Do "Standards change" in wrestling?

[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?

 

 

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

 

 

I don't think there is a universal standard of good & bad either. That's part of the problem here that nobody can seem to grasp.

 

I am not saying that modern = better!!

 

I am also not saying that old matches can not be enjoyed.

 

I am also not saying that old matches can not be broken down or judged or rated or analyzed.

 

I AM saying these things need to be done in context, because standards ch-well, you know. This is the divide. This is the one facet of this where I agree wholeheartedly with Meltzer.

[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.

[BillThompson]

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

 

This implies that there are universal standards that do apply. If you're saying differently then I'm not seeing it. (And, I'm not in any way making any statement about modern wrestling or you saying modern wrestling is better)

[W2BTD]

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.

 

See, by admitting you need context, that is inherently admitting that the standards have changed. Otherwise, the context wouldn't be needed.

[BillThompson]

 

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.

 

See, by admitting you need context, that is inherently admitting that the standards have changed. Otherwise, the context wouldn't be needed.

 

 

That's not how art works. Context merely means knowledge, it doesn't mean that anything has changed. Context is needed because of what may or may not have gone into a match, or what was happening in wrestling at the time. That does not, by itself, mean that any standards have changed. And again, they way you are arguing is that there are universal standards, that have changed.

[Matt D]

I think you need context to watch ANY match well, frankly. I just watched 7 matches leading up to an apuestas match from a few months ago and got a hell of a lot more out of it than I did when I watched it blind the first time. I also don't think obtaining context is all that hard. It's certainly not an impossible task. Maybe we disagree in what we think "context" is?

[Loss]

I will post way, way more about this when I return from my family vacation next week. Right now, I'll just say that Tim and stomper's post probably come closest to articulating my point of view on this stuff. Of course standards change, but a lot of that is based on who is setting the standards. Most of the changes that I could cite between a match now and a match 10 or 20 or 30 years ago are going to be related more to styles than standards, and I'm not really sure yet how to make the argument about standard. I've tried a few times and keep backspacing because I then realize I'm not talking about standards, I'm talking about styles. Like, I keep wanting to vent about matches not starting with a standard collar-and-elbow tie-up anymore, and when they do, it's not particularly well-worked. Compare it to something like Tully/Garvin from the 5/3/86 Worldwide where just the lock-up was amazing. But I'm not sure that really fits the original point of this thread. Or does it? If it does, it will be easier to go into this when I can do my real response later.

 

I will say that I don't see athleticism and moves as being in competition with psychology and logic. I don't feel the need to take a side, because I don't see a competition. The best matches have elements of both. I also think on the subject of standards that anyone who doesn't at least take into partial consideration how effective a match is when evaluating how good it is has a solipsistic point of view on wrestling that is hard for me to support. Matches aren't worked for an audience of one.

 

The reviewers to whom I pay the most attention are the ones who strive for objectivity. Objectivity can never be fully achieved, but I need to feel like the reviewer is aiming for it at least, trying to be fair instead of going on an ideological crusade. There are only a couple of people here that I think do that sometimes, and I'll name names (in a friendly way) when I have time to make a longer post. There are plenty of matches I don't really like all that much or to which I feel little connection that I can't deny are good or even great. There are plenty of matches I love that I would never argue as great. Sometimes it's hard for me to tell when I'm reading thoughts from someone if they're saying "I enjoyed this" or if they're saying "I think this is really great". I don't think those things are the same thing all the time.

 

Dylan often mentions that Jumbo has so many great matches that he either doesn't enjoy or has little to no interest in ever watching again, which is a key distinction that I really respect.

[BillThompson]

The reviewers to whom I pay the most attention are the ones who strive for objectivity. Objectivity can never be fully achieved, but I need to feel like the reviewer is aiming for it at least, trying to be fair instead of going on an ideological crusade. There are only a couple of people here that I think do that sometimes, and I'll name names (in a friendly way) when I have time to make a longer post. There are plenty of matches I don't really like all that much or to which I feel little connection that I can't deny are good or even great. There are plenty of matches I love that I would never argue as great. Sometimes it's hard for me to tell when I'm reading thoughts from someone if they're saying "I enjoyed this" or if they're saying "I think this is really great". I don't think those things are the same thing all the time.

 

 

 

This is an area where you and I differ greatly. I respect what you're saying, but I feel objectivity has no place in art. It stifles the medium and hinders discussion. If things are objective then there's really no need to talk about them beyond a few sentences/posts.

[Matt D]

It's really much more about admitting and embracing your biases, I think.

 

"These are the elements I think are important. This match hits them well or doesn't. I like it or I don't. It also manages to do these other things well or it doesn't, which are things I do not value as much but other people might. I think it is or isn't a good match."

 

Add in some context(!) and a funny road report story and that's a good review right there. It's better than most of the ones I manage.

[Loss]

There is no such thing as an objective opinion on a wrestling match, but why should I listen to someone who is so consumed by their biases that they can't acknowledge or give credit to something that throws all of their fixed ideas of what wrestling is supposed to be on their collective head? There is an exception to every rule in wrestling. I will never write off all Raven matches just because they are Raven matches, and he's probably my least favorite wrestler. A match can be a balls out bombfest, which is my least preferred way to work a match, and still be great. A match can make sense from beginning to end, but if they can't create any emotion or excitement to go with it, so what?

[funkdoc]

someone non-ironically linked icycalm articles, on a wrestling forum, in 2014

 

that just may be the best part of this thread

 

really though, I think part of the problem here is that Joe's basic point doesn't leave a whole lot of room for discussion so people end up reading more into it. that and it's not terribly relevant to the way a lot of people here enjoy wrestling. I'm a baby on here though so I'll just sit back and enjoy!

[W2BTD]

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

 

These will be in a somewhat chronological order as I think of them:

 

time limit draws

near falls

gimmicks

masks

elaborate robes

elaborate ring attire

heels & babyfaces

rope running

leaping off of the turnbuckles

using the turnbuckles as a weapon

visually impressive looking holds that would not be effective in a shoot

throws

more complex finishes

more exciting looking highspots

flying head scissors as state of the art flying

managers

heel managers

cheating

cheating heel managers

blood

foreign objects

valets

promos

brawling outside of the ring

no DQ matches

closed fists

angles

post match brawls

pre match attacks

run ins

matches that don't take place in a ring

tag team matches

six man tag team matches

eight man tag team matches

elimination tag team matches

babyface in peril

top rope splash as state of the art flying

signature moves as finishes

head drops

stiff bombs

table spots

fire

inter-gender matches

entrance music

moonsaults as state of the art flying

MMA holds

tapping out to submit

pyro

theatrical storytelling/psychology

heel authority figures

wacky flipz & topes as state of the art flying

 

You get the idea. I can list a million more. At some point in time, each of these things failed to exist. All were created or innovated to add more excitement to the matches or in some cases, the presentation of the matches. New moves, different pacing, new layers of psychology, whatever. And over the course of time, when these changes pile up, you end up with a change of standards that is very hard (if not impossible) to go back from.

 

If you eliminate everything from this list, you are left with two bland looking men exchanging worked amateur wrestling holds. Had wrestling never evolved, had the standards never changed, we would still be looking at two bland men exchanging worked wrestling holds.

 

How is this so hard to understand? The standards are constantly changing. Good or bad doesn't matter. Personal taste is irrelevant. The standards change whether you like it or not. That's how the world works. Things evolve. Nothing stays stagnant.

[W2BTD]

someone non-ironically linked icycalm articles, on a wrestling forum, in 2014

 

that just may be the best part of this thread

 

really though, I think part of the problem here is that Joe's basic point doesn't leave a whole lot of room for discussion so people end up reading more into it. that and it's not terribly relevant to the way a lot of people here enjoy wrestling. I'm a baby on here though so I'll just sit back and enjoy!

 

LOL, exactly.

 

What i'm saying is not terribly complex or controversial, but somehow it's being dissected to an irrational degree for what it is.

 

It really is a basic, simple point.

[concrete1992]

My conclusion is this topic really doesn't hold value. YAY! Cause the thought of "standards changing" is being interpreted to this weird point. Like I think core values have stayed the same but the tools being used are different. Does that mean standards have changed? X says yes and Y says no. I will say random great from 1982 can not be just a great for the context of his time but in the grand scheme. Then again there may be wrestlers who were considered great because of "innovation" at the time that is a style that really just stays in history because of a guy like Ricochet. Ricochet might be one of those, "great flyers for his time" kind of guys. I think that is a modern bias in itself. Do I think Ricochet is neat cause he's doing things others aren't or do some of the things really hold up? I don't know since I don't necessarily think like Dylan and others who can almost instantly view wrestling on a flat line. That isn't me exactly. I mean, I can be swayed by the awesome move I haven't seen before.

 

PS Got sidetracked while writing this so not exactly sure where I left off so I'm ending it there. K!

[W2BTD]

My conclusion is this topic really doesn't hold value. YAY! Cause the thought of "standards changing" is being interpreted to this weird point. Like I think core values have stayed the same but the tools being used are different. Does that mean standards have changed? X says yes and Y says no. I will say random great from 1982 can not be just a great for the context of his time but in the grand scheme. Then again there may be wrestlers who were considered great because of "innovation" at the time that is a style that really just stays in history because of a guy like Ricochet. Ricochet might be one of those, "great flyers for his time" kind of guys. I think that is a modern bias in itself. Do I think Ricochet is neat cause he's doing things others aren't or do some of the things really hold up? I don't know since I don't necessarily think like Dylan and others who can almost instantly view wrestling on a flat line. That isn't me exactly. I mean, I can be swayed by the awesome move I haven't seen before.

 

PS Got sidetracked while writing this so not exactly sure where I left off so I'm ending it there. K!

 

To go back a few pages to the baseball analogies, Red Bastien or Antonino Rocca would be Bob Feller, Jimmy Snuka or Tiger Mask would be Nolan Ryan, and Ricochet or AR Fox or Flamita or Dragon Kid or Evan Bourne or ACH or Mascara Dorada would be Justin Verlander.

 

And Kofi Kingston would be in AAA.

 

Or something like that. I just wanted to take a shot at Kofi.

[W2BTD]

Actually I kind of like Kofi, so I apologize. He isn't great or anything and he never improves, but he's inoffensive. Sorry man.

[concrete1992]

Nothing else matters outside of the potshot against Kofi. I agree with inoffensive. But he's inoffensive in the largest company in DA WORLD!

[BillThompson]

There is no such thing as an objective opinion on a wrestling match, but why should I listen to someone who is so consumed by their biases that they can't acknowledge or give credit to something that throws all of their fixed ideas of what wrestling is supposed to be on their collective head? There is an exception to every rule in wrestling. I will never write off all Raven matches just because they are Raven matches, and he's probably my least favorite wrestler. A match can be a balls out bombfest, which is my least preferred way to work a match, and still be great. A match can make sense from beginning to end, but if they can't create any emotion or excitement to go with it, so what?

 

Well, that to me is different from looking for objectivity. That's looking for someone with an open mind, which is what we should all be striving for I think. I won't hide the fact that I have a heavy dislike of Shawn Michaels, he just doesn't appeal to me very much as a wrestler. All the same, I never go into one of his matches thinking it will be bad. I approach his matches the same way I approach films from Quentin Tarantino or Christopher Nolan (two directors I can't stand), from a blank slate of opinion. Any wrestler could win me over during any given match, and even Shawn has managed to be in a few matches where I thought he was great, it's all about having an open mind.

[kjh]

One quick point re: Dylan suggesting Dave is naturally defensive because it's often his past opinions being critiqued. I think it's worth remembering that it's the old workers he talks to that convinced Dave of this stance by telling him that it's unfair to rate decades old matches with today's eyes because they weren't working a match for today's audience, they were working a match for the fans in that arena on that night. So if anyone is being defensive it's the wrestlers, not Dave.

 

That may have been true for handhelds of matches in the '80s or '90s that the wrestlers didn't know were recorded, but with the business changing to the point where all major matches happen on television and the participants know its recorded for posterity's sake, I don't think that argument can stand in the future. Clearly, at WrestleMania, people will want to put on performances that will stand the test and still be talked about as great matches for many years to come.

[Grimmas]

 

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

 

These will be in a somewhat chronological order as I think of them:

 

time limit draws

near falls

gimmicks

masks

elaborate robes

elaborate ring attire

heels & babyfaces

rope running

leaping off of the turnbuckles

using the turnbuckles as a weapon

visually impressive looking holds that would not be effective in a shoot

throws

more complex finishes

more exciting looking highspots

flying head scissors as state of the art flying

managers

heel managers

cheating

cheating heel managers

blood

foreign objects

valets

promos

brawling outside of the ring

no DQ matches

closed fists

angles

post match brawls

pre match attacks

run ins

matches that don't take place in a ring

tag team matches

six man tag team matches

eight man tag team matches

elimination tag team matches

babyface in peril

top rope splash as state of the art flying

signature moves as finishes

head drops

stiff bombs

table spots

fire

inter-gender matches

entrance music

moonsaults as state of the art flying

MMA holds

tapping out to submit

pyro

theatrical storytelling/psychology

heel authority figures

wacky flipz & topes as state of the art flying

 

You get the idea. I can list a million more. At some point in time, each of these things failed to exist. All were created or innovated to add more excitement to the matches or in some cases, the presentation of the matches. New moves, different pacing, new layers of psychology, whatever. And over the course of time, when these changes pile up, you end up with a change of standards that is very hard (if not impossible) to go back from.

 

If you eliminate everything from this list, you are left with two bland looking men exchanging worked amateur wrestling holds. Had wrestling never evolved, had the standards never changed, we would still be looking at two bland men exchanging worked wrestling holds.

 

How is this so hard to understand? The standards are constantly changing. Good or bad doesn't matter. Personal taste is irrelevant. The standards change whether you like it or not. That's how the world works. Things evolve. Nothing stays stagnant.

 

 

Ok, if you define standards as what you listed then yes they change.

 

I thought we were talking about standards, as in the ways to judge a match. Does it have good psychology? Does it entertain me and the crowd? Is there an emotional connection, etc....

 

Those have not changed.

 

I can see why you thought everybody was idiots.

[Dylan Waco]

I was always talking about standards as the way to judge a match and I believe that is the way Dave generally uses the term too. More on context and Dave's way of using that idea later

[ohtani's jacket]

I think the discord here is caused by the fact that when most of us watch older wrestling we don't immediately think: "boy, things sure have changed." We're more inclined to think: "wow, they did that back then?" or "shit, that's cool, I've never seem that before." Most of us look at older footage from a view point of the "basics." Any anachronisms there may be are either seen as quirky, different or awesome.

[ohtani's jacket]

I was always talking about standards as the way to judge a match and I believe that is the way Dave generally uses the term too. More on context and Dave's way of using that idea later

 

Dave is assuming that the average person is going to find the Flair/Kerry cage match dated. The reason being that the majority of people find older things dated. I don't think he expects that people are going to use certain standards to judge the match fairly. The whole thing comes across as a defense of older wrestling.

[KrisZ]

And the problem with Dave thinking that is...is because most of his fans who are all online of course have taken that mentality instead of forming one of their own.

 

If you don't believe that is going on then I got some oceanfront property to sell you in Tennessee.

[goodhelmet]

I'll buy that property Kris.