Do "Standards change" in wrestling?

[Tim Cooke]

In any entertainment medium, quality is almost always subjective. What you like and what you don’t like in these mediums are almost always rooted in some form of bias.

 

Within wrestling, the only standards that are mostly objective are:

 

drawing (and even that has some major issues)

supplying fake offense and theatrical bumps for the entertainment of an audience

 

We can tell from an analytical perspective who drew big and who didn’t, with the usual caveats of “is this a true attendance figure” and “was this a person drawing or was it a promotion.” From reading this thread, I think most, if not all, agree about the second point as well.

 

Where this argument gets bogged down is the subjective argument of “what is good wrestling?”

 

From what I have read and heard from Meltzer on this subject is that you can only judge wrestling in the here and now without showing some type of bias. I don’t believe that is true but everything I’ve heard Dave talk about on his radio shows or write about online says that older matches can’t be judged against modern matches because of context. Again, this comes off as a piss poor argument to me, but I do believe this is what he means and for whatever reason, he believes it.

 

But here is where the problem lies. PWO, which is the best board for wrestling discussion in 2014 bar none (and 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, and 2009) is a niche place. The people who frequent this place watch so much more older wrestling than 99% of wrestling fans that PWO could even be considered a niche of a niche. It’s just so small – which isn’t a negative especially because it generates really interesting discussions.

 

But to 90% of Dave’s readers and then 99% of the regular wrestling fans in the world, they will go back and look at an old match on You Tube and usually come to one of three conclusions:

 

That match was good

That match was not good

That match left no impression

 

In the case of 1 and 2, most fans wouldn’t spend more than a few minutes thinking about the context of the match, the styles of wrestling around the world at the time, storylines, etc. I’m guessing Dave hears a lot of something like this:

 

“Hi Dave,

 

I just watched one of those Misawa vs. Kobashi matches you love so much. It was no where near as good as the Michael Elgin vs. Davey Richards match I just watched. You’re off your rocker if you think those All Japan matches are better.

 

Joe Schmo”

 

Back in 2002 when jdw used to try to get into deeper conversation with Dave at Wrestling Classics (I’m thinking the Shawn Michaels/Nobuhiko Takada thread), Dave stood firm on his stances (Pride = wrestling being one of the main points). Because the medium of writing only allows for so much precision, unless you are an amazing writer, debates can often be useless because points are being articulated well enough.

 

I imagine if a Dave was having a one on one conversation with someone who articulated a viewpoint about the Tiger Mask vs. Dynamite Kid matches not holding up in today’s world and spoke about the context of the time, other matches from different promotions at the time, matches in the same styles, etc – Dave may still not agree but would at least walk away understanding there was a deeper thought process occurring before the final opinion of “TM/DK matches don’t hold up today” was made. It’s easy to make rash, controversial statements on the internet, something we have probably all been guilty of doing at different points.

 

So I can see some of where Dave is coming from and even though I disagree, unless I had the opportunity to talk with him about this subject in a non-written form, I couldn’t necessarily accurately gage where he is coming from.

 

My last point in this poorly written, long winded post.

 

Until September 2012, my favorite live baseball game of all time was September 28, 2011 when the Orioles beat the Red Sox to essentially knock them out of the playoffs. The game fit the criteria of a good baseball game:

 

close game (4-3 final)

lead went back and forth

good pitching

good hitting

exciting finish

important finish

 

 

But because I was there live and had endured too many years of arrogant, ahole Red Sox fans coming to Baltimore and acting like they where in their home stadium, this game held an extra special meaning to me. But 2 ½ years later when 9/28/11 is discussed, the key points aren’t Baltimore winning the game – it’s the Red Sox losing and then Longoria hitting the game winning HR to get Tampa into the playoffs. But my basis for the amazing nature of that night spanned far deeper than those two talking points. But I can also see how an outsider wouldn’t understand or care about the extra intangibles, which elevated this from a **** game to ***** for me (in wrestling terms).

 

I used to not be able to understand why someone like Alan4L liked Dragon Gate so much when he seemingly watched a lot of everything that was happening currently and a decent amount of historical footage. He has an emotional attachment to it and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. There is also nothing wrong with completely discounting his opinion on match quality because I know what he likes doesn’t conform to what I think are the best aspects to wrestling.

[FedEx227]

I'm jumping in a little late to this, I should've came right off the bat as it's a super interesting topic.

 

I think standards absolutely do change and I think Tom nailed in on the first page when using the baseball analogy and that's how I see it. Baseball is largely unchanged throughout history but the play, the way players play, the way the players look and how they score runs or how they pitch has altered dramatically.

 

Wrestling isn't totally different and standards are a matter of context. Dylan's initial post talked about the art of reviewing past matches/events and if that's even possible with standards changing... it absolutely is. What it requires though is you to understand context. Understand that a suplex is a bigger deal in 1975 than it is in 2014 just as a 98 mph fastball was a huge deal in 1960 but now every Harry, Dick and Tom in all 30 major league bullpens can throw 98.

 

Does that make a guy like Bob Feller less important or good because he threw 90+ and now everyone does it? Absolutely not, he's important because of his peers and the context of his performance comparative to others of that era. Guys shouldn't be punished for an era, even with evolving standards.

 

What CM Punk does in a ring, in 2013, to me has no effect on how you should properly grade or assess a Lou Thesz match. Sure, they have similarities but the methods and with that, the standards have absolutely changed.

 

I understand the psychology largely "hasn't" changed but the delivery methods absolutely have. That's where the sports analogy comes in. Is Troy Tulowitzki better than Honus Wagner because his career SLG is .512 and Wagner's is only .467? No. SS in the 1900s weren't asked to hit home runs, they weren't supposed to or they flat out couldn't based off the dimensions of the field. Honus among his peers is an all-time legend, Tulowitzki isn't.

[concrete1992]

The hindrance with a real sport analogy is standards changing does mean better. Well especially the way you just used it. A higher amount of people throwing 95+ MPH is a direct improvement. Granted I don't watch as many sports as I did in my teens so you might be able to strengthen that up for me with ways the players play that might not be an improvement over their predecessors. I'm sure there probably are.

[FedEx227]

Well, let's stick with baseball because I think that's the one sport where you can truly make an argument that things haven't evolved for the better. Anyone who says basketball is worse is clueless, ditto for football so let's do baseball.

 

Baseball goes through cycles more than any other sport. We had an era dominated by pitchers so offense was down tremendously, that evolved into an era where the best way to score was through "small ball" which meant low strikeout numbers and more stolen bases, bunts, etc.

 

Slowly this evolved into the steroid era where offense was at an all-time high, fields were at an all-time small and pitchers were at an all-time bad. Home runs everywhere, sky high numbers, records being broken, etc.

 

As of late, we've seen a bit of a correction but the evolution and integration of SABRmetrics into front offices has changed what was once acceptable for offenses, defenses, pitchers, etc.

 

Gone are the days of truly "craft" pitchers who didn't get by solely on speed, in come the flamethrowing youngsters who blow people away with strikeouts.

 

Hitters more than ever look to walk, strikeout or hit an extra base hit. This has led to games taking a lot longer (people taking more pitches), historically high strikeout numbers and less balls in play than ever before. To many, this is a devolving or getting worse. It's certainly less exciting than 1970s or 80s baseball, the games take longer, less people are watching, etc.

 

In that example, you could say the sport has become less entertaining but athletic ability, training, development and so on is at an all-time high.

[W2BTD]

The hindrance with a real sport analogy is standards changing does mean better. Well especially the way you just used it. Granted I don't watch as many sports as I did in my teens so you might be able to strengthen that up for me with ways the players play that might not be an improvement over their predecessors. I'm sure there probably are.

 

Not really.

 

Bob Feller is a better pitcher than the 100 random modern day middle relievers who throw harder than him, even though Feller would be worse than those guys if he was time warped into 2014. It doesn't matter how well Feller would perform in 2014, it only matters how he performed in the context of his own era. And in the context of his own era, he is an all time great. It is not fair or even relevant to compare his skill set to modern era pitchers. It is not his fault the standards changed over the course of 60 years.

 

This is not apples to apples with wrestling, because wrestling is not a real sport, and is a performance. But the idea is similar. The performance standards have changed over time. It's up to you to decide if you think it has been for the better, and it is up to you to understand the context if you wish to compare what Jack Brisco did to what Ricochet or John Cena or MItsuhara Misawa or Sami Zayn or Masada does.

[BillThompson]

I really do think that saying that standards have changed is a misnomer that loses sight of the individual interpretation taking place. The standards may have changed for you, but who's to say they've changed for the fan sitting next to you? That's why I don;t think there's any way to say that across the board any sort of subjective standards have changed, because there are people who would say, "No, my standards haven't changed." That makes this a never ending open question, and perhaps it would be better served by spinning off into something along the lines of, "What are your personal standards for a wrestling match, and have they changed throughout the years?" From there a more defined discussion of how to view older wrestling could take place, but this is all probably just me.

[W2BTD]

I really do think that saying that standards have changed is a misnomer that loses sight of the individual interpretation taking place. The standards may have changed for you, but who's to say they've changed for the fan sitting next to you? That's why I don;t think there's any way to say that across the board any sort of subjective standards have changed, because there are people who would say, "No, my standards haven't changed." That makes this a never ending open question, and perhaps it would be better served by spinning off into something along the lines of, "What are your personal standards for a wrestling match, and have they changed throughout the years?" From there a more defined discussion of how to view older wrestling could take place, but this is all probably just me.

 

Personal standards are irrelevant. That's a fancy way to say taste.

 

None of us are in control of changing standards. It just happens and it is out of your control. Anybody who says "standards haven't changed for me" is either talking about personal standards of what they enjoy (taste), or is being willfully ignorant.

 

This isn't nearly as complicated as some of you guys are making it. Things evolve. How can this even be argued? I'm slack jawed at stunned at some of the things i'm reading in this thread. To keep my sanity intact, I just keep telling myself that some of you guys are misunderstanding and thinking i'm saying modern = better, and failing to understand that what i'm pushing here is context dependent.

 

Nothing stands still. Things move forward, for better or worse. Standards will always change.

[FedEx227]

I do think a fundemantal issue with this entire discussion is people getting too upset at the idea of "standards changing" and if that somehow means that what they loved from the past or what they love doing is somehow discredited or worthless. That's not even remotely close to true.

 

Rosemary's Baby is one of my favorite movies ever, but I have no problem knowing that if I showed it to one of my younger cousins they would be absolutely bored out of their mind and the twist ending would do nothing for them. Why? Well shit, he just saw Captain America and X-Men, explosions, loud noises, quick moving, he's playing on his iPad every 30 minutes,etc. Do I really think I can plop him in front of a movie for two hours and keep his attention?

 

Does that make MY enjoyment of it different? Not at all. At the same time, I recognize given what my cousin grew up on, a slow-building 1970s thriller isn't going to quite do it for him. Even if it's an expertly crafted movie, he is raised in a totally different atmosphere than my parents or I was.

 

Or hey, maybe he's like me and really takes a liking to the movie even though he saw it 30-40 years after release, he loves the concept and starts diving into 70s cinema.

[concrete1992]

 

The hindrance with a real sport analogy is standards changing does mean better. Well especially the way you just used it. Granted I don't watch as many sports as I did in my teens so you might be able to strengthen that up for me with ways the players play that might not be an improvement over their predecessors. I'm sure there probably are.

 

Not really.

 

Bob Feller is a better pitcher than the 100 random modern day middle relievers who throw harder than him, even though Feller would be worse than those guys if he was time warped into 2014. It doesn't matter how well Feller would perform in 2014, it only matters how he performed in the context of his own era. And in the context of his own era, he is an all time great. It is not fair or even relevant to compare his skill set to modern era pitchers. It is not his fault the standards changed over the course of 60 years.

 

This is not apples to apples with wrestling, because wrestling is not a real sport, and is a performance. But the idea is similar. The performance standards have changed over time. It's up to you to decide if you think it has been for the better, and it is up to you to understand the context if you wish to compare what Jack Brisco did to what Ricochet or John Cena or MItsuhara Misawa or Sami Zayn or Masada does.

 

BLARGH! It was more that it isn't an apples to apples comparison. With baseball, if you throw a picture from 1980 into 2014 then they wouldn't perform statistically well or whatever. For a sport it is all about being great for your time. You don't need to be stronger, faster, whatever than whatever is current. With wrestling you can have a 1980s Lawler be awesome then throw a 50+ year old Lawler with less tools than before into 2011 and still be awesome. Being stronger, faster, or whatever isn't of that great of importance. The performance transcends time so you can compare a 1970s match to a 2014 one. I know you don't like to though Joe. Which in itself is fair.

 

At this point I agree standards change but at the same time I'm not exactly sure if I agree with the way we're looking at standards as a whole haha.

[BillThompson]

 

I really do think that saying that standards have changed is a misnomer that loses sight of the individual interpretation taking place. The standards may have changed for you, but who's to say they've changed for the fan sitting next to you? That's why I don;t think there's any way to say that across the board any sort of subjective standards have changed, because there are people who would say, "No, my standards haven't changed." That makes this a never ending open question, and perhaps it would be better served by spinning off into something along the lines of, "What are your personal standards for a wrestling match, and have they changed throughout the years?" From there a more defined discussion of how to view older wrestling could take place, but this is all probably just me.

 

Personal standards are irrelevant. That's a fancy way to say taste.

 

None of us are in control of changing standards. It just happens and it is out of your control. Anybody who says "standards haven't changed for me" is either talking about personal standards of what they enjoy (taste), or is being willfully ignorant.

 

This isn't nearly as complicated as some of you guys are making it. Things evolve. How can this even be argued? I'm slack jawed at stunned at some of the things i'm reading in this thread. To keep my sanity intact, I just keep telling myself that some of you guys are misunderstanding and thinking i'm saying modern = better, and failing to understand that what i'm pushing here is context dependent.

 

Nothing stands still. Things move forward, for better or worse. Standards will always change.

 

 

In the end personal standards are all that matter, there is no universal standard that you are alluding to. It's a fallacy to try and say that such a thing can exist in a subjective art.

 

Frankly, I find most of your arguments in this thread baffling. I'm not about to get too deep into that personal side of things, but based on what you've written in this post I don't see how it's even possible for you to watch wrestling from any time period and enjoy it.

[stomperspc]

There is a difference between context and standards. Will a 16 year old living in New York City in 2014 having grown up entirely on the WWE have the same reaction to 1980 Memphis match that a kid who was 16 years old in 1980 and born and raised in Memphis would have to that match? Of course not. That’s not a shift in standards though, that is a change in context.

 

At the same time, if I have taken the time and effort to educate myself on the context of that promotion and that time period I don’t see why I can’t formulate an opinion on a match 35 years after it occurred. As long as I am taking the context of the match into consideration and evaluating with in that context, than what is the issue?

 

Like Tim said, I am sure Meltzer’s issue is that he hears all the time from people who make blanket statements like “this style or period of wrestling sucks” because it is something they are not used to. They are viewing the wrestling out of context. I agree with Meltzer 100% that you cannot do that.

 

What I don’t agree with is the idea that nobody can evaluate older wrestling through modern eyes. You can if you make the effort to understand the context in which the match occurred. I have zero doubts that I can watch wrestling from a promotion and time period that I didn’t experience as it happened, understand the context, and evaluate whether a match is good or bad. That sort of retrospective analysis is done all the time with various forms of sports and entertainment. The key to the discussion is always that both sides have to properly educate and inform themselves so they can have an intelligent discussion.

 

Here is my baseball analogy.

 

Say I pull out a tape of a game from 1968. In the first inning, the first two batters reach base. The third batter – who with few exceptions always has and continues to be one of the team’s better hitters – is asked to lay down a sacrifice bunt. I immediately tab this as a poor strategy. Statistical data tells us that you are actually more likely to score with runners on first and second and zero outs than runners on 2^nd and 3^rd and one out. In general, we now know that consciously giving up one of your 27 outs is a poor decision. It is particularly poor when one of your better hitters is the one giving himself up. It was a bad play in 1968 and it was a bad play in 2014.

 

However, I observe that the crowd and the announcers on the tape react favorably to the successful sac bunt. The 1968 baseball fans view it differently than the 2014 baseball fans. Part of the reason for the differing views is that those in 1968 don’t have access to the data I have. To them, it is logical that runners on 2^nd and 3^rd are better than runners on 1^st and 2^nd even when giving up an out to get there because you stay out of a groundball double play, two runs can now score on a single, and the runner on third can score on a passed ball, sac fly, or ground ball out. It makes sense why they’d see the play as a good one so I’d probably be wise not to refer to all 1968 baseball fans as a bunch of morons for having the “wrong” opinion.

 

Furthermore, I should probably recognize that 1968 was the “year of the pitcher” with run scoring at historical lows. The run scoring environment in 1968 was far different than it is in 2014 so perhaps that makes the decision to bunt there less of an obvious mistake (or maybe not but that should at least be mentioned as a possibility). That’s taking the context into account.

 

A baseball fan watching that play and stating outright that “the fans and announcers were dumb for thinking that was a good play” are wrong to do so. A baseball fan who watches that play and lays out the reasons why that was a bad play while acknowledging the context in which the 1968 fans viewed it (ie. lack of available statistics and a low run scoring environment) is justified in my opinion. A wrestling fan who watches an old wrestling match and says “wrestling from this promotion and time period sucks” without educating himself to why the fans of that time/place might have enjoyed it is wrong to do so. A wrestling fan who watches a bunch of matches from that time & place, educates himself as to the context of the time/place, and forms educated opinions on individual matches (despite not experiencing them as they occurred) is justified in doing so.

[W2BTD]

 

 

The hindrance with a real sport analogy is standards changing does mean better. Well especially the way you just used it. Granted I don't watch as many sports as I did in my teens so you might be able to strengthen that up for me with ways the players play that might not be an improvement over their predecessors. I'm sure there probably are.

 

Not really.

 

Bob Feller is a better pitcher than the 100 random modern day middle relievers who throw harder than him, even though Feller would be worse than those guys if he was time warped into 2014. It doesn't matter how well Feller would perform in 2014, it only matters how he performed in the context of his own era. And in the context of his own era, he is an all time great. It is not fair or even relevant to compare his skill set to modern era pitchers. It is not his fault the standards changed over the course of 60 years.

 

This is not apples to apples with wrestling, because wrestling is not a real sport, and is a performance. But the idea is similar. The performance standards have changed over time. It's up to you to decide if you think it has been for the better, and it is up to you to understand the context if you wish to compare what Jack Brisco did to what Ricochet or John Cena or MItsuhara Misawa or Sami Zayn or Masada does.

 

BLARGH! It was more that it isn't an apples to apples comparison. With baseball, if you throw a picture from 1980 into 2014 then they wouldn't perform statistically well or whatever. For a sport it is all about being great for your time. You don't need to be stronger, faster, whatever than whatever is current. With wrestling you can have a 1980s Lawler be awesome then throw a 50+ year old Lawler with less tools than before into 2011 and still be awesome. Being stronger, faster, or whatever isn't of that great of importance. The performance transcends time so you can compare a 1970s match to a 2014 one. I know you don't like to though Joe. Which in itself is fair.

 

At this point I agree standards change but at the same time I'm not exactly sure if I agree with the way we're looking at standards as a whole haha.

 

 

I don't really disagree with any of this, which is why the sports analogies don't really work beyond the idea that you can and should respect the greats of the past despite the fact that they aren't, by the most technical & strictest of definitions, as good as the players of today, and the idea of that being irrelevant in evaluation.

[KrisZ]

There is no be all end all regarding how wrestling works because everyone likes what they like.

 

The Sheik is one of the biggest draws in the history of wrestling but his matches were godawful for the most part but he was insanely over.

 

There are also plenty other examples of guys who stunk in the ring who were box office while guys who were solid workers couldn't draw shit.

[W2BTD]

If standards never changed and wrestling never evolved, RAW would look like this:

 

 

This conversation is bordering on mental. Is this an elaborate troll? If so, you guys got me.

[Dylan Waco]

I'm having a brutal week, so it's hard to answer some of these things the way I would like to, but I would note that the caricature Joe presented of old wrestling, is just as bad as the caricature he accuses others of presenting about "MOVEZ." I think one thing we can learn from watching old footage (or new footage of MOVEZ guys if you are on the other end) is that these stereotypes are often times way off point. This may seem like an unrelated point, but it's key to me because when I think about the basic standards of what it takes to have a good match I can think of no reason why they wouldn't apply to matches in both 1950 and 2000, even if I prefer the way a match is crafted in one promotion v. another.

[Dylan Waco]

I will say that I do enjoy Joe's martyr act manifesting itself a couple of pages ago, then radio silence, then a return as a sort of Sean Hannity-like angry man avenging the common sense point of view

 

 

I really do think that saying that standards have changed is a misnomer that loses sight of the individual interpretation taking place. The standards may have changed for you, but who's to say they've changed for the fan sitting next to you? That's why I don;t think there's any way to say that across the board any sort of subjective standards have changed, because there are people who would say, "No, my standards haven't changed." That makes this a never ending open question, and perhaps it would be better served by spinning off into something along the lines of, "What are your personal standards for a wrestling match, and have they changed throughout the years?" From there a more defined discussion of how to view older wrestling could take place, but this is all probably just me.

 

Personal standards are irrelevant. That's a fancy way to say taste.

 

None of us are in control of changing standards. It just happens and it is out of your control. Anybody who says "standards haven't changed for me" is either talking about personal standards of what they enjoy (taste), or is being willfully ignorant.

 

This isn't nearly as complicated as some of you guys are making it. Things evolve. How can this even be argued? I'm slack jawed at stunned at some of the things i'm reading in this thread. To keep my sanity intact, I just keep telling myself that some of you guys are misunderstanding and thinking i'm saying modern = better, and failing to understand that what i'm pushing here is context dependent.

 

Nothing stands still. Things move forward, for better or worse. Standards will always change.

 

 

Personal standards are what you have consistently cited. Just because you don't acknowledge this doesn't mean it isn't true.

[W2BTD]

I'm having a brutal week, so it's hard to answer some of these things the way I would like to, but I would note that the caricature Joe presented of old wrestling, is just as bad as the caricature he accuses others of presenting about "MOVEZ." I think one thing we can learn from watching old footage (or new footage of MOVEZ guys if you are on the other end) is that these stereotypes are often times way off point. This may seem like an unrelated point, but it's key to me because when I think about the basic standards of what it takes to have a good match I can think of no reason why they wouldn't apply to matches in both 1950 and 2000, even if I prefer the way a match is crafted in one promotion v. another.

 

Dylan, i'm using extremes to attempt to make my point, because i'm clearly not getting through with people.

 

I don't know how many times I have to say it, but I agree that the basics of storytelling & psychology remain largely (but not identically) the same. It's the means to tell those stories or achieve a response from crowds or create excitement in a bout that have, and always will, constantly evolve & change.

[Matt D]

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.

[W2BTD]

Sometimes, a conversation can be far too complex for its own good, which leads to missing the forest through the trees.

 

This is one of those times.

 

Somebody tell me that the 1920 Joe Stecher match I posted is representative of what you watch on USA on Monday nights or in VFW halls on a Saturday afternoon or on USTREAM at 3am, so I can chalk this up to insanity and move on.

 

I prefer to accept that things change and evolve over time, including the standards of which these things are held to. Dylan, there can't be a more common sense point of view than that.

 

And its funny that you accuse me of doing a martyr act, when this entire thread only exists because Meltzer sent you into full martyr mode, because you feel incredibly slighted at the idea that something you enjoy was marginalized (breaking down & enjoying old footage). Let's be fair here. And i've stated about a thousand times in this thread alone that jst because I feel standards change, does not mean old footage can not be analyzed & enjoyed (I do both). So if you have a bone to pick with Big Dave on that front, go pick it with him.

[Dylan Waco]

I don't have to use extremes to make my point. I can use the standard bearer's of the industry. The top two stars in U.S. wrestling use a fireman's carry and a running knee for a finish. The top two stars in Japan use a frogsplash and a clothesline. My favorite worker in Mexico uses a La Magistral cradle as his "kill shot." These aren't exceptions as I could run down a huge list of guys who use relatively basic spots to finish people. They are able to do it because of the context/presentation of the individual spot, and the ways heat have been built in the matches around that context. While I agree that there is no universal standard (with Bill), when I am talking about the baseline for good wrestling I am talking about those elements. They don't really change so far as I can tell.

[Grimmas]

So, what are the standards that have changed. Let's be specific

[W2BTD]

I don't have to use extremes to make my point. I can use the standard bearer's of the industry. The top two stars in U.S. wrestling use a fireman's carry and a running knee for a finish. The top two stars in Japan use a frogsplash and a clothesline. My favorite worker in Mexico uses a La Magistral cradle as his "kill shot." These aren't exceptions as I could run down a huge list of guys who use relatively basic spots to finish people. They are able to do it because of the context/presentation of the individual spot, and the ways heat have been built in the matches around that context. While I agree that there is no universal standard (with Bill), when I am talking about the baseline for good wrestling I am talking about those elements. They don't really change so far as I can tell.

 

Are you ready to tell me that the Stecher match is representative of modern wrestling?

 

If standards don't change, it should be, right?

[Dylan Waco]

I don't have to use extremes to make my point. I can use the standard bearer's of the industry. The top two stars in U.S. wrestling use a fireman's carry and a running knee for a finish. The top two stars in Japan use a frogsplash and a clothesline. My favorite worker in Mexico uses a La Magistral cradle as his "kill shot." These aren't exceptions as I could run down a huge list of guys who use relatively basic spots to finish people. They are able to do it because of the context/presentation of the individual spot, and the ways heat have been built in the matches around that context. While I agree that there is no universal standard (with Bill), when I am talking about the baseline for good wrestling I am talking about those elements. They don't really change so far as I can tell.

 

Sometimes, a conversation can be far too complex for its own good, which leads to missing the forest through the trees.

 

This is one of those times.

 

Somebody tell me that the 1920 Joe Stecher match I posted is representative of what you watch on USA on Monday nights or in VFW halls on a Saturday afternoon or on USTREAM at 3am, so I can chalk this up to insanity and move on.

 

I prefer to accept that things change and evolve over time, including the standards of which these things are held to. Dylan, there can't be a more common sense point of view than that.

 

And its funny that you accuse me of doing a martyr act, when this entire thread only exists because Meltzer sent you into full martyr mode, because you feel incredibly slighted at the idea that something you enjoy was marginalized (breaking down & enjoying old footage). Let's be fair here. And i've stated about a thousand times in this thread alone that jst because I feel standards change, does not mean old footage can not be analyzed & enjoyed (I do both). So if you have a bone to pick with Big Dave on that front, go pick it with him.

 

 

I agree with Tim Cooke's point on Dave Meltzer. For reasons that I can't really blame him for, you really can't have an interesting/good argument with him about these sort of things online. Not only has Dave hunkered down into a position on this subject, but he assumes that most of the people willing to go tit for tat with him on anything are either idiots, being willfully obtuse, or just trolls. I have gone tit for tat with Dave both privately in emails and publicly on his forums (and other forums). I'd like to think Dave respects me enough not to be totally dismissive of the things I say, but the argument Dave has made here goes FAR beyond Dave himself (as I said earlier in the thread) and absolutely does speak to the value of discussing old wrestling, wrestlers and matches.

 

I am more than willing to admit that I have my biases as a fan, and I absolutely have a vested interest in arguing against the viewpoint Dave has expressed. Just like anyone who is paying any attention would see that Dave has a vested interest in arguing against any sort of re-evaluation of wrestling canon's that he effectively created (and actually if Dave stopped there I wouldn't have near the issue with it but that's a separate point). If you read my first post I don't think it's full blown martyr at all, but then you are a guy who has a schtick largely built around saying those who disagree with you are "mental" and/or fleeing from discussion because the argument is circular. Admittedly I will debate something to death, even if it is completely uninteresting to most readers.

[Dylan Waco]

 

I don't have to use extremes to make my point. I can use the standard bearer's of the industry. The top two stars in U.S. wrestling use a fireman's carry and a running knee for a finish. The top two stars in Japan use a frogsplash and a clothesline. My favorite worker in Mexico uses a La Magistral cradle as his "kill shot." These aren't exceptions as I could run down a huge list of guys who use relatively basic spots to finish people. They are able to do it because of the context/presentation of the individual spot, and the ways heat have been built in the matches around that context. While I agree that there is no universal standard (with Bill), when I am talking about the baseline for good wrestling I am talking about those elements. They don't really change so far as I can tell.

 

Are you ready to tell me that the Stecher match is representative of modern wrestling?

 

If standards don't change, it should be, right?

 

 

I don't think there is a universal standard of good and bad, because I don't feel the need to bolster my subjective views, by referring to them as objective.

 

Having said that I do have a standard that I apply to basically all matches. I am not in a position to watch that match now so I can not answer whether or not that standard applies

[W2BTD]

I absolutely will flee when it becomes circular. Because at that point, what is the point? Both sides have made their case, and if nobody is budging or even understanding the other, why repeat the same things over & over? That would be ment...well, you know.

 

But in all seriousness, I do think it's crazy to take a stance that standards never change. I don't even believe that you believe that. It isn't possible. I believe that you are bogged down in the minutia of the very basics of wrestling psychology largely remaining intact, and clearly agitated about Meltzer marginalizing something you enjoy. So here we are.