Ageism in pro wrestling

[goc]

Breaking Bad and Game of Thrones, to some degree, go back to the medium changing. It's an age of binging. It's not about creating shows to be sold to syndication where you want any episode to be evergreen. It's about selling to things like Hulu and Netflix where people can watch whole seasons at once. People consume media differently in a digital age (And a DVD age before it for a lesser degree). Vince has always had a product which was capable of that, where there could be continuity from year to year and build to greater things. It's weekly. It's serialized, like superhero comics. It's basically one of the only three forms of fictional media in the world (that I know about) like that, with the third being Soap Opera. You can absolutely get that from watching old Memphis, which very often lived with its own history over time.

 

The story always goes, however, that Vince can't remember minutia from a few months ago so he figures the fans wouldn't either.

This does touch on what I feel like is the biggest issue with modern wrestling. It never does a call back to previous history. That was what made Memphis (and Southeastern/Continental) so great is that nothing was ever "thrown away" you could have an issue that happened 2-3 years ago suddenly become relevant again because someone uses it as a reason for a turn.

 

The best example of that kind of storytelling in wrestling is from Southeastern where Bob Armstrong comes back from a real life weightlifting accident that partly crushed his face and wants to make amends for his heel turn on Ron Fuller. There's a series of videos on youtube that show the whole story called The Bullet and The Stud and it's some of my favorite wrestling stuff ever because it combines real life events and past history from within the promotion.

 

When you keep a continuity in wrestling it makes for characters that can actually grow and change over time and feel like real people instead of just "well the promotion decided it's time to turn this guy so now he's going to be completely different."

[Matt D]

Even when they do something like a call back to Wrestlemania, it tends to be more of an idealized, symbolic Wrestlemania. The Platonic ideal of Wrestlemania, as opposed to anything that actually happened.

[funkdoc]

 

I think GoT and Breaking Bad are perhaps moves away from that - there was the New Sincerity as a reaction against irony overload, and as you say, there is a growing trend for fully immersive, consistent worlds. We're not in a permanent state of Irony.

This is really interesting to me. I'm 33, and definitely a product of the 90s. I mostly teach 18-21 year olds and, yes, they are FAR FAR more sincere and earnest than I am. Now, partly, that is because 18-21 years olds, just finding their feet in the world and figuring out their basic stances, are generally are more earnest and serious than older people. But it's also quite interesting.

 

As well as a New Sincerity, I also think there's a New Moralism, which has quite a hardline stance on matters of political correctness especially as regards gender, race and sexuality -- here, there is little scope for irony or even humour.

 

I have often thought to myself that it is my generation -- 30-somethings now -- who lived in the *most* post-ironic, post-modern moment. We are primed for it -- more cine-literature and pop-literate than both our parents' generations and indeed the internet kids (whose frames from reference are actually narrower than they should be).

 

I find this stuff pretty fascinating.

 

hey, you're not much older than me! figured as much actually - just my interests that lead me to spend more time among younger crowds, it seems.

 

i would argue that there's a duality in play here with many in this generation: far more serious toward sociopolitical issues as you said, but far LESS serious and more ironic toward plenty of other things. patriotism, for instance.

 

the one that i think is most relevant to wrestling is the change in how pro sports are viewed. younger folks here are more apt to see all of sports as inherently silly - this doesn't mean they don't follow them, but it means they're less likely to emotionally invest in winning & losing. people increasingly follow sports for the excitement/flashiness and the individual personalities and the off-field drama, and are less likely to care about whether or not Peyton Manning was a choke artist. there's even a stark generation gap on the matter of steroids, with it being mostly older fans who see them as this major blight on the game.

 

if this is how people feel about real sports, how can you possibly expect anything more for a known fake one?

 

i'm not saying that type of investment is impossible anymore, but it requires top-notch writing and/or a story that plays into the things people do take seriously nowadays. regionalism, love of country, masculinity...these simply don't work in this day & age. that's a lot of the old-school wrestling playbook disqualified there...

[GOTNW]

 

, love of country, masculinity...these simply don't work in this day & age.

Except they obviously do Foreigners always get heel heat in CMLL. Rusev's been very successful even after his russian nationalist gimmick was dropped. Japan hasn't booed wrestlers for being foreign since Rikidozan anyway.

 

The idea that masculinity doesn't work in this day and age is the biggest bullshit idea tumblr feminism has produced. The lack of masculinity is actually a pretty big issue in society in general, particularly a lack of a good father figure, which in turn leads to kids acting fucked up and then you get "woke" figures blaiming it on their hyper-masculinity or whatever. It's a joke, especially in wrestling which is built around simulated fighitng.

[El-P]

Fuck masculinity. Next step : transgender world champ coming out to Psychic TV. Embrace the future.

[Microstatistics]

 

 

, love of country, masculinity...these simply don't work in this day & age.

Except they obviously do Foreigners always get heel heat in CMLL. Rusev's been very successful even after his russian nationalist gimmick was dropped. Japan hasn't booed wrestlers for being foreign since Rikidozan anyway.

 

The idea that masculinity doesn't work in this day and age is the biggest bullshit idea tumblr feminism has produced. The lack of masculinity is actually a pretty big issue in society in general, particularly a lack of a good father figure, which in turn leads to kids acting fucked up and then you get "woke" figures blaiming it on their hyper-masculinity or whatever. It's a joke, especially in wrestling which is built around simulated fighitng.

 

 

Not to go completely off topic but tumblr is the most radically anti-feminist place imaginable so I doubt that idea is from there.

[jdw]

Pedantic to the last. Sometimes, I resent having to explain things that should be obvious: I didn't mean they actually thought they were Dave Meltzer. I was talking about them all thinking they are "smart" with a particular sense of hubris and snark. This really is obvious from the things I've said. But, it's alright, opt instead to take the comment literally. Fuck's sake.

 

And Meltzer certainly was an influence on all of them.

 

Knowing CRZ, I don't think Dave was much of an influence on him at all. Dave had very little influence on Dean... frankly none. The Rick? Who knows, though it doesn't really matter since Rick wasn't relevant for long. SKeith? Not too directly.

 

So really, you're talking nonense.

 

As far as hubris and snark, you're kind of forgetting the obvious:

 

There were fucking College and Post-College boys of the 90s. They were all filled with piss, snark, hubris and vinegar. It's how most people online wrote at that time. It's what Simmons was as SportsGuy.

 

Good lord, Dave had given up most of his snark and hubris after the 80s when he stopped being a college and post-college guy.

 

Seriously... for fucks sake are you bonkers when it comes to projecting shit onto people you didn't know in an era that you weren't even around for. I got a rep back then for being a condescending, arrogant asshole... but your really take the cake.

[JerryvonKramer]

Where did Scott Keith and friends get their "backstage news" from?

 

I have gone through every NWA/ WCW PPV from 83 to 92. In doing so, I've read practically every Keith review for that period and all of the observer coverage. The frequency with which Keith repeats Meltzer talking points is more than notable, much too often to be a coincidence. The frequency with which their star ratings are within half a star of each other also.

 

Meltzer liked workrate and action. Keith liked the same things.

 

I've also read plenty of reviews of those same shows by many random others. And you get the same stories in the same places.

 

Where do those stories come from?

 

What the flying fuck are you talking about?

 

The basic framework that ALL of those guys thought through was Meltzer's.

 

Maybe Keith got it second hand, third hand, fifth hand, who knows, but to deny that Meltzer was a huge influence is absurd.

 

Also, don't worry, you are still the most condescending, most arrogant asshole around.

[JerryvonKramer]

Here is jdw himself making what is substantially the same point:

 

 

Question:

 

Do we consider Meltzer an influence on Scott Keith?

 

Indirect, not direct. I don't think SKeith was a regular sub of Meltzer at the time Scott was posting on RSPW. The Meltzer influence in RSPW would have been more on Kunze, and Keith wasn't exactly a Kunze follower.

 

The indirect influence was more than Keith was a member of a group of smart fans who talked about pro wrestling. They came at it from a lot of different directions. Some were WON subs, and while not Meltzerites certainly had been impacted by Dave's "methods" for a lack of a better word. Before the internet blew up with AOL, most people in that pool had some of Dave rubbed off on them whether they knew it or not.

 

On some level similar to the impact that Dean Rasmussen has had, even among people that never read him or even know who he is.

So, you said it yourself.

 

I mean, God, let's just ask him, he writes for PTBN.

[El-P]

Hilarious.

 

John just answered "Not too directly" about SKeith and then you dig an old post from two years (aren't you a bit obsessive ?) where he just details why SKeith was influenced "not too directly"

 

And then you act like it prooves you right.

 

*facepalm*

 

You're soooo full of shit, it's not even funny. Well, it is. Kinda.

 

(save yourself the "90's boys to the rescue", that gimmick is old already)

[El-P]

Herb Kunze. Now, that's a name I haven't heard for a lonh while. Yeah, he was Meltz boy.

[JerryvonKramer]

It's not like he lives on Mars, we can just ask him.

[JerryvonKramer]

I mean if we really want to go back to the 90s, who remembers reading this?

 

http://rspw.org/faq/4-keithfaq.txt

 

I do. Very clearly actually. Or at least some version of it. The experience was mind blowing.

 

How anyone can read that and think that S. Keith wasn't influenced by Meltzer, I don't know.

 

I notice jdw is thanked himself in Appendix E. Also quite funny that he takes a moment to thank Dory Funk Jr and then follows it with "just kidding".

 

Suggesting Keith wasn't influenced by Meltzer is somewhere in the ball park of suggesting that a 13th century Catholic Dominican monk who actually studied in Toulouse, wasn't influenced by Thomas Aquinas.

 

I don't understand the claim at all.

 

Edit: well I asked him and he's confirmed it with a caveat: "although he's an actual journalist and I'm just a guy blathering about wrestling."

[jdw]

Where did Scott Keith and friends get their "backstage news" from?

 

Second and third and fourth hand online.

 

 

I have gone through every NWA/ WCW PPV from 83 to 92. In doing so, I've read practically every Keith review for that period and all of the observer coverage. The frequency with which Keith repeats Meltzer talking points is more than notable, much too often to be a coincidence. The frequency with which their star ratings are within half a star of each other also.

 

 

Given how much Keith was a mark for the WWF and not really a lover of WCW, and Dave was more than a bit the reverse, that is pretty funny that SKeith lifts Dave's "talking points".

 

As far as star ratings, lots of people star ratings were in the same range. Everyone liked Benoit, whether they read Dave or not.

 

 

Meltzer liked workrate and action. Keith liked the same things.

 

 

 

I like Dylan. You like Dylan. You've had no influence over my like of Dylan.

 

So people liking "workrate" doesn't mean that they were influenced by Dave. Hell, I liked Flair and much of what Dave liked in the *80s* well before ever reading him.

 

 

I've also read plenty of reviews of those same shows by many random others. And you get the same stories in the same places.

 

 

Stories? Or reviews and opinions of shows?

 

If there are stories why Davey Boy and Warrior were fired by the WWF in late 1992, of course that comes via various layers through Dave.

 

If it's a review of the Vader vs Davey Boy match, that's the opinion of the person watching it. I thought that was a good, watchable match when viewing it. Yohe and I happened to view it before Dave did. What he thought of it didn't matter to me - I formed it while watching it.

 

 

Where do those stories come from?

 

 

Stories? Again, various layers removed from Dave. But who really cares if people are repeating Dave's *news* reporting? That's the snark and hubris you're talking about? Seriously?

 

You're kind of mixing and matching here. When you talk about "reviews" which are opinion items and would have snark and hurbris, but also the opinion of the writer. Then you're talking about news, which isn't snark and hubris... it's just the facts. Someone has to report the facts, and it sure as hell wasn't online writers at the time having contacts inside the business to break news.

 

Might want to get your story straight on the influence you're talking about...

 

"Can we focus?"

 

 

 

The basic framework that ALL of those guys thought through was Meltzer's.

 

 

News stories, or opinion?

 

The news was through Meltzer and Keller since they were the only two reporters at the time, at least until Scherer became ECW's House Organ.

 

Opinion? Indirect, but they had as much influence from other people in their little pool of RSP-W and other places online. Not terribly different from here.

 

 

Maybe Keith got it second hand, third hand, fifth hand, who knows, but to deny that Meltzer was a huge influence is absurd.

 

 

News? Dave was an influence on people even if they didn't know who he was and they were getting news from Scherer who was stealing from Dave and Wade left and right without attribution.

 

Opinion? Not huge.

 

General concepts of wrestling being worked? Most smart fans came to the general concepts of wrestling being worked *before* they got online and found places like this, or subbed to the WON, etc.

 

General ideas of what's good work and what's not? I think Dave's influence on that is probably overstated. People came to Dave already with concepts of what good work is, and what isn't. I certainly did. "Who" was a great worker and who wasn't? That's possibly where Dave would have more impact on people because he often saw workers before many of his readers, and touted them. Then people would track the stuff down. Waltman was pimped by Keller and Dave before most of their readers saw them. Folks then tracked down the tapes, and were open to them as workers. Not to dissimilar to a friend recommending a book, or saying Cracker is a great series.

 

 

Also, don't worry, you are still the most condescending, most arrogant asshole around.

 

 

No, Parv... you've lapped the field in that.

[jdw]

Herb Kunze. Now, that's a name I haven't heard for a long while. Yeah, he was Meltz boy.

 

Yep.

[jdw]

I mean if we really want to go back to the 90s, who remembers reading this?

 

http://rspw.org/faq/4-keithfaq.txt

 

I do. Very clearly actually. Or at least some version of it. The experience was mind blowing.

 

How anyone can read that and think that S. Keith wasn't influenced by Meltzer, I don't know.

 

Actually, the original FAQ was the RSP-W FAQ put together by all sorts of people contributing answers to it. Some got their info from Dave, others got stuff from elsewhere. SKeith just eventually took it over from Dom, who started it.

 

When I look at Section 0.1, it's not something Dave would ever sit down and write. Much of it is exactly the type of conversations that we posters on RSP-W would have all the time. Even the big 0.1.18 by Herb Kunze isn't something that Dave would ever write out. He couldn't be bothered with thinking like that. Doesn't mean Dave didn't have thoughts like that, just that he didn't write them down... frankly didn't even talk much about them. I don't recall ever talking about "Transitions" with Dave because it's not something he'd do. On the other hand, when watching a tape with Yohe and Hoback, I'd hit the rewind on the remote to re-watch a great transitions and tell them what was popping me.

[goc]

Parv if you had access to a time traveling Delorean, would you use it to go back in time and keep Dave Meltzer's parents from ever meeting each other?

[JerryvonKramer]

Edit: well I asked him and he's confirmed it with a caveat: "although he's an actual journalist and I'm just a guy blathering about wrestling."

I followed up on this and he said that he couldn't afford an observer sub till 2000.

 

Let's make this easier: I will retract my single apportioning of blame to Meltzer, let's just say the lines of influence are too hard to untangle, and instead let's give the blame to every single person who contibuted to the rspw FAQ.

 

In a way that means jdw is in some way responsible for smarky crowds, which seems about right.

[Loss]

This thread has gone pretty far off since I last read it. I will respond to the posts made directly to me soon. In the meantime, I have to point out that Chris Jericho was genuinely hated by most fans in 2008-2009 while still being a good worker and the best promo in wrestling. So what exactly has changed since then? Jericho had his best run copying Bockwinkel's promo style and Memphis and Mid South angles. There wasn't a hint of meta in his act. So someone tell me why that worked if this doesn't work anymore, or maybe explain how wrestling has changed since then?

[Jesse Ewiak]

Again, as somebody who was on RSPW and various other places around during the 90's without being part of any 'scene', we got it 2nd hand through garbled paraphrasing of the Observer from various people who had subscriptions. By that measure, were we "influenced" by Meltzer? Sure. But, it wasn't Meltzer saying "oh these wrestlers are great" so we all liked it, but it was more Meltzer said these guys are great and we watched tapes or saw them on Nitro or RAW or ECW and realized, they're pretty great. I mean, I could make the same argument that a lot of your star ratings on AJPW matches are close to Meltzer's. Because sometimes, there is a 'right' rating for a match to 99% of the people who watch it.

 

Also, you have to remember, the Overton Window of acceptable wrestling opinions on the Internet was much narrower in 1995 than it is now. Basically everybody loved Benoit. Basically everybody thought Hogan was the devil. It took until the late 90's and sites like DVDVR and its offshoots for basic things like 'ya' know, Hogan wasn't that bad a worker during the 80's' to bubble up to the surface.

[Migs]

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.

 

 

What's weird is that wrestling gave up on kayfabe only a few years before the rise of reality television would have made kayfabe (in the sense of the show presenting itself as totally real) completely acceptable.

[Strummer]

This thread has gone pretty far off since I last read it. I will respond to the posts made directly to me soon. In the meantime, I have to point out that Chris Jericho was genuinely hated by most fans in 2008-2009 while still being a good worker and the best promo in wrestling. So what exactly has changed since then? Jericho had his best run copying Bockwinkel's promo style and Memphis and Mid South angles. There wasn't a hint of meta in his act. So someone tell me why that worked if this doesn't work anymore, or maybe explain how wrestling has changed since then?

I know this is sorta off topic but I don't recall Jericho's run in 2008/2009 getting much praise online. IIRC the general viewpoint was that it was " too little, too late" in regards to Jericho as a top guy and he was taking the spot of a potential younger star (although at that time WWE wasn't ripe with them). I can remember people laughing at the acting in the angles he did with Shawn. It seemed to be about 3 or 4 years people started talking about how good he really was during that period

[Jimmy Redman]

I don't know where you were hanging but Jericho was massively praised online in 2008-09. He was generally considered to be the best worker in the company, and won the WO Flair/Thesz Award both years almost entirely on the strength of his work in and out of the ring.

[Strummer]

I swear I remember people talking about a terrible ladder match with Shawn, making fun of his "serious face" and how he paused too much in his promos to a comical degree Again I might be only remembering the negative. I enjoyed it immensely but I do remember a bunch of criticism

[Ricky Jackson]

Yeah I only remember tons of praise for Jericho at the time