Define Kayfabe

[jdw]

I wasn't reading wrestling newsletters in the 80s, and I knew about it.

 

I don't really want to say that pro wrestling fans are dumber than I am and weren't able to read things that got in the newspapers and other publications (for decades). Or were too stupid to watch things like a popular show such as 20-20. But that really does seem to be what people are trying to imply.

[JAC]

On February 10, 1989, Vince admitted to the NJ State Legislature that wrestling is a work. That same day, I attended my first ever live wrestling card (WWF here in Halifax, NS). I was just days short of my 10th birthday. The next day, my father showed me the article in our local paper about McMahon's big admission. A week earlier, during The Main Event (when the Mega Powers broke up), my dad had explained how wrestling was worked--I got smartened up while watching just my second wrestling show!

 

At least a couple of other kids in my class had heard about the story, presumably through their parents. My best friend, already an established wrestling fan, thought it pretty obvious that it wasn't a real competition. Again, we were 9 or 10 years old. If it registered with us, I'm sure that It must have been known to most older fans. Either that or Halifax is the smark capital of the world.

[SteveJRogers]

Why not let's agree to disagree then and move on?

 

Because this is arguing over factual statements, not opinions. You are making it an opinion, but there is no evidence to suggest riots, or riot like behavior I should say, died down just because of the rise of dirt sheets and the information age.

 

Like any other artist, a heel WILL GET a reaction, done cheaply or not. Like wanting to punch an actor in the face because they give such a brilliant performance as a villain in a play, TV show or a movie.

[JerryvonKramer]

From what I've seen crowds in the 70s and 80s were louder, more lively and more emotionally invested in the product they were watching -- regardless of promotion -- than crowds we see on TV today.

 

I also don't really hear reports of Bray Wyatt trying to escape arenas because the fans were trying to kill him.

 

Something changed. Since you're all about the facts, you can tell me what.

[SteveJRogers]

From what I've seen crowds in the 70s and 80s were louder, more lively and more emotionally invested in the product they were watching -- regardless of promotion -- than crowds we see on TV today.

 

I also don't really hear reports of Bray Wyatt trying to escape arenas because the fans were trying to kill him.

 

Something changed. Since you're all about the facts, you can tell me what.

 

Better security detail at arenas would probably be a good start in terms of guessing what's changed.

 

How about Bray Wyatt just being that creepy sidewalk preacher that you just glance awkwardly at as you walk away from, as opposed to D-X or the Dudleys who literally would encourage interaction, and insult the fans.

 

Also, when it comes to the WWE product, you are also talking about a more family friendly product, so there probably have been more families going to the events since the 1980s boom. Sure there will always be uncaring pieces of crap in every crowd, but you'd probably be more likely to keep yourself in check when you realize there are families around you.

 

Again, your argument doesn't hold much water when you consider ECW. Then again, it could be THE SAME EXPLANATION! The case can be made that the "mutants" of the ECW arena were there to get themselves over as much as just getting caught up in the moment. So I could say the same for the same 1950s-1970s audiences that you are clinging to the notion that were all markish rubes.

[JerryvonKramer]

Can we go back to agree to disagree please? Thanks.

[Johnny Sorrow]

I was at a house show a few years ago where I sat next to a grown man who thought it was real to the point where he had to be held back from storming the ring to attack Chavo Jr.

[SteveJRogers]

Can we go back to agree to disagree please? Thanks.

 

You just asked me to lay out some reasoning as to what has changed over the last 50-40 years! There is no "agreeing to disagree" because I'm trying to show you why all fans in the 1970s were not the markish rubes you are trying to make them seem to be, when I've pointed out the ECW crowd as being very much akin to the old crowds you describe, and very much part of that "smark" revolution.

[Loss]

I wasn't reading wrestling newsletters in the 80s, and I knew about it.

 

I don't really want to say that pro wrestling fans are dumber than I am and weren't able to read things that got in the newspapers and other publications (for decades). Or were too stupid to watch things like a popular show such as 20-20. But that really does seem to be what people are trying to imply.

 

Newspapers and 20-20 aren't very popular with kids and teenagers.

[JerryvonKramer]

 

Can we go back to agree to disagree please? Thanks.

 

You just asked me to lay out some reasoning as to what has changed over the last 50-40 years! There is no "agreeing to disagree" because I'm trying to show you why all fans in the 1970s were not the markish rubes you are trying to make them seem to be, when I've pointed out the ECW crowd as being very much akin to the old crowds you describe, and very much part of that "smark" revolution.

I didn't call them markish rubes, I just said they seem more invested based on what I see on the footage and the stories you hear from the period.

 

We've had this discussion at least four times before. I don't want to hash it all out again, especially when one side insists on pushing their argument as fact, and in the same breath tells an anecdote about their friend in school from when they were nine. You don't need a PhD in Epistemology to figure out that you're hardly dealing with concrete facts, you're making a thesis statement based on evidence. I could do it too, trawling through newspapers and wrestlers bios and observers to find accounts of riots at wrestling shows.

 

In the end there's no point. If your intuition is to say few people ever believed you'll stick to it and find the justifications to support your view, while rejecting counter claims.

 

And in the end, I'll stick to my view that crowds were better when they were punching along with babyfaces and ready to fight the heels, not chanting "This is awesome" or "you fucked up". I like old crowds, I generally dislike new ones especially of the indie smart fan type. I think kayfabe is the differentiator. No amount of you or Williams pointing to newspaper articles from the 1880s is going to convince me otherwise.

 

And so there's nothing to discuss. At least not for me.

[Herodes]

I think we should look at kayfabe as an evolving concept that is constantly redefined based on the era and/or the age and 'enlightnment' of the fan and the relationship with kayfabe. Otherwise we are stuck with looking at it as a static concept and will get sources such as 'there were articles in the 1800s saying wrestling was not real hence kayfabe is bullshit'.

 

If we broadly define kayfabe as 'emotional engagement' and break down fans/kayfabe into a few categories (note - not intended to be comprehensive):

 

1. Those to whom kayfabe means knowing wrestling isn't real - basically all non-fans who think wrestling is bullshit and any kids whose entire enjoyment is based on thinking it's real and finding out it isn't who stop being fans as a result of this revelation. Kayfabe = real or not real

 

2. Fans who think/thought it was real mockingly derided as 'rubes' - a minority albeit previously a significant one in the territory era, now limited to kids. Kayfabe = real or not real, although a large number of the not reals could become [3]

 

3. Fans who 'knew' yet were totally willing to invest emotionally in the fictional narrative and characters based on the presentation and consistency (ie internal logic) and the promotions devotion to the illusion - the significant majority of fans in the territory era who screamed when Ricky Morton sold, were angered at the foreign menace and scared by the monsters. Legitimate emotion directly tied to the narrative even if they knew it wasnt real. Kayfabe = directly tied to presentation, now a minority ('marks') since the promotions no longer maintain the illusion and there is complete openess

 

4. Fans who know its not real but whose emotional investment is tied not to the fictional narrative but to the (perceived) real narrative which can often be integrated into the fiction e.g. emotional investment based on pushes, booking decisions, indy darlings suppressed by the establishment eg Daniel Bryan's rise and fall, opposition to Roman Reigns etc Kayfabe = tied to 'reality', previously 'hardcores' but now large and growing majority of fans

 

Rather than the debate getting stuck on [1] and [2] - the binary real vs fake - it may be more interesting to focus on the evolution of kayfabe from [3] to [4] and how the WWE has adapted to the 'new' kayfabe for ultimately the same purpose it has always existed - emotional investment e.g. framing the narratives around who SHOULD be pushed vs who IS pushed (Bryan, Cesaro, Ziggler, Punk et al vs. Cena, Reigns, HHH etc), bringing the indy darlings and promotion in-house (NXT) and now the heel heat and anger is Reigns winning the rumble rather than Russians burying Bill Watts under the flag but all with the same aim of the promotion maipulating the fans who think they are too smart to be manipulated.

 

Summary - kayfabe didn't die, it adapted and evolved. Once WWE came up to speed they have embraced it and know they have a loyal and captive audience who may threaten to #CancelWWENetwork but will still watch Wrestlemania and are too inside to ever leave because if Daniel Bryan didnt make it, well there's always Sami Zayn...

[Zoo Enthusiast]

 

I wasn't reading wrestling newsletters in the 80s, and I knew about it.

 

I don't really want to say that pro wrestling fans are dumber than I am and weren't able to read things that got in the newspapers and other publications (for decades). Or were too stupid to watch things like a popular show such as 20-20. But that really does seem to be what people are trying to imply.

 

Newspapers and 20-20 aren't very popular with kids and teenagers.

Hugh Downs was on my wall.

[goodhelmet]

The problem with kayfabe is that we even know it exists and are talking about it on a message board.

[JerryvonKramer]

I think we should look at kayfabe as an evolving concept that is constantly redefined based on the era and/or the age and 'enlightnment' of the fan and the relationship with kayfabe. Otherwise we are stuck with looking at it as a static concept and will get sources such as 'there were articles in the 1800s saying wrestling was not real hence kayfabe is bullshit'.

 

If we broadly define kayfabe as 'emotional engagement' and break down fans/kayfabe into a few categories (note - not intended to be comprehensive):

 

1. Those to whom kayfabe means knowing wrestling isn't real - basically all non-fans who think wrestling is bullshit and any kids whose entire enjoyment is based on thinking it's real and finding out it isn't who stop being fans as a result of this revelation. Kayfabe = real or not real

 

2. Fans who think/thought it was real mockingly derided as 'rubes' - a minority albeit previously a significant one in the territory era, now limited to kids. Kayfabe = real or not real, although a large number of the not reals could become [3]

 

3. Fans who 'knew' yet were totally willing to invest emotionally in the fictional narrative and characters based on the presentation and consistency (ie internal logic) and the promotions devotion to the illusion - the significant majority of fans in the territory era who screamed when Ricky Morton sold, were angered at the foreign menace and scared by the monsters. Legitimate emotion directly tied to the narrative even if they knew it wasnt real. Kayfabe = directly tied to presentation, now a minority ('marks') since the promotions no longer maintain the illusion and there is complete openess

 

4. Fans who know its not real but whose emotional investment is tied not to the fictional narrative but to the (perceived) real narrative which can often be integrated into the fiction e.g. emotional investment based on pushes, booking decisions, indy darlings suppressed by the establishment eg Daniel Bryan's rise and fall, opposition to Roman Reigns etc Kayfabe = tied to 'reality', previously 'hardcores' but now large and growing majority of fans

 

Rather than the debate getting stuck on [1] and [2] - the binary real vs fake - it may be more interesting to focus on the evolution of kayfabe from [3] to [4] and how the WWE has adapted to the 'new' kayfabe for ultimately the same purpose it has always existed - emotional investment e.g. framing the narratives around who SHOULD be pushed vs who IS pushed (Bryan, Cesaro, Ziggler, Punk et al vs. Cena, Reigns, HHH etc), bringing the indy darlings and promotion in-house (NXT) and now the heel heat and anger is Reigns winning the rumble rather than Russians burying Bill Watts under the flag but all with the same aim of the promotion maipulating the fans who think they are too smart to be manipulated.

 

Summary - kayfabe didn't die, it adapted and evolved. Once WWE came up to speed they have embraced it and know they have a loyal and captive audience who may threaten to #CancelWWENetwork but will still watch Wrestlemania and are too inside to ever leave because if Daniel Bryan didnt make it, well there's always Sami Zayn...

Superb post putting into words what I've struggled to articulate before now. Excellent stuff. Agreed 100% too with the added caveat that type [4] often makes for an irritating live crowd, but they are still essentially being worked.

[JAC]

The most famous "riot" of the Observer years (1983 to the present) related not to Performers Working Up The Emotions Of The Fans to some fever pitch, but instead the fans being pissed off at the Promotion for Booking.

 

Ironically, in a county that treated wrestling as "sport" for far longer than was done here. Even in that setting, the fans knew booking bullshit, and went bonkers when feeling that *they* had been screwed over by the booking.

 

Sumo Hall--Vader's debut?

 

 

 

I wasn't reading wrestling newsletters in the 80s, and I knew about it.

 

I don't really want to say that pro wrestling fans are dumber than I am and weren't able to read things that got in the newspapers and other publications (for decades). Or were too stupid to watch things like a popular show such as 20-20. But that really does seem to be what people are trying to imply.

 

Newspapers and 20-20 aren't very popular with kids and teenagers.

 

 

I browsed the paper and watched 20/20 occasionally, but I'll cop to that highly unusual for a ten year old. However, kids and teenagers do have parents who read papers and watch news programs. Those parents may tell their kids, "You know, that wrestling stuff is phoney. They admitted it; it's right here in the paper!" If they're nice parents, they may even do what mine did and show their kids the paper or tape the program, knowing that they're interested.

 

I was too young to see the 20/20 piece when it first aired, but I saw Connie Chung's piece on pro wrestling air live in 1990. It used to be on YouTube but I guess it got taken down--otherwise, I'd link to it. I believe it's on the 1990 Yearbook. I wasn't the only kid in my class who saw it or knew about it at the time.

 

 

And in the end, I'll stick to my view that crowds were better when they were punching along with babyfaces and ready to fight the heels, not chanting "This is awesome" or "you fucked up". I like old crowds, I generally dislike new ones especially of the indie smart fan type. I think kayfabe is the differentiator. No amount of you or Williams pointing to newspaper articles from the 1880s is going to convince me otherwise.

 

I don't disagree that the older crowds were better. I despise the "This is awesome" chants and think it detracts from the whole experience. Last night, I watched the Flair/Race and Tsuruta/Von Erich matches from 5/22/84 in All Japan. The crowd heat for those really blew me away. It was such a great atmosphere in comparison with today's product. However, I was in attendance for the 7/21/97 Raw in Halifax that is well know for having an absolutely molten hot crowd cheering on the Hart Foundation and jeering at Austin and Michaels. If kayfabe is about the fans believing it's real, then I can't seriously believe that kayfabe is the differentiator between the way old crowds reacted and the way new ones do, because nobody in 1997 believed that wrestling was real (although a great many probably believed, correctly, that Shawn Michaels was a real jerk). However...

 

 

The problem with kayfabe is that we even know it exists and are talking about it on a message board.

 

This exactly!

 

 

If we broadly define kayfabe as 'emotional engagement' and break down fans/kayfabe into a few categories (note - not intended to be comprehensive):

...

3. Fans who 'knew' yet were totally willing to invest emotionally in the fictional narrative and characters based on the presentation and consistency (ie internal logic) and the promotions devotion to the illusion - the significant majority of fans in the territory era who screamed when Ricky Morton sold, were angered at the foreign menace and scared by the monsters. Legitimate emotion directly tied to the narrative even if they knew it wasnt real. Kayfabe = directly tied to presentation, now a minority ('marks') since the promotions no longer maintain the illusion and there is complete openess

 

4. Fans who know its not real but whose emotional investment is tied not to the fictional narrative but to the (perceived) real narrative which can often be integrated into the fiction e.g. emotional investment based on pushes, booking decisions, indy darlings suppressed by the establishment eg Daniel Bryan's rise and fall, opposition to Roman Reigns etc Kayfabe = tied to 'reality', previously 'hardcores' but now large and growing majority of fans

Superb post putting into words what I've struggled to articulate before now. Excellent stuff. Agreed 100% too with the added caveat that type [4] often makes for an irritating live crowd, but they are still essentially being worked.

 

I can more or less agree with this. I don't believe that any significant number of people, at least around where I live, have been emotionally invested in wrestling because they thought it was real--not since I became a fan around 1989, anyway. And from everyone I've talked to, I think that was the case for previous generations. My father tells me about watching wrestling at the Halifax Forum with his grandfather back in the 1960's. My great-grandfather would swing his cane at the heels, but as he and my dad would leave at the end of the night, he'd say "I know it's all phoney, but those guys just get me so riled up!". From what I've seen, that was the nature of the beast for quite some time.

 

Nowadays, the illusion has been stripped away entirely. Depending on your perspective, kayfabe is either dead or, as Herodes suggests, has transmogrified into something completely different.

[kjh]

The problem is with the writing, not with people no longer believing it's real. The "evolution" of kayfabe (I'd argue that it's an inferior mutant) has led to a strange mix of attitudes from the lazy "who cares if it doesn't make sense, everyone knows it's fake anyway?" to those who perversely focus on fooling hardcore fans for the sake of fooling them because people in wrestling get off on the schadenfreude of pulling the wool over people's eyes (or trolling them because they don't like their opinions) even though it doesn't really translate to money.

[jdw]

 

I wasn't reading wrestling newsletters in the 80s, and I knew about it.

 

I don't really want to say that pro wrestling fans are dumber than I am and weren't able to read things that got in the newspapers and other publications (for decades). Or were too stupid to watch things like a popular show such as 20-20. But that really does seem to be what people are trying to imply.

 

Newspapers and 20-20 aren't very popular with kids and teenagers.

 

 

My guess is that more wrestling fans watched that 20-20 episode than non-wrestling fans, who generally don't give a shit about Fake Wrestling.

 

As far as newspapers, perhaps that's the case in your generation. In my generation and in my town, kids checked out papers especially when the topic was something that interested them.

 

Again, we seem to be projecting that Wrestling Fans Are Dumb Fucks who can't read, don't watch tv, and are too stupid to tell that Fake Punches are Fake Punches.

[jdw]

 

From what I've seen crowds in the 70s and 80s were louder, more lively and more emotionally invested in the product they were watching -- regardless of promotion -- than crowds we see on TV today.

 

I also don't really hear reports of Bray Wyatt trying to escape arenas because the fans were trying to kill him.

 

Something changed. Since you're all about the facts, you can tell me what.

 

Better security detail at arenas would probably be a good start in terms of guessing what's changed.

 

 

I think law enforcement has cracked down on a lot of stuff. Not just in wrestling, but elsewhere.

[jdw]

On February 10, 1989, Vince admitted to the NJ State Legislature that wrestling is a work. That same day, I attended my first ever live wrestling card (WWF here in Halifax, NS). I was just days short of my 10th birthday. The next day, my father showed me the article in our local paper about McMahon's big admission. A week earlier, during The Main Event (when the Mega Powers broke up), my dad had explained how wrestling was worked--I got smartened up while watching just my second wrestling show!

 

At least a couple of other kids in my class had heard about the story, presumably through their parents. My best friend, already an established wrestling fan, thought it pretty obvious that it wasn't a real competition. Again, we were 9 or 10 years old. If it registered with us, I'm sure that It must have been known to most older fans. Either that or Halifax is the smark capital of the world.

 

Yep.

 

I pointed to Vince, but he was just one item in a long line of exposures of the business.

 

Yohe is working on a revised version of the timeline that was in that old PWI Yearbook. He's having a blast slipping in examples of the working of the business being exposed. Clarence Whistler in major papers in Los Angeles and San Francisco copped to his match with William Muldoon being worked at Muldoon's request. He copped to it two days after it happened. This was in 1884.

[jdw]

 

The most famous "riot" of the Observer years (1983 to the present) related not to Performers Working Up The Emotions Of The Fans to some fever pitch, but instead the fans being pissed off at the Promotion for Booking.

 

Ironically, in a county that treated wrestling as "sport" for far longer than was done here. Even in that setting, the fans knew booking bullshit, and went bonkers when feeling that *they* had been screwed over by the booking.

 

Sumo Hall--Vader's debut?

 

 

Yep.

 

Japan, where they treated it like sport and it's on the front page of Tokyo Sports.

 

Fans went batshit not because Inoki & Vader roused their passions with a great performance.

 

They went batshit because they had been looking forward to Inoki-Choshu all year long. Inoki and the promotion tried to pull a fast one by pushing Vader into the main, then tried to pull a second fast one by putting on a quicky horrid Choshu-Inoki (where Choshu jobbed), then put on an even quicker shitty Inoki-Vader... and they fans just had enough of the bullshit and went nuts in prime, proper Sumo Hall.

[pol]

I think there's a big difference between seeing wrestling as a rigged sport and seeing it as a work. From what I've seen most of those old articles about fake wrestling are treating it as the former. I wonder if we can pinpoint when that perception changed, or if it's just been a slow transition over time.

[JAC]

Yohe is working on a revised version of the timeline that was in that old PWI Yearbook. He's having a blast slipping in examples of the working of the business being exposed. Clarence Whistler in major papers in Los Angeles and San Francisco copped to his match with William Muldoon being worked at Muldoon's request. He copped to it two days after it happened. This was in 1884.

I always loved that timeline. It opened up a lot of new avenues to explore in my wrestling fandom.

 

 

Yep.

 

Japan, where they treated it like sport and it's on the front page of Tokyo Sports.

 

Fans went batshit not because Inoki & Vader roused their passions with a great performance.

 

They went batshit because they had been looking forward to Inoki-Choshu all year long. Inoki and the promotion tried to pull a fast one by pushing Vader into the main, then tried to pull a second fast one by putting on a quicky horrid Choshu-Inoki (where Choshu jobbed), then put on an even quicker shitty Inoki-Vader... and they fans just had enough of the bullshit and went nuts in prime, proper Sumo Hall.

 

 

Plus ça change....

[jdw]

 

I don't believe that any significant number of people, at least around where I live, have been emotionally invested in wrestling because they thought it was real--not since I became a fan around 1989, anyway. And from everyone I've talked to, I think that was the case for previous generations. My father tells me about watching wrestling at the Halifax Forum with his grandfather back in the 1960's. My great-grandfather would swing his cane at the heels, but as he and my dad would leave at the end of the night, he'd say "I know it's all phoney, but those guys just get me so riled up!". From what I've seen, that was the nature of the beast for quite some time.

 

 

Yep... that.

[jdw]

I think there's a big difference between seeing wrestling as a rigged sport and seeing it as a work. From what I've seen most of those old articles about fake wrestling are treating it as the former. I wonder if we can pinpoint when that perception changed, or if it's just been a slow transition over time.

 

There isn't a difference.

 

If you agree to a finish, then you agree not to fight. You're just bullshitting in there faking things.

 

The specifics in Whistler-Muldoon were that Whistler agreed to have a draw at Muldoon's request.

 

Does anyone with a brain read that to mean that they agreed to kick the living shit out of each other... but just not finish each other off, and instead keep kicking the shit out of each other until time is up?

 

No. Everyone reads that as them having a fake match agreeing to go to a draw.

 

There's a reason why fighters always got up at arms about "taking a dive" i.e. agreeing to a finish: it called into question the whole thing. If both guys agree to a finish, they're faking it in there. None of them want to wack the other guy, pissing him off, and screw up the finish.

[El-P]

La plus ça change....

Wait, what ? You can't say that. "Le plus ça change…" but it doesn't sound so good. "Plus ça change…" would work the best.

 

(sorry about that...)