Thoughts on the following wrestling eras

[Guest savagerulz]

ECW 1996 was entertaining at the time but between them, and Vince taking their ideals mainstream, they killed the business for me. The more they pushed, the more you expected, the more they couldn't deliver. It was always going to end in disaster.

 

ECW was great stuff at the time but it doesn't stand the test of time well when you look back at it. It's all sloppy. The workers are way over rated and booked to look good when in fact they're average at best. They pushed boundaries and had something unique going on for them but dunno, for me, long term, it's really not that good. At the time I jizzed up over most of their roster, looking back and watching the matches now, they're sloppy and really not that great. At the time I thought the Eliminators were the greatest tag team I'd ever seen. Watch their matches now, and unless they have Gordy & Williams carrying them to something good, the matches are just crap clusterfucks that never told a story.

[Loss]

I think that's an accomplishment more than a problem. The fact that Heyman made a average-below average roster look like a million bucks speaks volumes for his booking. He has tendencies that annoy me, but that's definitely his biggest strength ... hiding weaknesses and getting limited guys over.

[Slasher]

And in turn, produce stuff that doesn't age well.

[Loss]

Which only matters to the audience it was never intended to please, meaning the people watching it years later. I agree that it doesn't age well, but why does that matter? It was successful at the time.

[goodhelmet]

It matters in the sense that even if it wasn't intended for us to watch 10 years later, we are the ones who are watching it now. if it doesn't age well then it is just a bunch of discs taking up space.

[Loss]

Depends on how you watch wrestling, I guess. If you watch it with zero perspective and context, yes, that's true.

 

No one is saying ECW is great in 2006, but ECW was never attempting to be great in 2006. Any match from any time period can be compared to any other. I believe that very strongly. But that doesn't mean that historical context and the time frame the match happened in is completely unimportant.

 

Lots of great music sounds dated today, does that mean it's worthless?

[goodhelmet]

Yep, because lord knows I have no perspective or don't understand wrestling history.

 

Most of the arena matches I watch from the 70s were never meant to be on film... period. Yet, there I am watching them 30 years later enjoying the hell out of them. Why? Because I truly believe good wrestling will stand the test of time while the smoke and mirrors bullshit Paul E. incorporated will be exposed for what it is.

Therefore when we ask what our feelings about 1996 ECW are, esp. if we have seen some of it recently, the way we watch it ten years later is every bit as relavent as what our feelings were when it occurred.

 

So tell me where the zero perspective comment comes in again?

[Loss]

Because you can acknowledge that something worked in its time period and seemed good at the time without saying all it's doing is collecting space. One thing Meltzer once said that I agree with strongly is that there is something to be learned from any wrestling company ever that had any measure of success. So, someone could watch some cards from 1996 ECW and probably figure out what worked and why, and go from there and maybe figure out what would work and what wouldn't in today's environment. So it has value, even if it was kind of the wrestling equivalent of a pulp fiction novel.

 

ECW is best talked about as a whole than talking about the individual matches. The best match I've ever seen from ECW was probably Taijiri/Psicosis from 2000, a match that I'd call ***1/2 on a good day. But the way ECW shows flowed from one match to the next, it was such an adrenaline rush from start to finish that it was easy to forget that what you were watching wasn't really all that great. So, ECW has value, maybe not from the perspective of finding great matches that still look great 10 years later, but in terms of seeing how to structure a card and get stiffs over, and make people seem better than they are. Compare that to 2005 WWE, where because of limitations and bad booking, a lot of guys seem worse than they really are.

[goodhelmet]

OK, but when you posted this topic, did you want out opinions of how we felt then or now? Do you want a history lesson or emotions? I didn't say it couldn't work or didn't have its niche but I am not looking from the perspective of a friggin promotr. I am looking at it from a wrestling fan point of view. As Slasher said, the stuff doesn't age well (from a wrestling fan perspective). From someone who is watching it in 2006, he is 100% correct. Looking back historically, as YOU said, it was an adrenaline rush that wasn't designed for a 2006 audience. That is 100% correct.

 

 

Now, it is crap collecting space in my collection. Then, I wasn't even watching it. So how do I have zero perspective again? Maybe a better phrase you could have used was a different perspective.

 

 

ECW is best talked about as a whole than talking about the individual matches

This is completely contingent on what the person wants to get out of their wrestling. Some people watch wrestling for individual matches. Others watch it for the episodic nature. If someone doesn't enjoy the whole product then it makes no sense to talk about it as a whole. Maybe that is what is best for you but the same doesn't hold true for everybody.

[Loss]

OK, but when you posted this topic, did you want out opinions of how we felt then or now?

I didn't want anything except honest answers. I got them, and I challenged them. That's what the board is for.

 

Do you want a history lesson or emotions? I didn't say it couldn't work or didn't have its niche but I am not looking from the perspective of a friggin promoter. I am looking at it from a wrestling fan point of view.

I'll remember that next time you say you want them to put the belt on Rey. That's looking at things through the eyes of a promoter *and* a fan. I thought we all wanted to get educated and learn to look at the big picture.

 

As Slasher said, the stuff doesn't age well (from a wrestling fan perspective). From someone who is watching it in 2006, he is 100% correct. Looking back historically, as YOU said, it was an adrenaline rush that wasn't designed for a 2006 audience. That is 100% correct.

 

Now, it is crap collecting space in my collection. Then, I wasn't even watching it. So how do I have zero perspective again? Maybe a better phrase you could have used was a different perspective.

Zero perspective is right. It's like watching 70s AJPW and complaining about a lack of Canadian Destroyers.

 

This is completely contingent on what the person wants to get out of their wrestling. Some people watch wrestling for individual matches. Others watch it for the episodic nature. If someone doesn't enjoy the whole product then it makes no sense to talk about it as a whole. Maybe that is what is best for you but the same doesn't hold true for everybody.

This topic was about eras, not matches. If you have no interest in discussing the product as a whole, why post?

[goodhelmet]

Ok, you challenged the fact that Slasher said it hasn't aged well. Why? Because you were looking at it when it happened? Some of us only have what is on tape to see this stuff. Once again, it may be a different perspective than the one from the guy who watched it live. That is not zero perspective. It is just differnet.

 

 

I'll remember that next time you say you want them to put the belt on Rey. That's looking at things through the eyes of a promoter *and* a fan.?

Ok, please do and please remember that as a wrestling fan, I want to see Rey win the belt. What's your point?

 

I thought we all wanted to get educated and learn to look at the big picture.

Well, lets all sit around the camp fire and listen to what you have to say since it is clearly the only RIGHT opinion.

 

As a wrestling fan who did not see 1996 ECW live, but only on tape, I do not enjoy it. This is not having zero perspective about a product but a different one.

 

Other guys who do not enjoy 1996 ECW now (or at least admit it doesn't age well)include savagerule and Slasher. Do we all have zero perspective? Even when savagerulez clearly said, "ECW 1996 was entertaining at the time."

 

Ok great, no one is arguing that. We all agree it was different back then. Looking back, now it sucks. Where is the lack of perspective?

 

 

Zero perspective is right. It's like watching 70s AJPW and complaining about a lack of Canadian Destroyers.

NO, it is looking back and saying "Man this was a shitty program because the wrestling sucks." You can do the same thing for any TV show. Shows like MASH hold up surprisingly well because there was substance. Other shows I enjoyed as a kid don't. Am I supposed to hold it against the Brady Kids because they didn't use cell phones? Should I hold it aginast he original Willy Wonka becuase I can see the string on the glass elevator and they didn't use CGI?

 

Same thing goes for wrestling. I can look back at an era or a show or a match and determine it sucks now even if I enjoyed it back then. When talking about 1988 NWA or 1994 All Japan, why isn't anyone saying it doesn't hold up now? Why does ECW get a free pass from you and these others don't NEED free passes. Why? Because the work of 1994 AJ still stands. The angles and work of 1988 NWA also still work for the most part. Once again, no excuses needed because of perspective.

 

 

This topic was about eras, not matches. If you have no interest in discussing the product as a whole, why post?

For chrissakes, would you feel better if I didn't post? Give me the word and I am gone.

 

As a whole, the ECW 1996 TV does not stand the test of the time. For people who are more interested in the matches than the episodic TV, even more so. You were never supposed to see 1994 All Japan. Why did you even bring it up? Americans are not the intended audience but here we are talking about it. How do you even know what the hell is going on if not for the matches? I don't speak Japanese. I don't think you do either.

[sek69]

I don't like it when mommy and daddy fight....

 

 

Having said that, I agree that ECW doesn't really age well, but I think a lot of it has to do with WCW and especially WWF/E killing the "hardcore" aspect with zillions of matches featuring jobbers hitting each other with obviously gimmicked weapons.

 

Watching ECW now, it doesn't seem like anything special. It's like watching the Jumping Bomb Angels doing powerbombs in 1985 WWF, it's no big deal now but that shit was revolutionary at the time.

[Coffey]

I did watch ECW live because it was shown on late night FSN, or ESPN at like 1am or 2am on Sat. nights. That was the first time I ever saw someone go through a table. I remember thinking "that guy's dead." Now table spots happen all the time, so it's no big deal. It was HUGE the first time I saw it. When I first saw Raven slap Dreamer with a chair, it was just a chairshot because I'd seen a lot of chair shots. When I first saw him drop-toe hold someone onto an open chair, or use a cheese grater or put someone threw a table or kendo stick someone, it was all new. It drew me in and I watched whenever it was on.

 

ECW also popularized the multiple man run-in. I'm not talking like the IV Horsemen running out to save Flair. I mean, just random dudes coming out because they can. Everyone from the lower card guys up to the main eventers and then New Jack with a shopping cart full of "toys." Granted in '96 it was more like 9-1-1 doing run-ins and Chokeslamming everyone but still. I didn't see anything like that again until the nWo.

[Guest savagerulz]

I think that's an accomplishment more than a problem. The fact that Heyman made a average-below average roster look like a million bucks speaks volumes for his booking. He has tendencies that annoy me, but that's definitely his biggest strength ... hiding weaknesses and getting limited guys over.

It's an accomplishment for Heyman, but it doesn't mean I have to think those guys have any talent whatsoever. I just get irritated with people jizzing up over everyone who was in ECW when a huge number of them didn't know how to work and were exposed as soon as they tried to leave ECW. It's a credit to Heyman, but for me it's just another reason why they were a promotion doing something different, without actually being very good.

[Loss]

Ok, you challenged the fact that Slasher said it hasn't aged well. Why? Because you were looking at it when it happened? Some of us only have what is on tape to see this stuff. Once again, it may be a different perspective than the one from the guy who watched it live. That is not zero perspective. It is just differnet.

Because it's dismissive and takes the fact that ECW was an entertaining product to its fans at the time and tries to make that insignificant because people aren't entertained now. Great, if you feel that way. I'm not particularly entertained by it anymore either. But I'm not going to downplay the impact they had at the time either, by saying nothing holds up and leaving my post at that, which is what Slasher did.

 

Ok, please do and please remember that as a wrestling fan, I want to see Rey win the belt. What's your point?

The point is that you can't criticize booking decisions if you only intend to look at wrestling from the viewpoint of a fan, especially when you start argue that not only do you enjoy him, but that he's the only draw on SD. At that point, you've crossed the line. If you, a tape trader and former Observer subscriber, aren't interested in the grander picture, I have to ask you what's your point?

 

I thought we all wanted to get educated and learn to look at the big picture.

Well, lets all sit around the camp fire and listen to what you have to say since it is clearly the only RIGHT opinion.

In this case, yes, that's right.

 

(A little bird told me once I need to be more assertive in my posts.)

 

As a wrestling fan who did not see 1996 ECW live, but only on tape, I do not enjoy it. This is not having zero perspective about a product but a different one.

 

Other guys who do not enjoy 1996 ECW now (or at least admit it doesn't age well)include savagerule and Slasher. Do we all have zero perspective? Even when savagerulez clearly said, "ECW 1996 was entertaining at the time."

 

Ok great, no one is arguing that. We all agree it was different back then. Looking back, now it sucks. Where is the lack of perspective?

The lack of perspective is in the whole the-only-thing-that-matters-is-whether-or-not-I'm-personally-entertained-every-moment-I'm-watching-this-crap point of view that seems to be prevalent in this thread. It's tunnel vision, and it's basically saying, hey, let's totally ignore the scope of what ECW was doing and instead make it all about me and my enjoyment and fuck everything else. Everyone is entitled to an opinion and a viewpoint, but the post that set me off was not yours for saying you didn't like it, or savagerulz's, who acknowledged the strengths and weaknesses, but as Slasher writing off any good 1996 ECW may have had at the time, just because the wrestlers were limited. Paul Heyman getting a lot out of a little does count for something, whether you want to admit that or not.

 

NO, it is looking back and saying "Man this was a shitty program because the wrestling sucks." You can do the same thing for any TV show. Shows like MASH hold up surprisingly well because there was substance. Other shows I enjoyed as a kid don't. Am I supposed to hold it against the Brady Kids because they didn't use cell phones? Should I hold it aginast he original Willy Wonka becuase I can see the string on the glass elevator and they didn't use CGI?

Thanks for making my point for me. That's the equivalent of the whole argument.

 

Same thing goes for wrestling. I can look back at an era or a show or a match and determine it sucks now even if I enjoyed it back then. When talking about 1988 NWA or 1994 All Japan, why isn't anyone saying it doesn't hold up now? Why does ECW get a free pass from you and these others don't NEED free passes. Why? Because the work of 1994 AJ still stands. The angles and work of 1988 NWA also still work for the most part. Once again, no excuses needed because of perspective.

Of course not, even if 1988 NWA probably wouldn't work today as a promotion. But see what I mean by tunnel vision? This was about the overall package, not just wrestling matches. I'm sorry that you tried to make the ECW argument all about that. 1996 ECW would fall behind the other eras for me without a second thought. Not calling it great, in fact earlier in the thread, I said very clearly that it wasn't. But I also said that's it's an accomplishment to get stuff over and make it seem great even when it's not. So if someone posed the question of why they enjoyed the golden days of ECW more than modern WWE, even though ECW had a much less talented roster than modern WWE, the old stuff would have value. So it's not sitting there wasting space.

 

That. That was my whole point. That it has value. Saying that it's just sitting there collecting dust implies that it doesn't. So, what it comes down to, in the end, is that whether *you* enjoyed it or not, it was still a great era for the fans of the company at the time. Had you said that without the whole "collecting dust" line, I probably wouldn't have flipped out.

 

This topic was about eras, not matches. If you have no interest in discussing the product as a whole, why post?

For chrissakes, would you feel better if I didn't post? Give me the word and I am gone.

 

Thanks for not answering my question.

 

No, I wouldn't feel better if you didn't post. This isn't personal, so calm down. My point was that if you have no desire to discuss the era-at-large, which is what this topic is about, then don't discuss it. Simple as that.

 

As a whole, the ECW 1996 TV does not stand the test of the time. For people who are more interested in the matches than the episodic TV, even more so. You were never supposed to see 1994 All Japan. Why did you even bring it up? Americans are not the intended audience but here we are talking about it.  How do you even know what the hell is going on if not for the matches? I don't speak Japanese. I don't think you do either.

This has nothing to do with the argument at all. At all. Not. At. All. It does not stand the test of time. I have not argued that once. What I have argued is implying that it's useless now just because you aren't entertained by it. There are more important things than the opinion of one person watching years later on tape. If you can't see that, then yes, there is no perspective involved. I have no idea what point you're trying to make here.

[Loss]

I think that's an accomplishment more than a problem. The fact that Heyman made a average-below average roster look like a million bucks speaks volumes for his booking. He has tendencies that annoy me, but that's definitely his biggest strength ... hiding weaknesses and getting limited guys over.

It's an accomplishment for Heyman, but it doesn't mean I have to think those guys have any talent whatsoever. I just get irritated with people jizzing up over everyone who was in ECW when a huge number of them didn't know how to work and were exposed as soon as they tried to leave ECW. It's a credit to Heyman, but for me it's just another reason why they were a promotion doing something different, without actually being very good.

Wouldn't argue with anything you said here at all.

[Coffey]

This is the way I see if, or at least the way I've comprehended what's been typed so far:

 

Loss is talking about each era during that era. The day-to-day of each era. The matches along with the storylines, build, etc. The impact that each era had on the business as a whole.

 

Goodhelmet is just looking at the matches of each era because he didn't watch each era. Or at least '96 ECW, so he's just going by workrate/match quality whatever you want to call it.

 

There's more to it than just matches. I think that's the point. You can say AJPW '94 was better than ECW '96 because Kawada/Misawa was better than 911/Dreamer but that's not the point of this post. At least, I don't think it is.

[goodhelmet]

Because it's dismissive and takes the fact that ECW was an entertaining product to its fans at the time and tries to make that insignificant because people aren't entertained now. Great, if you feel that way. I'm not particularly entertained by it anymore either. But I'm not going to downplay the impact they had at the time either, by saying nothing holds up and leaving my post at that, which is what Slasher did.

No one said 1996 ECW had no value at the time... or even historical value. What it lacks, esp. for me and others including yourself, is current entertainment value.

 

 

The point is that you can't criticize booking decisions if you only intend to look at wrestling from the viewpoint of a fan, especially when you start argue that not only do you enjoy him, but that he's the only draw on SD. At that point, you've crossed the line. If you, a tape trader and former Observer subscriber, aren't interested in the grander picture, I have to ask you what's your point?

Yes you can because what it means to be a wrestling fan today is completely different for some people then what it meant before. As a wrestling fan, (and despite popular opinion, I am a fan), I know it is fake and still want to see the company give him the belt because I enjoy him in the ring. I don't need to play booker to know I want him to have the belt. However, reading the Observer, being on the net, analyzing matches is a new way of being a fan. If I did not have the internet I can 100% guarantee that I would not be a fan of today's wrestling because my scope of exposure would be smaller. Being a wrestling fan is no longer restricted to being the guy in the stands who cheers and boos and hopes good conquers evil.

 

Of course I am interewsted in the bigger picture but once I again I refer to what I said earlier in the thread... No one said 1996 ECW had no value at the time... or even historical value. What it lacks, esp. for me and others including yourself, is current entertainment value. I think that it did more harm than good from a historical viewpoint anyway so to me the value is negative.

 

 

A little bird told me once I need to be more assertive in my posts.

With anyone else except me would be a nice change.

 

 

The lack of perspective is in the whole the-only-thing-that-matters-is-whether-or-not-I'm-personally-entertained-every-moment-I'm-watching-this-crap point of view that seems to be prevalent in this thread. It's tunnel vision, and it's basically saying, hey, let's totally ignore the scope of what ECW was doing and instead make it all about me and my enjoyment and fuck everything else. Everyone is entitled to an opinion and a viewpoint, but the post that set me off was not yours for saying you didn't like it, or savagerulz's, who acknowledged the strengths and weaknesses, but as Slasher writing off any good 1996 ECW may have had at the time, just because the wrestlers were limited. Paul Heyman getting a lot out of a little does count for something, whether you want to admit that or not.

I re-read the thread and Slasher's one line comment is still valid just as the claim is that Paul Heyman was good at hiding weaknesses. He may have hid them but upon reflection, it doesn't stand the test of time. As for the scope of what ECW was doing, that again depends if you think it was a positive or a negative.

 

 

Thanks for making my point for me. That's the equivalent of the whole argument.

OK, we'll have to backtrack because there is a difference. Your original post stated... Zero perspective is right. It's like watching 70s AJPW and complaining about a lack of Canadian Destroyers.

 

However, in my response, you ignored one part which is very relavent about this topic... I said, "NO, it is looking back and saying "Man this was a shitty program because the wrestling sucks." You can do the same thing for any TV show. Shows like MASH hold up surprisingly well because there was substance"

 

What this really comes down to is a style vs. substance debate. ECWwas an adrenaline rush, it was non-stop TNA blah blah blah but at the end of the day, there was no substance. We didn't see it then but we see it now. This supports Slasher's comments, my comments, savagerulez comments and even your point that you do not enjoy it now. If you don't enjoy it then it goes back to what I said... it is just footage taking up space.

 

The reason why I still enjoy the original Willy wonka is because there was substance. For the Brady Bunch, there may be a lack of substance but there is still some camp value. In 1996 ECW, I find little substance and less camp value, which leads us to...

 

So if someone posed the question of why they enjoyed the golden days of ECW more than modern WWE, even though ECW had a much less talented roster than modern WWE, the old stuff would have value. So it's not sitting there wasting space.

 

That. That was my whole point. That it has value. Saying that it's just sitting there collecting dust implies that it doesn't. So, what it comes down to, in the end, is that whether *you* enjoyed it or not, it was still a great era for the fans of the company at the time. Had you said that without the whole "collecting dust" line, I probably wouldn't have flipped out.

We already agreed it had value. The difference is that for me, as a fan, a tape collector and Observer reader, that footage has no entertainment value so it collects dust. I have already watched the tapes and have no urge to watch them again, unlike something like The Best of Starrcade which I have watched about a dozen times in the last year.

 

 

Thanks for not answering my question.

 

No, I wouldn't feel better if you didn't post. This isn't personal, so calm down. My point was that if you have no desire to discuss the era-at-large, which is what this topic is about, then don't discuss it. Simple as that

I did anwser your question, you just didn't like the answer, one you completely dismissed as not having anything to do with the conversation which was...

 

 

As a whole, the ECW 1996 TV does not stand the test of the time. For people who are more interested in the matches than the episodic TV, even more so. You were never supposed to see 1994 All Japan. Why did you even bring it up? Americans are not the intended audience but here we are talking about it.  How do you even know what the hell is going on if not for the matches? I don't speak Japanese. I don't think you do either.

This has nothing to do with the argument at all. At all. Not. At. All. It does not stand the test of time. I have not argued that once. What I have argued is implying that it's useless now just because you aren't entertained by it. There are more important things than the opinion of one person watching years later on tape. If you can't see that, then yes, there is no perspective involved. I have no idea what point you're trying to make here.

My point was referring to your assertion that it doesn't matter what we think now of a product in the past because we are not the intended audience. Maybe I should have put quotes around that individual statement of yours.

 

No one argued that Heyman didn't hide weaknesses. No one argued that there wasn't some historical value (good or bad). When you responded to Slasher's comments, what were you responding to if you agree? Becuase he didn't elaborate?

[Slasher]

Since it is becoming apparent that Loss has no idea what I meant in my post, thinking I was putting down ECW's impact, I will explain more in depth my view:

 

1. Today, in 2006, I sit down to watch an ECW show. It sucks today. This shows that it aged terribly. I'm not talking just in-ring quality, it's the production values, everything. ECW comes off looking like some indy fed that got blown up to national level just because... Heyman wanted to.

 

2. To compare that to someone complaining about 1970s AJPW not utilizing Canadian Destroyers... that is such a meaningless and irrevelant argument. I never said that ECW sucked because they lacked Canadian Destroyers or Styles Clashes or Best Moonsaults Ever. That's just digging in your debate bag so deep you end up grabbing lint. ECW sucks now because their workers don't look good, even for 1996 standards. We have the resources to be able to find a wider variety of wrestling stuff. We're able to find the best stuff of any period. I doubt there's going to be very many ECW matches on "Best of Pro Wrestling 1996" comps. Or any year for that matter. As a pure workrate fan, this stuff just doesn't hold up to me. At all.

 

3. Heyman is a genius. He has shown the ability to hide flaws. This is true. This is not what I'm arguing against. I'm arguing against the product in a whole, which consists mostly of.... WRESTLING. When the main draw of the promotion (the actual wrestling) doesn't hold up, why would the product? ECW in 1996 was a great place. ECW as seen in 2006, is not. Now as goodhelmet said, this is not true of other promotions. So why defend ECW so fiercely?

 

4. ECW DOES NOT AGE WELL. ANYONE ARGUING TO THE CONTRARY IS AN IDIOT. THAT IS ALL.

[goodhelmet]

This is the way I see if, or at least the way I've comprehended what's been typed so far:

 

Loss is talking about each era during that era. The day-to-day of each era. The matches along with the storylines, build, etc. The impact that each era had on the business as a whole.

 

Goodhelmet is just looking at the matches of each era because he didn't watch each era. Or at least '96 ECW, so he's just going by workrate/match quality whatever you want to call it.

 

There's more to it than just matches. I think that's the point. You can say AJPW '94 was better than ECW '96 because Kawada/Misawa was better than 911/Dreamer but that's not the point of this post. At least, I don't think it is.

No, you're wrong.

 

That isn't waht I was getting to at all. I am saying that if you watch an ea after it occurred then the veiwpoint or PERSPECTIVE will be different. It doesn't mean you lack perspective.

[goodhelmet]

Since it is becoming apparent that Loss has no idea what I meant in my post, thinking I was putting down ECW's impact, I will explain more in depth my view:

 

1. Today, in 2006, I sit down to watch an ECW show. It sucks today. This shows that it aged terribly. I'm not talking just in-ring quality, it's the production values, everything. ECW comes off looking like some indy fed that got blown up to national level just because... Heyman wanted to.

 

2. To compare that to someone complaining about 1970s AJPW not utilizing Canadian Destroyers... that is such a meaningless and irrevelant argument. I never said that ECW sucked because they lacked Canadian Destroyers or Styles Clashes or Best Moonsaults Ever. That's just digging in your debate bag so deep you end up grabbing lint. ECW sucks now because their workers don't look good, even for 1996 standards. We have the resources to be able to find a wider variety of wrestling stuff. We're able to find the best stuff of any period. I doubt there's going to be very many ECW matches on "Best of Pro Wrestling 1996" comps. Or any year for that matter. As a pure workrate fan, this stuff just doesn't hold up to me. At all.

 

3. Heyman is a genius. He has shown the ability to hide flaws. This is true. This is not what I'm arguing against. I'm arguing against the product in a whole, which consists mostly of.... WRESTLING. When the main draw of the promotion (the actual wrestling) doesn't hold up, why would the product? ECW in 1996 was a great place. ECW as seen in 2006, is not. Now as goodhelmet said, this is not true of other promotions. So why defend ECW so fiercely?

 

4. ECW DOES NOT AGE WELL. ANYONE ARGUING TO THE CONTRARY IS AN IDIOT. THAT IS ALL.

[sek69]

This discussion about ECW not aging well makes me wonder how ROH will be looked at in 2016. Especially considering that with the exception of Samoa Joe, a lot of ROH's top stars tend to look a lot....different when working outside of the promotion.

 

It's looking more and more that the only difference is that Gabe doesn't have the hard on about getting on TV and PPV that Paul E. did, and who's to say that Heyman would have pushed so hard if he had a more established DVD market like ROH has. I know DVDs were around in 1996, but ECW fans weren't exactly the type to be early adopters.

[Slasher]

Well I should amend the 4th point. If people find ECW entertaining and whatever TODAY, then all the power to them. I'm speaking in general.

 

4. ECW DOES NOT AGE WELL. ANYONE ARGUING TO THE CONTRARY EITHER REALLY LIKES ECW OR IS AN IDIOT. THAT IS ALL.

 

 

Ok better.

[Slasher]

sek, good question. This is just something we're going to have to find out naturally. We don't know how it age until it actually ages.

[Mad Dog]

It won't age well. Early RoH has already not aged well.