Ageism in pro wrestling

[Ricky Jackson]

Not saying I agree with it, but damn that last part was beautiful Parv

[overbooked]

The sole exception to this is wrestling, because wrestling is quantifiably, demonstrably, and undeniably worse after the death of kayfabe. It is broken and can never be fixed. I actually view it almost in Biblical terms. The Era of Kayfabe is somewhat like The Garden of Eden -- innocent mark fans getting lost in Paradise, for they know not what they possess. The post-Kayfabe era is a time when fans are Fallen: the smart fan, having eaten the forbidden fruit, now knows too much. They live in a Paradise Lost, and in time, they know not what they have lost.

 

I think this could be a new thread, as much as an example of ageism in pro wrestling, as there is so much to unpack. As much as I think I may agree with the philosophy behind it, I'm not sure it completely stands up. There were always fans who were clued up, or suspicious, or questioning. There was always a general population who were pretty sniffy about it. Wrestling was always kind-of broken. I doubt we could agree on a date when kayfabe ended, and even today there are glimpses of it still existing, in some form, depending on how you define kayfabe, which is a whole other discussion. However, I do think the shift away from "Believing" to something else is probably at the heart of ageism, as much as it is at the heart of how wrestling as a performance has changed, fandom has changed, and wrestling criticism has changed. I just think it is still hard to pin down exactly what happened, and when.

[Loss]

I don't think kayfabe means fans once thought wrestling was real. I think it means that wrestling always presented itself as completely and totally real up until a certain point in time. We're at a weird point where pre-shows and post-shows on the Network are in character, but documentaries or podcasts on the network are not. Fans are sort of expected to just know the difference rather than it being a clear, consistent application across every platform.

[GOTNW]

 

It's interesting that you say the 80s stuff just isn't the relevant older wrestling people look back to, because I don't think that's the case for 1990s or 2000s wrestling either, nor am I sure it's even the case for wrestling that is more than six months old. I can't recall a time when historical comparisons of matches were more out of style than they are now, or where people can give a match ****+ and it's considered old news within a month. I also didn't say the old stuff isn't remembered, I said it's resented, and to an extent, I do believe that to be true.

I mean that is a very real side effect of a consumerist society but when I think more about it I don't buy it one bit. People talk about "older" wrestling all the time. Wrestling that is more than a few months old always gets mentioned in people's MOTY lists. Wrestling older more than a few years gets mentioned in lists of their favourite matches. I'm not even sure how you go about doing something like that. Here's an example-I absolutely love this match.

I wrote a review for it praising it. Put it on my MOTY list. Pimped it on twitter. Sometimes mention it when I watching the Suzuki-Nakanoue stuff that came after it. I'm mentioning it here once again because I do think it is absolutely something almost everyone (at least people not grossed out by brutal PRIDE fights) would love. I mean. What more is there to do? If someone doesn't want to watch Big Japan because they watched a bunch of boring Sekimoto matches five years ago, that's their call. I think they're missing out but I can't force anyone to watch something. Generally speaking I think these days everyone has their bubble that they're not particularly interested looking outside of due to the sheer amount of wrestling out there. And if you're not around those bubbles it might some seem like nothing's remembered.

[overbooked]

I don't think kayfabe means fans once thought wrestling was real. I think it means that wrestling always presented itself as completely and totally real up until a certain point in time. We're at a weird point where pre-shows and post-shows on the Network are in character, but documentaries or podcasts on the network are not. Fans are sort of expected to just know the difference rather than it being a clear, consistent application across every platform.

 

This absolutely makes sense, but I still think it is tricky defining when the switch took place, or even if that switch has completely happened yet. WWF/E has flirted with it to some degree or other for at least 30 years. I'm not sure there was ever a real Garden of Eden, as wrestling has always been a bit shaky on doing kayfabe right. it is just more obvious and deliberate now.

 

Lucha and puro still feel real, although for all I know the commentary might be breaking kayfabe all over the place. The only modern stuff I keep up with in any way is lucha, and that is probably because it still feels Garden of Eden-ish. I really struggle to get my head around post-kayfabe modern wrestling. Am I meant to suspend disbelief? Or view it purely as an artistic spectacle? Or enjoy the weird faux-shoot stuff in the middle? Perhaps those anxieties at at the root of any ageism I have towards the modern product.

[JerryvonKramer]

I would define the moment as being from the first "this is awesome" chant.

[JerryvonKramer]

I think it's less about the specifics of knowing wrestling is / is not real, and more about a certain type of self-awareness, a loss of innocence.

 

A child is cute up until the point where they become cognisant of their own cuteness; perhaps worried that they are no longer getting the attention they once were, the child hence "acts up" and thereby, paradoxically, ceases to be cute. The wrestling audience is that child. And the wrestlers and promoters themselves are the parents who give the attention-seeking child what they want. Unfortunately, there is no going back after that, as the child goes on to become a stroppy, and spoiled teenager -- ironically losing that newly gained self-awareness, but never regaining the innocence.

 

As Vince Russo, Paul Heyman and Eric Bischoff conspired to trash every single old-school principle there was, a whole generation of wrestling fans found the internet and mistook mere athleticism for good work. They forgot that wrestling was a morality play. They forgot that you need storytelling and grand themes of good versus evil or establishment versus rebellion as well as suplexes and backflips. They saw Benoit and Eddie, and demanded Daniel Bryan and AJ Styles; they didn't understand that wrestling was just as much about the The Crushers and Bruisers, Strongbows and Hogans. Just like Russo, Heyman and Bischoff, they thought they were smarter than the people who had been producing wrestling for the past three decades. The super-indie scene brought the workrate but forgot about the booking, the power of an angle, the vitality of strong character, the importance of out-of-ring values writ large on the moral canvas of the wrestling ring. And in this way, the heart and soul of wrestling was lost. As Jim Cornette and Jim Ross ranted, a legion of the so-called smart fans wrote them off as grumpy old men failing to move with the times. And in this way, the lessons of the past were forgotten.

[Matt D]

I feel that NXT works, as a territory, on a week to week basis despite all of that and for the most part, despite its fans.

 

I think you're undervaluing structural issues, whether they be twitter, the rise of MMA and sports-driven casuals going that way, or the sheer amount of TV that WWE has to produce now without filler.

[Loss]

Doesn't TV have filler every week? And is that a rule? And who made that rule? And when was it made? And why was it made? And was it a choice that was right on the merits? Was it conscious? Was it well thought out? I'd like to explore that.

[Matt D]

The argument would be that it was due to the Monday Night War and that we've only seen a return to jobber matches (in very specific situations) over the last couple of years, and really, save for Ryback, just in the last month.

[El-P]

I think he's undervaluing the fact that we're in 2016 and not in 1970 too.

 

I love the idea that Eric Bischoff, Vince Russo and Paul Heyman of all people are responsible for guys like AJ Styles & Daniel Bryan (two objectively great, great wrestlers) becoming stars in the 10's. Eric "nWo Hollywood" Bischoff, Vince "David Arquette" Russo and Paul "Sandman & RVD" Heyman. Oh, the hilarity.

 

And yes, Jim Ross & Jim Cornette (whom I have defended for way long before I just couldn't stand some of his shit) are acting like two old fucks lost in an era that doesn't exist. Lucha Underground rules, people.

[El-P]

I think it's less about the specifics of knowing wrestling is / is not real, and more about a certain type of self-awareness, a loss of innocence.

 

Ok, seriously Parv, what are you smoking ? Loss of innocence ? Pro-wrestling as a carny trick to get "simple" (to be polite) people spend their money to watch fake fights.

[JerryvonKramer]

If you read carefully I made no such causal connection.

[El-P]

I know. The evil "smart marks" wanted flippy-flops and the Russo/Bischoff/Heyman triad destroyed the "values" of old-school, and together they fucked it up because they all thought they were "smarter". Ok. You're channeling Corny ?

 

(BTW, where is Vince McMahon responsability in all of this ? You realize he, and not Russo, had the final say on the Attitude Era. He put Stephy into creative. He's responsible for the dull monopoly, crazy TNA outsider aside, that is responsible for the shape of the current scene.)

[jdw]

My head spins.

[The Fray Movement]

To be fair, I think Dave Meltzer is more responsible for killing the business than anything "Russo", "Heyman," & "Bischoff" ever did. Without his newsletter, Bushiroad and its awful booking and mediocre ring work would never recieve the attention it does today. Because of "Dave", we've got "men" like "Omega" jerking around for half the year and then winning Thesz/Flair because he had three "decent" matches at the end of the most overrated round robin tournament in professional wrestling.

 

Don't blame Paul E., or "Vince", or Eric. Blame Meltzer and probably David Bixenspan too.

 

Dirt sheets are the worst, man.

[sek69]

Man, all I gotta say is Johnny's gonna be so pissed when he finds out ya'll got into his stash.

[Parties]

As Vince Russo, Paul Heyman and Eric Bischoff conspired to trash every single old-school principle there was, a whole generation of wrestling fans found the internet and mistook mere athleticism for good work. They forgot that wrestling was a morality play. They forgot that you need storytelling and grand themes of good versus evil or establishment versus rebellion as well as suplexes and backflips. They saw Benoit and Eddie, and demanded Daniel Bryan and AJ Styles; they didn't understand that wrestling was just as much about the The Crushers and Bruisers, Strongbows and Hogans. Just like Russo, Heyman and Bischoff, they thought they were smarter than the people who had been producing wrestling for the past three decades. The super-indie scene brought the workrate but forgot about the booking, the power of an angle, the vitality of strong character, the importance of out-of-ring values writ large on the moral canvas of the wrestling ring.

 

Most fans who actively watch modern wrestling would happily welcome modern versions of Bruisers, Crushers, Hogans, and even Strongbows on their weekly TV. Benoit, Eddy, Bryan, and Styles would have gotten over in 1950/1970/1990 working their style or the style of the bygone era. To fault the fans is to fault the victim. I don't like "This is awesome" chants either, but they're not the problem or even particularly emblematic of the problem. The blame should be placed upon WCW killing wrestling's southern roots, 20 years of bad WWE booking, the homogenization of talent, Vince losing touch, and largely uninspired indie bookers who lack the imagination or knowledge to stop parroting WWE (TNA) or avoid cringe-worthy hackery (ROH, Lucha Underground, more TNA, even EVOLVE to a degree, etc.)

 

Keep in mind that we're saying all of this at a moment when WWE's presentation and direction seem better than they have in years, lucha is as good as it's been in a decade, and numerous indies around the U.S. are booking fantastic matches and characters. Even some of the more flawed companies cited above still have a lot of good matches and TV segments. RevPro and all the other wink-wink kayfabe-soiling idiocy happening in the UK scene right isn't really representative of the big picture, which feels healthier and truer to the spirit of wrestling's old guard than it has in some time.

[fxnj]

I don't think kayfabe means fans once thought wrestling was real. I think it means that wrestling always presented itself as completely and totally real up until a certain point in time. We're at a weird point where pre-shows and post-shows on the Network are in character, but documentaries or podcasts on the network are not. Fans are sort of expected to just know the difference rather than it being a clear, consistent application across every platform.

Watch some news reel footage from the 30's or 40's and you'll hear commentary pretty openly mocking wrestling and not even trying to treat it as a legitimate sport. My grandpa only needed to see one match back in the day to realize the whole thing was fake. The kayfabe situation is far more nuanced than it simple being "alive" then "dead," and the 70's-80's period where it was treated as a big deal is a relatively brief period in the overall history of US wrestling. I'd also argue the emphasis placed on protecting the business during that period is more indicative of the lowest-common-denominator crowd being pandered to than anything to do with the working style as stuff from that period is generally far more distanced from a real fight than stuff before or since.

[El-P]

 

I don't think kayfabe means fans once thought wrestling was real. I think it means that wrestling always presented itself as completely and totally real up until a certain point in time. We're at a weird point where pre-shows and post-shows on the Network are in character, but documentaries or podcasts on the network are not. Fans are sort of expected to just know the difference rather than it being a clear, consistent application across every platform.

Watch some news reel footage from the 30's or 40's and you'll hear commentary pretty openly mocking wrestling and not even trying to treat it as a legitimate sport. My grandpa only needed to see one match back in the day to realize the whole thing was fake. The kayfabe situation is far more nuanced than it simple being "alive" then "dead," and the 70's-80's period where it was treated as a big deal is a relatively brief period in the overall history of US wrestling. I'd also argue the emphasis placed on protecting the business during that period is more indicative of the lowest-common-denominator crowd being pandered to than anything to do with the working style as stuff from that period is generally far more distanced from a real fight than stuff before or since.

 

Word. If you listen to the french announcer Roger Couderc (who was awesome) during the Golden Years of French Catch in the 50's and 60's, there's a definite "wink-wink" element in the way he treats the whole thing, although never mocking pro-wrestling. My father used to sneak in with his friends to watch L'Ange Blanc and such at that time, and he never thought wrestling wasn't fake. The whole "kayfabe era when people believed it" never really existed. And the people who really thought it was real, well, it kinda speaks poorly about them and the way pro-wrestling were using their lack of culture and intelligence.

[JerryvonKramer]

And so we come to the inevitable slew of counter claims: kayfabe never existed, and people never believed; Russ Davis and Joe Garigiola were both a bit nudge-nudge wink-wink on commentary; wrestling is actually really good now; the 70s and 80s are outlier periods in the history of kayfabe; there were newspaper articles exposing the business; people always mocked wrestling; coal miners in the 1930s actually discussed workrate; and so on and so on and so forth. And blah blah blah.

 

None of it changes the fact that if you watch wrestling before 2001 you generally get crowds who cheer and boo, and who seem genuinely invested in what they are watching, while if you watch it after crowds seem more interested in getting themselves over and voicing their two-bit opinions on "booking direction". To pretend nothing has changed is to be blind to something so obvious and plain to see that it should not really need pointing out. Sometimes we don't need more than vernacular intuition to prove a point, and in this case, the evidence is so overwhelmingly in favour of what I've said, that objections should be treated as token jobber offense.

 

"Fight forever, fight forever" - on reflection, that match was a cornerstone moment in wrestling history: perhaps the largest spontaneous act of posturing ever witnessed, as 9,000 people in Dallas at once want to be seen as knowing who Shinsuke Nakamura actually is. A bizarre moment in which a crowd en masse shows off it's "smart" credentials. Yes, Dallas, we respect how smart you all are.

 

Let's apportion some specific blame:

 

Paul Heyman - chiefly responsible for the self-aware crowd that gets itself over.

 

Eric Bischoff - chiefly responsible for destroying Southern wrestling and giving Vince a monopoly.

 

Vince Russo - chiefly responsible for inculcating insufferable cutesy post-modern presentation in which wrestling becomes a knowing parody of itself.

 

Dave Meltzer - chiefly responsible for producing Scott Keith, CRZ, The Rick, and a hundred other fans who knew better who in turn created many thousands more fans who knew better.

 

Gabe Sapolsky - chiefly responsible for commentators and wrestlers acknowledging and pandering to "critical acclaim"

[overbooked]

Let's apportion some specific blame:

 

Paul Heyman - chiefly responsible for the self-aware crowd that gets itself over.

 

 

I'm no Heyman fan, but I think this is too simplistic. He just harnessed a Philly crowd who always had those inclinations, and made that behaviour more acceptable and mainstream. But considering how irony soaked the nineties were (in the wider culture, not just wrestling), that was probably inevitable anyway.

 

I'm also surprised you haven't got Vince McMahon on that list. WWF was hardly the last bastion of kayfabe, or crowds that cared.

[Matt D]

Obviously the real enemy is Martin Luther.

[El-P]

Eric Bischoff - chiefly responsible for destroying Southern wrestling and giving Vince a monopoly.

 

Yes. Don't let the fact in the way of your ridiculous reactionnary narrative. WCW was drawing flies in 93 before Bischoff came in. WCW beat WWF at its own game in 96 and jump-started arguably the biggest boom in wrestling history. Then you know what happened. Bischoff may be partly responsible for WCW's demise, but the idea that he gave Vince the monopoly is a plain lie.

 

As far as the cult of southern wrestling as it was some kind of superior and pure essence of US pro-wrestling, well, it's also ridiculous. Plus, Dallas, Florida, Mid-South surely died because of Bischoff, much like Memphis became a indy because of Evil Uncle Eric. The Mid-Atlantic territory died the day it was sold to Turner. So, blame the Crokies I guess.

 

Dave Meltzer - chiefly responsible for producing Scott Keith, CRZ, The Rick, and a hundred other fans who knew better who in turn created many thousands more fans who knew better.

 

Ah, the anti-Dave Meltzer point now. Gotta love it. Well, first, Jim Cornette and some other guy whose name eludes me invented the star rating. So there. And if we have to blame Meltzer for something, blame him for *us* then.

 

Also, I love the idea that a crowd full of people actually having fun is a bad thing. Really, I'm annoyed as anyone by some of these chants, but the line has to be drawn at some point too. Pro-wrestling is entertainment. People going to a pro-wrestling show and having fun *with* or *against* the show are entitled to do so. What about those "smart marks" chanting "We want Flair!" at the GAB 90 ? Were they guilty of being corrupted by "Evil Meltzerism" already ? Of because they were chanting for Flair and shat on a crappy show, they were decent old-school fans still in the "Garden of Eden of kayfabe" ( ) ?

 

And yes, kayfabe existed. Form the pro-wrestler's point of view. But let's not pretend the people ate it up without thinking. I never, ever "believed" in pro-wrestling, not for one second.

[El-P]

I'm no Heyman fan, but I think this is too simplistic. He just harnessed a Philly crowd who always had those inclinations, and made that behaviour more acceptable and mainstream.

 

"Shane sucks Johnny's dick". Philly. NWA. 1989. Oh, evil Heyman, you evil boy.