[SPLIT TOPIC] Today's wrestling vs wrestling from the past (From Lawler GWE thread)

[NintendoLogic]

Real talk, playing hide and seek with an imaginary foreign object is the dumbest shit ever.

[Childs]

Real talk, playing hide and seek with an imaginary foreign object is the dumbest shit ever.

 

Then you might as well just say pro wrestling is the dumbest shit ever and move on to a different hobby.

[Goodear]

 

Real talk, playing hide and seek with an imaginary foreign object is the dumbest shit ever.

 

Then you might as well just say pro wrestling is the dumbest shit ever and move on to a different hobby.

 

 

People have different lines when it comes to 'fake wrestling crap' and what will break their ability to enjoy the hobby when it goes too far. I might as well say if you don't like Chuck Taylor's invisible hand grenade, you might as well find a new hobby if we take your argument to an extreme position. I personally need there to be an actual something there to buy in. I'm pretty sure I saw Heenan work a match with the Ultimate Warrior based around hiding a tongue depressor and that was enough for me.

[Childs]

 

 

Real talk, playing hide and seek with an imaginary foreign object is the dumbest shit ever.

 

Then you might as well just say pro wrestling is the dumbest shit ever and move on to a different hobby.

 

 

People have different lines when it comes to 'fake wrestling crap' and what will break their ability to enjoy the hobby when it goes too far. I might as well say if you don't like Chuck Taylor's invisible hand grenade, you might as well find a new hobby if we take your argument to an extreme position. I personally need there to be an actual something there to buy in. I'm pretty sure I saw Heenan work a match with the Ultimate Warrior based around hiding a tongue depressor and that was enough for me.

 

 

Not really making that argument, just throwing a little snark at Nintendo Logic, who enjoys stirring the pot.

[W2BTD]

Athleticism has always meant jack shit in wrestling. 80% of pro wrestling today is athleticism and it's pretty bad, so I don't get the argument on Lawler having a handicap for not being "athletic."

 

When dudes are exposed as complete non athletes, I can usually no longer take them very seriously or suspend my disbelief enough to enjoy them. That doesn't necessarily relate to Lawler or why I don't think much of him, but I will say he's very much a late 70's, early 80's type of wrestler, which for me was a pretty dry era loaded with guys who in my opinion would be badly exposed today due to a lack of athleticism. Not so much Lawler, who would probably get over in any era due to his charisma. With that said, I do think Lawler was very fortunate to be in the territory he happened to be in though. Even by the standards of the time, he wouldn't have been as accepted in some other places where the workrate demands were different.

 

I would also argue that from a match quality standpoint, worldwide pro wrestling has never been better than 2013 & 2014. Of course, that's obviously a matter of opinion. I think All Japan glory days would fit right in today, as would vintage ROH (which is sort of cheating, because we're talking stuff only a few years old). Pretty much everything else is being blown to bits by what today's wrestlers are doing in the ring athletically & creatively. As a whole, high level pro wrestlers have never been smoother or as refined as they are right now, and that's because as a whole we're dealing with far superior athletes, and the training is far superior too. There is no more nonsensical & useless stretching taking place, or silly nonsense like not smartening guys up until they hit the ring for their first match. At least not in America.

 

Look at the last two G1's, or something like Cavernario vs Rey Cometa from last night, or Bryan/Cena from last year's SummerSlam. You put this stuff on in 1987 and it obliterates all of it. And Bryan/Cena wasn't even good enough to crack my ten best matches of the year, and a guy like Cometa is hardly considered a world beater (although Cometa would be a legendary flyer with the things he can do had he been around in the 80's. Today he's just another guy.). Dolph Ziggler has TV matches practically every week that would be considered classics if they happened in the 80's. Today, he's an underachiever. The standards are higher now. Much of that is due to athleticism. I'm 100% certain the 50th best match of the year these days would win MOTY most years in the 70's & 80's. But that doesn't matter. It's only fair to compare things in the context of their own time. And it doesn't also mean that sometimes things can't transcend an era and hold up.

 

I'm rambling way off topic now, which is supposed to be Lawler. The rest of this belongs in the dreaded "Do standards change?" thread, I guess.

[BillThompson]

I appreciate your stance, but I just don't see it. Sure, wrestlers are more athletic now, but I think wrestling today is at about the same quality level as it was in the 80s, maybe even a bit less. Athleticism really doesn't mean much at all when it comes to pro wrestling, because all the athleticism in the world can't make up for someone not understanding where to place their spots, how to sell, how to bump, how to build heat, etc. I see a decided lack of those elements in most of the highly athletic wrestlers today, although I'm not one who's going to go so far as to say wrestling today is terrible or anything like that. At the end of the day though I don't think any wrestling, wrestlers, or matches from today are blowing away wrestling form ten or twenty+ years ago.

[NintendoLogic]

The highspots today are more impressive than they were in the 80s, but everything else is much, much worse. Dolph Ziggler would have been an opening match job guy in JCP.

[Shining Wiz]

I appreciate your stance, but I just don't see it. Sure, wrestlers are more athletic now, but I think wrestling today is at about the same quality level as it was in the 80s, maybe even a bit less. Athleticism really doesn't mean much at all when it comes to pro wrestling, because all the athleticism in the world can't make up for someone not understanding where to place their spots, how to sell, how to bump, how to build heat, etc. I see a decided lack of those elements in most of the highly athletic wrestlers today, although I'm not one who's going to go so far as to say wrestling today is terrible or anything like that. At the end of the day though I don't think any wrestling, wrestlers, or matches from today are blowing away wrestling form ten or twenty+ years ago.

 

An athletic wrestler with knowledge level X will always be better than an un athletic wrestler with knowledge level X. And I think the wrestler who is a bit more athletic is usually a better performer than the less athletic but slightly smarter wrestler. All the knowledge in the world isn't a guarantee of being a good wrestler just as being the most athletic isn't. But it's usually easier for an athlete to put the pieces together than it is for the knowledgable to be passable in the ring. Otherwise, Heyman would be on this list rather than a manager.

 

All that being said, Lawler had a good understanding of his physical abilities and used his knowledge to accentuate them.

[Lee Casebolt]

For that matter, Cena's one of (arguably the) best wrestlers of his generation, but aside from being freakishly strong, he's a pretty mediocre athlete. Every move he does looks like a potential disaster in the making. The matches are still great, though.

[Shining Wiz]

For that matter, Cena's one of (arguably the) best wrestlers of his generation, but aside from being freakishly strong, he's a pretty mediocre athlete. Every move he does looks like a potential disaster in the making. The matches are still great, though.

Agreed. Cena is not particularly athletic.

[Steenalized]

 

Athleticism has always meant jack shit in wrestling. 80% of pro wrestling today is athleticism and it's pretty bad, so I don't get the argument on Lawler having a handicap for not being "athletic."

 

When dudes are exposed as complete non athletes, I can usually no longer take them very seriously or suspend my disbelief enough to enjoy them. That doesn't necessarily relate to Lawler or why I don't think much of him, but I will say he's very much a late 70's, early 80's type of wrestler, which for me was a pretty dry era loaded with guys who in my opinion would be badly exposed today due to a lack of athleticism. Not so much Lawler, who would probably get over in any era due to his charisma. With that said, I do think Lawler was very fortunate to be in the territory he happened to be in though. Even by the standards of the time, he wouldn't have been as accepted in some other places where the workrate demands were different.

 

I would also argue that from a match quality standpoint, worldwide pro wrestling has never been better than 2013 & 2014. Of course, that's obviously a matter of opinion. I think All Japan glory days would fit right in today, as would vintage ROH (which is sort of cheating, because we're talking stuff only a few years old). Pretty much everything else is being blown to bits by what today's wrestlers are doing in the ring athletically & creatively. As a whole, high level pro wrestlers have never been smoother or as refined as they are right now, and that's because as a whole we're dealing with far superior athletes, and the training is far superior too. There is no more nonsensical & useless stretching taking place, or silly nonsense like not smartening guys up until they hit the ring for their first match. At least not in America.

 

Look at the last two G1's, or something like Cavernario vs Rey Cometa from last night, or Bryan/Cena from last year's SummerSlam. You put this stuff on in 1987 and it obliterates all of it. And Bryan/Cena wasn't even good enough to crack my ten best matches of the year, and a guy like Cometa is hardly considered a world beater (although Cometa would be a legendary flyer with the things he can do had he been around in the 80's. Today he's just another guy.). Dolph Ziggler has TV matches practically every week that would be considered classics if they happened in the 80's. Today, he's an underachiever. The standards are higher now. Much of that is due to athleticism. I'm 100% certain the 50th best match of the year these days would win MOTY most years in the 70's & 80's. But that doesn't matter. It's only fair to compare things in the context of their own time. And it doesn't also mean that sometimes things can't transcend an era and hold up.

 

I'm rambling way off topic now, which is supposed to be Lawler. The rest of this belongs in the dreaded "Do standards change?" thread, I guess.

 

When dudes are 5’5 (and against much bigger opponents) and yet refuse to sell, I can no longer take them seriously or suspend my disbelief enough to enjoy them. First off, define what you mean by “athletic.” Wrestling has a long history of ex-NFL players, college football players, and amateur wrestlers. I’d say those guys are likely to be much more athletic than a lot of today’s darlings. I care about wrestling as an extension of the sport, not as a show of who has the best cardio for doing as much as possible with as few breaks as possible. Was Lex Luger unathletic because he’s not considered a work rate guy?

 

We’ll agree to disagree on 2013/4 being the best period ever for wrestling, though I am extremely high on 2013/4. The WWE, for example, has never been better than now in-ring. But “pretty much everything else is being blown to bits by what today’s wrestlers are doing in the ring athletically & creatively?” Why, because guys have learned to do more flips and tumble better to the point that it routinely looks choreographed and so that they can ignore that getting in a fight hurts? The training is certainly more humane or ethical, but it’s probably not pumping out the high caliber wrestlers that it once did. Insane, rigorous training is brutal and makes people quit. It also tends to make those who survive do very good very fast.

 

You’re living off the assumption, especially on high flying/work rate stuff, that newer is better. Or at least more impressive. Being able to jump high and move quickly aren’t the only athletic attributes to matches that can make wrestling great. Coordination is probably the #1 attribute on the athletic side that someone in wrestling needs. Lawler had excellent coordination, so too did a guy like Jerry Blackwell to move like he did and bump like he did at that size. You don’t have to show off a six pack of abs and fly across the ring to be athletic.

 

To tie it back to Lawler, he’s an all-time great because of both his ring smarts, which is likely the most important aspect of wrestling, and his athletic ability. Like Loss hinted at, knowing how to put together a great match isn’t enough, you have to be able to physically do it. Lawler knew how and had all the athleticism he needed to do so.

[Venegas]

 

Athleticism has always meant jack shit in wrestling. 80% of pro wrestling today is athleticism and it's pretty bad, so I don't get the argument on Lawler having a handicap for not being "athletic."

 

When dudes are exposed as complete non athletes, I can usually no longer take them very seriously or suspend my disbelief enough to enjoy them. That doesn't necessarily relate to Lawler or why I don't think much of him, but I will say he's very much a late 70's, early 80's type of wrestler, which for me was a pretty dry era loaded with guys who in my opinion would be badly exposed today due to a lack of athleticism. Not so much Lawler, who would probably get over in any era due to his charisma. With that said, I do think Lawler was very fortunate to be in the territory he happened to be in though. Even by the standards of the time, he wouldn't have been as accepted in some other places where the workrate demands were different.

 

I would also argue that from a match quality standpoint, worldwide pro wrestling has never been better than 2013 & 2014. Of course, that's obviously a matter of opinion. I think All Japan glory days would fit right in today, as would vintage ROH (which is sort of cheating, because we're talking stuff only a few years old). Pretty much everything else is being blown to bits by what today's wrestlers are doing in the ring athletically & creatively. As a whole, high level pro wrestlers have never been smoother or as refined as they are right now, and that's because as a whole we're dealing with far superior athletes, and the training is far superior too. There is no more nonsensical & useless stretching taking place, or silly nonsense like not smartening guys up until they hit the ring for their first match. At least not in America.

 

Look at the last two G1's, or something like Cavernario vs Rey Cometa from last night, or Bryan/Cena from last year's SummerSlam. You put this stuff on in 1987 and it obliterates all of it. And Bryan/Cena wasn't even good enough to crack my ten best matches of the year, and a guy like Cometa is hardly considered a world beater (although Cometa would be a legendary flyer with the things he can do had he been around in the 80's. Today he's just another guy.). Dolph Ziggler has TV matches practically every week that would be considered classics if they happened in the 80's. Today, he's an underachiever. The standards are higher now. Much of that is due to athleticism. I'm 100% certain the 50th best match of the year these days would win MOTY most years in the 70's & 80's. But that doesn't matter. It's only fair to compare things in the context of their own time. And it doesn't also mean that sometimes things can't transcend an era and hold up.

 

I'm rambling way off topic now, which is supposed to be Lawler. The rest of this belongs in the dreaded "Do standards change?" thread, I guess.

 

 

I don't understand this logic. How does modern day athleticism cover up the flaws in psychology/match structuring/selling etc. that's done so much in todays world compared to the 70s/80s where those facets were perfected?

[shoe]

 

 

Athleticism has always meant jack shit in wrestling. 80% of pro wrestling today is athleticism and it's pretty bad, so I don't get the argument on Lawler having a handicap for not being "athletic."

When dudes are exposed as complete non athletes, I can usually no longer take them very seriously or suspend my disbelief enough to enjoy them. That doesn't necessarily relate to Lawler or why I don't think much of him, but I will say he's very much a late 70's, early 80's type of wrestler, which for me was a pretty dry era loaded with guys who in my opinion would be badly exposed today due to a lack of athleticism. Not so much Lawler, who would probably get over in any era due to his charisma. With that said, I do think Lawler was very fortunate to be in the territory he happened to be in though. Even by the standards of the time, he wouldn't have been as accepted in some other places where the workrate demands were different.

 

I would also argue that from a match quality standpoint, worldwide pro wrestling has never been better than 2013 & 2014. Of course, that's obviously a matter of opinion. I think All Japan glory days would fit right in today, as would vintage ROH (which is sort of cheating, because we're talking stuff only a few years old). Pretty much everything else is being blown to bits by what today's wrestlers are doing in the ring athletically & creatively. As a whole, high level pro wrestlers have never been smoother or as refined as they are right now, and that's because as a whole we're dealing with far superior athletes, and the training is far superior too. There is no more nonsensical & useless stretching taking place, or silly nonsense like not smartening guys up until they hit the ring for their first match. At least not in America.

 

Look at the last two G1's, or something like Cavernario vs Rey Cometa from last night, or Bryan/Cena from last year's SummerSlam. You put this stuff on in 1987 and it obliterates all of it. And Bryan/Cena wasn't even good enough to crack my ten best matches of the year, and a guy like Cometa is hardly considered a world beater (although Cometa would be a legendary flyer with the things he can do had he been around in the 80's. Today he's just another guy.). Dolph Ziggler has TV matches practically every week that would be considered classics if they happened in the 80's. Today, he's an underachiever. The standards are higher now. Much of that is due to athleticism. I'm 100% certain the 50th best match of the year these days would win MOTY most years in the 70's & 80's. But that doesn't matter. It's only fair to compare things in the context of their own time. And it doesn't also mean that sometimes things can't transcend an era and hold up.

 

I'm rambling way off topic now, which is supposed to be Lawler. The rest of this belongs in the dreaded "Do standards change?" thread, I guess.

 

I don't understand this logic. How does modern day athleticism cover up the flaws in psychology/match structuring/selling etc. that's done so much in todays world compared to the 70s/80s where those facets were perfected?

 

 

I agree. I don't get W2TBD's talking point at all.

[dawho5]

I think this is a really good argument to have, and I come down on the side of Venegas and Steenalized. I question whether or not this particular thread is the place for it though. I get that it applies to somebody like Lawler, but it applies to a great many people nominated so I'm not sure it should be limited to only Lawler.

[Shining Wiz]

 

 

 

Athleticism has always meant jack shit in wrestling. 80% of pro wrestling today is athleticism and it's pretty bad, so I don't get the argument on Lawler having a handicap for not being "athletic."

When dudes are exposed as complete non athletes, I can usually no longer take them very seriously or suspend my disbelief enough to enjoy them. That doesn't necessarily relate to Lawler or why I don't think much of him, but I will say he's very much a late 70's, early 80's type of wrestler, which for me was a pretty dry era loaded with guys who in my opinion would be badly exposed today due to a lack of athleticism. Not so much Lawler, who would probably get over in any era due to his charisma. With that said, I do think Lawler was very fortunate to be in the territory he happened to be in though. Even by the standards of the time, he wouldn't have been as accepted in some other places where the workrate demands were different. I would also argue that from a match quality standpoint, worldwide pro wrestling has never been better than 2013 & 2014. Of course, that's obviously a matter of opinion. I think All Japan glory days would fit right in today, as would vintage ROH (which is sort of cheating, because we're talking stuff only a few years old). Pretty much everything else is being blown to bits by what today's wrestlers are doing in the ring athletically & creatively. As a whole, high level pro wrestlers have never been smoother or as refined as they are right now, and that's because as a whole we're dealing with far superior athletes, and the training is far superior too. There is no more nonsensical & useless stretching taking place, or silly nonsense like not smartening guys up until they hit the ring for their first match. At least not in America. Look at the last two G1's, or something like Cavernario vs Rey Cometa from last night, or Bryan/Cena from last year's SummerSlam. You put this stuff on in 1987 and it obliterates all of it. And Bryan/Cena wasn't even good enough to crack my ten best matches of the year, and a guy like Cometa is hardly considered a world beater (although Cometa would be a legendary flyer with the things he can do had he been around in the 80's. Today he's just another guy.). Dolph Ziggler has TV matches practically every week that would be considered classics if they happened in the 80's. Today, he's an underachiever. The standards are higher now. Much of that is due to athleticism. I'm 100% certain the 50th best match of the year these days would win MOTY most years in the 70's & 80's. But that doesn't matter. It's only fair to compare things in the context of their own time. And it doesn't also mean that sometimes things can't transcend an era and hold up. I'm rambling way off topic now, which is supposed to be Lawler. The rest of this belongs in the dreaded "Do standards change?" thread, I guess.

I don't understand this logic. How does modern day athleticism cover up the flaws in psychology/match structuring/selling etc. that's done so much in todays world compared to the 70s/80s where those facets were perfected?

I agree. I don't get W2TBD's talking point at all.

Because guys who are a 6/10 in psychology and 10/10 in athleticism stand out and make a big splash.

 

Is Dolph Ziggler the equal of Ric Flair in psychology? No. But if you put just about any decent Ziggler match on TBS in 1985 and fandom's collective head explodes at the level of athleticism he shows. Today, he's just an ok guy.

 

I think Joe's point was mostly that whatever the level of psychology they held, a lot of guys from the 70's and 80's would look like shit in the ring today because they wouldn't be able to keep up.

[goodhelmet]

I saw enough Curt Hennig in the 80s. Dolph Ziggler doesn't exactly remind me of somebody who would light the world on fire. He may have had better matches though because wrestling was smarter back then and he would have had better opponents to teach him how to wrestle properly.

[W2BTD]

I saw enough Curt Hennig in the 80s. Dolph Ziggler doesn't exactly remind me of somebody who would light the world on fire. He may have had better matches though because wrestling was smarter back then and he would have had better opponents to teach him how to wrestle properly.

 

"Wrestling was smarter back then" is just shit people say. Mostly here & DVDVR.

 

Today is tomorrow's good old days.

[Loss]

If that's not true, why were the best wrestlers far better at evoking emotion from an audience back then? You see genuine emotion occasionally now, but rarely do you see a fan jumping the railing or stuff being thrown in the ring anymore because people are so angry. Where are the great working heels? For that matter, until very recently when guys like Drew Gulak and Timothy Thatcher started getting play, no one could point me to a wrestling company anywhere in the world that had great matwork as a key part of their style when I posed the question on Twitter, other than CMLL as sort of the de facto choice.

[Shining Wiz]

 

I saw enough Curt Hennig in the 80s. Dolph Ziggler doesn't exactly remind me of somebody who would light the world on fire. He may have had better matches though because wrestling was smarter back then and he would have had better opponents to teach him how to wrestle properly.

 

"Wrestling was smarter back then" is just shit people say. Mostly here & DVDVR.

 

Today is tomorrow's good old days.

Everything used to better than it is now. Everything was better when we were kids. When it was pure, before it all changed.

 

As much as I love old wrestling, and enjoy some aspects of it more, I find it hard to take people who completely dismiss modern wrestling on the basis that it was better then, whenever then is. I often think those people don't actually lie wrestling, but rather their memories of wrestling. Which is totally cool, but it really makes it hard to take people seriously when the dismiss comments like joe's offhand.

[goodhelmet]

Who is dismissing modern wrestling?

[Shining Wiz]

If that's not true, why were the best wrestlers far better at evoking emotion from an audience back then? You see genuine emotion occasionally now, but rarely do you see a fan jumping the railing or stuff being thrown in the ring anymore because people are so angry. Where are the great working heels? For that matter, until very recently when guys like Drew Gulak and Timothy Thatcher started getting play, no one could point me to a wrestling company anywhere in the world that had great matwork as a key part of their style when I posed the question on Twitter, other than CMLL as sort of the de facto choice.

 

Because people show emotions differently now. If you jump a rail you're getting your as kicked and possibly arrested. It's unacceptable today. Throwing things is also frowned upon.

 

Today, people chant and cheer. It's how they show emotion. Or they bitch on twitter or the net. Things change.

 

Not sure the relevance of the mat wrestling comment.

[Loss]

It wasn't "acceptable" at any point. People did it anyway because there were heels who cared enough about raising their ire and were good enough to do it right. Most WWE matches don't have any heat until the finisher teases start because for whatever reason, they haven't found a way to make people care about the other stuff enough.

 

The point of the mat wrestling comment was actually to evoke guys like Tamura and Han, who I think it would be foolish to not consider great athletes. Tamura probably had better cardio than any worker in the world in the late 90s. Who's out there pulling off anything similar now? Who has shown that the might be capable?

[Shining Wiz]

Who is dismissing modern wrestling?

 

Several posts earlier regarding how everything today is worse except they flip more, etc, etc...

 

Maybe 'dismiss' was a stronger word than necessary, but my point stands.

[Loss]

All in all, it's weird to call wrestling "better" now when guys hit each other twice as hard to get half of the reaction.

[Venegas]

 

 

 

 

Athleticism has always meant jack shit in wrestling. 80% of pro wrestling today is athleticism and it's pretty bad, so I don't get the argument on Lawler having a handicap for not being "athletic."

When dudes are exposed as complete non athletes, I can usually no longer take them very seriously or suspend my disbelief enough to enjoy them. That doesn't necessarily relate to Lawler or why I don't think much of him, but I will say he's very much a late 70's, early 80's type of wrestler, which for me was a pretty dry era loaded with guys who in my opinion would be badly exposed today due to a lack of athleticism. Not so much Lawler, who would probably get over in any era due to his charisma. With that said, I do think Lawler was very fortunate to be in the territory he happened to be in though. Even by the standards of the time, he wouldn't have been as accepted in some other places where the workrate demands were different. I would also argue that from a match quality standpoint, worldwide pro wrestling has never been better than 2013 & 2014. Of course, that's obviously a matter of opinion. I think All Japan glory days would fit right in today, as would vintage ROH (which is sort of cheating, because we're talking stuff only a few years old). Pretty much everything else is being blown to bits by what today's wrestlers are doing in the ring athletically & creatively. As a whole, high level pro wrestlers have never been smoother or as refined as they are right now, and that's because as a whole we're dealing with far superior athletes, and the training is far superior too. There is no more nonsensical & useless stretching taking place, or silly nonsense like not smartening guys up until they hit the ring for their first match. At least not in America. Look at the last two G1's, or something like Cavernario vs Rey Cometa from last night, or Bryan/Cena from last year's SummerSlam. You put this stuff on in 1987 and it obliterates all of it. And Bryan/Cena wasn't even good enough to crack my ten best matches of the year, and a guy like Cometa is hardly considered a world beater (although Cometa would be a legendary flyer with the things he can do had he been around in the 80's. Today he's just another guy.). Dolph Ziggler has TV matches practically every week that would be considered classics if they happened in the 80's. Today, he's an underachiever. The standards are higher now. Much of that is due to athleticism. I'm 100% certain the 50th best match of the year these days would win MOTY most years in the 70's & 80's. But that doesn't matter. It's only fair to compare things in the context of their own time. And it doesn't also mean that sometimes things can't transcend an era and hold up. I'm rambling way off topic now, which is supposed to be Lawler. The rest of this belongs in the dreaded "Do standards change?" thread, I guess.

I don't understand this logic. How does modern day athleticism cover up the flaws in psychology/match structuring/selling etc. that's done so much in todays world compared to the 70s/80s where those facets were perfected?

I agree. I don't get W2TBD's talking point at all.

Because guys who are a 6/10 in psychology and 10/10 in athleticism stand out and make a big splash.

 

Is Dolph Ziggler the equal of Ric Flair in psychology? No. But if you put just about any decent Ziggler match on TBS in 1985 and fandom's collective head explodes at the level of athleticism he shows. Today, he's just an ok guy.

 

I think Joe's point was mostly that whatever the level of psychology they held, a lot of guys from the 70's and 80's would look like shit in the ring today because they wouldn't be able to keep up.

 

 

 

I still don't see how this logic makes sense. How come Jerry Lawler had better matches with The Miz in 2010 and 2011 than Ziggler is having with The Miz in 2014? How come guys like Finlay and William Regal look on another level from everyone else every time they make tape, as recently as last year? I'm not a Lucha fan at all, but those who are would tell you that the best workers are guys that are in their 40s/50s. Ziggler isn't a very good example as I feel his pinball bumping style would fit well back in the day, but take just about any indy flippy guy and I don't see what would make any more special back in the 80s than it would now. The crowds back then may react well to their spots and moves, but I doubt it'd get them to be emotionally invested in them like a Memphis crowd would get behind Lawler simply because they aren't being emotionally moved. I don't see any scenario in which someone like Ricochet is anywhere near Fujinami (who had an all time great match in 2006, btw.) Hell, I think Thatcher Thatcher, Cesaro, and Drew Gulak may very well be the three best wrestlers in the world, and one of the reasons why I think so many are high on them is because we haven't seen anyone work that particular style that well in nearly two decades. I can go on and on, but the idea that workers back then would be shit now doesn't make much sense when the best workers today are guys who are bringing back a style from back in the day and/or are guys like Finlay, Lawler, or Negro Casas who HAVE been around since way back in the day.