Jump to content


Photo

Are current matches just not as memorable or up to par as previous decades?


  • Please log in to reply
93 replies to this topic

#41 anarchistxx

anarchistxx
  • Members
  • 1641 posts

Posted 03 January 2015 - 07:33 AM

Doing your homework can be overrated because actually you tend to lose context rather than gain it. Going through a 'Best Albums Of All Time' list or a 'Best Films Of All Time' list can be counterproductive to me. Much better is that your tastes evolve organically, with one thing leading naturally to another i.e. you get into The Clash which subsequently leads you to Joy Division and then Wire and then Sonic Youth and then My Bloody Valentine and then Slowdive and then Cocteau Twins and then Beach House and then The Weeknd etc.

 

Going throughn 'Best Of' lists becomes boring and unnatural, and you don't even like the albums as much as you hoped because you go in with such high expectations. It is very hard to be blown away when you are told before you even start that this film or record or match is one of the greatest of all time. The first time I watched 6/3/94 was a major disappointment. I watched it again a couple of years later going through AJPW in order and it made much more sense and was incredible, having the combined advantage of lowered expectations and a natural lead in to the match. Rather than putting the DVD in expecting to watch the best match of all time.



#42 anarchistxx

anarchistxx
  • Members
  • 1641 posts

Posted 03 January 2015 - 07:36 AM

On the HHH debate, the best matches he has are ones where circumstances reign him in. The Shawn Michaels match where HBK had injured his leg beforehand was their most smartly worked and interesting contest. Similarly, with the Daniel Bryan one he was under pressure to work a fast paced, sharp, straight, clean, high quality opener to the show and wasn't given the opportunity of forty minutes, blood, rubber hammers and wheezing on his knees out of exaggerated exhaustion.



#43 Matt D

Matt D

    4:40

  • Members
  • 10265 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 January 2015 - 08:05 AM

 

As did Bryan working two matches, but I do think that if Hunter wanted, he could have put his foot down and forced five or ten more minutes into the match. As someone who's made so many bad creative decisions about his matches over the years, he should get credit for making a picture perfect one there, especially because the extenuating circumstances forced it. He could have thrown off the whole card if he wasn't responsible for it.

One thing I'm always curious about when the HHH = bloated matches narrative comes up - how do people feel about his work in 2000? Specifically the Foley, Jericho, Rock and Benoit matches. Very rarely come across criticism of his performances therein.

 

Had he yet to consolidate power, in order to lay out matches the way he later preferred?

 

Over at DVDVR we looked at a few of his matches at least. I wrote up some reviews that wouldn't make a ton of sense out of the context of the thread but I found that the big Jericho match and the 3 Stages of Hell match with Austin, at least, were considerably bloated and could have been good matches with some restraint.



#44 Childs

Childs
  • Moderators
  • 4441 posts

Posted 03 January 2015 - 08:56 AM

 

 

An analogy would be jounalism - how often do you read an informed, fascinating piece of writing in the mainstream media? Hardly ever. If you read a journal or publication from fifty or a hundred years ago the standard is far higher - because journalists today are under pressure to churn out more and more content so resort to click bait or lists or just lazy, tossed off pieces.

 

 

I feel like I'm the journalism scold here, but this is dead wrong. The standard is actually higher now, largely because the web has made research so much easier. If I'm writing about an unfamiliar subject today, I can learn the basic history in a few hours. The guy doing my job in 1965 had to rely much more on his own memory or the memories of a few others. The pressure to churn crap was always there. We just have better tools to churn it now. 

 

There are scads of problems with the modern media landscape, some of which you mentioned. But there's plenty of good stuff out there and it's, on average, better informed than the equivalent work of 50 years ago. 



#45 WingedEagle

WingedEagle
  • Members
  • 5140 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 January 2015 - 09:06 AM

I don't recall who put it out there first, but I think the biggest factor is that just about every modern match of interest is either available live or shortly thereafter.  Then a few minutes later there's a new match or show to check out.  There's not much time for anything to breathe or stand out for too long these days.  There are of course exceptions as there are always standouts, but we're not in an era where there are a few hours of live domestic TV and quarterly/monthly PPVs that are supplemented by infrequent tapes you order from Japan.  Its all coming at you at once.  But I've got no doubt that with the benefit of hindsight when we look back at this or any other recent year, certain matches and moments will absolutely stand out as classics even if we're not already appreciating them as such.



#46 anarchistxx

anarchistxx
  • Members
  • 1641 posts

Posted 03 January 2015 - 09:17 AM

 

 

 

An analogy would be jounalism - how often do you read an informed, fascinating piece of writing in the mainstream media? Hardly ever. If you read a journal or publication from fifty or a hundred years ago the standard is far higher - because journalists today are under pressure to churn out more and more content so resort to click bait or lists or just lazy, tossed off pieces.

 

 

I feel like I'm the journalism scold here, but this is dead wrong. The standard is actually higher now, largely because the web has made research so much easier. If I'm writing about an unfamiliar subject today, I can learn the basic history in a few hours.

 

 

Don't agree with this at all. The fact that journalists think they can learn about complex topics in a couple of hours a research contributes to slipshod work with very little understanding that goes beyond surface level. In the past a journalist might spend a week or a month or even more researching his piece in detail.

 

And even if we accept that general factuality is higher in modern day journalism due to enhanced, convenient source materials...my point was more referring to the standard of writing. Older pieces are often a joy to read, with skilled writers producing fluid, insightful and beautiful prose and delivering longform pieces that inform and engross. Today there is such a pressure to produce a high volume of content that even respectable publications fill their pages with clickbait lists, reductionist 'think pieces' that generalize and badly researched, shoddily written articles.



#47 BigBadMick

BigBadMick
  • Members
  • 1399 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Newry, Northern Ireland

Posted 03 January 2015 - 09:25 AM

 

 

As did Bryan working two matches, but I do think that if Hunter wanted, he could have put his foot down and forced five or ten more minutes into the match. As someone who's made so many bad creative decisions about his matches over the years, he should get credit for making a picture perfect one there, especially because the extenuating circumstances forced it. He could have thrown off the whole card if he wasn't responsible for it.

One thing I'm always curious about when the HHH = bloated matches narrative comes up - how do people feel about his work in 2000? Specifically the Foley, Jericho, Rock and Benoit matches. Very rarely come across criticism of his performances therein.

 

Had he yet to consolidate power, in order to lay out matches the way he later preferred?

 

Over at DVDVR we looked at a few of his matches at least. I wrote up some reviews that wouldn't make a ton of sense out of the context of the thread but I found that the big Jericho match and the 3 Stages of Hell match with Austin, at least, were considerably bloated and could have been good matches with some restraint.

 

Thanks Matt, I'll check this out.



#48 iamthedoctor

iamthedoctor
  • Members
  • 797 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 03 January 2015 - 10:07 AM

 

 

As did Bryan working two matches, but I do think that if Hunter wanted, he could have put his foot down and forced five or ten more minutes into the match. As someone who's made so many bad creative decisions about his matches over the years, he should get credit for making a picture perfect one there, especially because the extenuating circumstances forced it. He could have thrown off the whole card if he wasn't responsible for it.

One thing I'm always curious about when the HHH = bloated matches narrative comes up - how do people feel about his work in 2000? Specifically the Foley, Jericho, Rock and Benoit matches. Very rarely come across criticism of his performances therein.

 

Had he yet to consolidate power, in order to lay out matches the way he later preferred?

 

Over at DVDVR we looked at a few of his matches at least. I wrote up some reviews that wouldn't make a ton of sense out of the context of the thread but I found that the big Jericho match and the 3 Stages of Hell match with Austin, at least, were considerably bloated and could have been good matches with some restraint.

 

 

Why did Austin put over Hunter in that match for?

 

If I recall right Austin was one month away from turning heel and winning the title at mania. If anything he should have been kept strong in that match and gone over. Considering they had built this up from Hunter being the one who had Austin run down by Rikishi at Survivor Series so Hunter could stay the champ didnt really make sense. The match was a no contest at Survivor Series and the face should have been the one to finally get his revenge against the dastidly heel who gets his come uppance.

 

Apart from that there wasent really too many matches that didnt make sense but Kevin Nash had to be up there as well. Makes the big return to save Shawn on Raw which leads to a DQ at a PPV and a guy 7 foot fall should have wiped the mat with Helmsley in the Cell. I was suprised months earlier they had Nash lose in the 6 man tag when they could have easily chosen Shawn to do the job.



#49 ButchReedMark

ButchReedMark

    #TogetherStronger

  • Members
  • 632 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Llangollen, Wales

Posted 03 January 2015 - 10:39 AM

Because HHH was going to be the babyface contender to Austin over the summer, so he'd have beaten him before to add interest to the feud.



#50 Childs

Childs
  • Moderators
  • 4441 posts

Posted 03 January 2015 - 10:48 AM

Older pieces are often a joy to read, with skilled writers producing fluid, insightful and beautiful prose and delivering longform pieces that inform and engross. 

 

 

I read work that fits this description almost daily. You're talking about an idealized past that never existed. There was some great work and a lot of slipshod work 50 years ago. There's some great work and a lot of slipshod work now. Journalists are rushed now. Journalists were rushed then. 

 

But honestly, the idea that a media consumer in 1964 had access to more good work than a media consumer in 2014 is absurd. 



#51 Matt D

Matt D

    4:40

  • Members
  • 10265 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 January 2015 - 10:53 AM

Would it be safe to say that there's a lot more noise to filter through out there now? Just because there's so much more in general?

 

I will say, and this is anecdotal, that there seems to be a lot more of C+Ping in general. You'll get the same article slightly rephrased on a number of sites or even when you look at, let's say the Brockton Enterprise and the Boston Globe in MA. I remember about ten years ago my family subscribed to both and the overlap was jarring. 



#52 Childs

Childs
  • Moderators
  • 4441 posts

Posted 03 January 2015 - 11:09 AM

Definitely more noise to filter through.

 

And yes, you're probably seeing more content overlap as individual publications try to manage costs in ways they didn't when we were all rolling fat. The Baltimore Sun now owns the Annapolis paper and the Carroll County paper, which means they're using our stuff instead of producing their own. We don't have a national staff anymore; instead, we pull content from the LA Times and Chicago Tribune, which are in the same chain. That's not great for the industry, because there are fewer decent-paying jobs and fewer well-trained people covering stories. But there are a lot of factors pushing in the other direction, including the aforementioned research tools and the explosion of web-based publications, some of which are quite good. 



#53 anarchistxx

anarchistxx
  • Members
  • 1641 posts

Posted 03 January 2015 - 11:21 AM

 

Older pieces are often a joy to read, with skilled writers producing fluid, insightful and beautiful prose and delivering longform pieces that inform and engross. 

 

 

I read work that fits this description almost daily. You're talking about an idealized past that never existed.

 

 

I'm not. Don't be patronizing. Go and read journals and broadsheets from 1830 - 1960. The standard of writing in my experience is much higher. There are good pieces today and there were bad pieces then. You still get good writers like Barney Ronay who would have been right at home in that era.

 

I'm talking in general. Much more content is produced today and a good proportion of it is vacuous, uninformative, shoddily produced click bait. They are catering to an audience with lower attention span and who expects a lot of content to be produced daily if not hourly. Not an audience with fewer distractions who are buying a publication weekly and devote time and attention to reading it. As such, the overall quality has dipped.

 

People used to cut clippings out of music publications and save them because they enjoyed reading them so much. When was the last time Rolling Stone or NME or Pitchfork produced a great piece of journalism?



#54 Grimmas

Grimmas

    a Wrestling Feminist

  • Members
  • 7900 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Posted 03 January 2015 - 11:33 AM

 

 

Older pieces are often a joy to read, with skilled writers producing fluid, insightful and beautiful prose and delivering longform pieces that inform and engross. 

 

 

I read work that fits this description almost daily. You're talking about an idealized past that never existed.

 

 

I'm not. Don't be patronizing. Go and read journals and broadsheets from 1830 - 1960. The standard of writing in my experience is much higher. There are good pieces today and there were bad pieces then. You still get good writers like Barney Ronay who would have been right at home in that era.

 

I'm talking in general. Much more content is produced today and a good proportion of it is vacuous, uninformative, shoddily produced click bait. They are catering to an audience with lower attention span and who expects a lot of content to be produced daily if not hourly. Not an audience with fewer distractions who are buying a publication weekly and devote time and attention to reading it. As such, the overall quality has dipped.

 

People used to cut clippings out of music publications and save them because they enjoyed reading them so much. When was the last time Rolling Stone or NME or Pitchfork produced a great piece of journalism?

 

The problem with that is the best stuff is preserved and saved, while everything from today is available. 



#55 Loss

Loss
  • Admins
  • 43476 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 January 2015 - 11:49 AM

If people bookmark good articles, that's really what they are doing.



#56 tim

tim
  • Members
  • 1446 posts

Posted 03 January 2015 - 01:44 PM

 

 

Older pieces are often a joy to read, with skilled writers producing fluid, insightful and beautiful prose and delivering longform pieces that inform and engross. 

 

 

I read work that fits this description almost daily. You're talking about an idealized past that never existed.

 

 

I'm not. Don't be patronizing. Go and read journals and broadsheets from 1830 - 1960. The standard of writing in my experience is much higher. There are good pieces today and there were bad pieces then. You still get good writers like Barney Ronay who would have been right at home in that era.

 

I'm talking in general. Much more content is produced today and a good proportion of it is vacuous, uninformative, shoddily produced click bait. They are catering to an audience with lower attention span and who expects a lot of content to be produced daily if not hourly. Not an audience with fewer distractions who are buying a publication weekly and devote time and attention to reading it. As such, the overall quality has dipped.

 

People used to cut clippings out of music publications and save them because they enjoyed reading them so much. When was the last time Rolling Stone or NME or Pitchfork produced a great piece of journalism?

 

 

Isn't it an issue of quantity expanding massively in both directions?  And the average person being more likely to spend their time on clickbait nonsense than on good, deeply written accounts of complex subjects?  There are a couple sites and blogs I check every day for both their own content and links to other content and there is more good journalism than you could possibly read in a day.  You could say a lot of it you won't find in newspapers or on the front pages of million-hits-a-day top websites but I guess I don't consider that very relevant.  You wouldn't find the best journalism in 1960 in TV Guide either.



#57 NintendoLogic

NintendoLogic

    Grim and frostbitten

  • Members
  • 2736 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 January 2015 - 01:50 PM

Because HHH was going to be the babyface contender to Austin over the summer, so he'd have beaten him before to add interest to the feud.

 

Not exactly. HHH was going to be Austin's post-Mania challenger, but an Austin heel turn wasn't the original plan. Austin heard some boos at No Way Out, so he decided that the Stone Cold character had run its course and it was time to turn. But then HHH decided he didn't want to turn face, which is how we ended up with the Two-Man Power Trip.



#58 funkdoc

funkdoc

    free si oem

  • Members
  • 759 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 January 2015 - 02:33 PM

there was no way i would have ever heard of ali abunimah back in the 60s so i'm going to side with childs on this one



#59 anarchistxx

anarchistxx
  • Members
  • 1641 posts

Posted 03 January 2015 - 06:59 PM

You wouldn't find the best journalism in 1960 in TV Guide either.

 

No. But you might in say The Guardian, whereas now the majority of content in that paper is click-bait nonsense.



#60 funkdoc

funkdoc

    free si oem

  • Members
  • 759 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 January 2015 - 11:37 PM

 

You wouldn't find the best journalism in 1960 in TV Guide either.

 

No. But you might in say The Guardian, whereas now the majority of content in that paper is click-bait nonsense.

 

 

see i feel like the guardian would've been exposed as dull if we had the access back then that we do now

 

i'm just rarely interested in the thoughts of white people with money no matter how good the writing is, and that was almost all you ever got from the "classic" journalistic outlets.  i don't care one bit if the guardian or rolling stone sinks into total irrelevance, as they've been dead to me for a long time now.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users