Any other longterm fans starting to feel alienated by the current fanbase?

[Grimmas]

I wonder what happens when Kevin Dunn is gone.

[stro]

Probably not much will change, as Dunn isn't the one who calls the camera angles or edits. All the stuff that people put their Dunn boogeyman stories on is some other guy whose name evades me at the moment.

[conker8]

Kerwin Silfies, the director ?

[El-P]

They talk like that at Kevin Dunn's request so that video packages are easier to edit, for the record. Those overwrought video packages that have the exact same look and feel they did in 1998 that are generally awful. Those.

 

I had no idea. I find that fascinating. And yes, I can't echo more the fact that it sounds awful. The WWE delivery is one element why I can't watch their TV and only care about doing some cherry-picking with matches and workers.

[Johnny Sorrow]

The Miz may be a character, but people in wrestling should be exaggerated versions of people you would know in real life, not "characters". That's what people mean when they say they want a return to 80s wrestling.

Yeah but all the eighties guys were characters. I myself didn't know any Ugandan warriors, devil worshipers, or Kings. Maybe i was running with a different crowd.

 

 

, I think I would be happy with anything that felt truly disruptive at this point.

Miz has been exactly that recently. Especially on Talking Smack, where actually a lot of the guys and gals have been cutting great promos.

[World's Worst Man]

I tend to think it's simple - either one is willing to give content a try or they aren't. For a person who is willing to give the content a try, regardless of whether they like it or dislike it, the criticisms will be intelligent and they won't mischaracterise what they are seeing in order to fit a predetermined narrative. For them it's enough simply to say "I do not like this because it's not my style". This is in contrast to the people who clearly haven't made the effort and rely on lazy or disingenuous arguments to support their preexisting narrative. The tell-tale sign to me is the content of the argument - that is how "simple preference" can be differentiated from "stubborn closed-mindedness".

 

Whether someone is a fan of the new or the old is immaterial to me.

[ohtani's jacket]

For some reason, it doesn't seem the same. It's all transient. I do not know though if it's just cos I'm older or if it's something to do with the product.

 

I don't think you can compare live streaming to the tape trading days. If this were 1997, we'd be reading about this match for months trying to figure out how to get hold of a copy then waiting weeks for it to be dubbed and sent out. It's like comparing Spotify to record hunting or Netflix to not having cable. When I was a kid and you wanted to build up your comic book collection you went through the back issues bin. Now you can get enitre back catalogs available for a few dollars a month. If you want to go back further than that, many of us grew up watching syndicated wrestling programs that had brief recaps of he major angles from shows we never got to see. When I was a kid, you lived from one PPV to the next. We're talking months not monthly shows.

 

So, I kind of understand why it's so transient. And it's not just limited to the Twitter-sphere either. Look at the Last Battle of Atlanta. People waited decades to see that match and stopped talking about it after a month.

[Herodes]

It's not just ease of availability and (zero) cost, it's about viewing patterns switching to consume and rank all matches, completist "MOTY viewing", sample old wrestler matches and form opinions based on isolated match watching etc. The desire to watch an enjoy a 6 hour territorial tv comp for example not to add to the pantheon of great matches but to watch stories develop, promos, squashes and narrative arcs seems to be almost dead. A match is a relatively small commodity that requires relatively little time, minutes rather than hours, click, add to playlist, rank or dismiss with little time for context.

[Cap]

I don't know if I feel disconnected with the "current" fan base as much as I don't have that much in common with fans that have a certain level of investment in wrestling or with fans that are more one or two track. It isn't a distinction that I see as a matter of time or generation, but more a matter of what kinds of wrestling fans are we.

 

I am not entirely sure what we mean when we say "current fans" anyway. WWE fans? Indy fans? An age group? Is it a sort of informal measure of more popular websites/twitter/other social media? I am not saying the idea of the current fan doesn't exist I am just not exactly sure what people mean because it seems to connote a few different things here. Yeah, I don't feel like I have a ton in common with the average WWE centric fan, but I have close friends that have been watching wrestling longer than I have (because they are older) who are WWE centric fans we don't see eye to eye on a lot of the core things that are being discussed here. The same goes for indy wrestling. I love indy wrestling and am kind of in the process of diving back into some of the stuff that happened this year and I think it is great, but my descriptions and ratings and so on don't really match some of the hype I see for it (again, from people who have been watching longer than I have).

 

I get the spirit of it. I guess in a way I feel disconnected from what I think is probably the "popular - internet" wrestling take, the sorts of opinions and narratives that I see most frequently flying around the interwebs, but that is why I would rather com here.

 

A few of the threads of discussion here are interesting, and there are a few I want to piggyback off of a second.

 

I think saturation matters. We just have too much wrestling and for those of us who can only watch one match at a time, we will just never get to it all. I am sort of nixing WWE except big shows for a while so I can catch up on indy stuff. I just don't have time to watch it all and I know that is a problem for a lot of people. But I think that is related to the discussions of storytelling and cherrpicking. If the WWE is in any way hanging over this label of "current fan" (and i am pretty sure it is), their subtle changes in business model over the last hand full of years, especially since the network have been and will continue to shape a certain (huge) section of wrestling fandom. Part of why I don't love a lot of the modern product is that the storylines change at the drop of a hat. There is very little long term continuity and it is bad storytelling to me most of the time. Part of it is too much tv, but I suspect part of the reason they can do that they already have the money of fans that are invested in "wrestling storytelling". I am not sure the majority of fans care enough or think about wrestling enough to put the modern product into any sort of historical perspective. If they do they probably care about wrestling so much that they aren't opting out of the WWE network. This isn't news. Think back to WM30 season when everyone was losing their minds about Bryan getting kept off the main event. The constant argument was "well are you going to stop watching" and the answer was no. All the heavy hitters at the time were making it on their podcasts. The WWE has the invested fan's money for the most part so they can audible and switch gears and put whoever over whoever for the most part, especially if they have consistently good matches. Access to footage, the WWE model, and fan orientation to matches seem very cyclically related to me. It engenders a kind of fan that i don't relate to as much, but I don't really disdain or anything.

 

I also agree with Loss that disruption is a big thing, but I may be thinking about it more on the micro level (not sure if we really differ here) My main problem with WWE matches is that they feel safe. It is why i can't give something like Styles vs Reigns top ratings, even though I loved it. I like my wrestling, even at the match level, to at least feel like it is going off script a little, to feel like their is hate. That isn't really how WWE is built now and it isn't how a lot of indy wrestling is often built either. I haven't watched NJPW for a bit, but at least last year I didn't see it as how NJPW was built. I was talking with a friend recently about our favorite matches of the year and it was an incredible year for great matches. Mine - right now - is Canis Lupus vs Trauma 1. His is Black Terry vs Wotan (I haven't seen it yet, on the way). We have been talking about why in this year with so many great matches our favorite matches where these lucha brawls with guys that most wrestling fans have never heard of. One of the big things for me is that Lupus vs T1 didn't feel safe. It felt like they were taking chances and letting the emotion of the match carry them. I get that a lot more from 80s matches and some from early 90s matches than I do from modern matches. I get it from early to mid 2000s ROH. It is why Guerrero vs JBL (Judgement Day) is one of my favorite matches ever. This is a sort of long way of saying I think this is why I feel disconnected with some fans when they are talking about great matches as if they are all time classics. Classics can't feel safe to me and if they do they have to be damn near perfect in every other way.

 

It can be frustrating at times to be disconnected from such a huge section of the wrestling world, but it doesn't bother me so much because I more footage down stairs than I could get through this year, endless streaming opportunities, and a few outlets to discuss wrestling the way I want.

[Cap]

In a properly post-post-kayfabe world does anyone really care who wins and loses? Or do they just care about match quality? I'm just wondering if things might have mattered more in the past and were more memorable because of a real emotional reaction.

 

However, listening to some recent podcasts on territorial stuff there's always been old guys like us moaning about the modern product and waxing lyrical about what happened twenty years ago.

I wanted to pull this back up and it "sort of" relates to what I was saying in my last post. I think the WWE particularly wants to create a world where wins and loses don't matter. They have - particularly HHH - pumped that narrative out with some frequency, but I think they do matter. Obviously not in the traditional sports way, but wins and loses pay off emotional investment, they build the narrative, ingrain characters with a history. WWE for example uses wins and losses to create buzz, to get hashtags, and that is incredibly counterproductive sometimes to the goal of building continuity or long term narrative arcs. Dolph chased the IC title and put his career on the line to win it for a month or something? Brian Kendrick is putting on the best matches in the CW division and making everyone look great and he loses the belt to get buzz for 205 live? The monster Brock gets squashed by Goldberg (I know there were other reasons and a lot of people liked it, but i didn't care for it)? Wrestling is best, people are most emotionally invested when wins and loses matter and the only way to do that is to make wins and loses matter. It mattered to people the Bryan won at WM30. It mattered to people that Punk beat Cena at MitB. It mattered to people that Taker won at mania (and it really mattered when he lost). I almost feel like the WWE has worked hard to eliminate that for the most part.

 

It is really hard to capture that - as parv said - in many indys where the roster is so fluid, but it happens and I think promotions try to find ways to put it in. For example, I just watched Sabre jr vs Gresham. The winner of that match was kind of a surprise all three times and it made each victory that much more meaningful. It was something small, but it was clearly part of the plan. I thought the Scenic City Invitational I just watched recently did well to make the result matter by the end. Overall that "results matter" though is still generally - from my perspective - a little absent in modern wrestling.

 

I would say if anything when I hear "current" fans repeat that WWE mantra "wins and loses don't matter" that is maybe where I feel the most alienated because it really encapsulates the core divide between myself and that fan or type of fan or whatever.

[rzombie1988]

 

 

 

I also agree with Loss that disruption is a big thing, but I may be thinking about it more on the micro level (not sure if we really differ here) My main problem with WWE matches is that they feel safe. It is why i can't give something like Styles vs Reigns top ratings, even though I loved it. I like my wrestling, even at the match level, to at least feel like it is going off script a little, to feel like their is hate. That isn't really how WWE is built now and it isn't how a lot of indy wrestling is often built either. I haven't watched NJPW for a bit, but at least last year I didn't see it as how NJPW was built. I was talking with a friend recently about our favorite matches of the year and it was an incredible year for great matches. Mine - right now - is Canis Lupus vs Trauma 1. His is Black Terry vs Wotan (I haven't seen it yet, on the way). We have been talking about why in this year with so many great matches our favorite matches where these lucha brawls with guys that most wrestling fans have never heard of. One of the big things for me is that Lupus vs T1 didn't feel safe. It felt like they were taking chances and letting the emotion of the match carry them. I get that a lot more from 80s matches and some from early 90s matches than I do from modern matches. I get it from early to mid 2000s ROH. It is why Guerrero vs JBL (Judgement Day) is one of my favorite matches ever. This is a sort of long way of saying I think this is why I feel disconnected with some fans when they are talking about great matches as if they are all time classics. Classics can't feel safe to me and if they do they have to be damn near perfect in every other way.

 

It can be frustrating at times to be disconnected from such a huge section of the wrestling world, but it doesn't bother me so much because I more footage down stairs than I could get through this year, endless streaming opportunities, and a few outlets to discuss wrestling the way I want.

I like the part about feeling safe. I've always called it "taking it to the next level" and I've described with wrestlers doing things differently than they usually do. It's what breaks the mold in wrestling matches.

 

I still think "safe matches" can still be classics, but you have to master the basics to do this, and a lot of the current indy hype guys haven't. Okada/Omega didn't have have any mastery of the basics or even real inclusion of the basics and the current "safe style" is doing a bunch of big moves for big moves sake.

 

I watched a shoot with Bill Eadie last night(and as we know, everything comes back to Demolition at Demolitionwrestlingonly.com) and he said like "I could do this or that but it really wouldn't fit my character, so I wouldn't do it". And since the current wrestlers have no real character to them, everyone ends up doing the same thing. I don't know a good way to put this, but sometimes the fun in wrestling is having limits. That's kind of why I enjoy RINGS, because these are a bunch of guys who only know how to do their martial art and little else. The matches a lot of times didn't work out, but it was fun to see 2 different styles clash and when it did work, it made the match a ton of fun. Victor Zangief didn't do Rings and wasn't a great worker, but he was good at wrestling like an amateur wrestler.. If Dusty could do the flips and the submissions and all that why do you need the flippy and submission guys? But if wrestler A sticks with submissions and Wrestler B only flips, you are going to get a really unique match, as opposed to the current style where everyone does every move and it all looks the same.

[Cap]

 

 

 

I also agree with Loss that disruption is a big thing, but I may be thinking about it more on the micro level (not sure if we really differ here) My main problem with WWE matches is that they feel safe. It is why i can't give something like Styles vs Reigns top ratings, even though I loved it. I like my wrestling, even at the match level, to at least feel like it is going off script a little, to feel like their is hate. That isn't really how WWE is built now and it isn't how a lot of indy wrestling is often built either. I haven't watched NJPW for a bit, but at least last year I didn't see it as how NJPW was built. I was talking with a friend recently about our favorite matches of the year and it was an incredible year for great matches. Mine - right now - is Canis Lupus vs Trauma 1. His is Black Terry vs Wotan (I haven't seen it yet, on the way). We have been talking about why in this year with so many great matches our favorite matches where these lucha brawls with guys that most wrestling fans have never heard of. One of the big things for me is that Lupus vs T1 didn't feel safe. It felt like they were taking chances and letting the emotion of the match carry them. I get that a lot more from 80s matches and some from early 90s matches than I do from modern matches. I get it from early to mid 2000s ROH. It is why Guerrero vs JBL (Judgement Day) is one of my favorite matches ever. This is a sort of long way of saying I think this is why I feel disconnected with some fans when they are talking about great matches as if they are all time classics. Classics can't feel safe to me and if they do they have to be damn near perfect in every other way.

 

It can be frustrating at times to be disconnected from such a huge section of the wrestling world, but it doesn't bother me so much because I more footage down stairs than I could get through this year, endless streaming opportunities, and a few outlets to discuss wrestling the way I want.

 

I like the part about feeling safe. I've always called it "taking it to the next level" and I've described with wrestlers doing things differently than they usually do. It's what breaks the mold in wrestling matches.

 

I still think "safe matches" can still be classics, but you have to master the basics to do this, and a lot of the current indy hype guys haven't. Okada/Omega didn't have have any mastery of the basics or even real inclusion of the basics and the current "safe style" is doing a bunch of big moves for big moves sake.

 

I agree. I think safe matches can be classics, but they have to really excel at just about everything and suck me into what they are doing.

 

I also think it is important to note that not being "safe" can be a really nuanced thing. It can just be diverging from the model in little ways. Surprise me in transitions or give me a moment or two where I think things have gone off the rails. It doesn't have to be something crazy. For example, I think that is what made Zayn vs Nak so good for me. There were moments where they FELT like they were improving a bit and getting a little more brutal because they were in the moment. Maybe it was the plan all along, but it felt like they were stepping out in just places. I felt the same way about Zayn vs Owens, from Battleground I thought they stepped out of "safe" a few times and had me hooked for that emotional end.

[Migs]

 

I don’t completely agree with Parv that there is a widespread “you must love everything” attitude. I think there are people like that, but they aren’t the majority. It is more along the lines of there is so much wrestling out there and every wrestler/promotion/match is going to appeal to someone. We all like to have our niche so people find something they genuinely like and they want others to like it, so they hype it incessantly. The end result is everything is hyped (by at least someone) which can create the illusion of “everyone thinking everything is great”. People have always pushed their favorites it is just now everyone has a forum to do so and everyone generally has access to the same insane volume of matches so the impact is magnified.

 

To add to this, I think there is perhaps more of a reluctance among many fans these days to be a detractor of something well-loved, and less people interested in engaging those detractors. A lot of Wrestling Twitter folks are more into shared enjoyment than debating and dissecting. Those kind of fans have really always been the majority in real life, but the internet didn't lend itself to that kind of fandom until recently.

 

 

This has been an issue in TV reviewing as well - many reviewers have talked about getting responses to negative reviews where the person feels reviews should be written by fans only, as if critiquing something others liked is a terrible thing to do.

[rzombie1988]

 

 

I don’t completely agree with Parv that there is a widespread “you must love everything” attitude. I think there are people like that, but they aren’t the majority. It is more along the lines of there is so much wrestling out there and every wrestler/promotion/match is going to appeal to someone. We all like to have our niche so people find something they genuinely like and they want others to like it, so they hype it incessantly. The end result is everything is hyped (by at least someone) which can create the illusion of “everyone thinking everything is great”. People have always pushed their favorites it is just now everyone has a forum to do so and everyone generally has access to the same insane volume of matches so the impact is magnified.

 

To add to this, I think there is perhaps more of a reluctance among many fans these days to be a detractor of something well-loved, and less people interested in engaging those detractors. A lot of Wrestling Twitter folks are more into shared enjoyment than debating and dissecting. Those kind of fans have really always been the majority in real life, but the internet didn't lend itself to that kind of fandom until recently.

 

 

This has been an issue in TV reviewing as well - many reviewers have talked about getting responses to negative reviews where the person feels reviews should be written by fans only, as if critiquing something others liked is a terrible thing to do.

 

Having a different opinion right now sadly makes you a troll and someone who is up to no good. It's becoming almost impossible to have any non echo chamber discussion. And any system where you can rate one response over another just enforces this stuff.

[Migs]

 

 

 

I don’t completely agree with Parv that there is a widespread “you must love everything” attitude. I think there are people like that, but they aren’t the majority. It is more along the lines of there is so much wrestling out there and every wrestler/promotion/match is going to appeal to someone. We all like to have our niche so people find something they genuinely like and they want others to like it, so they hype it incessantly. The end result is everything is hyped (by at least someone) which can create the illusion of “everyone thinking everything is great”. People have always pushed their favorites it is just now everyone has a forum to do so and everyone generally has access to the same insane volume of matches so the impact is magnified.

 

To add to this, I think there is perhaps more of a reluctance among many fans these days to be a detractor of something well-loved, and less people interested in engaging those detractors. A lot of Wrestling Twitter folks are more into shared enjoyment than debating and dissecting. Those kind of fans have really always been the majority in real life, but the internet didn't lend itself to that kind of fandom until recently.

 

 

This has been an issue in TV reviewing as well - many reviewers have talked about getting responses to negative reviews where the person feels reviews should be written by fans only, as if critiquing something others liked is a terrible thing to do.

 

Having a different opinion right now sadly makes you a troll and someone who is up to no good. It's becoming almost impossible to have any non echo chamber discussion. And any system where you can rate one response over another just enforces this stuff.

 

 

Of course, there are also real trolls out there, too! But I think it's something about the way the internet flattens influence. An excellent reviewer pointing out problems in an episode is very different from someone trolling to get noticed, but they both have the same voice on Twitter (at least in an individual's feed).

 

Of course, I don't really have many wrestling reviewers in my Twitter feed and mostly converse about wrestling with friends or on here. Maybe I'm just a bad example of creating an internet bubble, but I'd rather read the opinions of people I think are thoughtful than get in Twitter arguments.

[Loss]

I'm thinking disruptive in an NWO sense, not disruptive in a Talking Smack sense, by the way. Something that challenges everything about the way wrestling is presented. Obviously, that wouldn't be another version of the NWO at this point in time, but it would have the same impact in changing wrestling.

[Cap]

I'm thinking disruptive in an NWO sense, not disruptive in a Talking Smack sense, by the way. Something that challenges everything about the way wrestling is presented. Obviously, that wouldn't be another version of the NWO at this point in time, but it would have the same impact in changing wrestling.

I assumed you meant at a more macro level. I think our frustrations are similar, even if our focus, emphasis, or desire isn't.

 

I still enjoy those micro disruptions, but they generally minor solutions to a larger frustration.

[W2BTD]

 

Another example is that again with the platforms of podcasts, articles, twitter, facebook, etc, the personality of the individuals comes into play. This can create a reaction where I am in the wrong and get frustrated for no good reason. For example, Joe Lanza from Voices of Wrestling talked during the World Tag League finals how he thought that was as good as any tag match in 2016. I thought it was a good match at best and projected that this was a persisting narrative when in reality once the reviews rolled in, Joe was essentially the only one that was THAT high on that match. That is a fault of mine in projecting others opinions based on one entity but it does feel like stable warfare sometimes where you are either a Dylan soldier or a Lanza soldier, etc.

 

I really hate this, but at the same time it is unavoidable. There is no way to say this without sounding arrogant, but like it or not, I (and Dylan, and others, and really, anyone with a voice carries some sphere of influence) are tastemakers or sorts, and it does create this shitty, immature, battle between "factions". Dylan has parrots, and I have parrots, and it took me a while to come to grips with this, but that isn't inherently my fault, and I can't let that shape how I present my opinions. People read my reviews and listen to my show because they want to hear what Joe & Rich think, they want it presented in our style, they want our utter enthusiasm whether we love it or hate it (and we usually do enjoy what we watch, I think more so than most outlets we tend to be overtly positive, maybe because we tend to not waste time on stuff when we figure out clearly isn't for us, i.e. Chikara, LU, etc,), and that must be my focus. I can't soften my takes out of fear that I'm driving narrative in a certain direction, that wouldn't be honest and all we want to do is be honest, because in studying radio nothing comes through faster and harder than bullshit.

 

I disagreed with Dylan on a Smackdown match last night, and after about three or four tweets, we both white flagged that we were on different planets, and it ended there. A year or two ago, we'd still be arguing a day later. But what I think is happening, is our "disciples" are still a year behind, and fighting battles we arent interested in fighting ourselves. I've learned to stay in my lane and just do my job, which is to break down wrestling for the people who want my opinion. I think arguing with Bix over Ospreay/Ricochet is what broke me, so to speak. It just isn't a good use of time to get into Twitter debates because Twitter isn't designed for that. Twitter is for quick & dirty takes. I think "wrestling twittter" (i.e. our "bubble") needs to come to terms with that, and I think a lot of us have.

[JerryvonKramer]

I think Twitter has some in-built features (such as followers, "likes" and retweets) that encourage tribalism.

[Loss]

I've always been semi-insulted that I've never had a parrot.

[Death From Above]

At this point I don't watch much wrestling at all (someone links a match on social media I might watch it if there's nothing interesting on TV), but I can't really say I feel any more alienated from general wrestling fans now than at other times, because by the very nature of being a long time hardcore fan I've already been in that position since the mid-late 1990's.

 

I mean, your average wrestling fan my age in their mid-30's legitimately thinks the Attitude Era was the absolute zenith of the WWE being an entertaining company despite the fact that 1999 has a legitimate case as the single worst year for the WWE product in history. By 1999 I had already basically turned off that product and was a few years into VHS tape trading (probably around then when we switched to DVD's and everything got cheaper to ship, praise). So it's not as if I have some long-time connection to Joe Average Wresting Fan's viewpoint on wrestling.

 

As for the various internet tropes, honestly not much has really changed. You have the people that vastly overrate the importance of small American territories, Japan Otaku clan members, lucha zealots that see persecution everywhere, and you have people watching 100 hours of wrestling a week that "can't get into foreign wrestling because of the commentary". Nothing's really changed there it's just the numbers of each group fluctuate year to year. The only thing that's really changed is that Joe Average now has the WWE Network just so he can rewatch every Royal Rumble in a binge more easily.

 

The point about social media is somewhat interesting as it is a somewhat dangerous thing where you can always find 100 people that Think Just Like You and discard the rest, but again I don't really see that as new, so much as it is "Things we did in the past, on steroids". It is a danger, but it's a manageable one with self-moderation.

 

I honestly think people tend to overrate social changes, both in large scale issues and in small areas like the wrestling community. It's easy to see both the positive and negative in current scope but a lot of that same perspective about the past is easily lost. "there's lots of bad music made now, not like the 60's" because nobody has spun one of the thousands of genuinely trash psychedelic or bubblegum pop records that aren't any good in 40 years now.

[Grimmas]

What's weird is Smackdown is as good and old school and new school as any wrestling, maybe in history. The show utilizes everyone and builds to stuff. It's great.

[Loss]

Smackdown is as good as the best wrestling in history? Is that even possible when promos are scripted and matches are worked in such a limiting style?

[Grimmas]

Smackdown is as good as the best wrestling in history? Is that even possible when promos are scripted and matches are worked in such a limiting style?

It's in the same vein. I think it's the best overall WWE/F/WWWF product they've had.

 

It's not AJPW TV in the 90s, but that was 30 minutes of just a main event. I'd take this, but that's a way different beast.

[WingedEagle]

Smackdown is as good as the best wrestling in history? Is that even possible when promos are scripted and matches are worked in such a limiting style?

 

Its a fun show that flies by. If the promos aren't great, they're generally quick enough that they don't overstay their welcome. In contrast to the show that takes place 24 hours earlier, it looks even more terrific. Outside of that context? Who knows. Greatest TV show in history feels a bit hyperbolic.