[GWE] PWO, The GWE, and Me

[anarchistxx]

 

 

Last night when I was reading Parv's #5 felt a bit absurd, talking about the "stakes" of GWE being too high.

 

Is this just a natural result of him retreating into his own mind/ass/ego though, a product of overthinking it and bestowing on it an importance that was unrealistic? The stakes are nil. Literally nothing in the real world is affected by these results. It will even have only a minuscule effect on internet wrestling fandom as a whole.

 

It is just a list, a fairly meaningless list. If people discovered wrestling, had fun, enjoyed it immensely...well, that makes the process worthwhile. But it doesn't mean the list is anything other than another arbitrary, pointless list like the other thousands of such lists about music or film or literature or art on the internet. It is superior to a lot of list due to the number of experts and hardcore fans involved who made it a more educated evaluation. That doesn't make it important.

 

As El-P noted, pretending anything was really at stake is just histrionic navel gazing.

[Matt D]

The whole "corrosive" talking point is melodramatic bullshit, really.

I feel like we sort of survived the whole process together. We always argued with one another, five years ago, three years ago, now. This was never a shiny happy agreeable place. But we treat each other with respect for the most part and we enjoy it. I think we will be stronger for having survived this.

 

Hell look at how people treated the Funk vs Orton match yesterday.

[goodhelmet]

The great thing about PWO is that it is ONLY about wrestling but it doesn't have to be ONLY about GWE. GWE is only one of the projects offered here. We have the yearbook projects, the microscope, podcast promotion, analysis of old Observers and tons of other bullshit to occupy our time. GWE has has the lion's share of talk lately (and deservedly so) but even when the list is a simple reference tool, PWO will keep chugging along with the next list or project that occupies our collective thirst for more wrestling discussion.

[KrisZ]

The great thing about PWO is that it is ONLY about wrestling but it doesn't have to be ONLY about GWE. GWE is only one of the projects offered here. We have the yearbook projects, the microscope, podcast promotion, analysis of old Observers and tons of other bullshit to occupy our time. GWE has has the lion's share of talk lately (and deservedly so) but even when the list is a simple reference tool, PWO will keep chugging along with the next list or project that occupies our collective thirst for more wrestling discussion.

 

And in the end that's all that matters.....

[Loss]

The whole "corrosive" talking point is melodramatic bullshit, really.

It really isn't. There is no nice way to say this but people have been driven away from the reactions thread because they did not enjoy your complaining. Most of the posts -- and not just from you -- have been more about complaining about placement and harping on the weaknesses of the greats. Parv tried to start a thread about chops in the main folder, which was pretty innocent until it became a conversation about who had the best ones.

 

The lens through which I made my ballot is not at all the lens through which I normally watch and enjoy wrestling. Sometimes it's great to watch a match without having to immediately discern how it compares to Misawa-Kawada. That's what is meant by the stakes being too high.

 

The board will be better as people leave the mindset of GWE. There can only be one Greatest Wrestler Ever, so competition is just part of the package. But there can be endless great wrestlers, and I can't wait to table comparisons for a while, or be able to enjoy a new wrestler without having to think about how he compares to Jushin Liger. That is what is meant by high stakes.

[GOTNW]

 

The one big takeaway I had from the whole procedure was seeing people talk about how they weren't voting for certain people or certain styles because they didn't like those styles.....if that was the case then you should not have voted in this period......if you were not able to put away your biases towards styles of wrestling or even certain people then your ballot caused more damage than good.

I would be fine with this if everyone was doing it. As it stand I actually regret voting for people I think are great but I don't personally care for much that didn't need my votes.

[WingedEagle]

The great thing about PWO is that it is ONLY about wrestling but it doesn't have to be ONLY about GWE. GWE is only one of the projects offered here. We have the yearbook projects, the microscope, podcast promotion, analysis of old Observers and tons of other bullshit to occupy our time. GWE has has the lion's share of talk lately (and deservedly so) but even when the list is a simple reference tool, PWO will keep chugging along with the next list or project that occupies our collective thirst for more wrestling discussion.

 

Yes! More!!

[El-P]

Is this just a natural result of him retreating into his own mind/ass/ego though, a product of overthinking it and bestowing on it an importance that was unrealistic? The stakes are nil. Literally nothing in the real world is affected by these results. It will even have only a minuscule effect on internet wrestling fandom as a whole.

 

It is just a list, a fairly meaningless list. If people discovered wrestling, had fun, enjoyed it immensely...well, that makes the process worthwhile. But it doesn't mean the list is anything other than another arbitrary, pointless list like the other thousands of such lists about music or film or literature or art on the internet. It is superior to a lot of list due to the number of experts and hardcore fans involved who made it a more educated evaluation. That doesn't make it important.

 

This.

 

 

 

The whole "corrosive" talking point is melodramatic bullshit, really.

It really isn't. There is no nice way to say this but people have been driven away from the reactions thread because they did not enjoy your complaining. Most of the posts -- and not just from you -- have been more about complaining about placement and harping on the weaknesses of the greats.

 

Well, life's a bitch. Bitching and moaning was always part of the fun of the countdown, and I do think that although things were a lot more abrasive in 2006 from what I remember, people also took themselves, and the whole process, way less seriously. I mean, at some point, the whole "mainstream US" thing became a freaking running gag. People got driven away ? You mean, like Parv who couldn't grace us with his wisdom to the point of posting his reaction "essay" not-on-the-board ? What, we're not worthy ? Give me a freaking break. Tons of people haven't been driven away too. We bitched, we celebrated, we got absurd and pissed. Kinda like it should. The rest... literature...

[El-P]

 

The whole "corrosive" talking point is melodramatic bullshit, really.

I feel like we sort of survived the whole process together. We always argued with one another, five years ago, three years ago, now. This was never a shiny happy agreeable place. But we treat each other with respect for the most part and we enjoy it. I think we will be stronger for having survived this.

 

One day after the other. One day after the other...

[jdw]

The final list is a 100% fair aggregate of the community of PWO.

 

Not so sure that is the case. Perhaps the PWO of the future if a large number of the non-PWO voters stick around and become part of the community. But make up a list of all the #1 voters, and ponder how many aren't regular posters here (or haven't been outside of the GWE), along with all the ???, and there's a not insignificant number of folks who haven't been members of the community over the past 2 years, or 10 years.

 

Not saying that's a bad things. Will and Loss have talked about broadening the PWO community, and making it an inclusive site. This is smart as there are always some of us over the years who wander off, and you need to regularly put more water into the pool to make up for what comes out.

 

But it's not realistic to stretch it to be representative of what the community has been.

[anarchistxx]

 

 

Most of the posts -- and not just from you -- have been more about complaining about placement

 

This is every list thread, ever. The whole point is that people discuss placement, and a part of that is disgruntlement that certain workers finished higher/lower than a particular poster thought they deserved. It is inevitable in this kind of project. I don't think it is negativity to say "x finished scandalously low" so long as you are prepared to articulate why you had formulated that opinion.

 

JVK himself spent many posts mocking the placement of The Undertaker, usually with flippant dismissive remarks that added nothing to the discussion or gifs he considered to be humorous. That is far more likely to put people off the threads than someone complaining that Joshi workers finished too low due to underexposure or reacting in bemusement because Chris Hero finished ahead of some pimped lucha worker or whatever.

[goc]

The problem wasn't that people ignored certain styles or areas of wrestling, it was that nobody ignored US wrestling at all.

The guy who voted Inoki #1 did. Likely he was the only one but there was at least one ballot that seemed to pretty much be solely based on Japanese wrestling.

[JerryvonKramer]

Just wanted to touch on one thing, which is Dylan's big talking point about American(-ised) hegemony in the list. I don't think it is quite right.

 

Think about the ask being made of people who are starting from a point of never having seen a given style:

 

1. Get into the style, and overcome your expectations of what you know wrestling to be.

2. Now watch enough that you can assess an exponent of that style to the point where you can rank him over guys you've known for 20+ years

3. Oh, and do so somehow comparing all of them to Misawa etc.

 

Now add on top of that what happens if someone tries 1. and also struggles to get into the style.

 

The ask is too big if your starting position is "scratch". Even with 2 years of run up time, it can't be done. Not everyone is Kris, not everyone can be Kris or Childs or Pete or Chad or Charles or, indeed, you. You guys are like a 1% who can talk to absolutely everything. Most of us can't and will never watch enough stuff to be able to.

 

There's a huge difference between having watched Battlearts back in the day and then watching a few matches to remind yourself of the guys, and starting from scratch. People have different levels of experience. This is a basic reality.

 

There were people who voted who were "catching up" on Randy Savage. Think about that now. "I need to see more Randy Savage to be able to know" is a statement I've heard. When Randy Savage is "homework", and you have, let's say three hours to devote to wrestling in a given week. How much time do you give Battlearts?

 

When I design course syllabuses, these are real questions. I've got 10 weeks to teach 100 years worth of English literature, two hours a week. Let's say it is 1530 to 1640. They do a text a week. Can I realistically represent all the styles and diversity of writing in that 10 weeks? Someone might say "well you probably need more women writers on this course" and my answer is "okay, so what do I cut? Paradise Lost or Doctor Faustus?" Now I have to think about if I want to send students who might go on to do a Masters or PhD at another institution, who were taught this period by me, and came out never having read Milton or Marlowe. Can I be happy with that? Do you see why that is a bind?

 

Some people are in the boat of catching up on whole decades. Imagine someone is starting from scratch. Let's say you need five matches minimum to even get a feel for a given style, let's say about 3 hours of viewing pimped matches from a place. What does your 10-week 1980s course look like? Do you cut WWF highlights like Savage vs. Steamer or Greg vs Tito to ensure you get Joshi on there? Serious question. Do you give a whole week over to World of Sport if it means cutting, let's say, NWA 85-89?

 

I say this, because in some ways, I was in this boat myself. I had roughly 2007-2016 as a decade I was sort of starting from scratch with. I gave my time to guys like John Cena and Daniel Bryan. They are are the "must haves" right? Would Dylan seriously advocate instead devoting that time to Dragon Gate or Chikara?

 

My take on this, I guess, is much more practical than political. And a lot of people, I think, despite how mammoth an ask this was, did make a real fist of it. They tried. Even when they were in the position of "filling in" on literally the entirety of the 1980s including WWF, they still somehow managed to find time for World of Sport.

 

That's my serious question to Dylan here. You've got ten weeks. Your student has seen very few matches from the 1980s period, no NWA, no WWF, no AWA, no Lucha, no AJPW, no NJPW, no WCCW, no Portland, no Memphis, nothing. Where do you start? What makes the cut and what doesn't? Ten weeks, three hours of viewing a week.

 

I do agree with him that this should be discussed, but where he sees American cultural imperialism, I see fans with earnest and honest good intentions failing with an almost impossible task.

[GOTNW]

 

There were people who voted who were "catching up" on Randy Savage. Think about that now. "I need to see more Randy Savage to be able to know" is a statement I've heard. When Randy Savage is "homework", and you have, let's say three hours to devote to wrestling in a given week. How much time do you give Battlearts?

Three hours.

[JerryvonKramer]

 

There were people who voted who were "catching up" on Randy Savage. Think about that now. "I need to see more Randy Savage to be able to know" is a statement I've heard. When Randy Savage is "homework", and you have, let's say three hours to devote to wrestling in a given week. How much time do you give Battlearts?

Three hours.

 

Okay, that's fine. And I don't think a single person who has read your posts throughout the project now has any doubt about what you value in wrestling.

 

I'm interested, however, in how others would answer this question. Especially Dylan.

[The Man in Blak]

I think we need to answer a different question first: are we moving forward with the (for lack of a better description) "wrestling in culture" subforum that has been proposed by Loss?

 

I know we've already enjoyed a little bit of latitude with this discourse outside of the normal parameters for the "Only in Pro Wrestling Only" and I don't see the immediate response to this question offering any sort of finality to this discussion.

[ohtani's jacket]

Why are you talking about 10 weeks? Voters had two years. If you watched 3 hours of pro-wrestling a week for 2 years, I estimate that you could watch at least 750 matches. That's more than enough matches to sample a wide body of workers, but it requires that you do nothing but focus on the GWE project. which I assume only a few people were willing to do. People no doubt were distracted by the modern product, other hobbies or life in general. The number of people who've said they didn't manage to get to WoS or some other style is telling. And those are folks who were on board from the beginning and much more committed to the project than people who came on board later or submitted a ballot without participating in the discussions. Of course it's not possible to see everything, but they gave folks two years. What's the excuse when the stuff is so accessible? I don't really agree with the American hegemony talking point especially people are celebrating that Flair, Funk and Hansen finished 1, 2 and 3 and trying to tear down the so-called Japanese pillars, but I do agree that there's no excuse for people not checking out Puerto Rico, Europe or Mexico. If you didn't do that then all that really says to me is that you didn't participate. You voted, but you didn't truly participate. Perhaps the counter argument to that is that I needed to catch up on Randy Savage, but if I'm being honest I wouldn't vote in a poll where I had to catch up on "Randy Savage" unless I absolutely threw myself into it.

 

Also, there was no curriculum. It was entirely up to the people participating what they watched. The onus was on the individual. This happens in every poll I participate in. There are the people who watch things and the people who don't. While I'm here let me cross reference something. You mentioned in the other thread that getting into a new worker shouldn't have any bearing on people's final list, but what was the point of the nominating period if not to pimp workers that people ought to discover, pay attention to and potentially vote for? Folks may as well have submitted a ballot based on what they'd already seen. The whole thing could have been over with in three weeks. Being excited about Breaks or Hase didn't influence your ballot? Really now?

[JRGoldman]

Parv, I understand your point but I think it's a bit of a false equivalency. You wouldn't teach a survey course to a group of undergrads and then seriously expect them to contribute to a deconstruction of the Western Canon. Or, if they did, I would listen to their ideas with an open mind but I'd have to take them with a grain or two of salt. If someone has two years to get ready for this project, and wants desperately to participate, but can't find the requisite time to get a firm grasp on many candidates that others are considering for a top spot, I think we can reserve the right to be quizzical of their process.

[Loss]

I think we need to answer a different question first: are we moving forward with the (for lack of a better description) "wrestling in culture" subforum that has been proposed by Loss?

 

I know we've already enjoyed a little bit of latitude with this discourse outside of the normal parameters for the "Only in Pro Wrestling Only" and I don't see the immediate response to this question offering any sort of finality to this discussion.

 

Yes. I'm still trying to think through some of the issues with it and how to make rules for it, and I need to brainstorm with other mods and admins about it.

 

In short, I think the definition of "Pro Wrestling Only" doesn't necessarily mean what it meant in 2007. It still means "We don't need a Current Events folder". I don't think it means "Avoid topics that have potential to go outside the lines".

 

However, I want to be clear that the folder doesn't turn into a Current Events folder and that there is a strong pro wrestling connection to every single discussion.

 

So yes but not immediately would be the answer.

[JerryvonKramer]

Why are you talking about 10 weeks?

It's a thought-exercise in microcosm. The point is not about the specifics of the time, the point is that when you are faced with huge gaps, you have to make decisions and priorities. If Randy Savage is a gap, I'd warrant that most people would see it as a priority to fill that gap before Battlearts. I appreciate not everyone will see it that way, but everyone has heard of Randy Savage (even if they are too young to have seen him), because he is an icon, whereas lots of people voting might never have heard of Daisuke Ikeda until they came here. Daisuke Ikeda might be as big as Randy Savage in Japan, but most people taking part aren't Japanese. This isn't rocket science here. I'm saying the reasons are practical, not political.

 

 

 

The number of people who've said they didn't manage to get to WoS or some other style is telling. And those are folks who were on board from the beginning and much more committed to the project than people who came on board later or submitted a ballot without participating in the discussions. Of course it's not possible to see everything, but they gave folks two years. What's the excuse when the stuff is so accessible?

Let's say someone deep dives on WoS and then on Battlearts. They are probably giving some other style, era or promotion, lets say 70s AJPW or TNA, short shrift.

 

You said it yourself: most people aren't going to devote all of their free time to wrestling. There are other things that compete for the time. Shit, I was watching as much as 10-15 hours a week at one point and there was tons of stuff I didn't get to. In the end, you can't do it all. Something has to give and you have to make difficult cuts.

 

 

Perhaps the counter argument to that is that I needed to catch up on Randy Savage, but if I'm being honest I wouldn't vote in a poll where I had to catch up on "Randy Savage" unless I absolutely threw myself into it.

I don't think it is fair to encourage people to vote and then lambaste them for not knowing enough or not participating enough or whatever. I will defend all 151 voters because they took the time to fill out the ballot and were encouraged to vote. I don't like this idea that they are now being collectively told off for not having diverse enough tastes. I also think the vast majority of voters tried. But if one guy is off watching WoS and another is off watching Lucha from the 1980s, that's probably 1 more vote for Jim Breaks, but 1 less vote for Negro Casas, and vice versa. Just how it is.

 

I feel strongly about defending the entire voter base. I felt to an extent that they were really sucker punched as the reveal process was going on. I didn't like that.

 

Also, there was no curriculum. It was entirely up to the people participating what they watched. The onus was on the individual. This happens in every poll I participate in. There are the people who watch things and the people who don't. While I'm here let me cross reference something. You mentioned in the other thread that getting into a new worker shouldn't have any bearing on people's final list, but what was the point of the nominating period if not to pimp workers that people ought to discover, pay attention to and potentially vote for? Folks may as well have submitted a ballot based on what they'd already seen. The whole thing could have been over with in three weeks. Being excited about Breaks or Hase didn't influence your ballot? Really now?

I think that "discovery" and the enthusiasm that comes with it is a real emotion that is impossible to quell.

 

I mentioned an album from 1972: American Gothic by David Ackles. When I first read about that, I had to get a store in Cardiff -- about 30 miles from the town in which I grew up -- to order it in, especially. They had to import it in from the US. Things were harder to get hold of back then. I really loved that album, and wanted to tell a lot of people "hey, this album here is a lost classic". I get that enthusiasm and relate to it. I could probably get more animated talking about Silver Apples from 1968, a concept album people don't tend to talk about, than Sgt. Pepper which is on the front cover of magazines at least 3 or 4 times a year and talked about to death. My point was only that my enthusiasm doesn't change the fact that Sgt. Pepper is the better album. Of course, in certain circles, Ackles or Silver Apples wouldn't be seen as "discoveries", but as known quantities, in yet other circles, they aren't just known quantities but actually old hat and even overrated by the likes of me. Even if I'm bored of all those albums now, it doesn't really affect my ratings one way or the other.

 

Wrestling is smaller and less diverse than music, and to an extent, in this community virtually everything is always-already a known quantity. To quote Morrisey: "there's always someone, somewhere. With a big nose, who knows."

 

One man's discovery is another's "old hat". My point was only ever that we should try not to punish the "old hat", but rather aim for honest assessment.

 

Like I came across a baroque pop singer from the late 60s / early 70s recently, Barry Ryan. On an initial listen or two, I got excited. "Wow, is this the lost Harry Nillson!?" Upon further exploration, I figured out pretty quickly that his stuff was mostly average. Sometimes, the initial enthusiasm carries over into assessment, sometimes it doesn't.

 

Hase, Breaks, Brisco ... it carried over. AJ Styles? Much less so. Even though I still ended up ranking him.

 

I thought you made some excellent points about Jim Breaks not really seriously being scrutinised. I mean, there are things to say. His matches are samey. He has a few little tricks he leans on in every match, which after 20 years of being pimped might start to bug those who are now so high on him. I totally get your point. And it's an astute one: we need more time with the new discoveries. It can be tough because we are human. The GWE process was always going to be flawed.

[ohtani's jacket]

I'll admit that as old as I am it's difficult for me to fathom that anybody needs to fill in a gap about Randy Savage even if it personally took me years to see his pre-WWF work. But here's a legitimate question: how much Randy Savage do you need to see before you can move on to somebody else? People keep talking about deep dives, but unless you become super obsessed with Savage, you're trying to get to the bottom of some sort of argument, or you're struggling with how you feel about him, surely you can trust people to point you in the direction of his 10 best matches or something. Yeah, you're not going to be exposed to his flaws and everything, but watching too much Savage seems like a waste of time to me. Using you theoretical three hours a week, you could finish Savage in a week or maybe alternate between six different workers and clear them all in a month. IF you dedicated the time.

 

I personally think it's wrong to deep dive on a particular promotion or style as opposed to specific workers. I also realise it's pointless to be talking about this now that the project is over. Regardless of how it seems, I don't have strong feelings about the voter base or the results one way or the other. I made my peace with the process a long time ago. I'd just prefer an ideal world where everyone was super dedicated to the project, invested all of their free time in it, watched a ton of shit and argued endlessly about it. There were plenty of people who did that, but a lot of them did so privately or in other mediums such as Twitter or podcasts. The nominee threads were kind of threadbare and most of the discussion revolved around tired old subjects. I was really thankful when Dylan came and posted a ton in the final weeks even if I didn't agree with all of his takes.

I liked what you wrote about one man's discovery being another's old hat. I can't argue with that. But regardless of how new the hat is, I would still argue that the discoveries are more important than the stalwart picks. When I do a list, there's always going to be stalwart picks that I still think are the best of XYZ, but half my picks are going to be new discoveries that catapult their way up my list. That's the exciting part of taking part in the project. Especially a project that lasts TWO YEARS. If I had taken part in this project the way I usually do and come to the conclusion that the wrestlers I thought were the greatest of all-time before we started are still the greatest of all-time, I would have been sorely disappointed with myself. You could hand your ballot in on day one if that's the case.

 

Lastly, I thought I mentioned that Breaks matches aren't samey. There's at least half a dozen variations on a Breaks match. I don't know if that comes across in TWC footage, but he had different match types he'd work.

[TravJ1979]

 

The final list is a 100% fair aggregate of the community of PWO.

 

Not so sure that is the case. Perhaps the PWO of the future if a large number of the non-PWO voters stick around and become part of the community. But make up a list of all the #1 voters, and ponder how many aren't regular posters here (or haven't been outside of the GWE), along with all the ???, and there's a not insignificant number of folks who haven't been members of the community over the past 2 years, or 10 years.

 

Not saying that's a bad things. Will and Loss have talked about broadening the PWO community, and making it an inclusive site. This is smart as there are always some of us over the years who wander off, and you need to regularly put more water into the pool to make up for what comes out.

 

But it's not realistic to stretch it to be representative of what the community has been.

 

All the members of the PWO community that cared enough or could be bothered to vote, voted. Loss, and others that made the decision to let non-members vote was a good one. Otherwise, PWO would end up like the North Korea of all wrestling boards, toA.

 

I'd love for all of the non-members that voted to become members, possibly replacing those who are too elitist to be bothered with such things.

[SomethingSavage]

Too elitist? Is that really a thing around here?

Seriously.

I didn't submit a ballot, but it wasn't because that was my intention all along. Perhaps I never made it a top priority by any means, but I figured I'd have time to do it. But life happens. Work, friends, and family take priority.

In retrospect though, I'm glad I didn't submit a ballot - especially with some of the comments that have come out in reaction to some of the lists. Some people are celebrating the unique, varied selections. Others are harping on about what kind of "damage" was done to the final vote. It's the sort of melodramatic nonsense that sucks the fun out of such projects for some people.

 

I'm not saying that's the case for everyone. I'm appreciative of the thoughtful discussion and exploration the GWE has brought over the course of the past year, for sure. But some people could stand to lighten up a bit.

 

At some point, if you take these things seriously enough to belittle the OPINIONS of other people - diminishing why & how they enjoy their hobbies - then that kind of speaks more about you than it says about them, quite frankly.

[Cap]

I have been looking at this thread and the "is voting political" thread for a bit now and thinking over this stuff, running over it in my brain. They resonate with me because I think they touch on a lot of reasons why i really like the project but chose not to vote. Not voting for me - and I think I have said this elsewhere, so sorry to repeat - was the product of a lot of things, most of which was poor time management in the two weeks leading up and some expected stuff that took my attention away right around voting, but part of it was I just didn't get enough knowledge to like my own list. That is why I think the course planning/syllabus analogy is actually pretty good. All of this for me is still somewhat underdeveloped in my own mind, but I like that analogy for a few reasons.

 

First, I came at this about 6-8 months ago and really started to think about the project itself about 5 months ago. So I didn't have 2 years. I had about a semester and I actually planned my watching out accordingly. I was fortunate enough to finish and defend my dissertation in Feb. so I have had massive amounts of free time to catch up, so I wasn't working 3 hours a week, but I was still working on a time budget and just didn't get where I wanted to be. The result of me not getting there isn't important, but the idea that people are working toward a knowledge based goal in a given amount of time and must make choices about what they are looking at seems spot on. I also teach at a university (which actually might be the main reason this analogy works for me) and no matter how I design a course on a given topic the students are only exposed to a sampling of what they could be. Everyone comes in with a different background and body of knowledge to build upon, they more material over a specific amount of time, and at the end you hope they can speak with some confidence and competence to a slightly larger chunk of whatever field you are teaching in, but it is still only part. Here, all the watching was self guided (which I liked), but the premiss of time vs subject is the same.

 

This is another reason why I think it is somewhat apt here. The hierarchy of knowledge and of time to spend has been playing in the whole process. It was topic of conversation 100 times over in different form. I had 5 months and at the end of the 5 months I still felt like an undergrad who just completed a course. I think I did well the course, but I wasn't ready to write my dissertation. To echo JR's point earlier, I would say my takes on a lot of things that I have been watching lately (Lucha and Joshi particularly) should probably be taken with a grain of salt. I was like I always describe my undergrads, particularly the ambitious and motivated ones: they are like kids with new toys - they are really excited to play with them but they don't know how really so they are mostly clumsily smashing them into stuff. This, to my mind, is actually a fairly productive way to think about some of the frustrations of the list. On one hand, yes, a lot of people here have multiple doctorates in wrestling. They have a level of knowledge about it that would equal the work put into getting one's PhD. Some of us are working on an M.A. Some of us are undergrads. Some of us are just enrolling in colege On the other hand, it is wrestling and unlike schooling, the primary function is import. We watch and enjoy wrestling; that is its function. The primary purpose of watching wresting should be to enjoy it. The secondary purpose should be to turn around and contribute to a body of knowledge on it. That is where the analogy falls a little flat of course. Most schooling and coursework (particularly once you get into graduate studies) is done with the primary goal of taking the info in and turning it around to contribute. That is all an aside though. The real point here is that people are on different educational levels. Once you have a PHD you can start thinking about the book deconstructing the Americanism of pro wrestling. Some of us are just trying to understand why lucha is so fucking awesome right now. We are all working toward the same goal and should be on the same team, but in some ways its hard to find some of those common grounds and we are going to frustrate one another.

 

This is why I think both the idea of American Hegemony and the idea of good intentioned people trying to pick away at an impossible task are right. I completely buy that there are cultural influences that make American and Japanese wrestling more easily legible for a primarily mainstream western audience (which I imagine made up MOST of the voting population). It is easier for me to put on an All Japan match for the 80s than it is an EMLL match from the 80s and follow the logic of what is happening. I love lucha, but I can't articulate why I love lucha just yet. While I think the historical elements of this (mostly being discussed in the other thread) are awesome and I am interested in catching up on that sometime, I just don't know that stuff so I can only speak to the contemporary manifestations. Watching wrestling is communicative. Different kinds of wrestling are like different languages or dialects in some ways. We read wrestling. We look at it and can decipher lots of meaning from what is happening in front of us. Anyone on this board probably deciphers more meaning than the "average" fan. What people gravitate towards will be different for myriad reasons, but most people will start with a base knowledge from what they were raised on, the language (verbal, nonverbal, visual) they learned from the start and are comfortable with. This goes to the point Will has been making for a while on the podcasts that what you watched and loved in your formative years is going to shape how you make sense of wrestling and in turn shape your list. For most of that is broadly American (with lots of little dialects and regional things within that). Japan is probably second. There are communicative similarities between the two in match flow, psychology, offense, expectations, length layout that are easier to understand and feel almost intuitive and make them easier to read. Turning on lucha or battlearts or I think even Joshi to an extent rocks you out of that a bit and can be harder to get into (maybe one never does). It can be a turn off because it isn't enjoyable to some people and honestly that is the point where it is on each person to decide if they care enough about being a scholar on wrestling to push through that and learn more. So not only are we faced with the impossible task of watching so much wrestling (more than most people could ever fathom), but in some ways you are being asked to learn a new language that may or may not be fun for you if you want to push past that hegemony that exists. I would love to be able to learn as many wrestling languages as possible, to expand the field of legibility for myself as much as I can, but who knows. Will I feel that way in a year? Will I feel that way if/when my wife and I have kids? Will I feel that way when I am at my new job trying to get tenure? Will I feel that way if I lose my job? Can I imagine a world where I try to get into WOS or shoot and enjoy it and just don't at first and I am not in a time or place where i want to put in work? Yep. The point being, that hegemony exists (at least in my mind) and that is manifest and discerned primarily communicative (how and what we can read in wrestling) but there are lots perfectly good reasons why someone may not have or may not be able to get to a point of critically challenging it and that is not necessarily a knock on the individual person.

 

This isn't just a defense of an analogy. To me, unless this was going to be an exclusive voting list, the idea that this could be any more than it was is wishful thinking at best. Many people had 2 years. My guess is that at least half the voters (maybe more) had a lot less. People came at this with varying degrees of knowledge. It sounds like the logistics, the structure, and the hype of it set unreasonable expectations that people sort of faced and came to terms with at different times. The list was always going to be a survey and a snapshot (to use that trendy term that I quite like). I don't put too much stock in what this represents about the potential for the board or where the conversations here will go. The project provided more questions than answers and in hindsight that shouldn't surprise anyone, should it? I just hope it motivates people to keep watching, keep exploring, and keep engaging some of these tough questions.

[Ricky Jackson]

Personally, I think if you're a big enough wrestling fan to have stumbled on a site like this, you've probably watched enough wrestling in your life to be able to come up with a top 100 list. Maybe, like myself, you didn't participate in the "official" journey of the GWE, but I've been on a personal journey for 30 years, and nobody can tell me I don't know enough about wrestling to vote in a poll for the greatest ever