[JerryvonKramer]

A big problem here is I keep reading people talk about "athletic/MOVEZ" type vs "psychology/selling" type. What does that even mean? This is suggesting that if a match is very athletic with lots of action, it means there is no psychology.

I should come out and say that I don't think this at all. Later on tonight I'm uploading a podcast in which I rate The Steiners vs. Hiroshi Hase & Kensuke Sasaki from the 91 WCW / New Japan Supershow ****1/2 and in defence of the match argue that it has a ton more psychology that people give it credit for. I say something along the lines of "the thesis is too easy, if a match is a spotfest I think people default too quickly to assuming there is no compelling storyline or psychology, but this match has both of those things ..."

 

I didn't want to set up a false dichotomy when I said that. I think a lot of guys on this board would even see me as a MOVEZ guy. I was just saying that it TENDS to be the case that the guys who are pushing this line of things "advancing" with time keep harping on about athleticism. And although athleticism = / = MOVEZ, they kinda go hand in hand don't they. Moves being the demonstration of athleticism.

 

By your own posts here, it seems that you think athleticism is tremendously important. But I think a lot of people here (including me) would argue that it's much much less important than psychology and storytelling.

 

It's not an either / or thing, but the fact it's continually brought up as evidence of "standards improving" creates the dichotomy, because people who think old wrestling is as good or better than wrestling now are going to be pointing to superior psychology, storytelling and match structure.

 

-----------

 

But honestly, your argument is like saying music in 2014 is better than music from 1960s because bands now have better guitars and better equipment. For me, it's a nonsense argument and I can't really relate to it.

 

If it's NOT like saying that, then maybe explain how it isn't.

 

Of course the basics of good wrestling never change. Telling a story, creating emotion, suspending disbelief. But the methods used to accomplish these things change & evolve. That is what you guys are failing to accept. You can talk about PSYCHOLOGY!!111!! all day long, and nobody is even arguing with you. But the methods to skin the psychology cat have evolved & changed over time, with better athleticism being *one* of those things. That also does not always equal more exciting moves, by the way. But it does mean wrestlers capable of doing all sorts of things they couldn't do before.

"The basics of a good song never change. Melody, rhythm, harmony. But the methods used to accomplish these things change & evolve. That is what you guys are failing to accept ... But the methods to skin the song cat have evolved & changed over time, with better guitars, better production methods and computer programmes being *some* of those things. That also does not always equal more exciting songs, by the way. But it does mean that bands are capable of doing all sorts of things they couldn't do before."

 

Would you co-sign the re-write?

[Matt D]

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).

[JerryvonKramer]

^ Tim's post up there, which he must have made as I was hitting submit, is really good.

 

I think there's an interesting distinction to make between innovation and quality. Things lauded at the time because of innovation, things that stand the test of time because of quality.

 

I think that might hit the nail on the head for this topic. A pat on the back for tim.

[Dylan Waco]

I've said it before, but generally speaking I think innovation is the least important thing in wrestling, and I prefer formula to innovation 99 out of 100 times.

[Matt D]

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.

[ohtani's jacket]

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

 

Athleticism is part of pro-wrestling. Why do people think El Dandy's 1990 is so great? Because of the things he was able to do athletically. Young Santo got over because of his athleticism. Casas and Fuerza got noticed because of an amazingly athletic match they had on an Anniversary card. Smaller wrestlers like the Brazos and Misioneros not only got over because of their athleticism, they changed the course of lucha history in the process. There are countless examples of athleticism playing a huge part in wrestling.

 

If you're a fan of athletic wrestlers or you appreciate the athleticism of today's workers, it's not a stretch to imagination than the wrestling of yesterday is going to appear less athletic.There's a reason why some people would rather watch flashy young workers over past greats and I don't think it's necessarily bad taste.

 

I also think many of us appreciate athleticism to a point then jump off the wagon when the wrestling no longer suits our tastes. To give another lucha example, I found young Shocker tolerable because the overall product was great, likewise Niebla, Black Warrior, etc. I could appreciate the role they played as young guys in trios matches. I didn't love them like Ciclon Ramirez and his tope back when lucha was really good, but flash forward to the present day and I can't tolerate a lot of the great athletes like Sombra, even though he's probably had a higher number of good singles matches than the rest of the names I've mentioned. A lot of what we praise depends on how caught up in the moment we are.

[goodhelmet]

OJ, it's only the hook. Rey Mysterio can hook me in 1996 with high flying and super sweet flippy moves but if the matches weren't good and he was botching shit left and right (he wasn't) then what good is it to have those gifts? You can hook me with athleticism but can you keep me? No, it's going to take more than that.

[JerryvonKramer]

I know I keep bumping round with the analogies but it's like graphics on video games. Lovely shiny graphics are always nice to have, always, but the thing gamers really value will always always be gameplay. Graphics are a "nice to have", but gameplay is fundamental. So it is with athleticism in wrestling.

 

Course, among gamers, you'll get those guys who won't play old games "because of the graphics". You can imagine where I stand on that topic too.

[Dylan Waco]

My favorite two video games of all time are Galaga and Yars Revenge

[BillThompson]

I know I keep bumping round with the analogies but it's like graphics on video games. Lovely shiny graphics are always nice to have, always, but the thing gamers really value will always always be gameplay. Graphics are a "nice to have", but gameplay is fundamental. So it is with athleticism in wrestling.

 

Course, among gamers, you'll get those guys who won't play old games "because of the graphics". You can imagine where I stand on that topic too.

 

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.

[fxnj]

Random side thoughts...

 

One of the most over finishers in modern wrestling is a fireman's carry. Another is a guy hitting a running knee. They are over because of context and presentation and because of how they are integrated into the matches.

 

During the 90's when the luchadores first started coming into WCW I remember being stunned by my "non-smart" friends at school who thought the offense of guys like Rey and Super Calo looked stupid, phony and weak. These were dynamic, fresh, seemingly exciting spots, and yet during a hot period for wrestling nearly every friend I had at school thought that this sort of offense was comically absurd. Why was this the case? I don't know for sure, but I suspect it had a lot to do with context and presentation.

 

On TM/DK the point can't be stressed enough that a large group of people watched the matches in context with other NJPW matches and as a group didn't like them very much. There were plenty of TM matches I preferred speaking for myself, same with DK. Hell I was talking up DK v. Fujinami over DK v. TM matches from the first time I saw any of them. But the point is those matches weren't thought fondly of compared to other matches from the exact same period in the exact same promotion.

 

The point of this thread has nothing to do with wanting Meltzer to re-do star ratings fwiw.

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.

[fxnj]

 

A big problem here is I keep reading people talk about "athletic/MOVEZ" type vs "psychology/selling" type. What does that even mean? This is suggesting that if a match is very athletic with lots of action, it means there is no psychology.

I should come out and say that I don't think this at all. Later on tonight I'm uploading a podcast in which I rate The Steiners vs. Hiroshi Hase & Kensuke Sasaki from the 91 WCW / New Japan Supershow ****1/2 and in defence of the match argue that it has a ton more psychology that people give it credit for. I say something along the lines of "the thesis is too easy, if a match is a spotfest I think people default too quickly to assuming there is no compelling storyline or psychology, but this match has both of those things ..."

 

I didn't want to set up a false dichotomy when I said that. I think a lot of guys on this board would even see me as a MOVEZ guy. I was just saying that it TENDS to be the case that the guys who are pushing this line of things "advancing" with time keep harping on about athleticism. And although athleticism = / = MOVEZ, they kinda go hand in hand don't they. Moves being the demonstration of athleticism.

 

By your own posts here, it seems that you think athleticism is tremendously important. But I think a lot of people here (including me) would argue that it's much much less important than psychology and storytelling.

 

It's not an either / or thing, but the fact it's continually brought up as evidence of "standards improving" creates the dichotomy, because people who think old wrestling is as good or better than wrestling now are going to be pointing to superior psychology, storytelling and match structure.

 

-----------

 

But honestly, your argument is like saying music in 2014 is better than music from 1960s because bands now have better guitars and better equipment. For me, it's a nonsense argument and I can't really relate to it.

 

If it's NOT like saying that, then maybe explain how it isn't.

 

Of course the basics of good wrestling never change. Telling a story, creating emotion, suspending disbelief. But the methods used to accomplish these things change & evolve. That is what you guys are failing to accept. You can talk about PSYCHOLOGY!!111!! all day long, and nobody is even arguing with you. But the methods to skin the psychology cat have evolved & changed over time, with better athleticism being *one* of those things. That also does not always equal more exciting moves, by the way. But it does mean wrestlers capable of doing all sorts of things they couldn't do before.

"The basics of a good song never change. Melody, rhythm, harmony. But the methods used to accomplish these things change & evolve. That is what you guys are failing to accept ... But the methods to skin the song cat have evolved & changed over time, with better guitars, better production methods and computer programmes being *some* of those things. That also does not always equal more exciting songs, by the way. But it does mean that bands are capable of doing all sorts of things they couldn't do before."

 

Would you co-sign the re-write?

 

Please,

 

http://insomnia.ac/commentary/on_the_genealogy_of_art_games/#partii

 

Read the first few paragraphs of the second essay and maybe you'll understand things a little better. Also, for that "gameplay" shit, here's this

 

http://insomnia.ac/commentary/gameplay/

 

What you're basically saying is that art, whose purpose is to create immersion, isn't getting better by having tools available that enable it to reach a higher level of immersion. If the technology doesn't matter and it's all STORY~! there's no reason that we should have ever evolved past books. That makes no sense. To tie this into wrestling, just think about those terms you are using, "psychology," "storytelling." If wrestlers choose to do a move with a face value attached to it of inducing a shocked psychogical state, how is that not psychology? Who the fuck would want to listen to a storyteller recount a narrative in plain monotone when you have the option of seeing someone do it colorfully and with energy? No matter how you slice it, those graphics are part of the game. If not, you're saying you'd be fine with watching matches built around weak/shitty looking punches if the "story" is good.

[Johnny Sorrow]

What exactly does "athleticism" even mean?

[goodhelmet]

How high you get on your leapfrog?

[JerryvonKramer]

 

 

A big problem here is I keep reading people talk about "athletic/MOVEZ" type vs "psychology/selling" type. What does that even mean? This is suggesting that if a match is very athletic with lots of action, it means there is no psychology.

I should come out and say that I don't think this at all. Later on tonight I'm uploading a podcast in which I rate The Steiners vs. Hiroshi Hase & Kensuke Sasaki from the 91 WCW / New Japan Supershow ****1/2 and in defence of the match argue that it has a ton more psychology that people give it credit for. I say something along the lines of "the thesis is too easy, if a match is a spotfest I think people default too quickly to assuming there is no compelling storyline or psychology, but this match has both of those things ..."

 

I didn't want to set up a false dichotomy when I said that. I think a lot of guys on this board would even see me as a MOVEZ guy. I was just saying that it TENDS to be the case that the guys who are pushing this line of things "advancing" with time keep harping on about athleticism. And although athleticism = / = MOVEZ, they kinda go hand in hand don't they. Moves being the demonstration of athleticism.

 

By your own posts here, it seems that you think athleticism is tremendously important. But I think a lot of people here (including me) would argue that it's much much less important than psychology and storytelling.

 

It's not an either / or thing, but the fact it's continually brought up as evidence of "standards improving" creates the dichotomy, because people who think old wrestling is as good or better than wrestling now are going to be pointing to superior psychology, storytelling and match structure.

 

-----------

 

But honestly, your argument is like saying music in 2014 is better than music from 1960s because bands now have better guitars and better equipment. For me, it's a nonsense argument and I can't really relate to it.

 

If it's NOT like saying that, then maybe explain how it isn't.

 

Of course the basics of good wrestling never change. Telling a story, creating emotion, suspending disbelief. But the methods used to accomplish these things change & evolve. That is what you guys are failing to accept. You can talk about PSYCHOLOGY!!111!! all day long, and nobody is even arguing with you. But the methods to skin the psychology cat have evolved & changed over time, with better athleticism being *one* of those things. That also does not always equal more exciting moves, by the way. But it does mean wrestlers capable of doing all sorts of things they couldn't do before.

"The basics of a good song never change. Melody, rhythm, harmony. But the methods used to accomplish these things change & evolve. That is what you guys are failing to accept ... But the methods to skin the song cat have evolved & changed over time, with better guitars, better production methods and computer programmes being *some* of those things. That also does not always equal more exciting songs, by the way. But it does mean that bands are capable of doing all sorts of things they couldn't do before."

 

Would you co-sign the re-write?

Please,

 

http://insomnia.ac/commentary/on_the_genealogy_of_art_games/#partii

 

Read the first few paragraphs of the second essay and maybe you'll understand things a little better. Also, for that "gameplay" shit, here's this

 

http://insomnia.ac/commentary/gameplay/

 

What you're basically saying is that art, whose purpose is to create immersion, isn't getting better by having tools available that enable it to reach a higher level of immersion. If the technology doesn't matter and it's all STORY~! there's no reason that we should have ever evolved past books. That makes no sense. To tie this into wrestling, just think about those terms you are using, "psychology," "storytelling." If wrestlers choose to do a move with a face value attached to it of inducing a shocked psychogical state, how is that not psychology? Who the fuck would want to listen to a storyteller recount a narrative in plain monotone when you have the option of seeing someone do it colorfully and with energy? No matter how you slice it, those graphics are part of the game. If not, you're saying you'd be fine with watching matches built around weak/shitty looking punches if the "story" is good.

 

Dude come on now, you're going to have to do better than palming me off with some links to some blog which advances weak arguments through assertion. The "Gameplay" point is terrible because it's based on little more than a pedantic little semantic point. Use another term, let's borrow "mechanics" from the board gaming world, and the argument just goes away. So the argument there is "let's use another word". Fuck, he even says it himself. Woeful stuff. The first link is just embarrassing and mildly offensive, what a terrible article -- and a bad advertisment for internet writing. The casual statements about Shakespeare are wince-inducing. Badly researched blow-hard rubbish dressed up in vitriol and misplaced self-confidence.

 

And yes, art is not "getting better" with the advancement of time and technology. It just isn't. Tech gets better, art changes with tech, it doesn't get better.

 

Breaking Bad is great, better than Virgil or Homer? Better than Dante? Better than Shakespeare?

 

Think about what you're saying now.

 

Is the art in a modern art gallery better than Michaelangelo?

 

I said it in another post: any age, any given year will produce X% of great stuff, Y% of shitty stuff and Z% of stuff in between.

 

There's no "art keeps getting better". Don't talk complete crap now.

[ohtani's jacket]

OJ, it's only the hook. Rey Mysterio can hook me in 1996 with high flying and super sweet flippy moves but if the matches weren't good and he was botching shit left and right (he wasn't) then what good is it to have those gifts? You can hook me with athleticism but can you keep me? No, it's going to take more than that.

 

Mysterio got over in '96 because he was doing moves most people had never seen before. He wasn't having matches with great storytelling or psychology. Those would come later in the WWE. In '96, he didn't even have very good lucha psychology. He seemed influenced by Japanese juniors wrestling. But the only guy who came close what he could do athletically was probably Oro a few years earlier. Mysterio set new standards for high flying and did so with his speed, athleticism and execution. I can think of anything else major he did in those matches. He may have played an underdog role, I suppose, but Psicosis left his rudo act South of the border and his schtick was pretty much the springboard for Rey as a technico. What else did Mysterio bring that year other than sheer athleticism?

[goodhelmet]

It wasn't just athleticism. It was a cool outfit, on a guy that size who had the athleticism and SKILL to pull it off. You brought up the underdog role and there is a reason that Rey was used as the lawn dart by Nash. Rey was small enough and sympathetic enough to be put in the position. As Loss is fond of saying (don't know if he knicked it from somebody else)... Rey didn't get over in spite of his size, he got over because of his size.

 

Also, I wanted to re-read the thoughts on Malenko-Rey from GAB 96 and the one thing that gets mentioned over and over again... Rey's selling his ass off. I don't know about his AAA stuff since that isn't really the stuff I was talking about when using Rey as an example. Other WCW Rey threads are more vague and you see the term aerial thrown out once in awhile.

[Matt D]

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