The Collective Whole

[soup23]

From time to time, PWO gets accused of having one mind and one opinion in regards to certain wrestlers/styles/matches that are our favorites. I find this to be fairly astounding given the diverse opinion of the group of people I interact with about wrestling on a daily basis.

 

Here was a quick listing that I thought of off the top of my head with prominent posters/mods here on things we disagree on:

 

1. I had the 8/24/94 Kansai/Hotta vs. Hokuto/Kong match as my #2 MOTY and *****, Loss didn't rank this on first watch at even ***.

 

2. Loss is generally a big fan of Hayabusa, I am not a fan and Childs especially isn't.

 

3. I rated Rage in a Cage from 1997 as *****, Childs hated the match.

 

4. Goodhelmet sees Murdoch as a top 30 worker of all time, he will have to fight to make my bottom 25.

 

5. I disagree with a lot of what MattD says/views wrestling. 12/25/86 Rockers vs. Somers/Rose.

 

6. Me and Parv have had our share of disagreements on matches, the current product, etc.

 

7. Grimmas and Will can dig the fuck out of minis, take them or leave them with me for the most part.

 

8. I praised a Nikita vs. Sting match on WTBBP, Shoe went the other way as did Parv.

 

9. Dylan digs ECW, I have been left cold by almost everything dealing with it.

 

10. Dylan highly praised Curt Hennig heel stuff on the AWA set, me and Parv thought it was middling.

 

This is ten examples but it shows that this happens between moderators and people that share podcast hosting duties.

 

I don't need to get into the arguments between Joe/Dylan and JDW/Parv that have occurred. All of the above examples are people I readily consider to be "friends" with.

 

Certainly when building a leadership team for a website/podcast/etc, you tend to view people who are fundamentally like you from time to time, but true success usually comes from diversity, springboarding off of that facet, I know for a fact through personal facts, that the entity of PWO is a lot different outside of wrestling too religiously/politically/etc.

 

Does this mean that Lawler may be considered the #1 wrestler of all time here and no where else? Sure, but don't take that to mean that everyone agrees with Will stating that and in fact podcasts have been conducted of counterarguments to that claim.

 

We will agree on some and disagree on others but the strive of PWO is to bring intelligent, focused wrestling discussion. I don't want to stray off of that initiative.

 

My plea is that we don't think of PWO as one thought but a community of minds discussing a hobby we all enjoy.

 

 

 

[JerryvonKramer]

Chad is just touching the tip of the iceberg with that post. You can pick more or less any two people on the forum from OJ to goc and you'll see some wide divergence of opinions and things they are watching. Johnny Sorrow and Matt D are about as two polar opposite extremes of fan that you could possibly find.

 

The thing that unites everyone on this forum is that we all watch footage. Not just footage from WWE from the past 10 years, not just WWF PPVs from Wrestlemania I onwards, but everything. Between us all, we cover the whole gamut. 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s, current, big promotions, little promotions, territories, indies, US, Canada, Japan, Mexico, Britain, you name it, someone on the board is watching it. Fucking hell, Grimmas is working through minis matches, and this while Judy Martin has an active thread with someone reviewing her matches. Whichever way you want to put it, the scope is just bigger than 99% of places where wrestling is discussed out there. I don't know where else is even comparable. Places like Kayfabe Memories and Wrestling Classics tend to have more nostalgia guys reliving old memories, "hey remember when we saw Bruiser Brody in 83, yeah man it was wild and you weren't there, but he was great".

 

What happens when people watch lots and lots of footage is that their views become a bit more diverse -- not "hive" -- but diverse, truly diverse. And then things like the GWE project happen so that some of us will have a look to see what the fuss about a Jim Breaks is. And more of us will watch Jim Breaks and more of us will see that, yes, OJ and co have been right, the guy is phenomenal. That's not a hive mind, it's people going to the footage for themselves and drawing conclusions for themselves. Cream will rise. If Jack Brisco is as good as me and Pete have been saying he is, people can watch him and decide for themselves. If they disagree, they'll come out and disagree ... And I can't think of a board where people are more willing to come out and disagree in a sensible way.

 

If you have all these people who watch all this footage in one place, it's not surprising that certain common places -- received opinions from guys going on received opinions from something a guy said in a shoot once e.g. "Lex Luger was a shitty worker because he was an asshole in real life", "Kurt Angle is one of the top 10 workers who ever lived", etc. etc. -- are shot down. They aren't shot down because of a hive mind, they are shot down because the people have seen enough footage to have a different, informed view on it.

 

And even then, you'll still find guys whose opinions diverge.

 

I do sympathize with people getting angry over this because the idea this place has a "collective view" is the biggest load of bollocks ever.

[CaptCabana]

Bravo, gentlemen, both of you. Much more well-spoken than I could ever hope to be!

[concrete1992]

Creating a topic about how you aren't a hive mind isn't the best defense to an argument FOR PWO being a hive mind. Maybe that is just me though.

 

I don't think PWO is a hive mind at all but from the outside looking in I could very well see this coming off as odd.

[Loss]

This is a positive thread with lots of great examples of disagreements that have happened here, and it's just the tip of the iceberg. If it looks odd (which I don't think it does), then I guess it will just have to look odd.

[shoe]

Creating a topic about how you aren't a hive mind isn't the best defense to an argument FOR PWO being a hive mind. Maybe that is just me though.

 

I don't think PWO is a hive mind at all but from the outside looking in I could very well see this coming off as odd.

I prefer to talk about wrestling on this board. Though I'm curious. We get a couple of posts with examples of posters having different takes on different related wrestling subjects .You claim it's not the best defense to this hive mind idea. They did a good job of illustrating that the board is made up of people with different ideas on wrestling. You claim that the people of the PWO board aren't hive minded. What is your point?

[Dylan Waco]

Creating a topic about how you aren't a hive mind isn't the best defense to an argument FOR PWO being a hive mind. Maybe that is just me though.

 

I don't think PWO is a hive mind at all but from the outside looking in I could very well see this coming off as odd.

I think there is far too much concern put in what outsiders think anyhow.

[Gregor]

No one, when talking about the opinion of the board as a whole, thinks that everyone here thinks exactly the same thing. They're talking about a consensus or the difference between an opinion here and the take on the same subject in other places. If someone says, "Oh, prowrestlingonly.com likes Chris Masters," they're not saying that everyone here likes Chris Masters. It's not the busiest board on the internet, but there are enough posters here that someone's going to have to dislike the guy or at least not care about him. All it means is that Masters is liked here more than he is in most places, which (although I don't regularly post anywhere but here) seems to be the case. That doesn't strike me as a bad thing or as a good thing. Maybe it's because I'm just anonymous message board poster rather than someone trying to get their opinion out there in other places.

 

People here generally view Dandy as more than a punchline and Jerry Lawler as more than an annoying commentator. Sure, there are arguments about guys like Hayabusa or Backlund - but that's kind of my point. There aren't too many other places where you could even have those arguments. Plenty of things define this site; you can't just look at all of the ways in which you're different from other posters and then wonder how anyone could form an overarching opinion.

 

That said, there's a difference between describing the site and treating someone as just a product of the site. If I had a wrestling fan friend who asked me about that blue site I'm always on, I'd say, "Oh, yeah, it's cool. People watch old shows and matches. Remember El Dandy from WCW? People there think he's awesome!" Even though I'm sure there are plenty of people here who don't care about Dandy and maybe even some who watch his old matches and wind up unimpressed, I don't think I'd have said anything inaccurate or offensive there. If someone sees Dandy vs. Casas ranked ahead of Bret vs. Bulldog on people's top 100 lists from 1992 and says, "Oh, what a shock, someone on this site prefers a Dandy match to a Bret Hart match," that's a bit different.

 

What's kind of annoying is that people here do the same stuff that this thread is complaining about. I bet that plenty of people who love wrestling, who love 1998 and onwards WWF/E, don't think Kurt Angle is a good wrestler. Even worse, we'll have people here talking about how people rate Angle highly primarily because they've bought into the hype about him that has been spread by other people. How is that any different from the worst things that people say about this board?

[Loss]

And that's on me. The bleeding heart liberal in me that always wants to appeal to everyone on everything and understand the other side takes pretty much all criticism earnestly. The problem is that sometimes, I give credibility to criticisms that are baseless in an attempt to be accommodating. We've seen what the end result of that is now. So I'm not concerned with it anymore. I know the truth, as do the people who post here and enjoy the board. That's all I care about now. And of course new people are always welcome here, no matter what their take on wrestling is. But that's self-evident. I didn't need to be spelling it out all this time.

[concrete1992]

 

Creating a topic about how you aren't a hive mind isn't the best defense to an argument FOR PWO being a hive mind. Maybe that is just me though.

 

I don't think PWO is a hive mind at all but from the outside looking in I could very well see this coming off as odd.

I think there is far too much concern put in what outsiders think anyhow.

 

This would my time for misinterpreting the thread after yesterday. Felt very directed at people not on PWO. Cause anyone on it knows this for the most part. My apologies.

[goc]

The thing that unites everyone on this forum is that we all watch footage. Not just footage from WWE from the past 10 years, not just WWF PPVs from Wrestlemania I onwards, but everything. Between us all, we cover the whole gamut. 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s, current, big promotions, little promotions, territories, indies, US, Canada, Japan, Mexico, Britain, you name it, someone on the board is watching it. Fucking hell, Grimmas is working through minis matches, and this while Judy Martin has an active thread with someone reviewing her matches. Whichever way you want to put it, the scope is just bigger than 99% of places where wrestling is discussed out there.

This is why I love this board so much. I couldn't imagine another board, even something like Wrestling Classics or Kayfabe Memories where I could do a thread about 1986 Continental and have anyone interested in it. I have been introduced to a lot of wrestlers & matches that I never would have seen without reading about it here. That doesn't mean I automatically like everything someone pimps on here, the Thatcher stuff hasn't done anything for me as an example, but I know that the people who DO like him and his style are genuinely interested in it and it's not just some "PWO hive mind" thing.

[JerryvonKramer]

People here generally view Dandy as more than a punchline

It's because they've watched 80s and 90s Lucha.

 

 

and Jerry Lawler as more than an annoying commentator.

It's because they've watched Memphis.

 

 

Sure, there are arguments about guys like Hayabusa or Backlund - but that's kind of my point. There aren't too many other places where you could even have those arguments.

It's because guys in other places haven't bothered to watch Backlund-era WWF and so have no view other than the one they've inherited from Meltzer or whoever else (i.e. he was boring, he wasn't over, etc.)

 

 

Plenty of things define this site; you can't just look at all of the ways in which you're different from other posters and then wonder how anyone could form an overarching opinion.

The conclusion shouldn't be "hive mind" it should be, "those guys have watched a lot of wrestling".

 

 

What's kind of annoying is that people here do the same stuff that this thread is complaining about. I bet that plenty of people who love wrestling, who love 1998 and onwards WWF/E, don't think Kurt Angle is a good wrestler. Even worse, we'll have people here talking about how people rate Angle highly primarily because they've bought into the hype about him that has been spread by other people. How is that any different from the worst things that people say about this board?

I'll be the first to admit that I'm guilty of generalizing about the views "out there" ... but then I stick on something like Squared Circle Gazette or Place to Be and basically hear every single one of those generalizations confirmed. And those are from guys into things enough to have podcasts and even post here sometimes.

 

Then I'll stick on something like the video reviews those guys from Ireland do. Same thing. I'll try another podcast. Same thing.

 

I'll take a little look at a random wrestling forum just through doing a random Google search. Same thing.

 

It's a generalization but it's backed up by some pretty firm evidence.

 

I'm not picking on the Squared Circle guys, they are just an example. On their heels show they thought it was outrageous that Angle wasn't included in the top 50 heels. I made a point to mention Angle on our show on that exact same topic, the guys didn't think Angle should have made the list. And when I put my own list together -- as I'll be releasing in about 30 minutes -- I even had Angle on my list. Hell, I *like* Angle.

 

But all of this comes back to footage, how much of it you watch, and more pivotally WHAT you watch. If your frame of reference is 100% WWE and its history starting from about 1985, then you're going to have a different point of view than if your frame of reference is much much wider.

 

And I don't see other communities being as open to watching ANYTHING as guys are here. That's just how I see it. Some guys like those over at PTBN are perfectly happy with that. And fine. And not all of them agree on stuff, I see plenty of debate among PTBN guys. But tell them watch a match from Japan from 1976 and a lot of them will switch off, they prefer to stick to what they know. Just a basic fact. Fine. But I don't get this need to protect "the outside". If your frame of reference is that much smaller, it stands to reason that you're going to get the same views repeated again and again. Especially when its compounded by lazy Scott Keith reviewing.

 

Those other places are like Empire Magazine; PWO is Sight and Sound. I just think the level of engagement, knowledge, and analysis that goes on is that much better here. Not talking about anything I do -- but what I see from friends and even from guys I don't care for on a daily basis.

 

I'm just telling it how I see it, I'm sure others will disagree with me.

[Graham Crackers]

 

What's kind of annoying is that people here do the same stuff that this thread is complaining about. I bet that plenty of people who love wrestling, who love 1998 and onwards WWF/E, don't think Kurt Angle is a good wrestler. Even worse, we'll have people here talking about how people rate Angle highly primarily because they've bought into the hype about him that has been spread by other people. How is that any different from the worst things that people say about this board?

I think that what you're saying here is fair based upon past incidents in the DVDVR/PWO corner of wrestling fandom. Hell, 5 or 6 years ago I definitely would have been one of those people who make claims about fans connections to Angle, Michaels, etc. I was younger and dumber and I just couldn't grasp why people liked those guys.

 

It wasn't just me. I remember discussion about Michaels used to get sooooo ugly. I remember how bad Purotopia used to get when it came time to discuss a KENTA match. I don't know if PWO was as bad as it was at DVDVR but I think with the amount of overlap we have here it's not crazy to bring up that era.

 

Of course in that era discussions of Dandy, Lawler, and Cena were pretty ugly too. I feel as if over the last few years the notion of different schools of thought on wrestling has become a bit more acceptable. Even in my infrequent visits to chan boards like /wooo/ I see a wider distribution of interests being discussed than there used to be.

 

Part of why I've become more open to debate is seeing posters with opinions I really value like you being very comfortable articulating what you enjoy about stuff I don't like. I still don't like Michaels but I see what you enjoy about watching him (I also softened on Michaels after the AWA set and a quick glimpse at the Rockers' WWF run but that's not completely relevant).

 

Basically, I think we're better than we were. We've all grown up. The younger/newer posters have keener eyes and more open minds and that's encouraging for someone like me and I hope it is to the posters who have been doing this even longer than me..

[Matt D]

I really love this post:

 

Because he puts so much thought into it and really just backs it up. I came out of reading it thinking that I totally disagreed with it but I also completely saw where he was coming from. It doesn't mean there's ever going to be a lot of common ground between us, but at least I can understand the guy, and hey, if there's a match that we both really like it's probably going to be really damn good.

 

I know Charles and Will both actually disagree with me on this (and it's their site and all) but I think that's the biggest thing about this place. You can say anything in the world so long as you allow for opinions different than your own and that if questioned, you can back up your own opinion.

[Gregor]

It's because they've watched 80s and 90s Lucha.

It's because they've watched Memphis.

It's because guys in other places haven't bothered to watch Backlund-era WWF and so have no view other than the one they've inherited from Meltzer or whoever else (i.e. he was boring, he wasn't over, etc.)

The conclusion shouldn't be "hive mind" it should be, "those guys have watched a lot of wrestling".

My point isn't that the conclusion should be "hive mind." My point is that, regardless of how it got there, it probably is fair to say that the board likes Dandy and Lawler. I don't think that it's fair to say that about any individual here, unless you already know that whoever it is you're talking about actually does like Dandy and Lawler, but saying that the board generally likes a wrestler doesn't mean that its members are latching on to that opinion in an effort to fit in or sound smart.

 

I'll be the first to admit that I'm guilty of generalizing about the views "out there" ... but then I stick on something like Squared Circle Gazette or Place to Be and basically hear every single one of those generalizations confirmed. And those are from guys into things enough to have podcasts and even post here sometimes.

 

Then I'll stick on something like the video reviews those guys from Ireland do. Same thing. I'll try another podcast. Same thing.

 

I'll take a little look at a random wrestling forum just through doing a random Google search. Same thing.

 

It's a generalization but it's backed up by some pretty firm evidence...

 

But all of this comes back to footage, how much of it you watch, and more pivotally WHAT you watch. If your frame of reference is 100% WWE and its history starting from about 1985, then you're going to have a different point of view than if your frame of reference is much much wider.

 

And I don't see other communities being as open to watching ANYTHING as guys are here. That's just how I see it. Some guys like those over at PTBN are perfectly happy with that. And fine. And not all of them agree on stuff, I see plenty of debate among PTBN guys. But tell them watch a match from Japan from 1976 and a lot of them will switch off, they prefer to stick to what they know. Just a basic fact. Fine. But I don't get this need to protect "the outside". If your frame of reference is that much smaller, it stands to reason that you're going to get the same views repeated again and again. Especially when its compounded by lazy Scott Keith reviewing.

I'm not worried about protecting "the outside." But you posted in a self-pitying thread lamenting that people don't examine individual opinions here seriously enough, and then you went on to talk about how a bunch of other people's opinions are basically just things they've heard other people say and blindly accepted. If that's all the respect that you're going to afford outside opinions, then I don't see how you can complain about the outside not treating yours any better.

 

I'm sure that you have watched a lot of wrestling, and, if you value the opinions of people who've watched a ton more than you value those who watch little outside of modern WWE, that's fine. It's an entirely different thing to say that the modern WWE fan's opinions aren't conclusions they've come to alone. Maybe you've read or heard stuff that confirms what you thought about how other people got their opinions, but I'm sure people can come here and find stuff that makes them say, "Oh, well, he's just trying to sound smart/sound correct/be different." "Hive mind"/"Received opinions" isn't the proper response in either case. People like what they like for a reason, even if a bunch of other people like the same stuff.

 

For the most part, this place is no different from anywhere else. I post here because of how much people are willing to talk about matches or wrestlers that they like and because of how much wrestling they're willing to talk about, but I don't think that my opinion is any more valid or reflective of how I really feel than that of someone elsewhere who posts nothing more than, "I like this match."

[Johnny Sorrow]

 

Charles and Will, leading Pete and Dylan to the secret Mod Cube.

[JerryvonKramer]

For the most part, this place is no different from anywhere else.

Please post some links to other places that are "no different" from here and I'll gladly sign up to them.

 

but I don't think that my opinion is any more valid or reflective of how I really feel than that of someone elsewhere who posts nothing more than, "I like this match."

All opinions are valid but not all opinions are equal. The kid of six who has just watched Frozen and thinks it's the best film ever made is entitled to that view, but let's not pretend that the view is as qualified or informed as Roger Ebert's take on the same question.

 

Similarly, not all reviews are equal. Consider:

 

- A youtube comment

- A three-line Amazon review

- A review in a newspaper

- An essay in a journal

 

The first two might be saying little more than "I like this match", but I think it's disrespectful to the reviewers in the latter two who put in more time and effort to articulate what they thought about whatever they are reviewing.

 

There is such a thing as analysis.

There is such a thing as critical insight.

There is such a thing as putting into words why you think something is good or bad.

 

I strongly object to this namby pamby notion that because "all opinions are valid" we should treat them all the same. No. A view articulated in a way that is interesting to read -- simply put -- is more worthy of my time than a view that is nothing more than "I like this match".

 

You really wouldn't co-sign that Gregor? Why not go and post in youtube comments then?

[Gregor]

I didn't say that you should treat all opinions the same. I don't think that you have any obligation to engage or even consider one-line YouTube comments on the wrestling videos that you watch. I already said that the reason that I post here is the wrestling that people talk about and the way that people talk about it. But, if you think that there are only a few other places on the internet where people's opinions are their own instead of just opinions they've adopted after hearing someone else express them, then I don't know what to tell you. That's not something unique to this site.

[Grimmas]

I didn't say that you should treat all opinions the same. I don't think that you have any obligation to engage or even consider one-line YouTube comments on the wrestling videos that you watch. I already said that the reason that I post here is the wrestling that people talk about and the way that people talk about it. But, if you think that there are only a few other places on the internet where people's opinions are their own instead of just opinions they've adopted after hearing someone else express them, then I don't know what to tell you. That's not something unique to this site.

I hope the point Parv was trying to make is that people on this site are more willing to watch the footage then to either go by memory or from what considered norms.

 

The amount of times I see that Luger stinks or Michaels is easy number one of all-time on other sites is quite sad. Watch the footage, those things are not true.

[Dylan Waco]

This things may be true to some people BUT I would prefer the reasons people feel that way be articulated and discussed

[MoS]

I basically agree with what Parv is saying. In any community, there will be some level of consensus, and that comes from watching the same amount of footage and, indeed, the same footage. also, PWO is a place where I have seen more debates and more intense discussions than any other place on the 'net, and that is the best thing about PWO. We have Joe defending Davey Richards, someone arguing for Shawn to be the GOAT, and so on and so forth. And everyone and their opinions are accepted, invited and mulled over. I see no evidence whatsoever of any beehive mentality.

 

As Parv said, people here watch a lot of footage and thus, certain conclusions they come to are not in the same tune as that of the other corners of the internet. I may be mocked for this, but I was introduced to internet message boards at the age of 10 through Lords of Pain forums, (in 2003), and for the next seven years, I posted just there and nowhere else. And while I will always love Lords of Pain, seeing how it is like my internet home and the place where I was introduced to wrestling on the internet; it was only when I came here (have been lurking since 2010) that my knowledge of wrestling broadened. I came here believing Shawn Michaels to be the GOAT, because that was rarely debated. Now, he won't crack my Top 50. That is because EVERYTHING which is connected to wrestling is debated here, and thus, this place is as removed from a beehive mentality as possible. There will be some consensus, as I said, but that is to be expected in any community.

 

Charles, Will: Take it from a 21-year old wrestling nOOb from India who cannot have conversations like the ones we have here where he lives, , this place is great. Not only is it extremely fun to read, it is also very educational. Brilliant job guys.

[BillThompson]

The hive mind idea is disconcerting, but I don't put much stock in it. If people are making that argument then they are taking the lazy way out and not bothering to truly engage with the many facets and opinions of this board.

 

Look, mine is far from an unbiased opinion, and this is true for most everyone posting in this board. I love this place, posting here, and interacting with the type of posters we attract. I can to other message boards to discuss wrestling because I enjoy discussing wrestling. PWO is my home though and I go out of my way to be involved here because I get a lot more out of PWO than I do out of any other place. It's also very rare at PWO for an opinion of mine to be dismissed off hand. On other boards if I have the audacity to state that Erick Rowan is a pretty good worker I'm met with some sort of gif or video that off handedly dismisses my claim as crazy. The majority at PWO discuss, they don't dismiss, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

 

That being said, it's far from a perfect place. But, every place to discuss wrestling online is flawed, this place happens to be the least flawed I find. In the end I just want to enjoy myself discussing wrestling, and I find I can do that more at PWO than anywhere else.

[Petey]

I don't think it matters if people believe PWO has a hive mentality. It doesn't. I don't care if people think that because ultimately it's a pro wrestling message board. If people assume I like X wrestler because I post at PWO and I actually don't like X wrestler, it doesn't bother me and doesn't affect me. Maybe I look at it different because I don't operate a wrestling board and don't have a bunch of Twitter followers strictly for my wrestling opinions.

[Loss]

No, you look at it the right way. I looked at it the wrong way before.

[jdw]

The hive mind thing has always been pretty funny.

 

I probably go back with Bix and Dylan longer than anyone on PWO. We've had some rip roaring, heated debates that were likely uglier than anything that people think of as heated debates on PWO. On the flip side, we've been in some heated debates where one or the other or both have been on the same side as me. Here.

 

Same goes for Loss and I, where just two words about Ric Flair will send us down the rabbit hole against each other. That's representative of nothing more than there are hundreds of topic about wrestling that will pop up, of which a third we'll agree on, a third we'll see differently, and a final third that one or the other of us doesn't have knowledge or interest in. Flair is just one of those topics, fitting into one of those buckets of how we see things.

 

That tends to get lost outside the bubble, or by people new who don't know the decade (or decades) some of us have been interacting.