Ridiculous quotes from WO.com columnists

[sek69]

Masters hasn't had a bad tv match this year. Pick any match. I think the best have been against Chavo, Dolph and Gallows. Not that you care.

 

I guess that's my problem, all the good stuff seems to be on SuperStars that while I DVR it I don't always watch it. It just gets frustrating to watch guys you know WWE will never get behind, so I guess it's a defense mechanism to not want to start getting into a guy who could be endeavored at any time.

[Phil Schneider]

You took a flacid shot at the "columns" I write (pretty sure I have never written a column on anything) while seemingly ignoring the fact that you have 6000 post on Pro Wrestling Only, 6000 posts where you haven't made a single interesting observation, funny joke, intriguing take, or developed thought. 6000 fucking posts of drip drop stupidity, constant unending banality. For the love of god man, do something, anything to justify your constant limp piss stream.

 

6000 posts in 5 years dating back to when this place was more than just pro wres talk. I'm not a post count = dick size kind of guy, but I don't think that kind of output is excessive.

 

You don't consider what you write to be columns, fine. I'm not going to argue semantics. Just don't pretend you're breaking any new ground when DEAN~! was doing reviews of random Japanese indies six years ago.

 

Also I think that if I ever reach the point where I'm posting on the internet to entertain people like yourself, that will be the day I hang up my keyboard. I've never been a "I hope I can sit at the cool kids' table" kind of guy, not going to start now.

 

Man you are pretty much the most "I hope I can sit at the cool kids' table" kind of guy I have ever run across. Spectacular lack of self awareness to pull that defense out of pretty much nowhere. It works about as well as firing a pro wrestling nerd shot at someone with your 6063rd post on a board titled Pro Wrestling Only. This is the problem with teaching self esteem to kids in school, everyone thinks their special and interesting and they are completely unable to look at themselves objectively.

[goc]

Masters hasn't had a bad tv match this year. Pick any match. I think the best have been against Chavo, Dolph and Gallows. Not that you care.

 

I guess that's my problem, all the good stuff seems to be on SuperStars that while I DVR it I don't always watch it. It just gets frustrating to watch guys you know WWE will never get behind, so I guess it's a defense mechanism to not want to start getting into a guy who could be endeavored at any time.

 

And that is the problem we all have with the people who come along and go "oh those guys are pimping Chris Masters? Must just be trolling or trying to be ironic" Seems like damn near every person who has had something negative to say about people praising Masters haven't even seen any of his work this year, yet are such experts that they know we MUST just be trolling when we talk about how good his matches have been.

[Dylan Waco]

Masters hasn't had a bad tv match this year. Pick any match. I think the best have been against Chavo, Dolph and Gallows. Not that you care.

 

I guess that's my problem, all the good stuff seems to be on SuperStars that while I DVR it I don't always watch it. It just gets frustrating to watch guys you know WWE will never get behind, so I guess it's a defense mechanism to not want to start getting into a guy who could be endeavored at any time.

 

 

He's a Superstars All-Star. He did have a really good four minute match with Dolph on SD and a good match with Orton on Raw in Jan. Both worked totally differently

[sek69]

It works about as well as firing a pro wrestling nerd shot at someone with your 6063rd post on a board titled Pro Wrestling Only. This is the problem with teaching self esteem to kids in school, everyone thinks their special and interesting and they are completely unable to look at themselves objectively.

 

Again, douchebag, this board used to be more than just pro wrestling. Of course you weren't here then because I doubt you could hold a conversation on any other subject. But by all means, keep with the "OMG 6000 PRO WRES POSTS!", it just proves how thick headed you are.

[Strummer]

As more of a casual poster, I think DVDVR is fun. I agree with some common thoughts there and disagree with others. I love Dustin Rhodes and think Angle's been terribly overrated for a number of years. But I also love Shawn Michaels and don't get the appeal of Mark Henry. But the guys do explain why they think the way they do, which is all you can ask. The discussion is very good. It's nice to be somewhere where people don't all have the Meltzer taste in wrestling with Tyler Black/Davey Richards considered better than anything WWE can put on.

 

And it's nice to post somewhere that people seem to genuinely like wrestling, and where I don't have to read every week about how RAW was the worst show WWE has ever put on. The 80s projects are great. I love the idea of people going back and watching ECW fancams. I love people avidly watching Superstars each week and caring about it.

Completely agree. DVR is a fun board because they actually seem to like wrestling and don't just pattern Meltzer's and general IWC's talking points. And the guys that do go against the grain go out of their way to *explain* why they feel that way and aren't just posting things to gets people riled up

[El-P]

Jesus you fucking dimwit, no one is pretending to like anyone. Masters has had a bunch of great matches in the last couple of months, there have dozens of posts by dozens of dudes pointing out the specific matches, posting links ect, guys like EricR, Dylan and S.L.L. have written books on exactly what they enjoy about him. This isn't some giant conspiracy, I have never pimped a wrestler that I didn't think was actually good to make some ironic point, and neither have any of the other people you are talking about.

 

OK then you have horrible taste in pro wres and you write huge TL;DR columns about it like you were getting a PhD in it that a handful people read and all of them are people who post on DVDVR (which is the worst board on the internet in terms of people with horrible tastes in pro wres).

 

You sound exactly like me circa 2001.

 

Well, I see this thing turned ugly in a heartbeat. For those who don't seem to get it, what I'm saying with trends, is that a handful of people are pimping some workers and a mass of posters follow. It's not that hard to understand, and I don't even see the issue about it. It's human, it happens in any kind of realm, music, movies, politics etc... Nobody said that you Dylan, were a follower. I'm not even talking about Chris Master since I haven't seen *any* matches by this guy. Just talking about trends. It's so funny to see you and a bunch of people deny it. QUite frankly, if I was a trendsetter, I would probably be kinda glad to be one. Well, probably not, but that's just me being me. But you get the drift, it's not even a "quality" judgement on my part, although sometime some trend just make my eyes roll (Takada hate for instance), it's just a simple observation.

[Loss]

I haven't seen a single Chris Masters match this year, but I don't think it's right to dismiss them without watching. Anyone who's watched wrestling for any length of time knows that sometimes, people who aren't that good when they start out start to put things together at a certain point and become good. Look at Rick Rude and Steve Austin, just as the two most obvious examples that come to mind. Likewise, there are people who are good who slip over time.

 

So this post isn't necessarily to defend Masters (although I am intrigued and interested in watching some of the matches that I've seen recommended), but more to point out that it's really not a good idea to decide that if you saw someone early on and they weren't very good, that there's no way they can turn things around. It's happened for as long as wrestling has been around, and it's not some new, out-of-the-box idea that wrestlers change over time.

 

Second, most people who have been posting on various message boards have been doing so for many years now -- I'm guessing a decade plus for most of us. I think it would be worth everyone's time to get past the point where we're criticizing intentions behind praise or criticism, and instead focusing on the point itself. Yes, there are bandwagon jumpers. Sometimes, it may be people trying to "fit in" by sharing opinions, and sometimes, it may be that someone read something that clicked with them for whatever reason, and they agreed with it, or it made them see wrestler (x) or match (x) in a different light. That's true of pretty much any form of entertainment that gets reviewed, by the way. Either way, we have no way of being inside each others' heads, so criticizing intent is a waste of time.

 

I can't ever recall having a heated "debate" with Phil or jdw or Dylan or whoever else, but there have definitely been differences in opinion. I think those guys are probably the most anti-group think types around. They all like what they like, and don't like what they don't. They explain their reasoning behind everything. And in truth, they probably get falsely accused more of just posting things to stir up shit than I can recall anyone else getting accused of.

 

If anything, the group think and mob mentality I think exists more these days with the WON/F4W crowd. That's not a criticism (Well, it is, but that's not my point in bringing it up ...), it's an observation. Phil and Dylan are pretty committed to their opinions, but they're not above reconsidering them if someone makes a point worth hearing either. You can't really say that for people like Bryan Alvarez, Mo Chatra or whoever else you want to mention from that crowd.

[rovert]

Again, douchebag, this board used to be more than just pro wrestling. Of course you weren't here then because I doubt you could hold a conversation on any other subject. But by all means, keep with the "OMG 6000 PRO WRES POSTS!", it just proves how thick headed you are.

Someone doesnt listen to the opening 15 minutes of Segunda Caida and other related shows.

 

 

Again it needs to be asked what is it about "DVDR" guys opinions that they get dismissed or ridiculed instead of being meant with "hey cool I must check that guy out" or whatever?

[S.L.L.]

Well, I see this thing turned ugly in a heartbeat. For those who don't seem to get it, what I'm saying with trends, is that a handful of people are pimping some workers and a mass of posters follow. It's not that hard to understand, and I don't even see the issue about it. It's human, it happens in any kind of realm, music, movies, politics etc... Nobody said that you Dylan, were a follower. I'm not even talking about Chris Master since I haven't seen *any* matches by this guy. Just talking about trends. It's so funny to see you and a bunch of people deny it. QUite frankly, if I was a trendsetter, I would probably be kinda glad to be one. Well, probably not, but that's just me being me. But you get the drift, it's not even a "quality" judgement on my part, although sometime some trend just make my eyes roll (Takada hate for instance), it's just a simple observation.

Not gonna deny the presence of trends. Not gonna deny the existence of hive mentality. But you talk about "a handful of people are pimping some workers and a mass of posters follow". How big is this mass? Earlier, you wrote:

 

I'm not talking about YOU being anti-moves. I'm saying it's not surprising that the vast majority of the people watching the set hates Sayama because there's a trend.

How vast is the majority?

 

As a general rule, I don't think people follow things in entertainment that don't actually...you know...entertain them. Didn't dig Tiger Mask, but I don't dispute that people at the time - and his defenders today - genuinely enjoy his matches. Listening to Linkin Park feels like someone forcibly jamming a chainsaw into my ear, but I don't dispute that a whole bunch of people genuinely enjoy their music. I got absolutely nothing out of watching The Blair Witch Project. Nothing at all. But I don't dispute that a whole bunch of people genuinely enjoyed that movie. Oh, sure, these acts all had big marketing campaigns backing them up. So did Diesel as WWF Champion and Battlefield Earth. Hype doesn't do all the work for you. Generally speaking, people's main motivation for liking things isn't that they're told to like them. It's that they like them.

 

And if I'm wrong, then does that mean that the "vast majority" of film aficionados who think It's a Wonderful Life is an all-time classic are just following a trend?

[El-P]

How vast is the majority?

The term "vast majority" was used by Dylan when he said that the vast majority of the people watching the set were at best indifferent to Tiger Mask. I think a part, and maybe a good part, of that "vast majority" is influenced by a few trendsetters who have said for some time now that Tiger Mask sucked. All the people who watch the set post at the same board, which is like a small community, with its "leaders" of sorts, and there's no way these guys aren't influent on how people around them think about wrestling. Which is kinda natural in a way.

 

As a general rule, I don't think people follow things in entertainment that don't actually...you know...entertain them.

Probably, but what is "entertainment" to begin with ? I do think there's a part of brainwashing effect in modern marketing campaign. An old comedian used to say "Listen to the same shit on the radio all day long, you'll end up buying it. You're not reasonnable people !" There's a lot of truth to that I think. On the other side of the coin, theres' also the snobbish attitude of following a "hip" trend despite the fact you don't actually really enjoy what's you're pimping, and also refuse to admit you do enjoy some "unhip" stuff. The two are pretty comparable to me, although it's always hard to demonstrate that people are under an influence (because it's something people won't admit).

 

Didn't dig Tiger Mask, but I don't dispute that people at the time - and his defenders today - genuinely enjoy his matches. Listening to Linkin Park feels like someone forcibly jamming a chainsaw into my ear, but I don't dispute that a whole bunch of people genuinely enjoy their music. I got absolutely nothing out of watching The Blair Witch Project. Nothing at all. But I don't dispute that a whole bunch of people genuinely enjoyed that movie.

That is more about taste than trends though. And you can always use the "bad taste" card at someone, although I think it's pretty useless when we talk wrestling. When we're talking about music or cinema, there's also the infamous lowest common denominator which is often the reason why people like really shitty stuff.

 

Oh, sure, these acts all had big marketing campaigns backing them up. So did Diesel as WWF Champion and Battlefield Earth. Hype doesn't do all the work for you.

Of course. But it usually works very well.

 

Generally speaking, people's main motivation for liking things isn't that they're told to like them. It's that they like them.

I agree, but there are reasons "why". And that's where the influence lies to me. And it's not necessarily negative either. I mean, for instance I can enjoy a band that I just wouldn't care for before because there's an emotionnal ties to it at some point. When you read a hundred posts about this kind of wrestling being good and this kind being bad, I think it can influence people on how they view, thus enjoy, the wrestling they are watching. I'll be the first one to admit at some points I was influenced by some people and some of my tastes were the results of it.

 

And if I'm wrong, then does that mean that the "vast majority" of film aficionados who think It's a Wonderful Life is an all-time classic are just following a trend?

I wouldn't go that far, plus all cases are different. Still, I do think when you're talking about objective masterpieces of cinema or music, that some people pretend to like it more because it's the accepted opinion than because of a genuine love for it. It's more obvious with some difficult stuff of course. I think anyone can enjoy "It's a Wonderful Life" so in that case, I don't think the trend effect plays a big role, if any.

But as far as wrestling discussions, especially at DVDVR, I think it's obvious to me. Funny fact, a few days ago I recieved a mail from a guy that I haven't heard of for a few years. He used to post at DVDVR a long time ago. He apparently read some stuff there recently, and you know what he told me : "Since when did they start to hate moves and highspots?" I swear, it was really funny to then hear all the denial about how there's no "anti-movez" trend. Because if there isn't, it's still exactly how it seemed to a guy who hadn't been there for like more than half a decade and who's not involved at all in wrestling reviewing and such. Really ironic.

But hey, it's no big deal to me. I'm not here to troll or cause trouble. I saw how the arguments got really heated fast, I'm not into that at this point.

[Loss]

Here's where you lose me. Why can't it just be "I don't agree with you and here's why"? Why take it a step further and accuse someone of something because they don't agree with your opinions? You have no idea what anyone's intent is.

[Bix]

Also, for the millionth time, NOBODY FUCKING HATES COOL HIGHSPOTS. THE "MOOVEZ~!" CRITICISM WAS OF PEOPLE SAYING "X SUCKS BECAUSE HE LACKS HIGH END OFFENSE."

[Log]

You don't consider what you write to be columns, fine. I'm not going to argue semantics. Just don't pretend you're breaking any new ground when DEAN~! was doing reviews of random Japanese indies six years ago.

I don't really want in on this argument, but Phil's tapes full of random wrestling are what got me into a lot of said random wrestling. Those were coming out over a decade ago. He's not some dude who just showed up to the table. The DVDVR's that he and Dean (and others) were putting together in the mid-late 90's are what got me to go out and see some stuff I might not have otherwise watched.

 

Also, just as an aside. I find Phil (and Dylan and the rest of the segunda guys) to really be some of the more positive reviewers around. I mean, they pretty much stick to what they like and don't muddle up things by reviewing a bunch of stuff they know is not their taste (except SLL's attempt at the G-1).

[S.L.L.]

Also, just as an aside. I find Phil (and Dylan and the rest of the segunda guys) to really be some of the more positive reviewers around. I mean, they pretty much stick to what they like and don't muddle up things by reviewing a bunch of stuff they know is not their taste (except SLL's attempt at the G-1).

And even that hasn't sucked nearly as much as I feared it would so far.

 

I do think there's a part of brainwashing effect in modern marketing campaign. An old comedian used to say "Listen to the same shit on the radio all day long, you'll end up buying it. You're not reasonnable people !" There's a lot of truth to that I think. On the other side of the coin, theres' also the snobbish attitude of following a "hip" trend despite the fact you don't actually really enjoy what's you're pimping, and also refuse to admit you do enjoy some "unhip" stuff. The two are pretty comparable to me, although it's always hard to demonstrate that people are under an influence (because it's something people won't admit).

Hey, I played with pogs and owned a virtual pet, too. Fads happen. I can dig that. But we're not talking about things that flare up for a little while and then whither away and die here. As you pointed out, the re-evaluation of Tiger Mask isn't a new thing, and it's only gaining steam over time. If it was mere marketing (so to speak) at work, people would've gotten over it by now and gone back to watching the guy's matches, because they really liked him the whole time. I don't think there are really that many people who are that desperate to roll with Phil & the SC Cru.

 

Didn't dig Tiger Mask, but I don't dispute that people at the time - and his defenders today - genuinely enjoy his matches. Listening to Linkin Park feels like someone forcibly jamming a chainsaw into my ear, but I don't dispute that a whole bunch of people genuinely enjoy their music. I got absolutely nothing out of watching The Blair Witch Project. Nothing at all. But I don't dispute that a whole bunch of people genuinely enjoyed that movie.

That is more about taste than trends though.

No, I'm talking about trends, at least as you define them. You say masses and vast majorities are forming opinions not out of their own tastes, but to follow certain trends dictated by a handful of hive leaders. Unless you want to tell me that the most powerful marketing machines in Hollywood, the music industry, professional wrestling, etc. do not have the power over the masses that PHIL FUCKING SCHNEIDER does....well, then we're talking about trends.

 

I agree, but there are reasons "why". And that's where the influence lies to me. And it's not necessarily negative either. I mean, for instance I can enjoy a band that I just wouldn't care for before because there's an emotionnal ties to it at some point. When you read a hundred posts about this kind of wrestling being good and this kind being bad, I think it can influence people on how they view, thus enjoy, the wrestling they are watching. I'll be the first one to admit at some points I was influenced by some people and some of my tastes were the results of it.

I don't disagree with any of this, but trends by definition don't last the test of time. Again, you yourself have noted that people turning on Tiger Mask is nothing new, and it's an idea that's only grown stronger with time. Most actual trends would give anything to live half as long as this "trend" has. Liking Mark Henry has been "in" for at least five years now. Five years. How many people actually gave a shit about their pet rocks for five solid years?

 

But as far as wrestling discussions, especially at DVDVR, I think it's obvious to me. Funny fact, a few days ago I recieved a mail from a guy that I haven't heard of for a few years. He used to post at DVDVR a long time ago. He apparently read some stuff there recently, and you know what he told me : "Since when did they start to hate moves and highspots?" I swear, it was really funny to then hear all the denial about how there's no "anti-movez" trend. Because if there isn't, it's still exactly how it seemed to a guy who hadn't been there for like more than half a decade and who's not involved at all in wrestling reviewing and such. Really ironic.

Not even close. Incredibly predictable actually. Irony is a guy who's been away from the scene for years coming back, taking a quick look around, and coming to a hasty, ill-conceived conclusion about certain people's ideologies being pointed to as superior evidence that those ideologies exist than the arguments of the actual people in question, who describe their real ideologies at length, but get dismissed as being in "denial". He's wrong. You're wrong. Prove otherwise or deal with it.

[goc]

There is no bias against guys who do a bunch of moves. There is a bias against guys who do a bunch of moves and don't build to them or sell them so they don't mean anything. But that same guy would also get criticized if he only did a FEW moves but never built to them or sold them.

[Matt D]

I'm late to the discussion and I've said this before, but I feel like a lot of it has to do with the deaths/tragedies in the 00s being a catalyst for people to look at things they might not have otherwise looked at and reexamine things that had just been accepted as "truth" with the astounding availability of matches giving people the means to really delve into things. In the midst of the 00s, it became very refreshing and relatively easy to look back at the 80s with a critical eye and find evidence to dismiss or confirm thoughts from the sheets that had held up for decades without much real examination. It also became easier to look at certain styles that had once seemed simplistic or dull and to find what makes them work and what makes them interesting.

 

I also think that violence for the sake of violence and moves for the sake of moves and spots for the sake of spots are much more frowned upon now given what has happened. They're more apt to be forgiven if they build well as part of a story, if there seems like there's some sort of narrative point to them. If they don't however? Forget it. Excitement isn't an end unto itself for me anymore.

 

Maybe that's hypocritical but I really don't think anyone has ever complained solely about someone having too many moves (as noted above). They complain about the moves not meaning anything, not having purpose, about the moves being a substitute for psychology and story in a match. I'm in the camp now that a wrestler can be great by doing nothing other than clubbering (and not even all that stiffly) so long as it's all logical and has weight and means something. For the first three-fourths of my life, I wouldn't have bought into that idea at all. Now I care way more about narrative than outright action.

 

And I will agree with the sentiment here that the revisionist (or anti-smark, or pro-Role because a lot of the discussion is about wrestlers playing their Role well, or however you want to put it) guys are the ones who always back up their points. They HAVE to. Their points are, on paper, pretty out there, and they therefore didn't come to them overnight. No one wakes up some morning and is suddenly a fan of a guy who's generally thought of as a joke. When someone says Chris Masters is one of the best guys on TV this year, people are disbelieving. It's just a gut reaction. And I bet that Dylan was skeptical too the first time he saw a Masters match on Superstars and it was really quite good. The second time though? The third time? After a while the trends become apparent and the evidence to back up the points becomes ingrained within the points themselves. That's successful revisionism for you. It doesn't come from a vacuum. It creates itself. You first notice the facts and then you put together the theory.

 

It's the people who come in arguing the traditional dogma that just gawk in the face of what's being said and say that X is X and everyone knows it's X and it has always been X and if you say otherwise you're just a troll or a blind follower or outright crazy. It AMAZES me that when people get upset about someone listing the usual anti-Angle and anti-Michaels points (usual in that they come up in almost every argument) there's never any real attempt to argue against them. There's just a sad, bemoaned tsking and dramatic shaking of the head and a Mark Henry joke or two. There were some attempts by people to argue traditional points with evidence in the Owen/Masters note, but it was all vague and intangible in the end. Very hard to grasp. It didn't go very well.

 

That's the great thing about the DVDVR board. You can argue any point in the world so long as you have the evidence to back it up, and if your evidence is compelling, people will accept it. Anything at all is on the table.

[Ditch]

So much of the issue right now is a complete disconnect between people who think Davey Richards and the Dragon Gate crew are the best things going in wrestling, and those who not just disagree but view them as actively bad. The former group is really happy with the number of high-end matches in 2010, and the latter (as near as I can tell) is not, or at the very least thinks 2010 is bad relative to other years, and thus someone like Chris Masters is a standout. Nobody is saying that Masters is wrestling at a level such that he would be high-end relative to, say, the mid-90s, or that he's having a bunch of four star matches. But if someone is coming from the perspective that Davey Richards has been in a dozen or so MOTYCs so far this year, and they see praise for Masters and see matches that are good in a 'competent' way than a 'spectacular' way... it's hard to bridge the gap.

 

Let's go back to, say, 2006. A match like Danielson vs KENTA from exactly four years ago is something that appealed to pretty much all the IWC. An opinion along the lines of "ROH puts on the best matches/shows in the US" would not be hugely contentious; even those who disagreed could see a lot to love in ROH. The same absolutely cannot be said about Dragon Gate USA in 2010. Some think it's incredible, others can't stand it.

 

This issue isn't new; for years there has been disagreement with the Meltzer/F4W preference for spotfests (ie. a multi-person ladder match is four stars almost by default). But it's never been so stark, and that's why things are so much more heated between the two factions. There's very little in the way of matches that are consensus MOTYCs anymore.

[S.L.L.]

I'm late to the discussion and I've said this before, but I feel like a lot of it has to do with the deaths/tragedies in the 00s being a catalyst for people to look at things they might not have otherwise looked at and reexamine things that had just been accepted as "truth" with the astounding availability of matches giving people the means to really delve into things.

 

I would suggest this was less a catalyst and more supporting evidence as the argument went along. I think the argument really began in earnest with the "Angle and Michaels: ROH guys better than both" thread, which started December of '05. At that point, most wrestler deaths were being chalked up primarily to drug abuse. It wasn't until Benoit that the issue of the moves themselves contributing to wrestler deaths really came into play. And in fairness, Benoit was lauded as a great wrestler right to the bitter end by anti-smark/pro-role/whatever guys. I myself said that 2006 may have been his career year for work. True, he had boiled down his moveset to the bare essentials, but those essentials still included the triple Germans and the diving headbutt that we can now see he had no business doing anymore. But when he went, and took his family with him, it became supporting evidence. It's even that we don't like dangerous moves anymore. Sure, Tiger Mask's reputation is tanking after the New Japan 80's set, but Vader still rules the roost. And yes, I can still separate Benoit the performer from Benoit the person enough to enjoy his matches today, though I can't blame those who can't. But now that we know that doing these moves to excess can be a major contributing factor to a premature trip to the cemetery, I think it has become a strong argument against moves for moves' sake. It's one rarely directly invoked, but I know it's in the back of my head when I think about the issue.

 

In the midst of the 00s, it became very refreshing and relatively easy to look back at the 80s with a critical eye and find evidence to dismiss or confirm thoughts from the sheets that had held up for decades without much real examination. It also became easier to look at certain styles that had once seemed simplistic or dull and to find what makes them work and what makes them interesting.

 

I also think that violence for the sake of violence and moves for the sake of moves and spots for the sake of spots are much more frowned upon now given what has happened. They're more apt to be forgiven if they build well as part of a story, if there seems like there's some sort of narrative point to them. If they don't however? Forget it. Excitement isn't an end unto itself for me anymore.

 

Maybe that's hypocritical but I really don't think anyone has ever complained solely about someone having too many moves (as noted above). They complain about the moves not meaning anything, not having purpose, about the moves being a substitute for psychology and story in a match. I'm in the camp now that a wrestler can be great by doing nothing other than clubbering (and not even all that stiffly) so long as it's all logical and has weight and means something. For the first three-fourths of my life, I wouldn't have bought into that idea at all. Now I care way more about narrative than outright action.

Absolutely true. I don't suppose I'll ever know why I became a wrestling fan, or why I stayed with it as long as I have, but I know it wasn't to count how many suplexes a guy did, or to watch a bunch of guys flip around and judge it like it was figure skating. And I think when people talk about guys like me being anti-moves, that's really closer to the issue. Not "moves vs. anti-moves", but "wrestling as conflict-based narrative entertainment vs. wrestling as figure skating or diving". Elsewhere in that thread with

 

Aside from what Victator already said, I thinks it's worth noting the odd paradox of citing great film actors to defend wrestlers, particularly wrestlers like Dynamite. As really, wrestling may be the only form of narrative entertainment where your everyday, average casual fan watches it for the quality storytelling, and the serious hardcore fan watches it for the big fancy spectacle. In any other form of narrative entertainment, a guy working a minimalist style that effectively tells a story would be lauded by critics, but a guy who chews the scenery and leans on special effects/purple prose/MOVES~! to hide the lack of substance underneath would be roundly panned. But in wrestling, standard critical opinion is that Mark Henry sucks and Dynamite Kid is great.

I pointed out later that I made a major semantic error when I wrote that, as I said "wrestling" when I meant "wrestling matches". Obviously, wrestling as a whole is very spectacle-oriented. But when it comes to the matches themselves, I don't think people turned out in droves to see Hogan fight Andre in a moves-heavy match. I don't think that's why I became a wrestling fan, either.

[Matt D]

I'll admit that I went personal when it came to the tragedies and how they affected one's wrestling watching and what not (I'm sure no one wants to hear me going on about myself there), but I do agree that it's, at the very least, in the back of everyone's head now. That's probably a more useful way of thinking about it here.

 

I had completely forgotten about the Angle/Michaels note, somehow. I'm rereading it, and it's so brutal for the first ten pages until Tom shows back up. You can just see half the people trying to work their minds around what was being said, because there was literally only one way for a huge chunk of them to even begin to understand it: "INDY BIAS!" It was so ingrained in their heads that Angle and Michaels were not just good but great and likely the greatest that they couldn't figure out how and why anyone would say otherwise. It wasn't even subjective to them. It was TRUTH, and you cannot argue against TRUTH with facts, and if you do, you're likely trying to cause trouble for the sake of it.

 

Then Tom comes in and says "No, no, you have it all wrong. There are 24 people better ON RAW better than Michaels!" And then everything explodes again. It's sort of fascinating to watch it all play out.

 

The scary part is that I don't think the argument has progressed much in the last five years. It's become more familiar to everyone but I still get this weird sense that people can't or won't wrap their heads around what the detractors are saying.

[jdw]

As far as the people watching the set being majoritary indifferent to Tiger Mask, it's not exactly surprising considering the "movez is bad" trend going on over there. I mean, let's be serious, it's not like this is happening in a vacuum, there's a predisposition to hate a guy like Tiger Mask these days. Now, the fact that he was nowhere as great as he has been pimped to is hardly a new opinion either, it's been said for years, it's not like the people watching the set discovered anything new.

The "bag on Sayama" is hardly a new thing, nor would even a "movez" component of it be new or DVDVR based.

 

Jewett was ripping on Sayama in the *90s* for all the shit that Dylan and Bix are pointing out. The only difference is that Dylan and Bix have watched a hell of a lot more Sayama matches by now than Frank watched back in the 90s. But he'd seen enough in one of those Best of Sayama sets to rake him over the coals. It's not like any of the folks currently are anymore detailed in what they've written in criticism, because we all can recall how detailed Frank could be in ripping the living shit out of a worker. It's also not like Frank's criticism were because Frank hated "movez", since folk probably can recall Frank liked moves and was an early target of the moves backlash.

 

There probably are some posters on the 80s project who are watching and/or writing about Sayama for the first time. But I'm willing to bet that longtimers like Dylan and Bix would say that Sayama bashing on these very issues has been around for a long time, and that they've been a part of folks rethinking Sayama over the past decade.

 

John

[Bix]

What John said. Frank and maybe others were making the same exact "holy shit can he EVER hit that spin kick?" comments that people are making now.

[jdw]

I can't ever recall having a heated "debate" with Phil or jdw or Dylan or whoever else, but there have definitely been differences in opinion. I think those guys are probably the most anti-group think types around. They all like what they like, and don't like what they don't. They explain their reasoning behind everything. And in truth, they probably get falsely accused more of just posting things to stir up shit than I can recall anyone else getting accused of.

Agreed.

 

 

If anything, the group think and mob mentality I think exists more these days with the WON/F4W crowd. That's not a criticism (Well, it is, but that's not my point in bringing it up ...), it's an observation. Phil and Dylan are pretty committed to their opinions, but they're not above reconsidering them if someone makes a point worth hearing either. You can't really say that for people like Bryan Alvarez, Mo Chatra or whoever else you want to mention from that crowd.

What's funny is that when we reconsider stuff, we are then tossed off as "contrarian" and as stir shit on long held consensus.

 

John

[jdw]

What John said. Frank and maybe others were making the same exact "holy shit can he EVER hit that spin kick?" comments that people are making now.

No doubt some others as well. I recall that Dylan was one of the first proponents of Fujinami-DK *long* ago (I want to say on A1, but probably a lot of other places as well). He drew the comp to DK-TM, and TM took knocks.

 

I don't want any of this to sound like "Kids today don't have any new thoughts that us old farts didn't think up 10-15 years ago." Just wanted to get across that TM-bashing can't be blamed on DVDVR or any specific DVDVR poster or posters. It's one of those things that I suspect a number of folks knew would come out of that specific set even 3-4 years ago when the whole project was being contemplated: "TM will get shit on when the NJPW set comes out because it's really hard to miss."

 

I'm not sure how many locks there were/are like that in the various sets. If we were coming up with a Top 5 of what the overwhelming majority would agree on, that might have been #1. Or Fijiwara Luv.

 

John

[Bix]

Food for thought: What conventional wisdom in the smark realm has been challenged by those associated with the WON (for lack of a better description...Dave, Bryan, "Karl," former overseas distributor Mo, etc.), or is this not a direction to look in since the WON opinions usually helped form the conventional wisdom? All I can think of is Dave heavily criticizing the RVD/Sabu-Eliminators stuff for being incoherent spot exhibitions. Wade was always a lot more willing to go against the grain, often with well-reasoned arguments, like when he gave the Bret-Owen cage match "only" 3* compared to Dave's 5*. At first I was gonna make some sort of "On the other hand..." comment about the Brock-Angle iron man match but I've decided to throw out the "crazy Wade" era (Jericho joins the WWF -> Wade becomes a dad and has his come to Jesus moment).