Ageism in pro wrestling

[Johnny Sorrow]

My head spins.

 

Must be a low orbit.

 

 

HIII-YOO!

[JerryvonKramer]

For some reason, the forum software is not letting me quote Parties, so I can't quite make the post I wanted to. You'll have to imagine the relevant bits of his post I want to quote.

 

"Stuff"

 

Those bookers should never have been allowed within an inch of the wrestling business in the first place. And that "cheeky self-aware eye" is the most pernicious thing ever to afflict pro wrestling.

 

"Stuff"

 

This is why wrestling isn't as good now as it was before. What sort of lilly-liveried Epicurean sauce is this?

 

"Stuff"

 

Fred Blassie is turning in his grave.

 

"Stuff"

 

That's why so many of us are still talking about those weirdos thirty, in some cases forty or fifty years on. They are interesting, unique, and not like normal people.

 

"Stuff"

 

If they didn't stand for the moral foundation of Liberty, what did they stand for?

 

"Stuff"

 

I don't believe not even for a second that more than a quarter of those fans in attendance that night had even seen Nakamura before that night. So if they don't care what we think, why were they doing everything in their power to come across as of Nakamura was a living diety to them?

 

"Stuff"

 

"Fight forever, fight forever"

 

No amount of beer ever consumed can justify that shit.

[JerryvonKramer]

Part 2:

 

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.

The people need to be tamed, or else they do stupid shit like vote for Brexit and decimate the UK economy ... Or ruin wrestling by putting themselves over ... for ... No particular reason at all. The people en masse are a great hazard, a great irrational beast.

 

Machiavelli has a good passage on this somewhere. See Discourses on Livy, Book 1, Chapter 29: "Which is more ungrateful: a people or a prince?" Or, indeed, the entirety of The Prince.

 

----

 

Incidentally, and this is disconnected from the rest of my post and the argument I've been laying out in this thread: he also has a good passage on the overall topic of this thread in the Discourses (Book 2, Preface), although on this, ever the pragmatist, he would disagree with my stance:

 

Men always praise (but not always reasonably) the ancient times and find fault with the present; and they are such partisans of things past, that they celebrate not only that age which has been recalled to their memory by known writers, but those also (being now old) which they remember having seen in their youth.

Here's the kicker:

 

Which thing would be true if men throughout all the periods of their lives had the same judgment and the same appetites. But as these vary (although the times do not vary), things cannot appear the same to those men who have other appetites, other delights, and other considerations in their old age than in their youth. For as men wane (when they age) in strength but grow in judgment and prudence, so it is that those things which in their youth appeared supportable and good, will turn out (as they grow old) unsupportable and bad, and where they ought to blame their judgment, they blame the times. In addition to this, human appetites being insatiable (because by nature they have to be able to and want to desire everything, and to be able to effect little for themselves because of fortune), there arises a continuous discontent in the human mind, and a weariness of the things they possess; which makes them find fault with the present times, praise the past, and desire the future, although in doing this they are not moved by any reasonable cause.

If there's any argument to be made against the things I've said, this is surely it.

[El-P]

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?

 

Loving that new "90's mad" gimmick about me, who's spent the last year reviewing and actually finding good shit in old TNA, who praised the hell out of every NXT PPV and who's maybe the biggest Lucha Underground fan on the board. But "that dated Takada guy" is my gimmick I guess. Anyway.

 

The fact is, yes, Magnum, or any babyface "stealing a kiss" from a woman heel was and is even more uncomfortable, and the "she likes it!" line is pretty disgusting. Anyway.

 

As far as Austin just being Crusher/Magnum 2.0, well, I know you're obsessed with the idea that nothing new is ever good and nothing good is ever new, but not really, Austin was different from any other big babyface, even rather heelish ones (which Crushed and Magnum never were). Austin was a beer drinking maniac who didn't give a shit about anyone but himself. Libertarian ? That's JBL, not Austin.

 

"Fight forever, fight forever"

 

No amount of beer ever consumed can justify that shit.

 

Seriously now, what the fuck is so wrong about this ? Was it way better when good ol' wrestling fan from the Garden of Eden were chanting "USA !" at any "evil" foreign heels, because the good ol' US of A is da best country in the world and fuck any other culture, or classic "faggots !" chants at effeminate looking heels ? Im sorry, but a crowd having fun chanting Fandango's music theme or even lame and simpleton "You've stil got it !" is a million time less offensive and at least doens't make me ashame of being a pro-wrestling fan (which is not always easy).

 

The people need to be tamed, or else they do stupid shit like vote for Brexit and decimate the UK economy ...

 

"The people should be tamed" is not even libertarian. It's rather fascist actually.

 

(great post by Parties BTW)

[JerryvonKramer]

If you engage in knock-down arguments for the sake of the knocking down, you end up losing understanding and nuance. El-P's "reply" here is a classic example. I shall demonstrate:

 

"The people should be tamed" is not even libertarian. It's rather fascist actually.

Here this is some real verbal slight of hand and some slippage.

 

I argued: "Austin and other anti-heroes primarily stood for an American concept of liberty, broadly they are libertarian".

 

I also argued: "Bookers need to control their crowds, not let crowds control them." And as an ancillary point: "The people in general don't know their arses from their elbows, as proven by recent history, and indeed pointed out by Machiavelli".

 

Notice how in El-P's lazy flash reply, in which he is seeking not really to make any substantial arguments but rather to "knock down" mine, and in-so-doing perhaps score points with the peanut gallery, he ends up conflating these two obviously distinct arguments.

 

It is a poor piece of argumentation by him.

 

 

 

 

As far as Austin just being Crusher/Magnum 2.0, well, I know you're obsessed with the idea that nothing new is ever good and nothing good is ever new, but not really, Austin was different from any other big babyface, even rather heelish ones (which Crushed and Magnum never were). Austin was a beer drinking maniac who didn't give a shit about anyone but himself. Libertarian ? That's JBL, not Austin.

If you knew your history, you'd know that both Crusher and Dick the Bruiser started out as beer-guzzling heels and over time were embraced by the crowds.

 

I think we probably need to distinguish between "libertarian" as it is understood in the narrow frame of contemporary American politics, and in the broad frame of moral philosophy. My usage is the latter. This should clear up any further complaints along these lines. Libertarianism has a long history. As a Frenchman, you should know that.

 

Seriously now, what the fuck is so wrong about this ? Was it way better when good ol' wrestling fan from the Garden of Eden were chanting "USA !" at any "evil" foreign heels, because the good ol' US of A is da best country in the world and fuck any other culture, or classic "faggots !" chants at effeminate looking heels ? Im sorry, but a crowd having fun chanting Fandango's music theme or even lame and simpleton "You've stil got it !" is a million time less offensive and at least doens't make me ashame of being a pro-wrestling fan (which is not always easy).

The good ol' crowds and chants you are talking about are 100% better than "fight forever" or any other such weak post-modern self-congratulatory bullshit. It comes down to the question -- not of politics, not of morality -- but of authenticity.

 

There is, in fact, a brutal and visceral sense of anthropological insight in seeing cultural prejudices being exposed pretty nakedly in wrestling crowds. As 2,000 angry people in a high school gym in Oklahoma during the mid-80s openly chant "sissy" at Jim Cornette while baying for his blood.

 

Here we get a glimpse into something real, into something that actually existed under-or-close-to-the-surface of the culture bubbling up and boiling over. There's a genuine point of interest there. It throws back ethical questions our way. It makes us think. It makes us see how the world may or may not have changed. It makes us ruminate on the relationship between cultural values and individual belief.

 

"Fight forever" can't do any of that. It's a facile, empty chant in a self-referential loop meaningless to anything outside of itself. It is, in essence, the opposite to a "point of interest".

[El-P]

Here this is some real verbal slight of hand and some slippage.

I argued: "Austin and other anti-heroes primarily stood for an American concept of liberty, broadly they are libertarian".

 

I also argued: "Bookers need to control their crowds, not let crowds control them." And as an ancillary point: "The people in general don't know their arses from their elbows, as proven by recent history, and indeed pointed out by Machiavelli".

 

Notice how in El-P's lazy flash reply, in which he is seeking not really to make any substantial arguments but rather to "knock down" mine, and in-so-doing perhaps score points with the peanut gallery, he ends up conflating these two obviously distinct arguments.

 

It is a poor piece of argumentation by him.

 

You really know your way into babbling about nothing and make it seem like you're actually saying substantial. The problem is that I wasn't arguing at all with my last remark. I was just making a remark using another political term we discussed before as a link. Call it abstract poetry. Or maybe you can read it simply as "Well, if you call Austin's "philosophy" libertarian just because he was an individualistic prick, maybe I can call you a fascist because of your idiotic remark about "people"". Make it your own, my words are always good for interpretations.

 

I think we probably need to distinguish between "libertarian" as it is understood in the narrow frame of contemporary American politics, and in the broad frame of moral philosophy. My usage is the latter. This should clear up any further complaints along these lines. Libertarianism has a long history. As a Frenchman, you should know that.

 

We're posting on an american based pro-wrestling board talking about US pro-wrestling. When you say "libertarian", people think (I guess), about Ayn Rand shit.

 

And as far as the broader term, whatever it means, I don't think Austin was exactly what I'd call libertarian either. He was a hunting redneck asshole at heart.

 

 

The good ol' crowds and chants you are talking about are 100% better than "fight forever" or any other such weak post-modern self-congratulatory bullshit. It comes down to the question -- not of politics, not of morality -- but of authenticity.

There is, in fact, a brutal and visceral sense of anthropological insight in seeing cultural prejudices being exposed pretty nakedly in wrestling crowds. As 2,000 angry people in a high school gym in Oklahoma during the mid-80s openly chant "sissy" at Jim Cornette while baying for his blood.

 

Here we get a glimpse into something real, into something that actually existed under-or-close-to-the-surface of the culture bubbling up and boiling over. There's a genuine point of interest there. It throws back ethical questions our way. It makes us think. It makes us see how the world may or may not have changed. It makes us ruminate on the relationship between cultural values and individual belief.

 

"Fight forever" can't do any of that. It's a facile, empty chant in a self-referential loop meaningless to anything outside of itself. It is, in essence, the opposite to a "point of interest".

 

Again. Pseudo-intellectual blabbing. No, authentic jingoism and homophobia isn't better than people chanting "Fight forever". And really, you can get as much from "Fight forever" in term of what today's crowds are and why they chant that kind of things than from old times offensive chants. But, ironically enough, you're throwing the moral judgement against them "evil smark self-referential posturing" current crowds while only showing love and appreciation for those good old racist crowds from years gone by. Say no more.

[JerryvonKramer]

Since you've now stooped into the depths of ad hominem, throwing around phrases like "pseudo-intellectual" as if you are in a position to do so, it is best if we resolve theory into practice.

 

I think that means you go off to watch TNA or whatever and I go off to watch old Terry Funk matches. Toodle pip.

[overbooked]

It seems like when we consider those old-school crowds we have to consider issues around morality and authenticity. It might not be helpful to muddle the two.

 

From a moral perspective, I'm pretty sure we can all agree racist, sexist or homophobic chants aren't great, and neither is courting them in the first place.

 

I think questions around authenticity are more interesting. Did those crowds truly believe? Or were they playing their designated part in the performance? I suspect a bit of both, but I also think it is worth unpacking, as it may hint at wider reasons for why modern chants can annoy so much. "This is awesome" might be awful because it signifies the end of the kayfabe Garden of Eden, or it might annoy because it pulls the viewer out of the moment, by bringing attention to the fiction.

[Matt D]

There's a cultural discussion about violence and bumps and spots and workrate and concussions and "fight forever," in a post-Bryan world.

 

It is, in fact, the only thing that I think could make this thread more painful.

[El-P]

Save the patronizing for someone else Parv. Terry Funk is my favourite pro-wrestler ever.

 

"This is awesome" might be awful because it signifies the end of the kayfabe Garden of Eden, or it might annoy because it pulls the viewer out of the moment, by bringing attention to the fiction.

 

At this point, I do think these kind of chants are part of the fiction in a way, because the workers clearly work toward getting them. Different times.

[El-P]

There's a cultural discussion about violence and bumps and spots and workrate and concussions and "fight forever," in a post-Bryan world.

 

There is no Post-Bryan era. We're still in the Post-Benoit workrate guilt era (not talking about the mainstream crowd of course, who don't give a damn about that nonsense).

[Matt D]

 

There's a cultural discussion about violence and bumps and spots and workrate and concussions and "fight forever," in a post-Bryan world.

 

There is no Post-Bryan era. We're still in the Post-Benoit workrate guilt era.

 

Except for that there's a new generation of fans who didn't really live through Benoit, which was 9 years ago now (the difference between, oh, let's say 79 and 88 if you want to look at wildly different periods) and really longer if you factor in how one key element of Benoit was being a fan of him in the late 90s when Hogan and Nash were on top of WCW. He was made into a symbol then.

 

Nine years ago.

[El-P]

Doesn't matter.

 

"Workrate = evil" in our circles directly comes from the Benoit tragedy, as it had anything to do with it.

 

Bryan's early and forced retirement, much like the Wellness Policy, directly comes from the Benoit heritage too.

[Matt D]

Doesn't matter.

 

"Workrate = evil" in our circles directly comes from the Benoit tragedy, as it had anything to do with it.

 

Bryan's early and forced retirement, much like the Wellness Policy, directly comes from the Benoit heritage too.

I thought we were talking about the NXT crowd chanting "Fight Forever" here.

[overbooked]

 

"This is awesome" might be awful because it signifies the end of the kayfabe Garden of Eden, or it might annoy because it pulls the viewer out of the moment, by bringing attention to the fiction.

 

At this point, I do think these kind of chants are part of the fiction in a way, because the workers clearly work toward getting them. Different times.

 

Indeed, and hence why if "blame" is the right word, "blame" needs to fall at much at the feet of workers as fans or bookers.

 

And, without being too troll-y, and as someone who doesn't like "This is awesome" chants at all, are they really any different to a crowd giving a standing ovation at the end of a match, or Mexican fans throwing money in the ring?

[ohtani's jacket]

"This is awesome!" chants suck but at the same time it should be acknowledged that there's a type of romanticism involved in looking back at old footage and "crowd gazing" whether it be atmosphere, fashion, previous social norms (like smoking at a sports event), or even enthusiasm and the heat generated. I mean the whole crowd argument is no different from watching an old Boston Garden crowd and thinking it's better than a 2016 NBA crowd or watching grainy, poorly lit lucha footage and thinking it's better than a bright, sterilized Arena Mexico plastered with commercials for Japanese camera makers. The thing about wrestling is that if you're caught up in the here and now then it's like following a sport where you care what happens next. If you watch older stuff then it's like watching old movies where the aesthetics are important. With that in mind, I look forward to seeing the cut-off point for today's whippersnappers where they stop keeping up with the current product and wax lyrically about 2010 or 12.

[Matt D]

I can absolutely see people clinging romantically in a few years to 2013-2014 with Shield six-mans and the rise of Bryan.

[El-P]

"This is awesome!" chants suck but at the same time it should be acknowledged that there's a type of romanticism involved in looking back at old footage and "crowd gazing" whether it be atmosphere, fashion, previous social norms (like smoking at a sports event), or even enthusiasm and the heat generated. I mean the whole crowd argument is no different from watching an old Boston Garden crowd and thinking it's better than a 2016 NBA crowd or watching grainy, poorly lit lucha footage and thinking it's better than a bright, sterilized Arena Mexico plastered with commercials for Japanese camera makers.

 

Couldn't agree more. Romanticism, or even exoticism. I mean, to me, watching an old NJ match from the old Ryogoku is like watching an old Fukasaku movie. It was never my culture, I was never there, but I can project a lot on it, including mostly what isn't really there. And people waxing poetics about old US crowds, whether they knew it from their own past or just love it for its aesthetics, are doing the same. They are projecting either their own nostalgia or just plain mythology that was built with the years.

[ohtani's jacket]

I can only imagine a future 30 years from now where people are making "Best of the 10s" sets and arguing that "This is awesome!" chants are better than whatever we've evolved into then. These young guys with their Twitter will be the AIM messengers of tomorrow. Already folks are nostalgic for Pokemon so the next wave has already begun.

 

TIME STANDS STILL FOR NO MAN. young sprogs.

[Parties]

I look forward to seeing the cut-off point for today's whippersnappers where they stop keeping up with the current product and wax lyrically about 2010 or 12.

 

Black Terry, Jr's handhelds were better back then!

[goc]

Doesn't matter.

 

"Workrate = evil" in our circles directly comes from the Benoit tragedy, as it had anything to do with it.

 

Bryan's early and forced retirement, much like the Wellness Policy, directly comes from the Benoit heritage too.

It really is a horrible new reality we're living in that a man with a brain lesion that causes seizures is forced to retire instead of being allowed to further damage his brain. Think of all the great ***** matches we're missing out on because of this bullshit "people shouldn't kill themselves for wrestling" attitude.

[ohtani's jacket]

 

I look forward to seeing the cut-off point for today's whippersnappers where they stop keeping up with the current product and wax lyrically about 2010 or 12.

 

Black Terry, Jr's handhelds were better back then!

 

 

"What's a handheld, Grandpa Parties?"

[El-P]

 

Doesn't matter.

 

"Workrate = evil" in our circles directly comes from the Benoit tragedy, as it had anything to do with it.

 

Bryan's early and forced retirement, much like the Wellness Policy, directly comes from the Benoit heritage too.

It really is a horrible new reality we're living in that a man with a brain lesion that causes seizures is forced to retire instead of being allowed to further damage his brain. Think of all the great ***** matches we're missing out on because of this bullshit "people shouldn't kill themselves for wrestling" attitude.

 

And who said that BTW ? Oh, you're just trolling. My bad.

[El-P]

I can only imagine a future 30 years from now where people are making "Best of the 10s" sets and arguing that "This is awesome!" chants are better than whatever we've evolved into then. These young guys with their Twitter will be the AIM messengers of tomorrow. Already folks are nostalgic for Pokemon so the next wave has already begun.

 

TIME STANDS STILL FOR NO MAN. young sprogs.

 

Hell, Maria Kannelis used to talk about how "back in her days" they were telling stories in the ring. So yeah. Can't wait for the next 20 years.

[ohtani's jacket]

It happens with every generation. I watched a sit down interview with Buddy Rogers where he shat all over the early 80s WWWF that Titans review. One day Ospreay and Ricochet will be lecturing some young punks on how to work properly.