BigBadMick Posted April 30, 2014 Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 Years ago, I remember a common discussion point being 'if you could only watch the matches of one wrestler, who would it be?' This is slightly different: If you could only watch wrestling before or after 1996, which would you pick? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted April 30, 2014 Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 Before, easily. I'd miss out on a great 1997, but wrestling fell of a cliff after that in a lot of ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBadMick Posted April 30, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 That was quick! Thanks Loss. What year would we have to use as a divider to make it a harder decision for you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FedEx227 Posted April 30, 2014 Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 Do I have the same access to stuff pre/post? Like... post can I still watch indies via YouTube or iPPV and pre I'm stuck with whatever is on my TV, tape traders, etc.? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidebottom Posted April 30, 2014 Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 Poor 1996. Some cracking stuff that year lost forever in this debate... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted April 30, 2014 Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 Before, easily. I'd miss out on a great 1997, but wrestling fell of a cliff after that in a lot of ways. The same. But really I'd choose before 2001, way too much great stuff still in 96/97 & 98-99 (in Japan). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBadMick Posted April 30, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 Poor 1996. Some cracking stuff that year lost forever in this debate... Up to and including, or 1996 onwards.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBadMick Posted April 30, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 Do I have the same access to stuff pre/post? Like... post can I still watch indies via YouTube or iPPV and pre I'm stuck with whatever is on my TV, tape traders, etc.? Same access - everything up to and including 1996,or 1996 and beyond. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Farmer Posted April 30, 2014 Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 I would easily choose, without a second thought pre 1996. Just so much good stuff to watch that blows away even the overrated attitude era stuff. In fact with WWF the only stuff I cared for during the attitude era was the guys on top. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badlittlekitten Posted April 30, 2014 Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 Before 1996 and it's not even close. 80s wrestling is the best wrestling. Better ring work, better promos, better commentary, better crowds, perhaps better booking too, although I tend to think people look back rose tinted in that regard. I couldn't do without all the quirks of the territories. Japan was still good up until 96 as well. Wrestling went into the shitter with the awful Attitude Era. WWE's been pretty great for the last few years but the Indies/Puro are rarely worth watching. Actually, thinking about it, the booking was far better in the 80s. The big matches always felt like they had higher stakes than now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffey Posted April 30, 2014 Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 Pre-'96. There's been a lot of great matches after, especially lately as the in-ring style has changed a lot, but I loved the wrestlers themselves & their characters so much more back when kayfabe was alive. If I was just to choose a federation, one single promotion or territory, that would be the same. Would I take Hogan over Cena? Yeah. Early-90s AJPW over Benoit, Guerrero, Mysterio, Angle matches? Yeah. My favorite wrestling, I think, is when it's presented as a sport or athletic competition and when it's presented as real. So that the stakes matter. I liked wrestling a lot more when the crowds weren't so meta too. When the bad guys were booed and the good guys were cheered. Heel/Face turns mattered, titles mattered more, promos weren't full of insider shooty comments. The wrestling shows didn't just feel like long commercials to buy a bunch of stuff. I guess it's really not close for me. Is there anyone in the last fifteen plus years I would rather watch more than Stan Hansen, Rick Rude or my other favorites from the past? I don't think so. And the commentary nowadays is so monumentally terrible I'm not sure if I would take it over a team of Lord Alfred Hayes and Elvira with Art Donovan asking how much each wrestler weighs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badlittlekitten Posted April 30, 2014 Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 My favorite wrestling, I think, is when it's presented as a sport or athletic competition and when it's presented as real. So that the stakes matter. I liked wrestling a lot more when the crowds weren't so meta too. When the bad guys were booed and the good guys were cheered. Heel/Face turns mattered, titles mattered more, promos weren't full of insider shooty comments. The wrestling shows didn't just feel like long commercials to buy a bunch of stuff. Excellent post. This bit in particular sums up my feelings better than I ever could. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohtani's jacket Posted April 30, 2014 Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 That was quick! Thanks Loss. What year would we have to use as a divider to make it a harder decision for you? Pre-1990? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dawho5 Posted April 30, 2014 Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 I would say pre-1996 easily. But if you move that up to 2001 as suggested earlier it makes it even more compelling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Casebolt Posted April 30, 2014 Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 Pre-96, and pre-90 without having to think about it too hard. '89 is easily my favorite year in wrestling, plus I love digging back as far as humanly possible into the archives - the 1930s, 20s, and earlier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
funkdoc Posted April 30, 2014 Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 i'd go post-1997 just because there's no telling what will come in the future i feel like pro wrestling is still struggling to figure out how much it should present itself as entertainment and how much it should present itself as sport, and if anyone ever gets it right we could see some stuff that blows away anything from the 90s... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exposer Posted April 30, 2014 Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 Well, I'm 21 years old and never watched wrestling before 1996. So, I do have a soft spot for everything afterwards. However, everything I've seen before 1996 I've enjoyed immensely. I especially like WCW in 1989 and from 1992-1994. I absolutely love all of the 80s stuff I've seen. The angles were outstanding. I do hate the DQ and screwy finishes. They suck. It seems wrestling has gotten better with that after 1996. Today's in-ring quality is extremely consistent. I don't know if I can call it better, but I think it's more consistently good. The angles and booking suck more than half the time now. I don't care about that as much as I do in-ring. I'd have loved to live through all of that great stuff before 1996, but I didn't. I witnessed the twilight of the Attitude Era, the McMahon's all over the product, John Cena's Reign of Terror, and motherfucking TNA. I can pretend I'd like to go back in time and enjoy wrestling when it was good, but I gotta pick the last shitty eighteen years. I'm not the kind of fan who determines that if someone wasn't watching during a period they shouldn't have an opinion. This is a unique question though. I have a lot of strong opinions on stuff before 1996. I just think that what I experienced in real time is something I'd rather watch. I can watch Flair-Steamboat and say "that was great." I can watch Punk-Cena and say "I remember that." That's a huge difference for me in a discussion like this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steenalized Posted May 1, 2014 Report Share Posted May 1, 2014 I love a ton of the pre-96 stuff I've seen, but if it's pre-96 vs. everything since, including all future wrestling, then I'm going with the latter. If it's pre-96 and then anything after the moment I make this decision, I'll go with pre-96. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Memphis Mark Posted May 1, 2014 Report Share Posted May 1, 2014 Pre 1996. It not even close . Wrestling before the end of 96 is loaded. Memphis , Mid -South , World Class , NWA , Portland , AWA, Florida , Georgia , Southwest , Southeastern/ Continental , ECW ,Smoky Mountain , NJPW , AJPW , CMLL and much more. I am not a WWF or WCW fan so it works out for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rvd356 Posted May 1, 2014 Report Share Posted May 1, 2014 Post, sure 1970-1996 has the quality but post has all of the future! Weird question Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr. David Rubio Posted May 1, 2014 Report Share Posted May 1, 2014 I don't subscribe to the idea that there is this huge disparity between the quality of wrestling pre-1996 and post-1996. There was sssoooo much shitty wrestling, typically outweighed by that fact that the presentation was mostly great. The inverse is true today. Having said that, I would still take pre-1996 because, having grown up with it, I can somehow watch crap Dr. D David Shultz vs Salvatore Bellomo match and still find it nostalgic and kitschy and fun, while I have no desire to watch Kofi Kingston again, no matter how much better a match he has. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfman Posted May 1, 2014 Report Share Posted May 1, 2014 I'll take the 80's any day of the week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted May 1, 2014 Report Share Posted May 1, 2014 I can't be friends with anyone who picks "after". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
funkdoc Posted May 1, 2014 Report Share Posted May 1, 2014 i think pre-97 being so heavily favored is a reflection of the core posters' age here i suspect there will be some sort of paradigm shift in wrestling eventually that will lead future generations to see these sacred cows in a much less flattering light. with 90s all japan for instance, i can easily imagine an even greater backlash against "epics" and head drops developing. basically i think of the current unquestioned love for this stuff as equivalent to "rockism" in music criticism, if anyone here is familiar with that concept (with the WON being rolling stone, obv). there are an increasing number of hardcore music fans today saying "no, we don't *HAVE* to accept the beatles as part of the GOAT discussion" and rejecting a lot of ideas the rockists took for granted (e.g. music without ~real instruments~ being lower art). maybe the same will happen with wrestling sooner or later... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted May 1, 2014 Report Share Posted May 1, 2014 Nothing to do with that for me funkdoc. I just much prefer the atmosphere and feel of old wrestling to more recent stuff. It's purely a style and presentation thing, nothing more. 2012 could have been the best ever in-ring year in terms of matches and I wouldn't give a shit, because it's not "quality" in that sense that dictates why I prefer the old stuff. I also really like exploring obscura, especially 1970s stuff and even older. The wrestling of today might be incredible, but it bears little relation to the territories, the sorts of interesting and weird carny characters that inhabited them and the smoky venues they played. It's not even a case of rose tints -- I wasn't around in the 1970s and I grew up 1000s of miles away from most of the promotions I'd watch. It's not a nostalgia thing, but a particular aesthetic. I know my boy Ricky Jackson knows what I'm talking about here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.