ohtani's jacket Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 bad continuity in storylines that don't hold up week-to-week This has always been a problem in wrestling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohtani's jacket Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 I also was thinking (and didn't clearly state) that when a dropkick was an uncommon move, it would have a much bigger impact. Now that everyone and their dog does it, it loses it's impact. I think you can say the same for just about any move - powerslam, ddt, moonsault, etc, etc. You get desensitized to things over time. The typical mid-show Raw match right now would have been the most mind blowing match in the history of the show if it happened in 1994. Or, conversely, it might have been seen as awful - different tastes for different times. Everyone and their dog were doing dropkicks from the 70s onwards if not earlier. It was a staple babyface move. I imagine the wrestlers who first started doing it used it as either a finisher or a specialty move, but as more and more wrestlers began doing it, it evolved into a regular move. Okada's dropkick is more of a specialty move than either a regular dropkick or an old-school dropkick. The height he gets on it is phenomenal, and surely that boils down to athleticism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shining Wiz Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 Question for Dylan......have you ever uttered the words, "This match didn't age well?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 I'm certain I've said something along those lines before, but I can't think of a single scenario where I would have said that because of the number or type of offensive moves used in the match. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shining Wiz Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 That's fair. What would make you say that though. Something would have changed over whatever period to change your opinion of this hypothetical match. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 I am not Dylan but weapon shots don't age well with me. I love death matches but not hardcore matches, nuts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 Let me amend that... specifically chair shots, kendo sticks and sledgehammers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shining Wiz Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 You think what of them now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 I don't think chair shots,kendo sticks and sledge hammers in wrestling age well. I can't watch matches with those things and enjoy them like it was 1998. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 That's how I feel about spots on the Spanish announce table. WWE always goes there when they are trying to make a match "big", and it's something that I think should have been left behind back in the early 2000s. It's enough to make me like an otherwise good match a lot less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted July 26, 2014 Report Share Posted July 26, 2014 That's fair. What would make you say that though. Something would have changed over whatever period to change your opinion of this hypothetical match. Could be any number of things. You could be watching the match surrounded by the angles and build and see that it doesn't deliver on the psychology or story in a way that you would think. Some matches are better in isolation/as a stand alone, but weaker in the context of the story they were telling over the course of several months. Sometimes it's just that you aren't as excited for something. In real time if you are hyped because you have wanted to see a match so badly, sometimes you will yourself to like it more than you would in other scenarios. Some would probably argue that's not a bad thing, and I don't necessarily disagree, but in my mind the truly great matches hold up. I've talked about this with Will and others recently, but in the old days a lot of times it was trying to justify a purchase that kept the rep of certain matches in tact. If you heard a match was great via Meltzer, or another well known wrestling critic, you'd have to drop some coin to pick it up on a VHS. When it shows up you've already lost that money and you have an incentive to say "jeez, I guess that was really good." even if you think something sucked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted July 26, 2014 Report Share Posted July 26, 2014 Note that I'm not arguing that offense can never look dated, just that in context it is extremely rare for me to have that thought. Rare enough where I can't think of a single time I"ve said that when running through tons of footage from promotions all over the world in the 80's and 90s (and even 70s).. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted July 26, 2014 Report Share Posted July 26, 2014 I'm more likely to criticize something for looking dated for the time than I am just to call it dated by today's athletic standards. I might point it out if I'm watching a 1970s style match in 1994, but I probably wouldn't say that about a match wrestled the same way in 1983. I think saying standards don't change doesn't mean context plays no role at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted July 26, 2014 Report Share Posted July 26, 2014 Why haven't Tiger Mask matches aged well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shining Wiz Posted July 26, 2014 Report Share Posted July 26, 2014 I'm more likely to criticize something for looking dated for the time than I am just to call it dated by today's athletic standards. I might point it out if I'm watching a 1970s style match in 1994, but I probably wouldn't say that about a match wrestled the same way in 1983. I think saying standards don't change doesn't mean context plays no role at all. Standards don't change, but the standards are different for different eras? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shining Wiz Posted July 26, 2014 Report Share Posted July 26, 2014 Note that I'm not arguing that offense can never look dated, just that in context it is extremely rare for me to have that thought. Rare enough where I can't think of a single time I"ve said that when running through tons of footage from promotions all over the world in the 80's and 90s (and even 70s).. Is that because when you watch something from the 70s, you expect what you get? If you went to a show tomorrow, and a Lou Thesz match broke out, how would you react? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted July 26, 2014 Report Share Posted July 26, 2014 Moves change but I don't think moves are part of standards because moves aren't what make a match good or bad. "Are they working a contemporary style?" is a yes or no question that can be asked of any match in any era. What's contemporary changes, sure. Anyway, I'm cornering myself into arguing something I'm hardly ideological about and I'm not even sure I'm right, so I'll stop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shining Wiz Posted July 26, 2014 Report Share Posted July 26, 2014 Haha I think we may be saying the same thing from different sides. I think I get where you're coming from....we're more disagreeing on what we mean by standards than anything else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted July 26, 2014 Report Share Posted July 26, 2014 Note that I'm not arguing that offense can never look dated, just that in context it is extremely rare for me to have that thought. Rare enough where I can't think of a single time I"ve said that when running through tons of footage from promotions all over the world in the 80's and 90s (and even 70s).. Is that because when you watch something from the 70s, you expect what you get? If you went to a show tomorrow, and a Lou Thesz match broke out, how would you react? What do you mean by a Lou Thesz match? Some of my favorite contemporary wrestlers are guys who work lengthy portions of their matches built around holds and build to highspots that are relatively mild. My least favorite current active promotion is Dragon Gate. When I watch something from the 70's I'm hoping for a good match. When I watch something from 2014 I'm hoping for a good match. That is literally the extent of it. The tools it takes to get to the good match may differ some based on context, but I don't think they differ much if at all based on time period. I am not opposed to highspots. Some of my favorite wrestlers have incredibly dynamic highspots. Some of my favorite matches have explosive sequences of big moves. But I don't think Aerostar's blindside cannonball dive is an innately better highspot than a butterfly suplex. It's about the journey that gets to the spot, not the spot itself Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
funkdoc Posted July 26, 2014 Report Share Posted July 26, 2014 If you went to a show tomorrow, and a Lou Thesz match broke out, how would you react? that's basically what CZW title matches are nowadays lol the thatcher/gulak/busick trifecta has been getting a lot of buzz in the indies for that sort of thing, you know =) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shining Wiz Posted July 26, 2014 Report Share Posted July 26, 2014 I just you tubed a Busick/Thatcher match. First time I've seen either. Not all that impressed.....I can see where they might be good at some point though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
funkdoc Posted July 26, 2014 Report Share Posted July 26, 2014 my larger point is that we're now at a stage where that type of work feels fresh again to modern audiences and fwiw busick is currently the weakest of the 3, though i doubt the difference would be great enough to matter if you don't like them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted July 26, 2014 Report Share Posted July 26, 2014 Busick is the weakest of the the three BUT he's also the one I think would probably appeal the most to fans of your more "go,go,go" style Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
concrete1992 Posted July 26, 2014 Report Share Posted July 26, 2014 Busick has shown if anything that he is more willing to switch to that style than the others. Shown in matches against Elgin in AIW and his series against Eddie Edwards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shining Wiz Posted July 26, 2014 Report Share Posted July 26, 2014 It just looked like a really lazy, light, sloppy flow roll at an open mat session. And the match I watched had a really weirdly done I hit you, you hit me, I slap you, you slap me, I forearm you, you forearm me sequence. Not my thing, which is a bit odd, since normally I really enjoy guys who work a slower, mat based style, but this just was not doing it for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.