Do "Standards change" in wrestling?

[JerryvonKramer]

[goodhelmet]

I need context Jerry to appreciate that pic.

[JerryvonKramer]

Kris had the Oceanfront leads

[goodhelmet]

Just investing in the future...

 

[tim]

SOURCE: Science

 

can't argue with that

[Dylan Waco]

If Joe was always arguing about the elements of wrestling and referring to them as "standards" then the debate with him is pointless for the most part. I was never arguing about those things and I don't think that's what Dave Meltzer means by "standards." In fact I know it's not what he means because he always refers to these things in the context of discussing rating, reviewing, analyzing older matches. When pressed he always will make the case that without knowing the context you can't properly discuss these things. And then if you push him farther he will play the "wrestlers say this" card or "you weren't there." I'll give an example.

 

Last year Dave and I got into a minor spat over the High Flyers. I mentioned in passing that they were an underrated team who have a lot of plusses as HoF candidates (or that's how I remember it) while being careful not to advocate for them specifically. Dave responded by saying they were okay, but didn't really get over big, and would get booed and mocked when he saw them live. Now I have no way of knowing if Dave is lying, misremembering or telling the truth about what he saw in the Bay Area. But here is what I do know. I had just watched all the 80's AWA footage that exists. I had spent tons of time talking and reading the work of AWA historians and fans who grew up/lived through that run. I could see the live crowds reacting huge to the High Flyers, and I could see the live attendance patterns of shows they main evented (particularly in hot feuds) being very good, frankly much better in terms of big buildings than a lot of more highly touted HoF candidate teams. I pointed out this Dave publicly and privately. His response was basically "you weren't there so you don't know." While I think it is fair to say there are some things that have to be experienced in person in order to appreciate them on a visceral and intense level, I thought then, and think now that to be that dismissive of something on the grounds of "you weren't there" is not only extremely unproductive, but the exact opposite of what a wrestling historian should be doing (to be fair to Dave I don't know that he sees himself as a historian per se, though he absolutely is, and a great one at that). Notably when I pulled a quote from Jim Melby about how highly he regarded Brunzell/Gagne as a unit that was the end of the conversation. It was an appeal to an authority Dave respects and maybe that's why. Maybe he was just tired of dealing with me. But it was a fitting end given how Dave - and those with general opinion - often treat the issue of "context" and thinking about old matches/history.

 

Again it's important to note that this is not about Dave really, but the idea that follows from this argument, which is an argument that I see a lot of places. I agree with Matt's point about every match (or damn near every match) having some sort of context that helps with understanding things, which is why I think it's completely ridiculous to apply this argument only to older matches.

 

Another sub-argument that is related is the issue of style bias and just bias in general. It's funny because Joe recently went on a rant on the VOW podcast about selling, a rant that he expected me to completely disagree with. But even though I favor selling as much or more than any other component of a wrestling match, I wasn't bothered with his rant really because I think it hit home on the important truth that we often cut slack to certain guys/promotions/et we like that we wouldn't with others. That's a completely fair point and one I think we should consider. It should also lead to more debate and discussion not less.

 

How does that relate to all of this? Well one of the other things that Dave (and Joe to in this case) will say is that just because you aren't a particular fan of a style, that doesn't mean you shouldn't give credit to guys for working to accomplish what they set out to do within a style. Here I think the big picture point is correct - DG should not book for me, and the guys should work for their audience. I myself will give credit to DG for that, particularly from a business perspective. But what I won't do is change what I believe is the minimum standard for a quality wrestling match to fit a particular style. Why? Because while I can acknowledge that different things are for different people, I don't have to believe - and don't believe - that all styles are created equal.

[Dylan Waco]

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.

 

I don't really disagree with any of this, but one thing I would note is that I think Dave's position is one that closely coincides with his own biases as a fan. I.E. Dave really likes stuff worked like say Davey Richards v. Michael Elgin, and an older match with less stuff (moves, nearfalls, less of a quick pace, et.) - while something Dave may have loved at the time - is not going to fit THAT sort of individual standard.

[jdw]

I dislike the general idea that moving forward in time necessarily indicates an improvement in standards.

 

It's just as easy to make "standards are generally declining" type arguments. For example, when was the last time a major film -- one that would be nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars -- come out with a script as intelligent and witty as, say, All About Eve?

 

Eh... depends.

 

I found The Wolf of Wall Street to be witty and intelligent. I know others found American Hustle to be witty and intelligent.

 

Too soon?

 

Midnight in Paris and The Artist were two year before that, both extremely witty and intelligent in two wildly different ways.

 

Too soon?

 

Up was two year before that, witty as hell and supremely intelligent in telling an Adult Story in the wrappings of a Kids Film.

 

It gets harder going back from there because there was a long aversion of the Academy to nominate great comedies for the Best Picture. You'd have the occasional Fargo, that hid its wit in drama/suspense and intelligence in a collection of dumb characters, and sliding the smarts one of them into a slow/methodical personality that hid her smarts.

 

Good lord... scrolling back it's a long ways to Hannah and Her Sisters... yeah, the Academy just hated witty movies. Then again, there's Prizzi's Honor the year before.

 

It's more a function of the Academy. There remain witty and intelligent movies, and always have been.

[goodhelmet]

I don't care if you veer off into movies as an example but stay on topic and talk wrestling.

[jdw]

 

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.

 

 

I hate the Ultimate Warrior. Flat out hate him as much as any wrestler ever. If someone could use some "white out" to write him and all of his performances out of wrestling history, in the big picture it would be no skin off my back.

 

But if I watching Warrior-Rude from Summer Slam, and then writing it up, I ended up being pretty objective about it. To the point of spending time to get across that it wasn't a Rude Carry Job, even if that's what my non-objective biases recalled about the match and went into a re-watch looking for.

 

As Loss says, there is very little 100% objectivity. The reason I liked that match is because it did certain things that I'm biased *for*. Same with Warrior's performance. Same with Rude's. Same with likely Patterson laying the thing out.

 

But if I didn't try to be objective about Warrior's performance in the match, I would have been lying my ass off through the write up.

[jdw]

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.

 

Not really. Dave was defensive about criticism of his rating of matches and wrestlers outside the context of "this is what wrestlers told me".

 

Christ, I recall Yohe telling him that Hansen carried the Brody & Hansen tag team after having recently watched a number of their matches. Dave disagreed, not because some wrestler told him about how good Brody was, but because *Dave* watched all that stuff back in the 80s. It really had nothing to do with what he's throwing out now that "you can't judge old stuff".

 

Really, this whole judge old stuff tangent of his is something that he came up with a decade or so ago when a lot of people started watching old stuff and not agreeing with him. 5-10 years before that you could actually have a conversation with Dave in a small setting about that. It would usually end up with:

 

Dave: "Well, I liked it."

 

But on occasion you could get him to think a bit more about something.

 

As far as the notion that he's always watched something, hit a rating and then never rewatched something and given it a new rating... that's actually nonsense. I talked to him on the phone for most of the 90s. We'd go back and forth on ratings. There were a lot of times when the next time we'd talk, he'd mention watching a match again while dubbing it for someone and it either wasn't as good as he initially thought or was better. There were plenty of star ratings that changed between the first time he watch something and they got into the WON. Hell... I sat next to him at shows and our conversations resulted in changes.

 

"The moment" means a hell of a lot to Dave. It did then, it did before (look up what he says about Warrior-Hogan in 1990), and it has since. It means a good deal more to him on most matches than it did and does to me. So I'm not going to deny that it doesn't mean a lot to him. But he use to get a little reflective on shit, in ways that aren't really consistent with the position he's staking out.

[ohtani's jacket]

If Joe was always arguing about the elements of wrestling and referring to them as "standards" then the debate with him is pointless for the most part. I was never arguing about those things and I don't think that's what Dave Meltzer means by "standards." In fact I know it's not what he means because he always refers to these things in the context of discussing rating, reviewing, analyzing older matches. When pressed he always will make the case that without knowing the context you can't properly discuss these things. And then if you push him farther he will play the "wrestlers say this" card or "you weren't there."

 

Does this apply to when you're praising matches or when you're criticising them? I mean, if I praised Flair/Kerry would he tell me my praise means nothing because I wasn't there? If I praised it without understanding the context would he tell me I don't know what I'm talking about? Or is it only when people criticise a match for being dated or not holding up that he plays the context card? Is it okay for us to praise French catch, or should we not do so because no-one's ever done so in the past? Or can we praise French catch so long as he don't use hyperbole like "French catch was the best wrestling in the world in the 60s"?

 

 

[JerryvonKramer]

Just passing on something that came up during a recording session. Can we even be sure that wrestlers have got "more athletic" with time? Verne Gagne, Bill Watts, Jack Brisco, Ernie Ladd, Wahoo McDaniel, Bob Backlund, Brad Rhenigans, Iron Sheik -- to name just eight guys, you could probably reel off many more -- there were a lot of guys with very strong legit credentials back in the day. Flair could go 60 minutes five or six times a week, sometimes working double duty.

 

Struck me as something worth sharing for this thread.

[Dylan Waco]

 

If Joe was always arguing about the elements of wrestling and referring to them as "standards" then the debate with him is pointless for the most part. I was never arguing about those things and I don't think that's what Dave Meltzer means by "standards." In fact I know it's not what he means because he always refers to these things in the context of discussing rating, reviewing, analyzing older matches. When pressed he always will make the case that without knowing the context you can't properly discuss these things. And then if you push him farther he will play the "wrestlers say this" card or "you weren't there."

 

Does this apply to when you're praising matches or when you're criticising them? I mean, if I praised Flair/Kerry would he tell me my praise means nothing because I wasn't there? If I praised it without understanding the context would he tell me I don't know what I'm talking about? Or is it only when people criticise a match for being dated or not holding up that he plays the context card? Is it okay for us to praise French catch, or should we not do so because no-one's ever done so in the past? Or can we praise French catch so long as he don't use hyperbole like "French catch was the best wrestling in the world in the 60s"?

 

 

 

 

In the example I cited I was praising the High Flyers

[Dylan Waco]

Just passing on something that came up during a recording session. Can we even be sure that wrestlers have got "more athletic" with time? Verne Gagne, Bill Watts, Jack Brisco, Ernie Ladd, Wahoo McDaniel, Bob Backlund, Brad Rhenigans, Iron Sheik -- to name just eight guys, you could probably reel off many more -- there were a lot of guys with very strong legit credentials back in the day. Flair could go 60 minutes five or six times a week, sometimes working double duty.

 

Struck me as something worth sharing for this thread.

 

I think generally speaking many spots look more athletic then they did in the average match in say 1984. But you could easily argue wrestling was more athletically demanding in the picture sense of the term then.

[funkdoc]

i've had a theory regarding meltzer's spot-heavy tastes for a while now. no idea how true it may be but i'm curious, so here goes:

 

from what i've read of dave, it seems like he was heavily invested in coming up with an answer to everyone who would ask "if you know that stuff is fake then why do you watch it?" that is, he wanted to make the case for pro wrestling as a worthy form of entertainment in its own right. the problem here was that hanging your hat on the storylines or characters or acting would get you laughed out of a conversation with anybody exposed to decent film or TV. thus, i think dave found athleticism and cool moves to be the easiest hook for NORMAL PEOPLE (tm warrior) to understand.

 

and frankly, for that purpose, he was right! during the peak years of my fandom, my parents consistently sneered at wrestling (while loving things like twister and limp bizkit, mind you), but they enjoyed rey mysterio and others of his ilk. i think the high-flying stuff is what stands out to most people as cool and unique and respectable about wrestling, especially considering it doesn't have those scary homoerotic overtones that mat work does...

 

there's obviously a lot more to dave than this, but i'm just wondering if there wasn't a pragmatic element to all this as well.

[JerryvonKramer]

 

Just passing on something that came up during a recording session. Can we even be sure that wrestlers have got "more athletic" with time? Verne Gagne, Bill Watts, Jack Brisco, Ernie Ladd, Wahoo McDaniel, Bob Backlund, Brad Rhenigans, Iron Sheik -- to name just eight guys, you could probably reel off many more -- there were a lot of guys with very strong legit credentials back in the day. Flair could go 60 minutes five or six times a week, sometimes working double duty.

 

Struck me as something worth sharing for this thread.

I think generally speaking many spots look more athletic then they did in the average match in say 1984. But you could easily argue wrestling was more athletically demanding in the picture sense of the term then.

 

So, despite his protestations, when it comes down to it Joe is in fact talking about MOVEZ and not "athleticism"?

[concrete1992]

I don't see it that way, or at least read it that way. Wrestlers themselves just appear to be better athletes in the big picture compared to back whenever. Which isn't saying wrestling hasn't or isn't about extreme athletes but over time athletes have gained a greater ceiling for their athleticism. I think it is easy to just state "MOVEZ" but things such as the speed which Mascara Dorada runs around the ring or the strength Cesaro exhibits with some his pop-up uppercuts go beyond simply "Well now they can hit a 450 splash every match and no one finds that A)incredible B)out of the norm".

 

PS Highlighting "moves" in that manner is indeed the best way to get a point over.

[JerryvonKramer]

but over time athletes have gained a greater ceiling for their athleticism

What does this mean though? Flair went over 30 minutes to 1-hour broadways something like 300 times a year, if not more. Are guys now wrestling 90 minutes 12 times a week?

 

Are the modern wrestlers really fitter than that?

 

Bob Backlund dead-lifted 300lbers onto the turnbuckle?

 

Are the modern wrestlers really stronger than that?

 

You're talking about how fast someone runs or how flashy their punch is. That's just execution of moves.

[Loss]

 

If Joe was always arguing about the elements of wrestling and referring to them as "standards" then the debate with him is pointless for the most part. I was never arguing about those things and I don't think that's what Dave Meltzer means by "standards." In fact I know it's not what he means because he always refers to these things in the context of discussing rating, reviewing, analyzing older matches. When pressed he always will make the case that without knowing the context you can't properly discuss these things. And then if you push him farther he will play the "wrestlers say this" card or "you weren't there."

 

Does this apply to when you're praising matches or when you're criticising them? I mean, if I praised Flair/Kerry would he tell me my praise means nothing because I wasn't there? If I praised it without understanding the context would he tell me I don't know what I'm talking about? Or is it only when people criticise a match for being dated or not holding up that he plays the context card? Is it okay for us to praise French catch, or should we not do so because no-one's ever done so in the past? Or can we praise French catch so long as he don't use hyperbole like "French catch was the best wrestling in the world in the 60s"?

 

 

 

 

Dave has said it works both ways, yes.

 

I also don't think saying Dave's focus is on moves and spots is entirely correct. He likes matches with hot crowds unless they involve Hulk Hogan.

[dawho5]

I think you're mistaking athleticism for cardio JVK. Athleticism is more how physically capable a guy is of doing, say, a 450 splash or some twisty moonsault or even how far away they can start something like a corner splash (Sting). Cardio is how long they can go without getting gassed. I don't know that wrestlers in general are more athletic, but most wrestling styles put that kind of thing to more use than before the mid-90s.

[Matt D]

 

 

If Joe was always arguing about the elements of wrestling and referring to them as "standards" then the debate with him is pointless for the most part. I was never arguing about those things and I don't think that's what Dave Meltzer means by "standards." In fact I know it's not what he means because he always refers to these things in the context of discussing rating, reviewing, analyzing older matches. When pressed he always will make the case that without knowing the context you can't properly discuss these things. And then if you push him farther he will play the "wrestlers say this" card or "you weren't there."

 

Does this apply to when you're praising matches or when you're criticising them? I mean, if I praised Flair/Kerry would he tell me my praise means nothing because I wasn't there? If I praised it without understanding the context would he tell me I don't know what I'm talking about? Or is it only when people criticise a match for being dated or not holding up that he plays the context card? Is it okay for us to praise French catch, or should we not do so because no-one's ever done so in the past? Or can we praise French catch so long as he don't use hyperbole like "French catch was the best wrestling in the world in the 60s"?

 

 

 

 

Dave has said it works both ways, yes.

 

I also don't think saying Dave's focus is on moves and spots is entirely correct. He likes matches with hot crowds unless they involve Hulk Hogan.

 

It's really interesting to go back to 84 and look at Dave's enthusiasm at the start of the Hogan WWF run. It's generally interesting to look at some of those old issues in general, especially when he ranks all the wrestlers.I always say that what he likes is "action," more than moves and spots.

[Dylan Waco]

 

 

If Joe was always arguing about the elements of wrestling and referring to them as "standards" then the debate with him is pointless for the most part. I was never arguing about those things and I don't think that's what Dave Meltzer means by "standards." In fact I know it's not what he means because he always refers to these things in the context of discussing rating, reviewing, analyzing older matches. When pressed he always will make the case that without knowing the context you can't properly discuss these things. And then if you push him farther he will play the "wrestlers say this" card or "you weren't there."

 

Does this apply to when you're praising matches or when you're criticising them? I mean, if I praised Flair/Kerry would he tell me my praise means nothing because I wasn't there? If I praised it without understanding the context would he tell me I don't know what I'm talking about? Or is it only when people criticise a match for being dated or not holding up that he plays the context card? Is it okay for us to praise French catch, or should we not do so because no-one's ever done so in the past? Or can we praise French catch so long as he don't use hyperbole like "French catch was the best wrestling in the world in the 60s"?

 

 

 

 

Dave has said it works both ways, yes.

 

I also don't think saying Dave's focus is on moves and spots is entirely correct. He likes matches with hot crowds unless they involve Hulk Hogan.

 

 

I would never say that Dave has a bias toward spots, moves, nearfalls, fast paced style that prohibits him from enjoying other stuff. He definitely enjoys a hot crowd too. Having said that when you hear him talk about what he likes about matches he thinks are great he tends to focus on these things more than other things. Even when he does mention selling these days it's often to highlight something like the way Kota Ibushi bumped for Tomohiro Ishii's offense, rather than the actual facial expressions, body language, or general selling via pacing, timing, et

[goodhelmet]

I think you're mistaking athleticism for cardio JVK. Athleticism is more how physically capable a guy is of doing, say, a 450 splash or some twisty moonsault or even how far away they can start something like a corner splash (Sting). Cardio is how long they can go without getting gassed. I don't know that wrestlers in general are more athletic, but most wrestling styles put that kind of thing to more use than before the mid-90s.

 

Jerry's example of Bob Backlund above is an amazing feat, similar to what Cesaro is doing today in some of his matches. That wasn't a cardio example.

[ohtani's jacket]

In the example I cited I was praising the High Flyers

 

 

Okay, but in that case Dave's memories of the Flyers doesn't gel with your appraisal of them. It's not really an argument about standards, is it?