Why does puro get so much love? Why does lucha get so dismissed?

[Badlittlekitten]

Happy holidays guys!

[Loss]

I don't think you're the problem. I wouldn't really hang that on any person. I think as a collective, we have hit a bump in the road that we haven't quite figured out how to overcome yet. We will get there.

[ohtani's jacket]

2. The reason it didn't have prominence historically, was probably a combination of Mil Mascaras wanting to keep himself special by keeping other luchadores off cards, and the LaBelle LA territory going under and then being bought out by Vince by 1983 severing the key link between US wrestling and lucha. I noted that Southern territories had Mexican workers who were not luchadores. And on the flipside Japanese promoters having strong ties with the NWA and post-WW2 Japanese heels being a thing in the US, kept the association between Japan and Wrestling precident in the minds of fans. All of these things rather than cultural imperialism seem to explain it to me.

 

 

Your point about Mascaras is pure conjecture and not borne out by the fact that many luchadores worked Japan at the same time that Mil did, which was a big payday if you were a luchador. Lucha kept being promoted in California long after LaBelle folded by both Mexican and American promoters. Southern territories had Mexican workers and luchadores. I'm pretty sure the Houston footage folks have been watching has matches from Gran Markus and El Halcon. Japanese promotions may have had strong ties to the NWA, but can you name any particularly special appearance by a Japanese worker in the States post Rikidozan? Arguably, the most famous event involving a Japanese wrestler from an American point of view was Inoki vs. Ali and that was at Budokan. Most of the Japanese heels post-WW II were Hawaiian born Japanese, so if you're going to discount Jose Lothario or the Guerreros as luchadores then I don't see how Mr. Mojo or the Great Togo can be considered a Japanese wrestler.

 

You're also ignoring the fact that when the internet first began it coincided with Mysterio Jr. and other AAA luchadores being booked in ECW and then being part of WCW, which reached millions of more viewers than Mike LaBelle's promotion ever did. And cruiserweights were popular even if strictly speaking it was a hybrid style. Japanese wrestling had similar exposure through Muta and Liger, but I don't think it had as large a presence as you're making out. The fact that American wrestlers toured Japan far more than they toured Mexico is what made Japan seem important, and as I said before that boils down to the strength of the peso vs. the strength of the yen. Mexico did draw American talent during UWA's peak years, but by the mid-to-late 80s that had dried up and even during the TV boom and AAA's hot run, there wasn't much foreign talent working in Mexico and definitely no headliners.

 

 

[overbooked]

 

Wow. There you go again. I'm pretty sure you and you alone don't get to dictate the terms of engagement or scope of discussion here.

 

Edit: for JVK.

Well, have it at. What are you waiting for? Talk about cultural imperialism.

 

Not saying there hasn't been great stuff since, but as an overall peak it's been a long time. Once people started obsessing over fans of Lucha, Memphis etc it inevitably sours discussion, since the accusation of disingenuousness is introduced. The canon is defended more religiously than ever.

I really don't get this. My positions in this thread have been:

 

1. People who aren't into lucha have come to the conclusion that it sucks / is not for them (phrase it how you want), for whatever reason.

 

2. The reason it didn't have prominence historically, was probably a combination of Mil Mascaras wanting to keep himself special by keeping other luchadores off cards, and the LaBelle LA territory going under and then being bought out by Vince by 1983 severing the key link between US wrestling and lucha. I noted that Southern territories had Mexican workers who were not luchadores. And on the flipside Japanese promoters having strong ties with the NWA and post-WW2 Japanese heels being a thing in the US, kept the association between Japan and Wrestling precident in the minds of fans. All of these things rather than cultural imperialism seem to explain it to me.

 

3. We are better off talking about matches and challenging old narratives through the assessment of matches than in having these conversations about workers or styles. I think the board is at its best when it has done this. I do believe that these theoretical discussions get us to the point of being "utter wank".

 

You haven't really wanted to engage on these fronts. You've wanted to go over GWE, you've wanted to accuse me of being a conservative and anti-intellectual, you've wanted to talk about canon and whatever else. These have all been your harping points.

 

If people seriously believe I'm the problem, rather than you, it is time to remove myself from this community entirely.

 

 

I'm not necessarily decided on the whole cultural imperialism thing, however, when an established member of a discussion board goes "It's not anti-intellectual to mock the idea that a suplex is a form American imperialism or that a reverse knife edge is symbolic of Japanese cultural capitulation post-Hiroshima. These claims are absurd and someone needs to tell you that they are. Say stupid shit and expect to get called out for it. Tis the way of the world." that kind of kills the discussion. You can see that, can't you? I mean, I thought this board was meant to be a place where that shit doesn't go on.

 

"People who aren't into lucha have come to the conclusion that it sucks / is not for them (phrase it how you want), for whatever reason." Can you see that the "for whatever reason" part is actually interesting, complex and doesn't have one simple answer? I also think it is the route of the initial question posed.

 

My reading of the initial question is why do smart fans not like lucha when they do love puro. I don't think this is really about the wider (wrestling) public as both puro and lucha are still super-niche. I think the more interesting question is why do hardcore/smart/smark fans who are aware of lucha choose not to watch it and discuss it. This is especially odd in 2016 where it is easier to watch free lucha than almost any other wrestling product, although obviously there has never been so much choice (reason one, perhaps).

 

I think there are a few lines of enquiry - this isn't exhaustive, and there will probably be a fair few generalisations in there...

 

1. Puro has (some of) its roots in US wrestling, so puro gets more love as it is more familiar. This may or may not be your "cultural imperialism" angle. Puro had US workers involved from the outset and US workers have continued to play a key role, albeit one that has evolved over the years. So, Japanese wrestling has very similar rules to US wrestling and is thus easy to pick up quickly. It also features a lot of familiar faces. And while it has developed its own tropes over the years (fighting spirit etc) these aren't really inherently alien concepts.

 

2. Lucha is unfamiliar. There are different rules. Some of the "grammar" of matches is different. Six-mans can be hard to follow. There are fewer recognisable faces. The referees can be annoying at first. All of these seem like reasonable barriers, and ones that don't exist to the same extent in puro.

 

3. The evolution of smart fandom. I'm thinking more of the early to mid 80s here, a time where a lot of the orthodoxies of smart fandom were established and codified. Puro had a huge impact on fans during that period. It became the standard, and perhaps even the norm for "good wrestling". Here's a fun little thought exercise - how would smart fandom and the orthodox ideas that underpins it look if Japanese tapes never made it to Meltzer and instead he watched a load of say, lucha and World of Sport? I think the early experiences of a handful of influential thinkers/writers had a huge impact on how we all now think about wrestling.

 

4. Wrestling fans watch wrestling for fundamentally different reasons. I tried covering this several pages back. But essentially, I think there are (at least) two distinct schools of wrestling fan - one more susceptible to puro, one more susceptible to puro. I think it is important to acknowledge that we don't all have the same motivation for watching wrestling. We all look for different things, and take different things from it. That makes a single "truth" pretty much impossible.

 

5. Linked to the point above, we all have different formative experiences of wrestling. You say you tended to view wrestling as an American thing. My first experience of watching wrestling was on World of Sport. I imagine that has shaped both our worldviews. If you grow up on WWF, puro isn't that huge a leap but lucha might be. I found lucha less alienating because I grew up watching two-out-of-three falls and funky matwork and all that stuff.

 

6. Lucha fans could be better advocates of lucha. I think this may be linked to point 4. I think the broad characteristics of a puro fan lead to them happily analysing, pulling apart and praising what they watch. I think many lucha fans have very different mindsets, and are less likely to do that as they are less interested in the nuts and bolts and more in the emotional impact. But clearly lucha fans could do a better job evangelising.

 

7. And linked to point 6, I think it is easier to analyse why puro works and have heated debates over that. It is really hard work articulating the more emotional elements of lucha. The language of smart fandom - psychology, selling etc - lends itself well to puro. There is less of a shared language to communicate why a mask match matters and works as a spectacle, for example.

 

7. Non-lucha fans need to realise lucha libre is not a homogenous mass. Writing off 80 plus years of wrestling, and the diversity of styles, matches and workers within that, is pretty absurd. I don't think it would be as accepted if people just said "American wrestling sucks", but I might be wrong.

[stro]

There are so many examples of workers, matches, and angles that you could point to for justifying that "American wrestling sucks" that I couldn't even argue it. If someone watched the Ambrose Asylum match from earlier in the year and then had to see the Old Day segment with the time machine, or anything The Club has done, or any show during the guest host era, or ROH's TV show, or Konnan matches on Nitro, or Jim Duggan matches, or a Bushwhackers vs Natural Disasters match, or those late era AWA jobbers, or or or or....

[Herodes]

Overbooked, that's one of the best posts I've read on here, and touches on a lot of the key issues being discussed without seeking to define limits of where the discussion can and can't go. Most interesting is about how the orthodoxies of "good wrestling" have been codified, and the "language" of smart fandom and how fans struggle to apply these supposed "truths" to Lucha. The easy route is to try and go through lists of "great matches" but the problems there are looking at matches outside of their context with the burden of trying (and often failing) to "get" them by applying the traditional orthodox structural standards which dictate what selling, finishes, heat segments etc "should" be.

[delacroix]

"People who aren't into lucha have come to the conclusion that it sucks / is not for them (phrase it how you want), for whatever reason." Can you see that the "for whatever reason" part is actually interesting, complex and doesn't have one simple answer?

Absolutely, this is the whole point. This thread has been fun and interesting to follow, apart from the folks who just want to delegitimizatize the underlying basis for the discussion. And, honestly, even with those points, tone is the issue more than the argument, as they're coming across more as attempts to shut everything down, rather than offer a coherent viewpoint. I tend to sympathize with overbooked's perspective number two, which is strongly connected to the much-derided 'cultural imperialism' argument, but there are multiple defensible perspectives being offered in the thread, even when they aren't being explained in the most effective way (to me). This is an interesting, important topic for discussion, and threads like this are why I choose to lurk here so much.

 

A definitive answer is not going be reached from this discussion, and even consensus isn't going to happen, but since when is that necessary? Insisting on a single, stable truth (whether that's a definition for what wrestling is or what topics of discussion are suitable) isn't super useful for anyone, except, of course, for the people getting to define these 'truths,' since they get to avoid being uncomfortable. It's not very interesting, and certainly not fun.

[Loss]

Semi-related to this thread, I just started this in Announcements & Feedback: http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?/topic/36326-where-is-the-line/

[Grimmas]

Meltzer justed tweeted that there has only been one five-star match in lucha libre history (Atlantis-Villano III).

 

That seems like part of the problem.

[stro]

The takeway is either lucha is the problem, or DM should lie about how much he likes lucha matches so more of his readers will care about lucha.

[Jetlag]

Meltzer justed tweeted that there has only been one five-star match in lucha libre history (Atlantis-Villano III).

 

That seems like part of the problem.

 

No he didn't.

[Grimmas]

The takeway is either lucha is the problem, or DM should lie about how much he likes lucha matches so more of his readers will care about lucha.

Hmm... no.

[Grimmas]

 

Meltzer justed tweeted that there has only been one five-star match in lucha libre history (Atlantis-Villano III).

 

That seems like part of the problem.

 

No he didn't.

 

 

Dave Meltzer‏ @davemeltzerWON 7h7 hours ago

More

Dave Meltzer Retweeted winyberto

Atlantis vs. Villano III

Dave Meltzer added,

winyberto @winy_leal

@davemeltzerWON in mexican wrestling, which match do you consider a five stars?

3 replies3 retweets14 likes

Reply

3

Retweet

3

Like

14

[Beast]

Well he gave the Los Gringos Locos match at When Worlds Collide 5 stars and gave the Atlantis match 4.75 so I don't he was literally saying that it's the only 5 star match.

 

Based on the question he was given "What MATCH do you consider 5 stars", I'd take it that the Atlantis match is his favorite.

[Grimmas]

Well he gave the Los Gringos Locos match at When Worlds Collide 5 stars and gave the Atlantis match 4.75 so I don't he was literally saying that it's the only 5 star match.

 

Based on the question he was given "What MATCH do you consider 5 stars", I'd take it that the Atlantis match is his favorite.

It can be interrupted that way.

 

Would anyone ask dave " in japanese wrestling, which match do you consider a five stars?"? If they did, would his response be 6/3/94 and that's it?

 

Somehow I doubt it.

[Jetlag]

Well he gave the Los Gringos Locos match at When Worlds Collide 5 stars and gave the Atlantis match 4.75 so I don't he was literally saying that it's the only 5 star match.

 

Based on the question he was given "What MATCH do you consider 5 stars", I'd take it that the Atlantis match is his favorite.

 

This exactly.

 

If you have a problem with his answer, I'd like to know which lucha matches you consider to be surefire 5 star affairs. Because I don't know more than one either.

[Grimmas]

 

Well he gave the Los Gringos Locos match at When Worlds Collide 5 stars and gave the Atlantis match 4.75 so I don't he was literally saying that it's the only 5 star match.

 

Based on the question he was given "What MATCH do you consider 5 stars", I'd take it that the Atlantis match is his favorite.

 

This exactly.

 

If you have a problem with his answer, I'd like to know which lucha matches you consider to be surefire 5 star affairs. Because I don't know more than one either.

 

Easily,

 

UG-Atlantis

Atlantis-V3

MS-1-Sangre Chicana

Dandy-Azteca

Dandy-Satanico

 

and my viewing is super limited, there is a ton more I've heard others praise.

[Jetlag]

Cool. So what if Meltz thinks these matches aren't 5 stars? Is that a problem, or is he allowed to have an opinion?

[stro]

 

Well he gave the Los Gringos Locos match at When Worlds Collide 5 stars and gave the Atlantis match 4.75 so I don't he was literally saying that it's the only 5 star match.

 

Based on the question he was given "What MATCH do you consider 5 stars", I'd take it that the Atlantis match is his favorite.

It can be interrupted that way.

 

Would anyone ask dave " in japanese wrestling, which match do you consider a five stars?"? If they did, would his response be 6/3/94 and that's it?

 

Somehow I doubt it.

 

Actually, probably. Or Omega/Okada. He probably said the first match that game to his head as a benchmark. Tweet him and see.

[Grimmas]

Cool. So what if Meltz thinks these matches aren't 5 stars? Is that a problem, or is he allowed to have an opinion?

Of course he can have an opinion. I've seen his five star bar, it's real low, so I would debate him on it.

[Jetlag]

I'd say his bar isn't low, it's just different. He really likes spotty shit with a hot crowd and has no problem giving **** 1/2 to a shitty Volador Jr. spotfest and *** 1/4 to the Blue Panther mat wrestling match. Just like he rated those Hansen-Misawa matches lower than Kobashi/Williams. He freely admits that his ratings are subjective and he forgets about them half the time. Anyone who takes his ratings dead seriously is a moron. So I just can't understand why you call his opinions part of a "problem".

 

Keep in mind fucking Bryan Danielson doesn't have a single Meltzer rated 5 star match.

[Grimmas]

So I just can't understand why you call his opinions part of a "problem".

 

It has nothing to do with his ratings.

 

Dave Meltzer is viewed as the authority on wrestling and wrestling history. When he answers the way he does, he implies that lucha has had only 1 five-star match in the entire history of a style and country. This is coming from the same person who has handed out how many five-star ratings to NJPW in the last year and it paints a picture.

 

Whether Dave feels he is an authority or not, that is how he is viewed.

[stro]

Well, he wasn't asked what is every 5 star lucha match, was he? Seems like a fundamental misreading of what he said. When you say you would debate his opinion, that implies that one of you is right and one is wrong on a subjective enjoyment of something. If he doesn't think it is 5 stars, you arguing with him that it is probably isn't going to sway him. Unless you meant discuss it with him, which I kind of don't think you did. But get at him on Twitter or the WO boards. He's usually pretty good at engaging with people asking him reasonable questions.

 

Maybe you'll get an answer as to why he doesn't rate lucha matches as high as stuff from Japan.

[Mr. Lacelle]

Are you implying that only Mexicans work lucha?

[Jetlag]

Nope. Do you even notice people sit down and debate his ratings? How many fucking people sat down and watched that Okada/Omega abomination and questioned his authority, let alone all those snowflake classics of his? At this point his ratings are more notorious than anything else.

 

I still don't unterstand what you are trying to say or what you want. "Hey guys, I think Dave Meltzer ratings actually aren't always right." Is that it? Is it his duty to assign more 5 star ratings to matches so people don't get upset? Let's say he really thinks there's only one 5 star match from Mexico, and someone asks him: "Hey Dave, how many are there?" What is he supposed to answer? "I can't tell, because it would reflect poorly on lucha."