Do "Standards change" in wrestling?

[goodhelmet]

Rey was awesome in 2009-10 but by "we" do you mean "you"?

[Matt D]

"You," being "Will" is a fairly good starting point yes.

 

That was a loaded question, I'll admit. I'm serving my own agenda here.

[tim]

Rey in 1996 was an enjoyable high flier, Rey in 2009 was an all time great.

[concrete1992]

Is John Cena Call of Duty? Consistently good at what it does and though massively popular there are pockets that truly dread it. Okay, maybe a question for another time and place.

[BillThompson]

 

Random side thoughts...

 

One of the most over finishers in modern wrestling is a fireman's carry. Another is a guy hitting a running knee. They are over because of context and presentation and because of how they are integrated into the matches.

 

During the 90's when the luchadores first started coming into WCW I remember being stunned by my "non-smart" friends at school who thought the offense of guys like Rey and Super Calo looked stupid, phony and weak. These were dynamic, fresh, seemingly exciting spots, and yet during a hot period for wrestling nearly every friend I had at school thought that this sort of offense was comically absurd. Why was this the case? I don't know for sure, but I suspect it had a lot to do with context and presentation.

 

On TM/DK the point can't be stressed enough that a large group of people watched the matches in context with other NJPW matches and as a group didn't like them very much. There were plenty of TM matches I preferred speaking for myself, same with DK. Hell I was talking up DK v. Fujinami over DK v. TM matches from the first time I saw any of them. But the point is those matches weren't thought fondly of compared to other matches from the exact same period in the exact same promotion.

 

The point of this thread has nothing to do with wanting Meltzer to re-do star ratings fwiw.

I think we agree on more than we disagree. If I'm reading your posts right, you're arguing that there is no objective standard because everything just comes down to tastes or "biases." I'm just taking that a bit farther by saying that those "biases" can be broken down into different ways of interpreting, which are in themselves by the viewer's prior experiences. Since people are constantly having new experiences and fans with new perspectives are coming, that's how I see that standards can change. To bring this into where the topic seems to be headed, that WCW cruiserweight thing you mentioned is a good example of how standards can change in ways that have little to do with advancing athleticism, since it's understandable that in the 90's when people were still popping for big men that a large section of fans would have a hard time taking juniors style seriously, but then a few years later with the rise of MMA and De La Hoya doing massive PPV buys, Rey Mysterio and Jeff Hardy become two of the biggest stars in the industry. You can pretty much break everything worthwhile that can be said about this topic into this:

 

1. There is no "objective standard" to evaluate matches, only subjective interpretation

2. Interpretations are shaped by prior experiences

3. New experiences mean interpretations can change

4. Therefore, standards can change

 

How can there can be disagreement about something so simple? Some of these replies I've read in this topic from people who do seem to think there is some objective standard are ridiculous. We can't say it's not "fair" to go back and reinterpret Eddie/Malenko without 1995 eyes because they weren't working for "1995 eyes." Saying that they were would imply that they were working for anyone in the world in 1995, even with people with no prior experience watching wrestling who would have no idea about the symbolic value behind any of the moves. Would it be "fair" for such a person to evaluate Eddie/Malenko? If not, exactly what prior experience would they need for it to be fair? It's nonsense to try to assign some objective criteria for evaluating wrestling. Wrestlers have matches to entertain people who want to be entertained and that's it. Saying "it's not fair to say this match isn't good in 2014" is absurd because you're basically saying "It's not fair to say this match didn't entertain me in 2014."

 

I don't have a WON subscription so I have no idea exactly what were the Meltzer comments that spurred on this argument, but I would like some elaboration on what people mean in saying that he sees "no value in re-evaluating old footage." Is he saying that there is something wrong with people watching old footage and forming different opinions than what he had at the time? If not, I don't see where the problem is. If we accept that there is no objective criteria, the natural conclusion is what I mentioned before where me calling a match good means the same thing as "this match entertains me." If Dave says that Brody entertained him in the 80's then he entertained him in the 80's and nothing can be said to change that because no one here is 80's Dave. I don't see why some people have such a hard time with this.

 

 

There can be an objective standard that is viewed through subjective eyes. To use the film analogy, it's an objective standard that something needs to be filmed. You can add tools such as sound, static, cuts, editing, CGI, etc. but those are subjective elements added to the objective standard of something being filmed. (And I'm not getting into a film stock debate here, by film I mean everything form the oldest cameras to new GoPro's, and filming a blank screen like Derek Jarman is still filming).

 

Now, let's take that over to wrestling. The objective standards of wrestling are that the goal is to entertain and make money. More objective standards are that wrestlers will be expected to bump, to act out fake offense, etc. None of that is subjective because those are not items open to interpretation. Things like selling, psychology, athleticism, moves, etc. are most definitely subjective and open to interpretation. It's not subjective that a cameraman is filming a movie, what is subjective is whether or not his filming is of any quality. It's not subjective that two wrestlers have stepped into the ring to entertain and make money where they will bump and provide a contest with fake offense. What is subjective is whether or not the selling, psychology, moves, structure, etc. work for any given viewer.

 

To me this is simple, there are objective beginnings in every form of art. We don't discuss those however, because in general terms the objective beginnings are boring and can't lead to anywhere beyond what they are. The subjective elements are what bring about discussion because disagreement can, and should, be had.

[W2BTD]

This must be some sort of time warp fantasy land where nothing ever grows, evolves, or changes. Not wrestling, not video games, not movies, not anything.

 

The lengths of which some of you are going to counter the very simple, indisputable (and inoffensive, which is the key here) point of "standards change" is remarkable.

 

You guys crack me up sometimes.

[BillThompson]

This must be some sort of time warp fantasy land where nothing ever grows, evolves, or changes. Not wrestling, not video games, not movies, not anything.

 

The lengths of which some of you are going to counter the very simple, indisputable (and inoffensive, which is the key here) point of "standards change" is remarkable.

 

You guys crack me up sometimes.

 

Can you honestly tell me that somehow the base roots of wrestling being to entertain and make money have changed? Or that the base root for every wrestler to bump and supply fake offense have changed?

 

Those are objective elements within wrestling, they do not change and never will change. What you keep talking about are subjective elements, which grow out of the objective standards that never do change. This is true for any art form in any medium, wrestling is no different.

[W2BTD]

What this comes down to, is Dylan and some others are insulted because they are equating the idea of standards changing & evolution to rendering the analysis of old footage moot.

 

Well, that isn't true, and i'm not entirely sure why that conclusion was jumped to. Of course standards change. No, the very basics of psychology and engaging the audience do not, but the means of which to achieve that certainly change & evolve constantly, and always will. And that doesn't render watching or breaking down old footage meaningless. Why would it?

 

Things considered state of the art or progressive in 1975 are no longer state of the art or progressive in 2014, and things state of the art or progressive in 2014 won't be in 2050. Doesn't mean we can't go back in 2050 and break down what occurred in 2014.

[W2BTD]

 

This must be some sort of time warp fantasy land where nothing ever grows, evolves, or changes. Not wrestling, not video games, not movies, not anything.

 

The lengths of which some of you are going to counter the very simple, indisputable (and inoffensive, which is the key here) point of "standards change" is remarkable.

 

You guys crack me up sometimes.

 

Can you honestly tell me that somehow the base roots of wrestling being to entertain and make money have changed? Or that the base root for every wrestler to bump and supply fake offense have changed?

 

Those are objective elements within wrestling, they do not change and never will change. What you keep talking about are subjective elements, which grow out of the objective standards that never do change. This is true for any art form in any medium, wrestling is no different.

 

 

The means of which to entertain & make money have changed. Best of three falls title matches which were worked like total amateur style shoots and went 90 minutes used to be the norm. People filled baseball stadiums to watch stuff like that.

 

Try that today. By your theory, it's the same basics of entertaining and making money, right?

[Grimmas]

What this comes down to, is Dylan and some others are insulted because they are equating the idea of standards changing & evolution to rendering the analysis of old footage moot.

 

Well, that isn't true, and i'm not entirely sure why that conclusion was jumped to. Of course standards change. No, the basics of psychology and engaging the audience do not, but the means of which to achieve that certainly change & evolve constantly, and always will. And that doesn't render watching or breaking down old footage meaningless. Why would it?

 

Things considered state of the art or progressive in 1975 are no longer state of the art or progressive in 2014, and things state of the art or progressive in 2014 won't be in 2050. Doesn't mean we can't go back in 2050 and break down what occurred in 2014.

 

The part about your argument that I do not get is this: if you feel standards change, that means that 1989 wrestling is worse than 2014 wrestling. That just isn't true.

 

If standards change, then things are getting better. There are parts that are better and there are parts that are worse.

[Matt D]

Standards can change in a negative way, no?

[W2BTD]

 

What this comes down to, is Dylan and some others are insulted because they are equating the idea of standards changing & evolution to rendering the analysis of old footage moot.

 

Well, that isn't true, and i'm not entirely sure why that conclusion was jumped to. Of course standards change. No, the basics of psychology and engaging the audience do not, but the means of which to achieve that certainly change & evolve constantly, and always will. And that doesn't render watching or breaking down old footage meaningless. Why would it?

 

Things considered state of the art or progressive in 1975 are no longer state of the art or progressive in 2014, and things state of the art or progressive in 2014 won't be in 2050. Doesn't mean we can't go back in 2050 and break down what occurred in 2014.

 

The part about your argument that I do not get is this: if you feel standards change, that means that 1989 wrestling is worse than 2014 wrestling. That just isn't true.

 

If standards change, then things are getting better. There are parts that are better and there are parts that are worse.

 

 

False. I never, ever said or made the argument that wrestling constantly gets better over time. I said standards change. For better or worse. Two totally different things.

 

You may very well prefer to watch that 90 minute best of three falls world title match I alluded to consisting of 90% matwork contested by gimmickless men in plain black tights. It is 100% opinion based whether that is better or worse, but it is indisputable that standards have changes since that was the norm.

[W2BTD]

Standards can change in a negative way, no?

 

Absolutely. I've brought that up a million times.

[Grimmas]

 

 

What this comes down to, is Dylan and some others are insulted because they are equating the idea of standards changing & evolution to rendering the analysis of old footage moot.

 

Well, that isn't true, and i'm not entirely sure why that conclusion was jumped to. Of course standards change. No, the basics of psychology and engaging the audience do not, but the means of which to achieve that certainly change & evolve constantly, and always will. And that doesn't render watching or breaking down old footage meaningless. Why would it?

 

Things considered state of the art or progressive in 1975 are no longer state of the art or progressive in 2014, and things state of the art or progressive in 2014 won't be in 2050. Doesn't mean we can't go back in 2050 and break down what occurred in 2014.

 

The part about your argument that I do not get is this: if you feel standards change, that means that 1989 wrestling is worse than 2014 wrestling. That just isn't true.

 

If standards change, then things are getting better. There are parts that are better and there are parts that are worse.

 

 

False. I never, ever said or made the argument that wrestling constantly gets better over time. I said standards change. For better or worse. Two totally different things.

 

You may very well prefer to watch that 90 minute best of three falls world title match I alluded to consisting of 90% matwork contested by gimmickless men in plain black tights. It is 100% opinion based whether that is better or worse, but it is indisputable that standards have changes since that was the norm.

 

 

So, what exactly do you mean by standards change? If all you mean is that in a modern match you expect better finishers, than sure. However, what does that have to do with anything? You can watch old stuff and just expect it to end differently. It doesn't really change anything.

 

I just don't get what you are saying?

[BillThompson]

 

 

This must be some sort of time warp fantasy land where nothing ever grows, evolves, or changes. Not wrestling, not video games, not movies, not anything.

 

The lengths of which some of you are going to counter the very simple, indisputable (and inoffensive, which is the key here) point of "standards change" is remarkable.

 

You guys crack me up sometimes.

 

Can you honestly tell me that somehow the base roots of wrestling being to entertain and make money have changed? Or that the base root for every wrestler to bump and supply fake offense have changed?

 

Those are objective elements within wrestling, they do not change and never will change. What you keep talking about are subjective elements, which grow out of the objective standards that never do change. This is true for any art form in any medium, wrestling is no different.

 

 

The means of which to entertain & make money have changed. Best of three falls title matches which were worked like total amateur style shoots and went 90 minutes used to be the norm. People filled baseball stadiums to watch stuff like that.

 

Try that today. By your theory, it's the same basics of entertaining and making money, right?

 

 

 

You're referring the method of delivery, which has never been an objective standard. That's the same as film switching from black and white to color, the method of delivery changed (although just as in wrestling the old method never actually went away and is still used from time to time), but the basic concept the method is trying to achieve did not change. Subjective elements can change and morph over time, objective elements can not because objective is something that is hard and true throughout time.

[Matt D]

To sum up the note:

 

Yes standards can change. Sometimes they get better. Sometimes they get worse. It's generally hard to pin down. However, standards changing is a wildly terrible reason not to reevaluate or discuss things and really not all that important in comparing and contrasting wrestling through the eras either on a business or an aesthetic level.

[W2BTD]

To sum up the note:

 

Yes standards can change. Sometimes they get better. Sometimes they get worse. It's generally hard to pin down. However, standards changing is a wildly terrible reason not to reevaluate or discuss things and really not all that important in comparing and contrasting wrestling through the eras either on a business or an aesthetic level.

 

Bingo.

 

Although I will say, I think standards changing do make it very difficult to compare wrestlers & matches from drastically different eras to one another, but that's an argument I have with Dylan all of the time and probably requires a new thread. I'm not even comfortable comparing wrestlers from the same era who work drastically different styles.

[Matt D]

You can't bingo half of my sum up and not the other half!

[BillThompson]

To sum up the note:

 

Yes standards can change. Sometimes they get better. Sometimes they get worse. It's generally hard to pin down. However, standards changing is a wildly terrible reason not to reevaluate or discuss things and really not all that important in comparing and contrasting wrestling through the eras either on a business of an aesthetic level.

 

I think my main issue at this point is that subjectivity and objectivity are not being differentiated. As I said in my last post (which posted at the exact same time as yours so I know you hadn't read it before your post) objective elements do not change, whereas subjective elements change all the time. I think a disconnect has developed, at least from how I'm interpreting what I'm reading, where people are referring to subjective elements as if they are somehow objective.

 

With that being the case, the answer to the original thread question is that yes, there are objective standards in wrestling. However those elements have nothing to do with the quality of a match and there's really no discussion that can take place based on those objective standards. There are subjective standards that change, but those are on a case by case and person by person basis. Those do lead to much great discussion, because interpretation is the life blood of art in my opinion. I think at this point we're arguing over subjective elements and trying to say "No, my opinion of these subjective elements is right." That's not really constructive, and misses the point of the subjective elements being discussed.

 

That's just my take though.

[W2BTD]

 

 

 

This must be some sort of time warp fantasy land where nothing ever grows, evolves, or changes. Not wrestling, not video games, not movies, not anything.

 

The lengths of which some of you are going to counter the very simple, indisputable (and inoffensive, which is the key here) point of "standards change" is remarkable.

 

You guys crack me up sometimes.

 

Can you honestly tell me that somehow the base roots of wrestling being to entertain and make money have changed? Or that the base root for every wrestler to bump and supply fake offense have changed?

 

Those are objective elements within wrestling, they do not change and never will change. What you keep talking about are subjective elements, which grow out of the objective standards that never do change. This is true for any art form in any medium, wrestling is no different.

 

 

The means of which to entertain & make money have changed. Best of three falls title matches which were worked like total amateur style shoots and went 90 minutes used to be the norm. People filled baseball stadiums to watch stuff like that.

 

Try that today. By your theory, it's the same basics of entertaining and making money, right?

 

 

 

You're referring the method of delivery, which has never been an objective standard. That's the same as film switching from black and white to color, the method of delivery changed (although just as in wrestling the old method never actually went away and is still used from time to time), but the basic concept the method is trying to achieve did not change. Subjective elements can change and morph over time, objective elements can not because objective is something that is hard and true throughout time.

 

 

What you are referring to as the "subjective elements" are what i'm referring to as "standards". We are essentially saying the same thing.

 

The standards (subjective elements) to achieve the basics (objective elements, as in stoytelling/psychology, to draw money etc) is what changes. Not the core basics.

[Matt D]

Actually, now I'm not even willing to accept what I said as the sum up anymore.

 

I do think that there's an objective standard to a good wrestling that doesn't change which is that "1.) Everything the wrestler does (utilizing the tools that are at his disposal) means something to the overall whole of the match and you can draw a narrative throughline through it all, and 2.) that narrative throughline is compelling."

 

That's my opinion of what I think an objective standard is. That's different than subjectivity I think, but it's a tricky line to walk. I know that Dylan mentioned various things (like build to big moments) and that's his idea of what he thinks the objective standard for every match.

 

That's my idea of the objective standard of "This is what a good wrestling match is." That doesn't' change.

 

I think the standards for "This is what the vast majority of people who discuss wrestling currently think a good wrestling match is." do change.

[concrete1992]

That seems to be the hardest part of this whole thing. What are the "standards"? Is it simply the core values that make up the art form or is it about the whole package? If there were to be a wrestling TV show pop up tomorrow and it was standard definition, had generic looking graphics that looked like they got pulled from some sort of Microsoft template, and was filmed in a high school gym then it wouldn't probably wouldn't meet the standards of a wrestling show.

 

Presentation isn't an art form or the sort but nailing down the meaning of "standards" would greatly enhance my comprehension of this whole thread. I believe the basics of wrestling still hold true but wrestling is different than it is from years gone by. But I don't know if that classifies a change of standards versus just a general change of what is presented/can be presented. You can deliver a pixelated indie platformer with super responsive controls that would not seem out of place in the NES or SNES era but a modern gamer could find as much joy from it than anyone else would have from that NES/SNES era to today. But what we expect from that genre really hasn't changed which is possibly why its value still holds. Same with RPGs. You can deliver a FF3 type of game in 2014 and those RPG fans will still love it. Maybe I've just went into a tangent that really doesn't mean anything in this topic but maybe it'll add a hair.

[Matt D]

I kind of wanted to bring up Final Fantasy X as a sign that innovation/advances aren't always good, because that game is made almost unplayable by the advent of voice acting/in-game cinematics that involve animations where you can't skip through dialogue like you could in previous games (because it's too tied to the voice acting/animations). So you're left just staring at the screen for minutes on end instead of being free to move through things at your own pace and PLAY the damn thing, which is otherwise a pretty compelling game with a good character building system and engaging battle system.

 

But it feels like it's not really pertinent to where we are now that we've hit the "Sometimes standards do get worse" point of agreement.

[BillThompson]

I will say this much, discussions like this are why I love this board.. We're going deep into a topic and I'll take this sort of discussion every day over commenting on news and rumors from the world of wrestling.

[concrete1992]

Yeah, I was typing that as the whole agreeing thing about "Standards don't always change for the better" was going on haha. But yeah, not being able to skip that sorta stuff is a good example.

 

Also, completely agree. Not a big fan of discussing the latest SCOOPZ