Are current matches just not as memorable or up to par as previous decades?

[stomperspc]

 

 

Some things don't change. Triple H was still clearly not very good in-ring and had little to no heat despite being booked as strong as you will ever see someone booked form mid-1999 on. But that's the other good thing about watching older wrestling removed from the moment - it can reaffirm opinions.

 

 

I think Triple H had his single best big match ever in 2014. Maybe even his top two.

 

 

I meant that 1999 Triple is still clearly not very good re-watching 1999 WWF 15 years after the fact. He was considered poor in the ring and heat-less (despite getting a MONSTER push and constantly being put over Rock & Austin) at the time and that holds up looking back. The point was that that some memorable or unmemorable stuff looks better with distance and perspective, but some opinions held at the time don't necessarily change even with the benefit of hindsight. That's all. I was saying 1999 Triple H is "still bad" not that Triple H in 2014 is "still bad".

 

For the record, I fully agree that Triple H's match with Bryan was likely his best match ever and the first Shield trios is way up there for me, too.

[W2BTD]

At the risk of derailing, concerning Triple H's best match ever, which I agree the Bryan match may have been, you probably have to consider that you could name (conservatively) a dozen or more pretty decent wrestlers who have arguably had their best career match against Bryan. Trips, Bray Wyatt, Morishima, Delirious, Jimmy Rave, Kane, Samoa Joe, Austin Aries, you could even make arguments for Cena & Punk among many others.

 

Bryan is the Ric Flair of his generation. He brings everybody up to his level. I saw Erick Stevens have a four star match with the guy. He's amazing.

[anarchistxx]

This is my friend who I constantly accuse of following the latest fashions despite being blind to that fact. When I heard him talking up PC Music the other day, and claiming that he was into the label before Pitchfork wrote anything about them, I rolled my eyes.

 

Why? Pitchfork was very late to the party on them, publications like Fact and GvsB were supporting their music months before.We live in a fantastic era for new music, and thinking that doesn't just make you some transient fan riding the hipster train. With something like PC Music it will almost inevitably age badly as well, so you are missing out by not listening to it when it is part of the cultural zeitgeist.

 

PC Music is like the Attitude Era. Terrible a decade later but a lot of fun if you were involved in it.

[Matt D]

At the risk of derailing, concerning Triple H's best match ever, which I agree the Bryan match may have been, you probably have to consider that you could name (conservatively) a dozen or more pretty decent wrestlers who have arguably had their best career match against Bryan. Trips, Bray Wyatt, Morishima, Delirious, Jimmy Rave, Kane, Samoa Joe, Austin Aries, you could even make arguments for Cena & Punk among many others.

 

Bryan is the Ric Flair of his generation. He brings everybody up to his level. I saw Erick Stevens have a four star match with the guy. He's amazing.

On the one hand, that's fair, but I think what made it so good was the restraint that Triple H showed relative to other matches that he's had. He was able to make it still seem like a big deal but without the bloat that brings down almost all of his big matches. That was on him, not Bryan. He probably could've had two dozen matches in his career there were just as good if he'd only shown that restraint before.

[W2BTD]

 

At the risk of derailing, concerning Triple H's best match ever, which I agree the Bryan match may have been, you probably have to consider that you could name (conservatively) a dozen or more pretty decent wrestlers who have arguably had their best career match against Bryan. Trips, Bray Wyatt, Morishima, Delirious, Jimmy Rave, Kane, Samoa Joe, Austin Aries, you could even make arguments for Cena & Punk among many others.

 

Bryan is the Ric Flair of his generation. He brings everybody up to his level. I saw Erick Stevens have a four star match with the guy. He's amazing.

On the one hand, that's fair, but I think what made it so good was the restraint that Triple H showed relative to other matches that he's had. He was able to make it still seem like a big deal but without the bloat that brings down almost all of his big matches. That was on him, not Bryan. He probably could've had two dozen matches in his career there were just as good if he'd only shown that restraint before.

 

 

This is a good point. Trips was clearly driving the cart there for many reasons

 

I think the time crunch of a WrestleMania undercard may have inadvertently helped from that perspective, too.

[Matt D]

As did Bryan working two matches, but I do think that if Hunter wanted, he could have put his foot down and forced five or ten more minutes into the match. As someone who's made so many bad creative decisions about his matches over the years, he should get credit for making a picture perfect one there, especially because the extenuating circumstances forced it. He could have thrown off the whole card if he wasn't responsible for it.

[Bierschwale]

I think of the Bryan match as Trips deciding to live out his Finlay and Regal fantasies and not his Flair and Race fantasies. Bryan was THE opponent for it.

[JerryvonKramer]

 

This is my friend who I constantly accuse of following the latest fashions despite being blind to that fact. When I heard him talking up PC Music the other day, and claiming that he was into the label before Pitchfork wrote anything about them, I rolled my eyes.

Why? Pitchfork was very late to the party on them, publications like Fact and GvsB were supporting their music months before.We live in a fantastic era for new music, and thinking that doesn't just make you some transient fan riding the hipster train. With something like PC Music it will almost inevitably age badly as well, so you are missing out by not listening to it when it is part of the cultural zeitgeist.

 

PC Music is like the Attitude Era. Terrible a decade later but a lot of fun if you were involved in it.

Track record with him. I always call him out on jumping on the latest bandwagon, his defence is always that he was ahead of the curve. I say he's on the steam train, he denies it. I define cool as digging out an obscure and little appreciated album from 1972, he defines it by being one step ahead of pitchfork.

 

Swings and roundabouts but the point is that it's two distinctly different approaches. Although weirdly, that same friend has followed my lead on film and has now seen about a third of the sight and sound top 100 ... So maybe for him in music it's one way and with film another.

 

But you can see my point ...

 

In wrestling terms, being on the steam train is moaning about WWE booking decisions, getting into the New Japan hype and attending live shows. I'm not condemning that or anyone who wants to do that, but it's a long way from what I do and am about.

 

Lots of people here do both.

[ohtani's jacket]

Watching films from the Sight and Sound list is about as hip as listening to records from The Rolling Stone 500. That little dig aside, either way you miss out. There's a ton of contemporary stuff I might have enjoyed if I'd been paying attention, but the past keeps me fully occupied.

 

Some styles are simply dead, though. Shoot style is dead. Trios wrestling is dead in my opinion. Apuesta matches are dead, at least the old school variety. World of Sport died a long time ago. It's easier to jump off the bandwagon when it leaves you behind.

[shoe]

 

At the risk of derailing, concerning Triple H's best match ever, which I agree the Bryan match may have been, you probably have to consider that you could name (conservatively) a dozen or more pretty decent wrestlers who have arguably had their best career match against Bryan. Trips, Bray Wyatt, Morishima, Delirious, Jimmy Rave, Kane, Samoa Joe, Austin Aries, you could even make arguments for Cena & Punk among many others.

 

Bryan is the Ric Flair of his generation. He brings everybody up to his level. I saw Erick Stevens have a four star match with the guy. He's amazing.

On the one hand, that's fair, but I think what made it so good was the restraint that Triple H showed relative to other matches that he's had. He was able to make it still seem like a big deal but without the bloat that brings down almost all of his big matches. That was on him, not Bryan. He probably could've had two dozen matches in his career there were just as good if he'd only shown that restraint before.

 

Plus he wasn't going to bust out all his toys in an opening match. I mean how many HHH matches have opened a ppv? I think positioning helped a ton with his restraint.

[funkdoc]

i'm with OJ et al. on this

 

i really think it's harder to appreciate stuff when you don't have a clear overall narrative of the business, and you often don't for something as it's happening. the framework typically develops over the next decade or two, and that lets everyone place the matches in a greater context and appreciate them more.

[JerryvonKramer]

Watching films from the Sight and Sound list is about as hip as listening to records from The Rolling Stone 500. That little dig aside, either way you miss out. There's a ton of contemporary stuff I might have enjoyed if I'd been paying attention, but the past keeps me fully occupied.

 

Some styles are simply dead, though. Shoot style is dead. Trios wrestling is dead in my opinion. Apuesta matches are dead, at least the old school variety. World of Sport died a long time ago. It's easier to jump off the bandwagon when it leaves you behind.

I didn't say S&S was hip. But the point is he's doing his homework.

 

The thing is, (back to wrestling) even if you are missing out on stuff now to an extent "cream will rise", so you'll always be able to seek out what is pimped after the fact.

 

I've said it before ... I think the real reason people watch WWE now is to be part of the instant reaction on social media. It's less about the product and more about being part of an ongoing discussion in the moment.

[BigBadMick]

As did Bryan working two matches, but I do think that if Hunter wanted, he could have put his foot down and forced five or ten more minutes into the match. As someone who's made so many bad creative decisions about his matches over the years, he should get credit for making a picture perfect one there, especially because the extenuating circumstances forced it. He could have thrown off the whole card if he wasn't responsible for it.

One thing I'm always curious about when the HHH = bloated matches narrative comes up - how do people feel about his work in 2000? Specifically the Foley, Jericho, Rock and Benoit matches. Very rarely come across criticism of his performances therein.

 

Had he yet to consolidate power, in order to lay out matches the way he later preferred?

[BigBadMick]

 

Watching films from the Sight and Sound list is about as hip as listening to records from The Rolling Stone 500. That little dig aside, either way you miss out. There's a ton of contemporary stuff I might have enjoyed if I'd been paying attention, but the past keeps me fully occupied.

 

Some styles are simply dead, though. Shoot style is dead. Trios wrestling is dead in my opinion. Apuesta matches are dead, at least the old school variety. World of Sport died a long time ago. It's easier to jump off the bandwagon when it leaves you behind.

I didn't say S&S was hip. But the point is he's doing his homework.

 

The thing is, (back to wrestling) even if you are missing out on stuff now to an extent "cream will rise", so you'll always be able to seek out what is pimped after the fact.

 

I've said it before ... I think the real reason people watch WWE now is to be part of the instant reaction on social media. It's less about the product and more about being part of an ongoing discussion in the moment.

 

There's loads of things that I get swept up in the moment by and, although not necessarily regretting the time invested, wouldn't do the same again in hindsight.

 

I think I need to strike a balance for me personally - I can't just watch 1980s wrestling, on my own, without on-going discussion in the moment, all the time.

[iamthedoctor]

 

 

 

Some things don't change. Triple H was still clearly not very good in-ring and had little to no heat despite being booked as strong as you will ever see someone booked form mid-1999 on. But that's the other good thing about watching older wrestling removed from the moment - it can reaffirm opinions.

 

 

I think Triple H had his single best big match ever in 2014. Maybe even his top two.

 

 

I meant that 1999 Triple is still clearly not very good re-watching 1999 WWF 15 years after the fact. He was considered poor in the ring and heat-less (despite getting a MONSTER push and constantly being put over Rock & Austin) at the time and that holds up looking back. The point was that that some memorable or unmemorable stuff looks better with distance and perspective, but some opinions held at the time don't necessarily change even with the benefit of hindsight. That's all. I was saying 1999 Triple H is "still bad" not that Triple H in 2014 is "still bad".

 

For the record, I fully agree that Triple H's match with Bryan was likely his best match ever and the first Shield trios is way up there for me, too.

 

 

Triple H wasent any good when I watched him from this era never mind when I rewatched his 99 run last year. Sure he was decent on the mic but I always felt he had a horrible run that was seemingly forced onto the fans. There were other guys who knew how to draw heat from the fans as a heel but for me his heat was more that fans did not want him in the main event slot period. I didnt mind him in DX as a mid carder alough it was clear he didnt want to put Owen over in their feud over the title and had Hunter and Shawn not been pals around early 96 if he would have gotten the success he did.

 

I didnt enjoy his run in 2000 either as he was too much hogging the limelight and had Vince change Wrestlemania because always a face went over in the main event but he wanted to be the one I believe who told Vince that he shouldnt always give the fans what they want all the time and a heel should go over in the last match. I would have liked to seen Cactus win the big belt but that obviously wasent happening. The insane long promos either didnt help and everyone knows about the careers he wouldnt put over in the big matches ie Booker, RVD for example.

 

Compiling a top 30 greatest matches of all time for WWE I think I would struggle to find a Hunter match worth putting in. I know alot of fans like to put the blame on his relationship with Steph being the reason he got a push but Hunter just plain sucked in the ring and never found anything interesting about his character except in 2006 when him and Shawn did those skits on the McMahons.

 

 

[anarchistxx]

Doing your homework can be overrated because actually you tend to lose context rather than gain it. Going through a 'Best Albums Of All Time' list or a 'Best Films Of All Time' list can be counterproductive to me. Much better is that your tastes evolve organically, with one thing leading naturally to another i.e. you get into The Clash which subsequently leads you to Joy Division and then Wire and then Sonic Youth and then My Bloody Valentine and then Slowdive and then Cocteau Twins and then Beach House and then The Weeknd etc.

 

Going throughn 'Best Of' lists becomes boring and unnatural, and you don't even like the albums as much as you hoped because you go in with such high expectations. It is very hard to be blown away when you are told before you even start that this film or record or match is one of the greatest of all time. The first time I watched 6/3/94 was a major disappointment. I watched it again a couple of years later going through AJPW in order and it made much more sense and was incredible, having the combined advantage of lowered expectations and a natural lead in to the match. Rather than putting the DVD in expecting to watch the best match of all time.

[anarchistxx]

On the HHH debate, the best matches he has are ones where circumstances reign him in. The Shawn Michaels match where HBK had injured his leg beforehand was their most smartly worked and interesting contest. Similarly, with the Daniel Bryan one he was under pressure to work a fast paced, sharp, straight, clean, high quality opener to the show and wasn't given the opportunity of forty minutes, blood, rubber hammers and wheezing on his knees out of exaggerated exhaustion.

[Matt D]

 

As did Bryan working two matches, but I do think that if Hunter wanted, he could have put his foot down and forced five or ten more minutes into the match. As someone who's made so many bad creative decisions about his matches over the years, he should get credit for making a picture perfect one there, especially because the extenuating circumstances forced it. He could have thrown off the whole card if he wasn't responsible for it.

One thing I'm always curious about when the HHH = bloated matches narrative comes up - how do people feel about his work in 2000? Specifically the Foley, Jericho, Rock and Benoit matches. Very rarely come across criticism of his performances therein.

 

Had he yet to consolidate power, in order to lay out matches the way he later preferred?

 

Over at DVDVR we looked at a few of his matches at least. I wrote up some reviews that wouldn't make a ton of sense out of the context of the thread but I found that the big Jericho match and the 3 Stages of Hell match with Austin, at least, were considerably bloated and could have been good matches with some restraint.

[Childs]

 

 

An analogy would be jounalism - how often do you read an informed, fascinating piece of writing in the mainstream media? Hardly ever. If you read a journal or publication from fifty or a hundred years ago the standard is far higher - because journalists today are under pressure to churn out more and more content so resort to click bait or lists or just lazy, tossed off pieces.

 

 

I feel like I'm the journalism scold here, but this is dead wrong. The standard is actually higher now, largely because the web has made research so much easier. If I'm writing about an unfamiliar subject today, I can learn the basic history in a few hours. The guy doing my job in 1965 had to rely much more on his own memory or the memories of a few others. The pressure to churn crap was always there. We just have better tools to churn it now.

 

There are scads of problems with the modern media landscape, some of which you mentioned. But there's plenty of good stuff out there and it's, on average, better informed than the equivalent work of 50 years ago.

[WingedEagle]

I don't recall who put it out there first, but I think the biggest factor is that just about every modern match of interest is either available live or shortly thereafter. Then a few minutes later there's a new match or show to check out. There's not much time for anything to breathe or stand out for too long these days. There are of course exceptions as there are always standouts, but we're not in an era where there are a few hours of live domestic TV and quarterly/monthly PPVs that are supplemented by infrequent tapes you order from Japan. Its all coming at you at once. But I've got no doubt that with the benefit of hindsight when we look back at this or any other recent year, certain matches and moments will absolutely stand out as classics even if we're not already appreciating them as such.

[anarchistxx]

 

 

 

An analogy would be jounalism - how often do you read an informed, fascinating piece of writing in the mainstream media? Hardly ever. If you read a journal or publication from fifty or a hundred years ago the standard is far higher - because journalists today are under pressure to churn out more and more content so resort to click bait or lists or just lazy, tossed off pieces.

 

 

I feel like I'm the journalism scold here, but this is dead wrong. The standard is actually higher now, largely because the web has made research so much easier. If I'm writing about an unfamiliar subject today, I can learn the basic history in a few hours.

 

 

Don't agree with this at all. The fact that journalists think they can learn about complex topics in a couple of hours a research contributes to slipshod work with very little understanding that goes beyond surface level. In the past a journalist might spend a week or a month or even more researching his piece in detail.

 

And even if we accept that general factuality is higher in modern day journalism due to enhanced, convenient source materials...my point was more referring to the standard of writing. Older pieces are often a joy to read, with skilled writers producing fluid, insightful and beautiful prose and delivering longform pieces that inform and engross. Today there is such a pressure to produce a high volume of content that even respectable publications fill their pages with clickbait lists, reductionist 'think pieces' that generalize and badly researched, shoddily written articles.

[BigBadMick]

 

 

As did Bryan working two matches, but I do think that if Hunter wanted, he could have put his foot down and forced five or ten more minutes into the match. As someone who's made so many bad creative decisions about his matches over the years, he should get credit for making a picture perfect one there, especially because the extenuating circumstances forced it. He could have thrown off the whole card if he wasn't responsible for it.

One thing I'm always curious about when the HHH = bloated matches narrative comes up - how do people feel about his work in 2000? Specifically the Foley, Jericho, Rock and Benoit matches. Very rarely come across criticism of his performances therein.

 

Had he yet to consolidate power, in order to lay out matches the way he later preferred?

 

Over at DVDVR we looked at a few of his matches at least. I wrote up some reviews that wouldn't make a ton of sense out of the context of the thread but I found that the big Jericho match and the 3 Stages of Hell match with Austin, at least, were considerably bloated and could have been good matches with some restraint.

 

Thanks Matt, I'll check this out.

[iamthedoctor]

 

 

As did Bryan working two matches, but I do think that if Hunter wanted, he could have put his foot down and forced five or ten more minutes into the match. As someone who's made so many bad creative decisions about his matches over the years, he should get credit for making a picture perfect one there, especially because the extenuating circumstances forced it. He could have thrown off the whole card if he wasn't responsible for it.

One thing I'm always curious about when the HHH = bloated matches narrative comes up - how do people feel about his work in 2000? Specifically the Foley, Jericho, Rock and Benoit matches. Very rarely come across criticism of his performances therein.

 

Had he yet to consolidate power, in order to lay out matches the way he later preferred?

 

Over at DVDVR we looked at a few of his matches at least. I wrote up some reviews that wouldn't make a ton of sense out of the context of the thread but I found that the big Jericho match and the 3 Stages of Hell match with Austin, at least, were considerably bloated and could have been good matches with some restraint.

 

 

Why did Austin put over Hunter in that match for?

 

If I recall right Austin was one month away from turning heel and winning the title at mania. If anything he should have been kept strong in that match and gone over. Considering they had built this up from Hunter being the one who had Austin run down by Rikishi at Survivor Series so Hunter could stay the champ didnt really make sense. The match was a no contest at Survivor Series and the face should have been the one to finally get his revenge against the dastidly heel who gets his come uppance.

 

Apart from that there wasent really too many matches that didnt make sense but Kevin Nash had to be up there as well. Makes the big return to save Shawn on Raw which leads to a DQ at a PPV and a guy 7 foot fall should have wiped the mat with Helmsley in the Cell. I was suprised months earlier they had Nash lose in the 6 man tag when they could have easily chosen Shawn to do the job.

[ButchReedMark]

Because HHH was going to be the babyface contender to Austin over the summer, so he'd have beaten him before to add interest to the feud.

[Childs]

Older pieces are often a joy to read, with skilled writers producing fluid, insightful and beautiful prose and delivering longform pieces that inform and engross.

 

 

I read work that fits this description almost daily. You're talking about an idealized past that never existed. There was some great work and a lot of slipshod work 50 years ago. There's some great work and a lot of slipshod work now. Journalists are rushed now. Journalists were rushed then.

 

But honestly, the idea that a media consumer in 1964 had access to more good work than a media consumer in 2014 is absurd.