Do "Standards change" in wrestling?

[JerryvonKramer]

I think to be "athletic" to to be fit ("cardio"), strong, physically capable and so on. Verne Gagne in his day would have been a prime athlete.

 

 

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.

 

I think you're mistaking "athleticism" for what I'd call gymnastics.

 

Athletics

 

 

Gymnastics

 

[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.

 

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.

 

 

It's interesting to note that Dave today regularly complains about the Dragon Gate wrestlers doing too much, in the sense that they could slow down, do half as much and their matches would still be just as good and it would prolong their careers. But that does seem to be the natural progression of the style from what he values most as a fan.

[El Boricua]

I’m jumping in very, very late to this discussion, so I apologize if some of what I’m about to say is rehashing already mentioned points. To the original question “Do standards change in wrestling?”, it depends on which standard is being referred to. In my mind, there have always been two relevant standards: 1) Did it make money? and 2) Was it ‘good’?.

 

“Did it make money?” is the most important to the business of wrestling and to its continued viability and existence. It’s important to the people that make their living on wrestling and it will always be the most important standard for wrestling’s existence. This standard is objective, measurable, absolute and will never change. As a fan, it’s not the standard I use. That would be “Was it ‘good’?”.

 

You’ll notice that I’ve put ‘good’ in quotes. There’s a reason for that. There is no set definition of ‘good’. Never has been, never will be. Each of us has a definition of ‘good’ that we create based on what we’re exposed to (which can be influenced by a number of factors). For some, ‘good’ can be a match filled with high flying spots. For others, ‘good’ can be a technical chain wrestling encounter. You’ll have those that view violent blood-letting brawls as their ‘good’. And there are those who view ‘good’ as did someone get set on fire. My standard of what is ‘good’, at its core, is did I like it.

 

The standard of what is ‘good’ is an eternally moving target, subjective, difficult to measure as an overall absolute (because it isn’t an absolute) and will eternally change. And the beauty of it is it changes not just from person to person, but the same person will always have their standard change throughout time as they increase their exposure to more wrestling. The only way for it not to change is to encase yourself in amber and not be exposed to anything new.

 

But I think the argument here about standards has moved on from this and is now looking at things such as context and expression (and the confusion being caused by calling those things standards).

 

Wrestling is a language. The ring is the page, the wrestlers are the instruments, and the moves are their words. And just like languages, the ways to express certain things change, but the meaning is still there. You have all these different ways to express the same things. Be it Latin, Aramaic, Ye Olde English, British English, USA English, Spanglish, Ebonics, Klingon, etc., there are countless ways to express the same messages. The words used to express them may change, but those things that need to be expressed will always be the same. You still need a word to express love, one for happy, one for sad, one for home, etc. The ‘words’ Lou Thesz uses may be different than the ones Rey Mysterio uses, but the message they want to convey is the same. All this talk about higher impact moves or athletics is just talk about the language being used, not about the standard of what is ‘good’.

[Johnny Sorrow]

The thing about the High Flyers stuff is the actual footage shows that they were super over and not getting booed or made fun of by the crowd . Again, maybe that's what Dave saw in Cali, but all the footage I've seen doesn't show anything like that.

[W2BTD]

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.

 

If you consider wrestlers athletes, and I do, then yes, there is no question wrestlers on the whole are better athletes now than they were 20 years ago, 40 years ago, 60 years ago.

 

Unless you can prove that wrestling was pulling from more athletic pools in the past than wrestling does today, then this has to be the case. And even then, i'd still side with the modern wrestlers being better athletes. Humans are always getting bigger/faster/stronger. Athletes in every sport on the planet are better athletes than the people who played those sports 20 years ago. Compare Olympic records from 1994 to 2014. Or 1974 to 1994.

 

For every Backlund, Brisco, & Gagne you can counter with Angle, Benjamin, Lesnar.

 

You can always find exceptions and outliers but athletes are always getting better, it never goes backwards.

[Timbo Slice]

I'm just wondering if the proof lies within the assumption that because wrestlers are better athletes now, wrestling is better. Because that's not the case.

 

Because if that's the case, that renders about a half-century of wrestling a moot point. Which it shouldn't.

[W2BTD]

I'm just wondering if the proof lies within the assumption that because wrestlers are better athletes now, wrestling is better. Because that's not the case.

 

Because if that's the case, that renders about a half-century of wrestling a moot point. Which it shouldn't.

 

I do not think that if you are a better athlete, that makes you a better wrestler. Or that since better athletes reside in one era as opposed to another, that this means the wrestling has to be better as a result.

 

BUT, what I do firmly believe, is that stronger athletes have a firm advantage over weaker athletes in potentially developing into or becoming better wrestlers. Obviously the weaker athlete can overcome the athletic advantage of the stronger athlete, but the very first tool i'm choosing if i'm building a wrestler is supreme athletic ability. Other things can be taught or developed, but a great athlete has natural advantages and the ability to do things that the weaker athlete can not.

 

It's a sliding scale. The weaker the athlete you are, the stronger you have to be in other areas.

[dawho5]

While it's true they can become great performers because they are great athletes, that's not always the case. It's very easy to use that sort of thing as a crutch early on, get over based on that and really have no way of actually learning everything you missed because you could just rely on your natural talent. Whereas someone who has to work at everything is required to pay attention to the small details that the better natural athlete can just gloss over if they so choose.

[Steenalized]

While it's true they can become great performers because they are great athletes, that's not always the case. It's very easy to use that sort of thing as a crutch early on, get over based on that and really have no way of actually learning everything you missed because you could just rely on your natural talent. Whereas someone who has to work at everything is required to pay attention to the small details that the better natural athlete can just gloss over if they so choose.

"Mediocre athletes that tried like hell to get good are the best coaches." In a strictly outcome-based medium, like most sports, you'd probable rather have the elite athlete than the guy who is just a pretty good athlete but knows the little things. In something that has more stylistic elements, like professional wrestling, you'll find that guys who are super elite athletes don't always make the best performers (see: Kurt Angle).

[Johnny Sorrow]

 

BUT, what I do firmly believe, is that stronger athletes have a firm advantage over weaker athletes in potentially developing into or becoming better wrestlers. Obviously the weaker athlete can overcome the athletic advantage of the stronger athlete, but the very first tool i'm choosing if i'm building a wrestler is supreme athletic ability. Other things can be taught or developed, but a great athlete has natural advantages and the ability to do things that the weaker athlete can not.

 

SEIG HEIL!

 

(I kid, I kid)

[BillThompson]

Old topic, I know. But discussion of the Busick/Gulak/Thatcher series of matches at EVOLVE this past weekend got me to thinking about this topic again. A point of contention from a few people who didn't like their series of matches seemed to be that Gulack/Busick/Thatcher don't do enough "stuff." They don't bust out highspots, or even just regular spots, and waste too much time on limb work, mat work, and the like. Such work was called boring, while other matches that featured lots of highspots were called great mainly because they did "stuff." I disagree with the base notion that the Gulak/Busick/Thatcher trio don't do "stuff." They do plenty of stuff, it's just that they don't rely on highspots, which to my mind is a great thing.

 

Either way, the reason this got me thinking about this topic is because if progression equals stellar mat work that establishes a match being boring then I want nothing to do with progression. But, truthfully I think a guy like Thatcher proves that wrestling hasn't progressed all that much. It's still about the same ideas and emotions that it was in the 1950s, and the execution can even be quite similar depending on the wrestler. Thatcher gets the same response from me for ruggedly working over an Armlock as Okada does for hitting a Rainmaker, and that's because of execution.

 

I know this is a dead topic, but I needed to suss out my thoughts on this matter, and I kind of did (although mainly just on the surface), so feel free to move on and ignore the little resurrection that happened here.

[stomperspc]

There can be high spots in a mat-based match and in fact, I think there should be. When Flair & Steamboat worked long headlock sequences in their matches, they would bring it up from to time to run the ropes or do a shoulder tackle segment, before going right back to the headlock on the mat. If two wrestlers are jockeying for position for the mat and one guy locks on or almost locks on a legitimate submission finisher, that is a high spot. I have no idea what the people you are referring to are really saying when they say "boring" but I think its perfectly reasonable to criticize a mat-based match for not doing enough (while staying within that style) to maintain interest.

 

I am not nearly as high on the Thatcher/Gulak/Busick matches as others for that exact reason. I am big fan of quality mat work. I count the UWF-I, BattlArts, and RINGS styles among my favorite styles historically. With that said, there are good, average and bad matches in any style. There is more to producing a quality match than wrestling on the mat and focusing on certain little things, both of which all three guys generally do well (although I don't think they are as good at stuff as others might think). Where they really struggle is tying it altogether. Some of that is booking related. Since they are just indie workers and always expected to work standalone, longer matches, there isn't much of an opportunity for them to establish certain moves as potential finishes and then work in teases of those moves into their matches as "high spots". Some of it is they can more directly control. The mat work doesn't progress throughout the matches as well it could, I find all three (though particularly Thatcher) to be poor whenever they are standing up, and more often than not their matches feel like pockets of good, standalone mat work with little threading it together. The matches/wrestlers are by no means bad. I'd much rather watch these guys attempt what they are doing rather than many of the alternatives, but at the same time I think they are far from nailing it particularly when you compare their mat work to good historical mat-based matches rather than just contemporary stuff.

 

FWIW, I thought Thatcher/Busick from Saturday night's EVOLVE show was the best match those guys have had with each other (or others) this year. Busick did a nice job working a thread throughout the match that got the crowd engaged and they minimized the time standing up.

 

Anyway, to tie back into this thread I'd say that standards don't really change. There are many ways to have good mat based matches and many ways to have bad ones. That's the same now as it was years ago. There are many ways to have good matches with cutting edge flying offense (or whatever), just as there are plenty of ways to have bad matches in that style. The basic elements of what make matches could or bad haven't really shifted. The standards argument does goes both ways, though. I think the Gulak/Thatcher/Busick stuff might be overrated a bit because they are okay at working a style that isn't worked much these days. Sort of like grading on a curve.

[ohtani's jacket]

When people say standards don't change, it sounds like they're talking about fundamentals and not standards. I guess it's open to interpretation, but there's no way the stuff from the G-1 final (for example) is of the same standard as 60s French catch. That's not a value judgement as I prefer 60s French catch over 2014 New Japan, but you won't see a New Japan finishing stretch in 1960s Paris, I can tell you that much. In fact, they're so far apart stylistically that it may be a generalisation to say fundamentals don't change.

[Matt D]

Maybe we should be talking about the idea of progress instead?

[JerryvonKramer]

I wonder of our recent debates about Strongbow might feed into this discussion ...

[FedEx227]

Old topic, I know. But discussion of the Busick/Gulak/Thatcher series of matches at EVOLVE this past weekend got me to thinking about this topic again. A point of contention from a few people who didn't like their series of matches seemed to be that Gulack/Busick/Thatcher don't do enough "stuff." They don't bust out highspots, or even just regular spots, and waste too much time on limb work, mat work, and the like. Such work was called boring, while other matches that featured lots of highspots were called great mainly because they did "stuff." I disagree with the base notion that the Gulak/Busick/Thatcher trio don't do "stuff." They do plenty of stuff, it's just that they don't rely on highspots, which to my mind is a great thing.

 

Either way, the reason this got me thinking about this topic is because if progression equals stellar mat work that establishes a match being boring then I want nothing to do with progression. But, truthfully I think a guy like Thatcher proves that wrestling hasn't progressed all that much. It's still about the same ideas and emotions that it was in the 1950s, and the execution can even be quite similar depending on the wrestler. Thatcher gets the same response from me for ruggedly working over an Armlock as Okada does for hitting a Rainmaker, and that's because of execution.

 

I know this is a dead topic, but I needed to suss out my thoughts on this matter, and I kind of did (although mainly just on the surface), so feel free to move on and ignore the little resurrection that happened here.

 

I totally get what you're saying here and that's been one of the huge issues with this discussion both on this forum and on Twitter, etc. When Joe and I do eventually get Dylan on the podcast, I think this will be an awesome discussion.

 

Execution, absolutely, that has stayed the same. The idea of getting a crowd into the work and into the story of the match has never changed, a lot of what worked in 1950 works today.

 

The inherent difference though is what a lot of people and what you in your post considered "stuff" is night and day. Fans today react to "stuff" that would've be so alien in 1950, they'd probably burn those people are a stake. Someone like Ricochet gets over today on stuff that is unthinkable 50 years ago.

 

There are guys as you mentioned, like a Thatcher, who can stick work a style not unlike one you'd see in 1950 and it works fine but by and large, what most wrestling fans expect from a good match is not what would constitute a good match in 1950. We had a bearhug discussion on Twitter a week or so ago and you mentioned a few guys who made bearhugs work (Henry, Andre). Regardless of guys who really made it work, it was commonplace in wrestling for years (even as I was still growing up). If Rusev came onto Raw tonight and locked Swagger into a bearhug for 10 minutes, he'd be booed out of the arena and the crowd would be chanting CM Punk and other non sense.

 

You could argue, it's not being built up properly (which I agree) but the fact that this was commonplace in major wrestling some 20 years ago and now would incite a riot, is evidence that by and large, standards have changed.

[goodhelmet]

Maybe we should be talking about the idea of progress instead?

 

Maybe you should create that thread.

[fxnj]

You could argue, it's not being built up properly (which I agree) but the fact that this was commonplace in major wrestling some 20 years ago and now would incite a riot, is evidence that by and large, standards have changed.

 

Of course different crowds react to things differently. That's not the same thing as implying that there is some magic objective standard that changes with time and that makes it "unfair" to give your opinion on older matches, which is what most of the "standards change" talk seems to argue.

[FedEx227]

 

You could argue, it's not being built up properly (which I agree) but the fact that this was commonplace in major wrestling some 20 years ago and now would incite a riot, is evidence that by and large, standards have changed.

 

Of course different crowds react to things differently. That's not the same thing as implying that there is some magic objective standard that changes with time and that makes it "unfair" to give your opinion on older matches, which is what most of the "standards change" talk seems to argue.

 

 

That last part was a strawman and I won't argue or discuss it, I don't think that's at the center of the argument despite people on this board THINKING it's the center of the argument.

[Grimmas]

 

Old topic, I know. But discussion of the Busick/Gulak/Thatcher series of matches at EVOLVE this past weekend got me to thinking about this topic again. A point of contention from a few people who didn't like their series of matches seemed to be that Gulack/Busick/Thatcher don't do enough "stuff." They don't bust out highspots, or even just regular spots, and waste too much time on limb work, mat work, and the like. Such work was called boring, while other matches that featured lots of highspots were called great mainly because they did "stuff." I disagree with the base notion that the Gulak/Busick/Thatcher trio don't do "stuff." They do plenty of stuff, it's just that they don't rely on highspots, which to my mind is a great thing.

 

Either way, the reason this got me thinking about this topic is because if progression equals stellar mat work that establishes a match being boring then I want nothing to do with progression. But, truthfully I think a guy like Thatcher proves that wrestling hasn't progressed all that much. It's still about the same ideas and emotions that it was in the 1950s, and the execution can even be quite similar depending on the wrestler. Thatcher gets the same response from me for ruggedly working over an Armlock as Okada does for hitting a Rainmaker, and that's because of execution.

 

I know this is a dead topic, but I needed to suss out my thoughts on this matter, and I kind of did (although mainly just on the surface), so feel free to move on and ignore the little resurrection that happened here.

 

I totally get what you're saying here and that's been one of the huge issues with this discussion both on this forum and on Twitter, etc. When Joe and I do eventually get Dylan on the podcast, I think this will be an awesome discussion.

 

Execution, absolutely, that has stayed the same. The idea of getting a crowd into the work and into the story of the match has never changed, a lot of what worked in 1950 works today.

 

The inherent difference though is what a lot of people and what you in your post considered "stuff" is night and day. Fans today react to "stuff" that would've be so alien in 1950, they'd probably burn those people are a stake. Someone like Ricochet gets over today on stuff that is unthinkable 50 years ago.

 

There are guys as you mentioned, like a Thatcher, who can stick work a style not unlike one you'd see in 1950 and it works fine but by and large, what most wrestling fans expect from a good match is not what would constitute a good match in 1950. We had a bearhug discussion on Twitter a week or so ago and you mentioned a few guys who made bearhugs work (Henry, Andre). Regardless of guys who really made it work, it was commonplace in wrestling for years (even as I was still growing up). If Rusev came onto Raw tonight and locked Swagger into a bearhug for 10 minutes, he'd be booed out of the arena and the crowd would be chanting CM Punk and other non sen

 

You could argue, it's not being built up properly (which I agree) but the fact that this was commonplace in major wrestling some 20 years ago and now would incite a riot, is evidence that by and large, standards have changed.

 

What makes a good match doesn't change though, just because the high spots change? That's the thing, we are defining standards in a different way.

 

What made a great match in the 70's or 80's is the same as what makes a great match today. Selling, psychology, drama and a great story. That are the standards a lot of us are talking about it.

 

If you define standards as the high spots and moves, then that is a different story. Of course those changed.

[dawho5]

I'd guess that you'll find more varied "standards" as to what moves/styles make a good match now than you would before. But I would agree that the things people are looking for at the most basic level has not.

[FedEx227]

Agreed. Which is why I haven't been as adamant about arguing this topic even when it was going on because I think there's definition issues and instead of finding that middle ground people argued in circles.

 

The standards as far as what makes a truly good wrestling match have not changed whatsoever but the delivery methods in some cases absolutely have. Doesn't mean there aren't outliers or extremes on both ends.

[W2BTD]

Even in the EVOLVE time warp snooze fests this weekend, there was evidence of changed standards. Thatcher popped up from a piledriver so egregiously that if it happened in a New Japan match or if Davey Richards did it, this website would implode (this also brings up the issue of double standards, and using "selling" as a criticism crutch, but those are both different thread topics).

 

If we could find a way to calculate the yearly percentage of executed piledrivers that ended a match, that percentage would steadily drop from the moment the piledriver was invented until today. It used to be instant death. Now even the guy who many people here is the gold standard of in ring storytelling no sells that shit like a hip toss.

 

For the hundredth time. No, the basic building blocks of what makes a good wrestling match don't really change. It's the means to achieve those building blocks that are constantly changing, progressing, and evolving. Practically any wrestling match from 1974 would look woefully dated and out of place on a modern show. Things move forward. Time stands still for no one. This takes nothing away from the past. Things are to be judged in context. Context is everything.

[JerryvonKramer]

Weirdly, in the late 1970s and early 80s when a standard vertical suplex could be finisher, the piledriver seemed to be just another move. We were talking about it the other night, the piledriver didn't become a deathly match-ending move until the 80s.

[Johnny Sorrow]

Actually, piledrivers were often not instant finishers. Bob Backlund during his run as champ always drilled a guy with a piledriver that looked like instant death, but the heel always kicked out at two. They didn't pop right up, though.

 

Edit : beat me to it,Parv