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

[Dylan Waco]

As many of you know I am a guy who has argued for several years now that the actual volume of good/quality matches has never been higher than it is now. I stand by that point, but still think Joe's point is completely insane.

 

No match from 1987 would even make the top thirty or forty matches from the last year or two? 1987 was a year after most of the territories had died and/or were on their ass and I still think that's bullshit. Carlos Colon and Stan Hansen had multiple matches that year better than any match I've seen from any promotion on Earth this year - and there are a lot of matches from this year that I have really loved.

 

Now it's true that Colon and Hansen weren't running the ropes at the speed of a more workrate indie guy, and weren't doing tope con hilo's as transition spots, but I have never, ever judged quality of wrestling based on what people could do, but rather what they did do and how well it worked. Does anyone really think Kawada would have been a better wrestler if he regularly used a 450 to the floor, or that Flair's stock would be higher if he was doing a capoeria gimmick?

 

I don't begrudge anyone for judging wrestling solely based on the prettiness and/or athletic impressiveness of spots, but that's not why I watch wrestling, and if that is the argument you are making you can't turn around and complain if someone makes analogies to gymnastic floor exercise routines.

[W2BTD]

Focusing on all time great matches or main events is a little misguided.

 

I'll assume most of us have the Network. Go watch Starracde '83 right now. How much of that brutal undercard would cut it on a WWE PPV today? Those matches don't hold up in large part because the athletic standards are much higher now, and that has nothing to do with wacky lucha dives, state of the art flying, MOVEZ~!, or a lack tope con hilos. The majority of the performers on that show are at a completely unacceptable athletic standard for 2014 WWE. Go watch a 1977 WWF house show. Same thing.

 

This is why the volume of good & great matches today blows away any other era. There is more great, exceptional worldwide talent now than there was 20, 30, 40 years ago, and it isn't even close. The acceptable standards of a major league pro wrestling show have been raised greatly from the opener to the main event. The raw workrate is higher. There are matches on early Starrcade's that would be embarrassing on a small indie level today.

[Steenalized]

I recently rewatched all the NWA/WCW PPVs and Clashes from 1988 and 1989. Both years have tons of great matches in just that one company. Even if you prefer current wrestling, and I generally do, to say it "blows away" all that the NWA/WCW had to offer 25 years ago is disingenuous. I'd also take Japan from that era over most of today in a heart beat. A lucha expert can attest to the differences between then and now, but most of what I pick up on is that today might not stack up so well to then. What part of Battleground (either one, take a pick) deserves mentioning as brilliant displays of athleticism that makes wrestling great? It's not so hard to pick and choose poor showing even in strong periods.

 

There's also almost no chance that there is more "great, exceptional worldwide talent" than there was in the past. The territorial era dying off removed the possibility for a bigger number of people to hone their craft either exclusively or primarily as a wrestler. Outside of the WWE, New Japan, and a few indy guys, who can make a living off wrestling to the point where getting better at it is their sole career? How many NCAA wrestling champions and NFL players are leaving their sports to come into wrestling today? You're right, the "raw workrate" is higher. And? It's pretty clear that a lot of people don't put much stock in workrate as a determining factor of what good wrestling is. Movies are paced much more quickly than they were 20, 30, 40 years ago. That Sergio Leone sure is a stiff, his movies would never stand up to modern audiences.

[Zenjo]

Athletes in nearly every sport would hypothetically beat their counterparts from 30 years ago. With ease in many cases. They're stronger, quicker, have far superior resources and are much more professional.

 

Pro Wrestling isn't a sport.

[funkdoc]

re: the discussing on emotion, i honestly think there is something to the idea of some public displays of anger being less socially acceptable these days

 

the monica seles stabbing was a watershed case in some ways, yes, but i think general drunken behavior at sporting events is more relevant to this discussion. pro sports used to be *much* more lenient toward drinking, up until the 90s probably. bill james had a fascinating aside in the new historical baseball abstract on how bad things were even in the 80s (e.g. a fan falling to his death in the royals' ballpark, possibly from being pushed off), and how MLB had done a genuinely good job cracking down on this stuff in the following decade without anyone noticing at all.

 

for a football example, i'm a browns fan (lawler tie-in!!!). when the new browns came in as an expansion team in 1999, my father would complain about how they wouldn't let you cut loose in the dawg pound anymore like they did in the old stadium. that was only a difference of a few years there (the original browns left cleveland after the 1995 season), suggesting that it may have taken football until the late 90s to catch up with baseball in this area if that example was typical.

 

i honestly think that a lot of those hallowed "displays of emotion" in pro wrestling may have just been fans getting hammered and doing stupid shit. and since wrestling is always behind the times, i bet they were still getting away with it during the attitude era. vince's transition toward "entertainment" likely forced them to become more like real sports here, and that will have a tangible effect on the average crowd heat.

 

regardless, i'm definitely not buying the "death of kayfabe" argument as an explanation for this. the same complaints re: lack of emotion are standard in real sports nowadays as well, so does that mean sports are less exciting than they used to be? i think it comes more from higher ticket prices (the main scapegoat in the media) and the aforementioned attitude shift on drinking at sporting events (which gets very little media discussion). pro wrestling probably isn't much different.

[ohtani's jacket]

If this were 1993 and people were saying wrestling has never been better, I wonder how many people would disagree. There's always going to be people who prefer the contemporary product and those who live in the past, and the same people saying Lanza are wrong and the same ones who'd turn around and say the WWE today is better than the Attitude era or the Smackdown Six era or whatever else suits them. The truth as always lies somewhere in the middle. Some things in wrestling are better today and some things are not, and the same maxim extends as far back into the past as you care to go. If you break the 1980s down from '80 to '89, some things were better in the early 80s and some things were better by the late 80s. Some promotions got stronger while some territories died out. In 1989 you could have argued whether things were better or worse than the 70s to early 80s.

[pol]

Considering modern wrestling better just because the level of athleticism is higher strikes me as such a depressing and artless way to look at wrestling. It's like saying music is better now because the production is clearer.

 

Also, arguing that any preference for something old over the new version is a result of nostalgia/rose colored glasses is disingenuous. It's certainly true that most people that make "X was better back in the day" statements are not doing so as a result of serious and well-considered evaluation, but I think guys like Loss have clearly put enough time and thought into watching and critiquing wrestling from many different eras that they deserve better than such bad-faith accusations.

[El-P]

You can't just think about it like it's all happening in a vaacum. Pro-wrestling has changed, but the world has changed too. Not only people have seen everything imaginable in pro-wrestling, including the worst nightmare-inducing stupidity (WCW 2000, Katie Vick), but they have seen everything period. You can't compare the reactions of the audience of today with those of yesteryears without comparing the audiences themselves and the context in which they are reacting. In the past, we can't ignore that US pro-wrestling was also deeply rooted in very strong nationalistic, basic views of good (the USA) vs evil (Japan, Russia, Germany and whatever country that was or has been a threat to its economical and cultural supremacy). That it was marred by obnoxiously racist and homophobic clichés. That it cattered to the lowest common denominator to get huge reactions. A lot of stuff that worked before just couldn't be done today. Although the scene of Mark Henry litteraly crying like a bitch while listening to the US National Anthem before his match with evil Russian monster Rusev really brings us back to these formulas of old. Whether it works or not is another matter entirely, but as fun as it can look as far as working a throwback angle goes, it's still kinda embarrassing to get this kind of stuff in 2014 and I don't see how anyone can enjoy it apart from looking at it from a meta-pro-wrestling point of view. I mean, this kind of stuff wouldn't fly in any half-serious TV show or movie today without being justifiably ridiculed. And what does it say about the pro-wrestling fans of today ? Are they really "smarter" than the redneck of the old days, or are they just more informed and saturated at the same time ? Anyway, just ranting...

 

Also we can't ignore that not *everyone* was a great crowd manipulator, and that, like it's been said, the idea that the workers of yesterday were all those amazing guy who would deeply analyse the crowd reactions and adapt their match on the fly is vastly a bunch of bullshit that the old guys like to tell. We can watch the tapes. A lot, a whole lot of matches were boring, ultra basic stuff that only worked because the audience hadn't seen shit. Yeah, it was maybe smarter, but it was also much much simpler. We only remember and rewatch the good stuff. The bad, the hideous stuff we would rather forget, and compared with the bad stuff of today, in term of working, yeah, it looks even more embarrassing. And I'm the guy who doesn't like how current wrestling works and is presented.

[Matt D]

As a general rule I avoid this argument but:

 

1) there is something to the idea that if you listen to classic rock channels (or even classical ones) you'll get a better selection because the dj can pick and choose over years and leave out the substandard stuff, sure.

 

2) that said, one side of this argument comes off like the functional equivalent of Michael Bay fans.

[Jesse Ewiak]

As a general rule I avoid this argument but:

 

1) there is something to the idea that if you listen to classic rock channels (or even classical ones) you'll get a better selection because the dj can pick and choose over years and leave out the substandard stuff, sure.

 

2) that said, one side of this argument comes off like the functional equivalent of Michael Bay fans.

Not being part of either side, I could just as easily say one side also comes off as old men yelling about kids with their loud guitars and hippity-hop music ruining "real" music.

 

Also, as far as generating emotion, at least in the US, when was the last time there was a riot in reaction to a negative result in a sporting event? Vancouver a few years back in the Stanley Cup, but then before that, I really can't think of anything. Plus, the US in general is a far less violent place than it was during the 70's and 80's by all measures. Even if kayfabe was still viable, it's far less likely the same crowd, even in places like the rural US would get violent like they did back in the good ole' days anyway.

 

EDIT: Jesus, I totally missed funkdoc's post saying basically the same thing I did. Go read his post, then maybe come back to mine.

[Matt D]

And frankly I wish they'd get off my lawn.

 

Were I to use smiley faces one would come in here.

 

Where we ended up in the standards argument after pages and pages was that what made wrestling good and compelling hasn't changed. Just the tools. Even better tools have to be used well though and sometimes they can be a crutch to make it so people don't learn to use them well. They can distract.

[ohtani's jacket]

What we ended up with in the standards argument was that neither side agreed and it keeps being brought up every few weeks.

[NintendoLogic]

re: the discussing on emotion, i honestly think there is something to the idea of some public displays of anger being less socially acceptable these days

 

the monica seles stabbing was a watershed case in some ways, yes, but i think general drunken behavior at sporting events is more relevant to this discussion. pro sports used to be *much* more lenient toward drinking, up until the 90s probably. bill james had a fascinating aside in the new historical baseball abstract on how bad things were even in the 80s (e.g. a fan falling to his death in the royals' ballpark, possibly from being pushed off), and how MLB had done a genuinely good job cracking down on this stuff in the following decade without anyone noticing at all.

 

for a football example, i'm a browns fan (lawler tie-in!!!). when the new browns came in as an expansion team in 1999, my father would complain about how they wouldn't let you cut loose in the dawg pound anymore like they did in the old stadium. that was only a difference of a few years there (the original browns left cleveland after the 1995 season), suggesting that it may have taken football until the late 90s to catch up with baseball in this area if that example was typical.

 

i honestly think that a lot of those hallowed "displays of emotion" in pro wrestling may have just been fans getting hammered and doing stupid shit. and since wrestling is always behind the times, i bet they were still getting away with it during the attitude era. vince's transition toward "entertainment" likely forced them to become more like real sports here, and that will have a tangible effect on the average crowd heat.

 

regardless, i'm definitely not buying the "death of kayfabe" argument as an explanation for this. the same complaints re: lack of emotion are standard in real sports nowadays as well, so does that mean sports are less exciting than they used to be? i think it comes more from higher ticket prices (the main scapegoat in the media) and the aforementioned attitude shift on drinking at sporting events (which gets very little media discussion). pro wrestling probably isn't much different.

 

There's also the fact that people were more violent back then due to childhood exposure to lead. Seriously.

 

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline

[Indikator]

I am not aware of Seles changing anything, I was 10 years old when she was stabbed.

 

For Europe, I guess the violent working class football fans was replaced by working class immigrants who didn't go that much to games. Then there was quite an attendance surge and you had more white middle class fans, just check out the ticket prices nowadays everywhere and the officials thought that you need more VIP fans so the old working class fan culture has been slowly phased out over the last 20 years. And there are no more miners and lumberjacks anymore.

[Loss]

I'm more interested in comparisons to 1990s when both the athleticism and heat were present. Let's use 1997. Has anything that has happened in WWE this year touched Bret/Austin, the 10-man at Canadian Stampede or Shawn/Undertaker in the first HIAC? Can anything touch the heat at One Night Only? And do those matches really look all that passe? Yes, your random undercard match today is probably going to be technically better, but I don't think wrestling is as capable of peaking high as it was 20 years ago.

[Jimmy Redman]

I'm more interested in comparisons to 1990s when both the athleticism and heat were present. Let's use 1997. Has anything that has happened in WWE this year touched Bret/Austin, the 10-man at Canadian Stampede or Shawn/Undertaker in the first HIAC? Can anything touch the heat at One Night Only? And do those matches really look all that passe? Yes, your random undercard match today is probably going to be technically better, but I don't think wrestling is as capable of peaking high as it was 20 years ago.

 

The Shield vs The Wyatts? Daniel Bryan's face turn in the cage and Mania triumph?

[BigBadMick]

 

I'm more interested in comparisons to 1990s when both the athleticism and heat were present. Let's use 1997. Has anything that has happened in WWE this year touched Bret/Austin, the 10-man at Canadian Stampede or Shawn/Undertaker in the first HIAC? Can anything touch the heat at One Night Only? And do those matches really look all that passe? Yes, your random undercard match today is probably going to be technically better, but I don't think wrestling is as capable of peaking high as it was 20 years ago.

 

The Shield vs The Wyatts? Daniel Bryan's face turn in the cage and Mania triumph?

 

Money in the Bank '11 and Lesnar v Punk at SummerSlam last year.

[ohtani's jacket]

Wasn't there an Elimination Chamber Match that was one of the greatest matches ever? Seriously though, I thought you were high on the WWE through to Mania? Wouldn't Lesnar/Cena from SummerSlam, I think it was, count on the same level as some of that stuff reaction wise.

[Loss]

That Elimination Chamber match I overrated at the time and have since admitted I did, so why bring it up? I was high on WWE through Mania. WWE has been horrible since Mania.

[BigBadMick]

Apparently a fan jumped the rail last night, but his intention seems to have been to high-five Cena rather than inflict bodily harm.

 

More seriously, Loss, don't you think those moments highlighted from the past few years touch that kind of heat?

 

Now granted, that's several instances over 2-3 years and you listed 4 from 97 alone, but I think today's fans can still get nicely riled up when their buttons are pushed correctly.

[Loss]

Those are babyface triumphs and yes, those matches worked well at the time and got a great reaction. But aside from that Canadian Stampede 10-man, the matches I cited were more based in strong heel moments getting tons of heat, and I can't remember the last time I saw that happen. Lots of guys now are capable of getting people to love them passionately. Few, if any, are capable of getting people to hate them passionately.

[Matt D]

In WWE, Batista was talking about the things they couldn't do, be it nut shots or whatever else. Certainly Jericho got suspended for screwing with a flag on a tour. We saw what happened to Bryan.

[Jmare007]

Didn't Punk have a couple of incidents in some house shows when he was doing the SXE Society and didn't WWE asked him to tone it down or something like that?

[NintendoLogic]

The original plan for the Rey/Punk feud was for Rey's kids to turn on him like in the Raven/Sandman feud, but that got nixed because it was seen as not kid-friendly.

 

It should be noted, though, that there were plenty of restrictions on heels in the old days too. Here's Dave after Finlay got fired for giving Miz the green light to interrupt the national anthem at a house show:

 

In the 70s and 80s, any promotion that had a heel interrupt the anthem on a televised show would have probably been kicked off their local television station, so that particular example would have had negative results in almost any generation. You probably could have gotten away with it at an arena show as long as no reporters that weren't being paid off were at the show.

Stampede Wrestling nearly went out of business and did lose their TV in the late 50s or early 60s and basically killed their business when a heel said that the fans in Calgary were stupid. Not those exact words but that was the message,and it got the wrong kind of reaction.

[PeteF3]

According to Whatever Happened to Gorgeous George?, Fred Blassie was forced to make an on-air apology for referring to the women of LA as "pigs" and the children as "juvenile delinquents" in a promo.

 

I don't mean to sidetrack this with a sociological discussion, but "PC" has always been around, just in different forms. The generations that lament how soft and easily offended people are today are the same ones who thought Elvis shaking his hips or Petula Clark touching Harry Belafonte's arm on television would bring about the downfall of society.