Wrestling Myth Busters

[Jingus]

It's been talked around, but it's worth mentioning again that wrestlers and fans often do not look at matches the same way. Maybe David was a lighter worker than his brothers and therefore more safe. Maybe he retained more of his mental faculties in the ring, so he wasn't spaced out like a Kerry and could actually remember the planned spots. All kinds of little things can go into a worker rating their match quite differently than the fans would. This is sort of what Lance Storm was getting at in his infamous rant on the DVDVR 500 a while back, but he stated it poorly and didn't seem to realize that workers and smarks often don't have the exact same definitions for various insider jargon words. (Like, in any locker room I've ever been in, "blade" is rarely if ever used in the verb tense, while smarks utilize the word as a verb all the time.)

 

Who would you guys say are the major smark tastemakers nowadays? If it's not Meltzer, who would it be? I can't think of anyone else who even approaches the amount that he's seen as the wise sage on the mountaintop by many smarks out there. I mean, look at a guy like Scott Keith, who was pretty popular before his semi-retirement, and I'd argue that he had nowhere near the overall influence that Dave did (partly because Scott swiped plenty of Dave's talking points, but that's another issue).

 

With X-Pac, I think it simply goes back to the fact that, much of the time, when X-Pac had a feud, he seldom got his comeuppance. Fans get frustrated if a heel doesn't get comeuppance and thus are likely to turn on him because of that.

Absolutely. Go back and look at the results pages for WWF television from 2000. X-Pac dodged a rather amazing number of jobs, rarely ever getting pinned. Even his feud with Kane was often terribly lopsided, with 170-pound X-Pac repeatedly beating the shit out of the 300-pound monster. Combine this with his crappy "New Age Outlaws" team with Road Dogg, with whom he had absolutely zero chemistry, and you see a shitty un-over heel team who's constantly winning way too many matches. Strange as it may seem now, Pac was seen as an unworthy replacement for Billy Gunn, and Roadie was firmly entering the "I just don't give a fuck" stage of his career. Especially since this was 2000, one of the few times in recent memory when there were plenty of competent and heavily cheered teams in the company, and yet the tag titles were often stuck on this duo whom the fans simply didn't want to see. IIRC, didn't these guys beat the Dudleys at two PPVs in a row, both tables matches? The final straw for the casual marks was their being part of the McMahon-Helmsley Factieme, so that they were often portrayed as being unworthy chumps who were incapable of winning their matches without outside help.

[Death From Above]

I think the whole "Japanese crowds are usually quiet" thing comes from people who haven't watched much Japanese wrestling from before this decade. You'd get that impression if you only watched NOAH. But early 90's All Japan crowds, for example. were often crazy.

Seriously, the "Japanese fans are quiet" talking point is bullshit, or at least it was at one point. Things have slowed down but even so fans will get excited when they are given something to get excited over.

 

You'd really have to stretch to find a US crowd that was, from start to finish from entrances through conclusion of the segment, as hot as the crowd for either the 1977 or 1979 Real World Tag League finals (which are probably the hottest major crowds I've seen that didn't result in a genuine riot). Both of which involved four foreigners oddly enough. And really the whole history of big matches during years when Japan was hot blow the concept out of the water.

 

I've always found it a really weird talking point. I guess I get where the online fans get it, but at the same time the only people I hear inside the business that bring it up are guys that were used over there as midcard talent and for whatever reason never became anything big. Kamala says All Japan fans were quiet... I'm not sure Stan Hansen would really agree.

[Death From Above]

Oh, and throwing one out there (not arguing for or against but have at it):

 

- Andre the Giant was "just another big man".

[Jingus]

I guess I get where the online fans get it, but at the same time the only people I hear inside the business that bring it up are guys that were used over there as midcard talent and for whatever reason never became anything big. Kamala says All Japan fans were quiet... I'm not sure Stan Hansen would really agree.

From what I've seen, they did often tend to make a lot more noise during the big main events than they did during the undercard matches. Not always, but the tendency was there.

 

- Andre the Giant was "just another big man".

About a zillion sold-out houses in many of the biggest arenas in the world would tend to cast aspersions upon this claim.

[Resident Evil]

Ok, that's fine and common sense but we have to remember too that a good portion of IWC posters are biased too. Especially when they get more and more behind an idea or wrestler for whaterver reasons and even start to believe it. Yesterday, I was reading about a match from one of the top respected IWC reviewer/fans so I decided to check it out. Almsot everything he said about it was inaccurate and at times the complete opposite of reality. It was a horrible match. All becasue he was biased which I had seen before in his writing. Some people do keep a level head but a good amount don't.

That sounds like me talking about Backlund.

 

 

John

 

Nope. I'm a fan of Backlund's work too. Your opinions I respect even if I disagree with a few.

[tomk]

When did the Japanese fans quiet in their appreciation thing start?

 

I always assumed it was a U.S. response to watching New Japan: response to both the acoustics in the Dome and type of US fan who only watched juniors matches on New Japan cards.

[MikeCampbell]

When did the Japanese fans quiet in their appreciation thing start?

 

I always assumed it was a U.S. response to watching New Japan: response to both the acoustics in the Dome and type of US fan who only watched juniors matches on New Japan cards.

I don't know for sure, but I think you're right about the acoustics in the dome. I seem to recall watching one of those WCW PPVs with matches from an NJ dome show and Ross and/or Schivone talking about the quiet crowd and how it because they were respectful of the action or something to that degree.

[Cox]

I think it also comes from Foley's first book, since I recall he wrote something about their quiet appreciation (which I'm pretty sure he included to make himself look better for making the IWA fans pop for him). Since that book was pretty widely read, it may have spread from that.

[jdw]

When did the Japanese fans quiet in their appreciation thing start?

 

I always assumed it was a U.S. response to watching New Japan: response to both the acoustics in the Dome and type of US fan who only watched juniors matches on New Japan cards.

I believe that Dave started talking about it while writing up being in the buildings in Japan, rather than watching it on TV. He likely was contrasting it with other live crowds he'd been in. I doubt anyone online talked about it in advance of Dave.

 

John

[jdw]

And to be a little clearer, I suspect he would have done it no later than his 1990 trip to Japan that got a big write up. He may have in write up of his 1987 trip. Don't recall if he talked about it in his 1984 trip. I'd point to those as places to start.

 

John

[Jkeats]

Here's another myth that seems to have been busted by the DVDVR Memphis set:

 

Memphis wrestling was just cartoony characters and gimmick matches

[jdw]

Not sure where that one started. Memphis was rather praised back in the early-to-mid 80s for having strong angles and storylines, and for getting more out of less than just about any other promotion.

 

It's television probably wasn't seen quite as much as some of the other promotions, and some of the wilder things are what tended to get into wider circulation. So things like Tommy & Eddie & The Trophy became famous, or Jerry being drunk.

 

The wrestling style was written up as being a bit different from other places, but the same thing was said about most areas as they were being explained/defined.

 

John

[Jkeats]

Not sure where that one started. Memphis was rather praised back in the early-to-mid 80s for having strong angles and storylines, and for getting more out of less than just about any other promotion.

 

It's television probably wasn't seen quite as much as some of the other promotions, and some of the wilder things are what tended to get into wider circulation. So things like Tommy & Eddie & The Trophy became famous, or Jerry being drunk.

 

The wrestling style was written up as being a bit different from other places, but the same thing was said about most areas as they were being explained/defined.

 

John

 

I always think of someone's comment about not buying the Memphis set because they weren't into that. I'm not sure who responded (Goodhelmet possibly?) that if you weren't a fan of the stuff in Memphis, you probably weren't a fan of pro wrestling.

[jdw]

I always think of someone's comment about not buying the Memphis set because they weren't into that. I'm not sure who responded (Goodhelmet possibly?) that if you weren't a fan of the stuff in Memphis, you probably weren't a fan of pro wrestling.

I could see someone not being a fan of it, and still being a fan of pro wrestling. It would be a bit like saying that because Bahu liked FWM more than All Japan that he wasn't a fan of pro wrestling.

 

There are a lot of different tastes in what folks like in wrestling. I don't think Memphis is for everyone anymore than All Japan 90s was for everyone.

 

The "If you're not a fan of X, you're not a fan of pro wrestling" spot probably warrants a place on the Wrestling Mythbusters list. That's not a knock at Will, because I doubt he was being literal if he said it.

 

John

[Jkeats]

The "If you're not a fan of X, you're not a fan of pro wrestling" spot probably warrants a place on the Wrestling Mythbusters list. That's not a knock at Will, because I doubt he was being literal if he said it.

 

John

Oh it certainly wasn't a knock (and I have no idea if it was Will so please don't quote me on that!). I took the comment as a positive meaning that Memphis has been maligned in shoots with various wrestlers as being cartoony and all but there's a lot of just regular "pro wrestling" in the promotion and some great stuff that any wrestling fan could enjoy. Even Meltzer, in the 1983 WON year ender, made an analogy with Memphis and "normal" pro wrestling to indoor soccer and soccer. He said that indoor soccer wasn't really soccer but he liked it better than regular soccer and that was how he looked at Memphis.

[Kronos]

The "If you're not a fan of X, you're not a fan of pro wrestling" spot probably warrants a place on the Wrestling Mythbusters list. That's not a knock at Will, because I doubt he was being literal if he said it.

 

John

Oh it certainly wasn't a knock (and I have no idea if it was Will so please don't quote me on that!). I took the comment as a positive meaning that Memphis has been maligned in shoots with various wrestlers as being cartoony and all but there's a lot of just regular "pro wrestling" in the promotion and some great stuff that any wrestling fan could enjoy. Even Meltzer, in the 1983 WON year ender, made an analogy with Memphis and "normal" pro wrestling to indoor soccer and soccer. He said that indoor soccer wasn't really soccer but he liked it better than regular soccer and that was how he looked at Memphis.

 

I remember that line, too, and I read it to mean that that period has something for everyone. So, if you like wrestling, you'll find something to like here.

 

That said, one of my biggest peeves in wrestling is the person who makes (and means) such a sweeping statement. Taste is taste, ultimately. If you can discuss what you like and why in an intelligent and respectful manner, then it's all good.

[S.L.L.]

I always think of someone's comment about not buying the Memphis set because they weren't into that. I'm not sure who responded (Goodhelmet possibly?) that if you weren't a fan of the stuff in Memphis, you probably weren't a fan of pro wrestling.

I could see someone not being a fan of it, and still being a fan of pro wrestling. It would be a bit like saying that because Bahu liked FWM more than All Japan that he wasn't a fan of pro wrestling.

 

There are a lot of different tastes in what folks like in wrestling. I don't think Memphis is for everyone anymore than All Japan 90s was for everyone.

 

The "If you're not a fan of X, you're not a fan of pro wrestling" spot probably warrants a place on the Wrestling Mythbusters list. That's not a knock at Will, because I doubt he was being literal if he said it.

 

John

 

I'm pretty sure it was meant as hyperbole (at least, that's how I meant it when I used it on the same subject). Gist is, a lot of people nowadays seem to have certain preconceived notions about "the Memphis style", not realizing that it was much, much more stylistically varied than it was being given credit for, and that it actually covered enough bases that no matter what your tastes in wrestling were, you'd probably find something in there that would strike your fancy. Hence, if there was nothing in there that you liked, it would semi-logically mean that you didn't like any style of wrestling, and therefore were not a wrestling fan. Obviously, that's not strictly true, but that's the internet for you.

 

EDIT: So, yeah, what codegreen said.

[Jkeats]

I'm pretty sure it was meant as hyperbole (at least, that's how I meant it when I used it on the same subject). Gist is, a lot of people nowadays seem to have certain preconceived notions about "the Memphis style", not realizing that it was much, much more stylistically varied than it was being given credit for, and that it actually covered enough bases that no matter what your tastes in wrestling were, you'd probably find something in there that would strike your fancy. Hence, if there was nothing in there that you liked, it would semi-logically mean that you didn't like any style of wrestling, and therefore were not a wrestling fan. Obviously, that's not strictly true, but that's the internet for you.

 

EDIT: So, yeah, what codegreen said.

It was SLL I was quoting then!

 

I agree 100%.

[jdw]

I'm pretty sure it was meant as hyperbole (at least, that's how I meant it when I used it on the same subject). Gist is, a lot of people nowadays seem to have certain preconceived notions about "the Memphis style", not realizing that it was much, much more stylistically varied than it was being given credit for, and that it actually covered enough bases that no matter what your tastes in wrestling were, you'd probably find something in there that would strike your fancy. Hence, if there was nothing in there that you liked, it would semi-logically mean that you didn't like any style of wrestling, and therefore were not a wrestling fan. Obviously, that's not strictly true, but that's the internet for you.

Agree with the hyperbole part, and even said that if Will said it, he wasn't being literal. Disagree on the semi-logic. Which sort of was my point on this comment:

 

The "If you're not a fan of X, you're not a fan of pro wrestling" spot probably warrants a place on the Wrestling Mythbusters list.

:/

 

John

[Kronos]

EDIT: So, yeah, what codegreen said.

**does a little jig**

 

And John, I agree with your : / because while that kind of statement pisses me off to no end no matter what kind of wrestling is being discussed, it's not a myth. More of a contentious statement. Perhaps we should have a thread about it. "Make Contentious Statements About Wrestling" . . .

[Bob Morris]

And regarding this whole "wrestlers know some things we don't know" deal, how many times do we hear Wrestler X talk about how much he liked to work with this guy or that guy? Or how much he can't stand working with this wrestler or thinks this wrestler is overrated?

 

We see it all the time... so which wrestlers are right and which ones are wrong? Or should we not come to the proper conclusion that they are stating an opinion just like anyone else?

[S.L.L.]

Agree with the hyperbole part, and even said that if Will said it, he wasn't being literal. Disagree on the semi-logic. Which sort of was my point on this comment:

 

The "If you're not a fan of X, you're not a fan of pro wrestling" spot probably warrants a place on the Wrestling Mythbusters list.

:/

 

John

 

Well...it's semi-logical in that it does logically follow that if you don't like the "Memphis style", and that the style comprises every form of wrestling, then you don't like any form of wrestling, and therefore, don't like wrestling. Only "semi" because that's obviously a huge oversimplification and there are way too many other factors at play here for that to possibly be true. It was really a hyperbolic statement used to fire back against other similarly hyperbolic statements about "the Memphis style", or what some people perceived it to be, anyway. Doesn't make it any more accurate (well, maybe a little ), but again, that's the internet for you.

 

But this is really a semantic argument, I think. We're basically in agreement on this. "If you're not a fan of X, you're not a fan of pro wrestling," when stated seriously, is a clear myth, and I'd really like to think it's not in need of a proper busting, but I kinda fear it might be.

 

And regarding this whole "wrestlers know some things we don't know" deal, how many times do we hear Wrestler X talk about how much he liked to work with this guy or that guy? Or how much he can't stand working with this wrestler or thinks this wrestler is overrated?

 

We see it all the time... so which wrestlers are right and which ones are wrong? Or should we not come to the proper conclusion that they are stating an opinion just like anyone else?

While it goes without saying (or at least should go without saying) that having personal experience with something grants you certain knowledge about that thing that you wouldn't otherwise have, it doesn't make you automatically right in everything you say about that subject, or even inherently more right than someone with less experience. It introduces a whole host of biases that skew objectivity: you say things to push your friends, you say things to cut down your enemies, you say things to kiss up to your boss, you say things from the perspective of a fellow wrestler and not as a fan, and you fail to take the fans' views into account. And maybe some people have forgotten this, but the whole point of wrestling is to entertain the fans. To that end, the opinions of the fans are pretty fuckin' important, and realistically they trump the opinions of fellow wrestlers pretty easily. That shouldn't be so hard to understand. Now, I'm self-aware enough to realize that I don't represent the average wrestling fan. None of us do, I don't think. But even with that in mind, acting like the opinions of wrestlers of their fellow wrestlers is inherently better than the opinions of a fringe wrestling wingnut like me seems silly. The wrestlers are making their judgments by standards that have little to no practical application for wrestling fans, and guys like me are making judgments based on similar standards as the bulk of fans, but with a far more critical eye than they use and than was really intended to be used on the work. Both sides can see things that the other sides can't, but most of the things that wrestlers can see that we can't are really only of any value if you're a wrestler. And again, the only opinion that should really matter to you in any significant way is your own. Seriously, why is this discussion even happening? Do people really need someone else to form their opinions for them? Why is this even an issue?

[ZThomas]

Bret Hart had a repeatable approach to his matches

[Jingus]

And maybe some people have forgotten this, but the whole point of wrestling is to entertain the fans. To that end, the opinions of the fans are pretty fuckin' important, and realistically they trump the opinions of fellow wrestlers pretty easily.

To an extent, yeah. But these argument tend to run into the brick wall that is how different people view semantics. To a fan, a "great worker" is simply a guy who puts out great matches. To a wrestler, that term has a totally different meaning. It denotes a guy who is reliable and safe in a manner you can depend on, and also puts out good matches (for a variable level of "good" depending on the guy making the statement and what sort of wrestling he likes best). That's how a lot of these silly debates between smarks and workers tend to start, simply with different people who assign different meanings to the same words.

 

And nobody had any comments or disagreements with my other points?

Who would you guys say are the major smark tastemakers nowadays? If it's not Meltzer, who would it be? I can't think of anyone else who even approaches the amount that he's seen as the wise sage on the mountaintop by many smarks out there. I mean, look at a guy like Scott Keith, who was pretty popular before his semi-retirement, and I'd argue that he had nowhere near the overall influence that Dave did (partly because Scott swiped plenty of Dave's talking points, but that's another issue).

 

With X-Pac, I think it simply goes back to the fact that, much of the time, when X-Pac had a feud, he seldom got his comeuppance. Fans get frustrated if a heel doesn't get comeuppance and thus are likely to turn on him because of that.

Absolutely. Go back and look at the results pages for WWF television from 2000. X-Pac dodged a rather amazing number of jobs, rarely ever getting pinned. Even his feud with Kane was often terribly lopsided, with 170-pound X-Pac repeatedly beating the shit out of the 300-pound monster. Combine this with his crappy "New Age Outlaws" team with Road Dogg, with whom he had absolutely zero chemistry, and you see a shitty un-over heel team who's constantly winning way too many matches. Strange as it may seem now, Pac was seen as an unworthy replacement for Billy Gunn, and Roadie was firmly entering the "I just don't give a fuck" stage of his career. Especially since this was 2000, one of the few times in recent memory when there were plenty of competent and heavily cheered teams in the company, and yet the tag titles were often stuck on this duo whom the fans simply didn't want to see. IIRC, didn't these guys beat the Dudleys at two PPVs in a row, both tables matches? The final straw for the casual marks was their being part of the McMahon-Helmsley Factieme, so that they were often portrayed as being unworthy chumps who were incapable of winning their matches without outside help.

 

I guess I get where the online fans get it, but at the same time the only people I hear inside the business that bring it up are guys that were used over there as midcard talent and for whatever reason never became anything big. Kamala says All Japan fans were quiet... I'm not sure Stan Hansen would really agree.

From what I've seen, they did often tend to make a lot more noise during the big main events than they did during the undercard matches. Not always, but the tendency was there.

 

- Andre the Giant was "just another big man".

About a zillion sold-out houses in many of the biggest arenas in the world would tend to cast aspersions upon this claim.

 

[sek69]

Bret Hart had a repeatable approach to his matches

 

I actually have to agree with this one, as much as the Bretmaniacs hate to hear it. When you even have Scott Keith busting your balls over your FIVE MOVES OF DOOM~! (in almost the exact order every time) then yes, you do have a repeatable approach.