Ageism in pro wrestling

[JerryvonKramer]

 

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.

 

After watching dozens and dozens of Philly cards from the Vince Sr era, it is true that the crowd was a little snarkier than the average. There was a contingent who cheered Larry Z even while he was feuding with Bruno. There were Backlund booers, and Billy Graham cheerers.

 

Vince Sr, a booker who understood that he and HE alone dictated what the crowd got never once wavered, not ONCE, in giving in to that crowd. He basically grabbed them by the scruff of the neck and pushed their faces in the sand and said "screw you, I don't care what you do, you're having THIS. Cheer this guy, boo this guy" And if you watch those shows, the dick element in the crowd is mostly silenced by the end of a title match. The idea that Philly crowds couldn't be tamed is patent nonsense. I've watched them give Backlund plenty of ovations and I've watched them boo the shit out of Sgt. Slaughter and even ostensibly "cool" heels like Don Muraco "the beach bum".

 

Paul Heyman -- lacking the strength and conviction of Sr, more desparate I guess to create SOMEthing -- just pandered to those elements in the crowd rather than moving to curb them. The internet, not knowing as much as it thinks, mistook lazy, bad, gutless booking for something innovative. It wasn't innovative, it was a booker trying to give a crowd what it wanted. Yes, he created a nice cult atmosphere for a while, but history shows it's not the way to do business. And ECW failed.

 

Also, the idea that it was simply wrestling following the "sign of the times" is pretty ridiculous to me. The 60s, 70s and 80s all had their fair share of popular counter-culture and anti-establishment types. And wrestling promotors harnessed them in every decade. What they didn't do is lose control of their crowds because ... they knew how to book.

[El-P]

Yeah, pro-wrestling has always been a harvest for harnessing counter-culture.

[ohtani's jacket]

The real enemy is the internet. In which case Parv should go off the grid.

[overbooked]

 

Also, the idea that it was simply wrestling following the "sign of the times" is pretty ridiculous to me. The 60s, 70s and 80s all had their fair share of popular counter-culture and anti-establishment types. And wrestling promotors harnessed them in every decade. What they didn't do is lose control of their crowds because ... they knew how to book.

 

 

I think irony and cynicism went from being counter-cultural to just plain cultural in the late 80s and 90s. I think it might be worth re-reading David Foster Wallace's take on TV, fiction and irony to see if it resonates with this discussion.

 

It is not just a case of wrestling following the "sign of the times", more that the audience, and popular culture, had fundamentally changed. Cynicism towards wrestling had always existed, but by the late 80s/early 90s one of the primary methods of consuming popular culture was to view it through jaundiced, cynical eyes and popular culture either adapted (with more post-modern or self-aware content) or looked horribly out-of-date.

 

I'm not sure knowing how to book was enough when playing it straight was increasingly not an option, and even if you did, the audience would just view it through the prism of irony, not sincerity.

[JerryvonKramer]

 

 

Also, the idea that it was simply wrestling following the "sign of the times" is pretty ridiculous to me. The 60s, 70s and 80s all had their fair share of popular counter-culture and anti-establishment types. And wrestling promotors harnessed them in every decade. What they didn't do is lose control of their crowds because ... they knew how to book.

 

 

I think irony and cynicism went from being counter-cultural to just plain cultural in the late 80s and 90s. I think it might be worth re-reading David Foster Wallace's take on TV, fiction and irony to see if it resonates with this discussion.

 

It is not just a case of wrestling following the "sign of the times", more that the audience, and popular culture, had fundamentally changed. Cynicism towards wrestling had always existed, but by the late 80s/early 90s one of the primary methods of consuming popular culture was to view it through jaundiced, cynical eyes and popular culture either adapted (with more post-modern or self-aware content) or looked horribly out-of-date.

 

I'm not sure knowing how to book was enough when playing it straight was increasingly not an option, and even if you did, the audience would just view it through the prism of irony, not sincerity.

 

 

So you're saying don't blame Heyman, blame Seinfeld, Beavis and Butthead and Clarissa Explains It All?

[Matt D]

Melissa Joan Hart is a big fan. She's probably a secret Stu niece.

[El-P]

It is not just a case of wrestling following the "sign of the times", more that the audience, and popular culture, had fundamentally changed. Cynicism towards wrestling had always existed, but by the late 80s/early 90s one of the primary methods of consuming popular culture was to view it through jaundiced, cynical eyes and popular culture either adapted (with more post-modern or self-aware content) or looked horribly out-of-date.

 

And really, ECW was as "relevant" as a pro-wrestling company could. But the Raven character showed up in 1995. Kobain had already killed himself. Grunge was dead. ECW used a Guns'n'Roses video for their yearly big event in the mid to late 90's. Gun's & Roses, people. And so on. Of course they were still way ahead of any other pro-wrestling company.

 

Still waiting to a female wrestler coming out to bubblebum bass. Use Hannah Diamond before she's yesterday's news. She almost already is.

[JerryvonKramer]

Melissa Joan Hart is a big fan. She's probably a secret Stu niece.

 

She was to Hogan in the 90s, what Molly Ringwald was to him in the 80s

[overbooked]

 

 

So you're saying don't blame Heyman, blame Seinfeld, Beavis and Butthead and Clarissa Explains It All?

 

 

I'm saying let's not critique pro wrestling purely within the bubble of pro wrestling. There were/are broader trends around irony for irony's sake, self-conscious narratives and a general distrust of sincerity (especially when it is clear that the sincerity is false - in a TV show, ad campaign or pro wrestling match).

 

You've supplied examples of that shift, and how mainstream that shift became. It would be easy to do the same in music, fiction, advertising, politics, "real" sport, even. How people consumed popular culture, and what that popular culture became, were greater influences on pro wrestling than, say, some guy writing a newsletter.

[JerryvonKramer]

 

So you're saying don't blame Heyman, blame Seinfeld, Beavis and Butthead and Clarissa Explains It All?

I'm saying let's not critique pro wrestling purely within the bubble of pro wrestling. There were/are broader trends around irony for irony's sake, self-conscious narratives and a general distrust of sincerity (especially when it is clear that the sincerity is false - in a TV show, ad campaign or pro wrestling match).

 

You've supplied examples of that shift, and how mainstream that shift became. It would be easy to do the same in music, fiction, advertising, politics, "real" sport, even. How people consumed popular culture, and what that popular culture became, were greater influences on pro wrestling than, say, some guy writing a newsletter.

 

I don't necessarily disagree with this, but it still doesn't mean that you have to book to pander to heel fans.

 

I mean, think of old surfer Sting -- slightly earlier time, sure -- but there are plenty of annoying smart ass elements to his character. It occurred to me during one ep of WTBBP that Sting is essentially a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle ... his personality is basically Bart Simpson. Yet, Sting, despite being a smart ass, could still be booked as a proper babyface. I mean for all the excesses of the Atittude Era, even Austin was booked as a proper babyface -- just one with attitude.

 

You can harnass things like irony or sarcasm or whatever, without making the "dick fans" feel like they are the most important people on earth.

[overbooked]

I mean for all the excesses of the Atittude Era, even Austin was booked as a proper babyface -- just one with attitude.

You can harnass things like irony or sarcasm or whatever, without making the "dick fans" feel like they are the most important people on earth.

 

 

I'm not sure Austin was booked as a proper babyface, I always felt he was in many ways acting as an old-school heel, which within the context of the nineties was going to cheered. We talk about the double-turn, but how much did Austin actually change, and how much was it just the audience viewing him in a different light?

 

I agree that pandering to dick fans isn't great, but when the whole culture is full of dick fans wrestling was screwed. Pander to them and lose what made wrestling work. Or ignore them and become completely irrelevant. I'm not convinced there was a way out.

[JerryvonKramer]

What is the real difference between Austin and someone like Magnum TA or even Dick the Bruiser?

 

There's a certain streak of American individualist values running through them all. No one tells any of them what to do! Libiterian heroes pretty much. So we're meant to cheer when Magnum steals a kiss from Baby Doll (she LIKES it!), or Bruiser grabs a chair and smashes it over the head of that stuck up Bockwinkel, or Austin when gives a stunner to his boss.

 

Also, Mr. McMahon -- much like Tully Blanchard or Bobby Heenan -- was a lying, scheming and cheating coward.

 

I can't think of many readings of Austin's main feud in which he doesn't come out as the more morally upstanding one out of him and the various Corporation members. He might have slugged beer and shown the middle finger, but he wasn't a coward and he stood for freedom against oppression.

 

I think Austin's novelty value is much overplayed. There's ALWAYS been that sort of babyface anti-hero in American wrestling.

[El-P]

So we're meant to cheer when Magnum steals a kiss from Baby Doll (she LIKES it!)

 

Pro-wrestling was better when you could cheer for sexual assault.

[overbooked]

Perhaps, but Austin feels like a more extreme (no pun intended) example of the genre. And the early Austin/McMahon narrative was around McMahon wanting a clean-cut babyface as his champion, not some sweary, violent, anti-establishment guy. That feels new, as it wasn't just an anti-hero fighting a heel, but the heel positioning himself (at least initially) as the moral one.

 

Austin felt like a watershed as it was very hard to go back to traditional babyfaces. But then I suspect that was the case more generally across the board - anti-heroes were/are an easier sell than the cookie-cutter heroes of the past.

 

More broadly speaking, I think flirting with irony was a dangerous game for a genre that needs to play it straight to work. If Lance Russell had played things with a nod and wink Memphis wouldn't have been Memphis. There was that recent New York Times article on everything being pro wrestling. The funny thing is that everything is, except pro wrestling. There are real parallels between wrestling and say the Kardashians or The Only Way Is Essex. It is all about the unreal presenting as real. And to do that you need to maintain the universe, play it straight, keep the irony out. I'm not sure pro wrestling has done that. And when the audience is there, during the performance, it is very difficult to keep the irony and cynicism at a distance.

 

I'm not sure any booking can change this, beyond something radical. Which is probably MMA.

[funkdoc]

 

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 think this is more a function of the age of the people involved. my buddies in their 30s still bring up the Attitude Era all the time - they absolutely love D-X to this day, to refute another talking point i often see on this board.

 

my suspicion here is that the overall smart-fan scene trended much older in the 90s & before. think of how many of the big names there already had kids & families at the time, and compare it to the number of teens who were taken seriously at all. the community being built around newsletters & tape trading made it far less accessible to younger folks, with your Bixes as the exception to the rule. nowadays it's all about the internet & social media, which are easier than ever for kids to explore.

 

i think that's a major reason the community seems less interested in history than it did back then. by and large, regardless of era, younger people haven't cared much for past history in any avenue...and we're seeing more and more college-age or younger folks among the relevant voices in this sphere.

 

another factor to consider is preference for shorter pieces of entertainment. there's more competition than ever on that front, and more and more media is trending longform - think writing & video games, or the decline of film dramas in favor of full TV series. in my experience, this leads people to have their 1 or 2 main "things" where they make that time commitment, while taking a "sampler platter" approach to everything else.

 

i would argue that this drastically hurts the appeal of a lot of non-Vince wrestling from the 80s and before, since so many of the great matches are 30-60 minutes. that's to say nothing of cases like Portland & Memphis where the hardcore fans say you need to watch entire years of TV. that's just not happening if you don't already have an attachment to that style/era, or wrestling isn't the main thing you nerd out over - too much other stuff to catch up on! modern wrestling is much more bite-sized in comparison, and i would argue that's more important than the generation gap in many cases.

[JerryvonKramer]

Have they no sense of shame?

[jdw]

 

So we're meant to cheer when Magnum steals a kiss from Baby Doll (she LIKES it!)

 

Pro-wrestling was better when you could cheer for sexual assault.

 

 

Also nothing like running a sexual assault that's "okay" because "she wanted it".

[jdw]

 

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.

 

 

The Evil Meltzerism Theory is one of the dumbest fucking things ever.

[JerryvonKramer]

 

 

So we're meant to cheer when Magnum steals a kiss from Baby Doll (she LIKES it!)

 

Pro-wrestling was better when you could cheer for sexual assault.

Also nothing like running a sexual assault that's "okay" because "she wanted it".

Loving the 90s reunion lads. But what point is being made here? Are you suggesting that Tully vs. Magnum is a feud we should not rate highly on moral grounds?

[JerryvonKramer]

 

 

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.

The Evil Meltzerism Theory is one of the dumbest fucking things ever.

Less evil Meltzer and more every Tom, Dick and Harry with a keyboard thinking that they were Dave Meltzer. Even you could manage the subtle distinction between those two things. Perhaps.

 

Hey, remember that time you and Meltzer went to Tokyo!

[jdw]

 

 

 

So we're meant to cheer when Magnum steals a kiss from Baby Doll (she LIKES it!)

Pro-wrestling was better when you could cheer for sexual assault.

Also nothing like running a sexual assault that's "okay" because "she wanted it".

Loving the 90s reunion lads. But what point is being made here? Are you suggesting that Tully vs. Magnum is a feud we should not rate highly on moral grounds?

 

 

I can't speak for Jerome, but...

 

One can enjoy the Tully vs Magnum feud while also finding the whole "she likes it!" stuff uncomfortable bullshit.

 

It's a bit like being a Dylan fan while also understanding he was a royal shit to a lot of women in his life, including in a lot of his highly praised music which is at times uncomfortable to listen to and think deeply about when rubbing up against him being a fuckhead in that way.

 

Clear?

 

Or do you think wrestling fans are too stone cold stupid that they only can enjoy things 100% and that any 1%+ that they are critical of or find annoying or find offensive means they can only HATE!!!! it?

[JerryvonKramer]

I think we should all ruminate on the exceptionally dark moral compass of David Crockett. It has occurred to me many times that Tully is more or less in the right for much of that feud.

 

My original point was that Magnum, Austin and Bruiser were all libiterian heroes. They stand up mainly for freedom, and a particular understanding of freedom at that (see Isaiah Berlin, negative liberty). They were anti-heroes designed to appeal to men who could live vicariously through their exploits. They could do things that these men -- perhaps brow-beaten at work, or pussywhipped by their wives -- would likely not dare to in their own lives. I do not think this type of hero is a uniquely 90s thing, or that it came out of smart fan culture or dick fan crowds.

[Matt D]

I watched Sting vs DDP from 99. I forgot how pervasive signs that were about the people who made them were back then.

 

The self-aggrandizement of wrestling fans has gone from irritating signs that have nothing to do with the actual wrestling in the late 90s to people with far too little fulfillment and accomplishment in their real lives running Twitter gimmicks.

[Parties]

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.

 

No one here is saying it hasn’t changed. But it’s ultimately incumbent upon the bookers to guide said fans, with the acknowledgment that sadly, neither fan nor booker will ever be able to put the genie back in the bottle and pretend that Russo never happened. “This is awesome” chants are lame, but I don’t think they’re ill-intentioned. Deriding fans for viewing wrestling with a somewhat cheeky, self-aware eye is hopeless. They’re just trying to enjoy the show in a way that is truer to their knowledge of wrestling than that of the old ladies in Memphis who’d hit Jimmy Hart with their handbags. A smart booker could get audiences back to some of that old “cheer face, boo heel” sentiment. We saw glimmers of it in the Bayley-Sasha-Izzy scenario. But it will take great writing, and there are seemingly no great writers in today’s wrestling outside of maybe Ryan Ward on a good day. The fault is with the myriad of wrestling bookers and performers (in WWE and beyond) who think face/heel dynamics are passe, or make their shows look cartoonish.

 

There was a Kevin Steen interview a while back that got me thinking: most wrestlers today aren’t willing to be genuine heels. And they probably live healthier, better-adjusted lives because of it. The same is true of white meat babyfaces. The performers just aren’t willing to live that tough life of past wrestling generations: to make those severe sacrifices that kayfabe demanded, or risk looking foolish. Add to that the common misconception that MMA succeeds via fighters "behaving like their true selves" sans face/heel personas (clearly untrue). The sad irony of course is that pro wrestlers would make more money and ultimately look less foolish if they lived their gimmicks more. But to ask a real person to walk around in 2016 behaving like Bruiser Brody or Eddie Graham while they’re at the hotel bar is difficult for many of the workers. It’s why many of them go to their rooms and play video games after hours, or drop all pretense and play said video games on their kayfabe-breaking YouTube shows. Most of them don’t want to live the shadowy, vagabond wrestling life of yesteryear. Yesteryear produced a lot of lone wolf alcoholic/addict weirdos in chronic pain.

 

When overbooked talks about “jaundiced, cynical eyes”, the first thing that came to mind was the way that mid-80s David Letterman had Vince Jr. appear on his show in that “Late Night baby” segment, then proceeded to openly mock Vince as an uptight square. It was kind of a dick move, but still a telling moment that illustrates how abrasive, hip media types lambast wrestling. Even wrestling fans are prone to then begin viewing Vince the way that Letterman did.

 

Lastly: Sting was not Bart Simpson. Sting was Poochie the Rapping Dog, which is why he wasn’t a draw and comes off as terribly dated today. And while I’m by no means a Libertarian, I assure you that Austin and Magnum weren’t Libertarians either. Kane is a Libertarian. Who’s the Penn Jillette of wrestling? Paul Heyman? Jeff Jones? The Sinister Minister? Jim Mitchell might be one, I dunno. Point being that most American Libertarians are pale nerds in bad suits, not jacked maniacs flooring dune buggies through canyons while pounding Steveweisers.

 

Yes, Dallas, we respect how smart you all are.

 

Dallas really doesn’t give a damn what we think. Those fans aren’t posturing to score message board points: they’re drinking beers and shouting, which in its own way is truer to your mourned old spirit of wrestling than the microanalytical autopsies from-on-high that what we all indulge in here. To blame someone like Meltzer for cultivating online insider knowledge in casual fans is particularly silly when doing so *on an internet wrestling message board.* We are all just as infected as the supposed plebes who you wish to condemn. We are also at a moment culturally across the western world in which the Masters of the Universe are trying to find the right mix of “grabbing the masses by the scruff” and “giving the people what they want.” Elites vs. Populists, no holds barred: the hottest ticket in town.

[Johnny Sorrow]

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

Please, if these dum dums had smoked some weed they'd have lightened the fuck up. 😀