Jump to content
Pro Wrestling Only

Ageism in pro wrestling


goc

Recommended Posts

It happens with every generation. I watched a sit down interview with Buddy Rogers where he shat all over the early 80s WWWF that Titans review.

I suspect he was raising valid points in that interview too. Guys in the late 70s, and during the 80s, forgot how to wrestle. Which is to say, some of those older guys would look at your typical MSG match and think that the workers didn't know "a wristlock from a wristwtach".

 

That older guard from the Thesz-led generation valued mat-wrestling fundamentals. In fact, Backlund was probably one the last guys who could really do it properly, and even he worked a kind of strong-man graceless style. He wasn't Verne Gagne. Actually, ironically, Flair could do a lot of that stuff, as a Gagne-trainee, but his OWN wrestling tastes tended towards athleticism and showmanship, and he didn't really like spending too much time down on the mat, and so over the years he increasingly de-emphasised it. If you have the mindset of a Thesz or a Rogers, from the older generation, it's a valid knock on why those guys did away with the fundamentals and focused so much on strikes and throws.

 

I think the older generation AREN'T just being grumpy old men, they are raising valid points. They worked to a certain set of principles and then saw them violated, and naturally complained. And so the eternal tension between respecting tradition and pioneering innovation.

 

It is a mistake to assume that ANY artform is in constant evolution, it isn't. It's more complicated.

 

And we who think critically need to cut through all of that and try to work out, well, are some ideas basically sound? And are others not basically sound? Did Johnny Valentine's philosophy of wrestling have anything -- intrinsically -- to recommend it? Did Flair's? Did Daniel Bryan's? Does Ospreay's?

 

Often history tells us the answer. We don't look back to the 70s and valorise Big John Studd, we tend to look at Jack Brisco. We don't look back to the 80s and champion Hercules, we look at Flair and Funk. And so it will be in 20 years time when fans look back on the 2010s and -- much like some of us look back and wonder how in the fuck Chief Jay Strongbow got monster pops at MSG every month -- will wonder why the fans are losing their shit for the firework flippy-do midgets. Or they might look back and say "well, hmmm, maybe that guy was right to do fifteen backflips in this match, THAT's work". Of course, they'd be wrong, but that's the heart of it.

 

Smarky post-modern self-aware crowds still suck though because ... well, smarky post-modern crowds suck in general, whatever the medium. Admitting it is a problem in the first place would be a start. If you hold that it isn't a problem, then I guess we fundamentally disagree. I am not for moving on the issue now, ten years ago, or in ten years time. I just hate that variety of crowd, always have, always will. And I won't watch modern wrestling until they are purged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 183
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

Smarky post-modern self-aware crowds still suck though because ... well, smarky post-modern crowds suck in general, whatever the medium. Admitting it is a problem in the first place would be a start. If you hold that it isn't a problem, then I guess we fundamentally disagree. I am not for moving on the issue now, ten years ago, or in ten years time. I just hate that variety of crowd, always have, always will. And I won't watch modern wrestling until they are purged.

 

 

I don't like those crowds either, but what is the solution? Post-kayfabe, how should they act? Should they cheer and boo, because that is what expected, like how the audience in a pantomime (one of the few other truly interactive performances I can think of right now, where the audience really are part of the show) knows to follow particular cues? Should they pretend to believe?

 

Or should they sit quietly? Or politely applaud?

 

This is something I've struggled with for years now. What is the role of a pro-wrestling crowd these days? And what behaviour isn't annoying?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They might look at 70s and 80s AJPW crowds as an example of an audience that can be respectful while also maintaining the capacity to lose their shit, laugh, or whatever else.

 

I mean there are other models too, but within a wrestling context, that's probably the closest to ideal I could think of for a product that has severely downplayed the face / heel divide, and which foregrounds the matches and wrestling.

 

It's kind of a shame that when Bryan and co were taking their cues from Misawa and co, the crowds who worshipped them didn't also take their cues from the AJPW crowds who worshipped the pillars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Often history tells us the answer. We don't look back to the 70s and valorise Big John Studd, we tend to look at Jack Brisco. We don't look back to the 80s and champion Hercules, we look at Flair and Funk.

 

That's the Meltzerian history you're refering too. The one of "official good work". The "workrate history", in essence. Just saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Often history tells us the answer. We don't look back to the 70s and valorise Big John Studd, we tend to look at Jack Brisco. We don't look back to the 80s and champion Hercules, we look at Flair and Funk.

That's the Meltzerian history you're refering too. The one of "official good work". The "workrate history", in essence. Just saying.

 

Well there's never just one canon, there are always multiple ones.

 

Wrestling criticism is in its infancy, but we still have multiple ones:

 

- the old-school traditionalist's canon, this is your Larry Matysik top 50 list with Lou Thesz near the top, Flair about 10th, much more of an historical bias with 1950s as golden age. Jerry Lawler doesn't rank. American only.

 

- then there's the Meltzer / Observer canon, one everyone knows. And this has an impact on a more general internet fandom. As such there are likely several sub-canons within this, based on timeframes:

- the one with Flair-Steamboat as GOAT

- the one with AJ mid-90s stuff as GOAT

- the one with Benoit stuff circa early 00s as GOAT

- the one very high on Daniel Bryan stuff later on in 00s

- the one which lauds current NJPW very very highly

- Meltzer himself is a weird amalagm of all of the above, plus some of the Matysik line of thinking too. He tends to think in terms of "moments in time".

 

- There's also WWE official canon, which has Shawn Michaels as GOAT, with Undertaker top 5. Flair is somewhere up there too.

 

- PWO general approach in *some* way acknowledges and challenges all of these canons.

 

None of them are MY canon or YOUR canon. They are just frameworks we work within. And somewhere in all that is the Lucha canon in which Dandy vs. Azteca is a highly lauded match.

 

Although it is true to say that not all canons are created equal. Flair vs. Steamboat within the fandom is a "HYPER-Canonical" text, insomuch there is virtually no corner of it that is untouched by at least an awareness of its existence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alert. Parv is now quoting himself.

 

The current revisionism about Meltz is the best though. I'd guess pretty much none of us would be here today without the evil snowflake culture and nerdy breaking down of matches and angles. But I guess some people believe in transcendance in pro-wrestling analysis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There is, in fact, a brutal and visceral sense of anthropological insight in seeing cultural prejudices being exposed pretty nakedly in wrestling crowds. As 2,000 angry people in a high school gym in Oklahoma during the mid-80s openly chant "sissy" at Jim Cornette while baying for his blood.

 

Here we get a glimpse into something real, into something that actually existed under-or-close-to-the-surface of the culture bubbling up and boiling over. There's a genuine point of interest there. It throws back ethical questions our way. It makes us think. It makes us see how the world may or may not have changed. It makes us ruminate on the relationship between cultural values and individual belief.

 

"Fight forever" can't do any of that. It's a facile, empty chant in a self-referential loop meaningless to anything outside of itself. It is, in essence, the opposite to a "point of interest".

This is why I'm sure watching US indies wouldn't be nearly as entertaining as the croatian indy with untrained wrestlers. A promoter books himself as a heel yet wants to be liked too much to actually act as one. He tries to get heel heat by acting cocky and undermining his wife but only gets the predominantly male (and conservative, especially by US standards) crowd to cheer him. Having her align with another male wrestler to end his reign of terror only gives more material for the patriarchal crowd to use against her. A group of wrestlers claims he shuts down any storyline ideas that don't revolve around him and leaves claiming they will form a new organization led by a croatian indy wrestler that has *actual* training and wrestles in Italian indies (and has claimed he'll form a promotion here for years without actually doing anything). Shows are mostly main evented by fat guys while the drunk crowd yells random stuff at them getting that elementary school fight feel just right. A true throwback :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I certainly think there has been some migration in the crowds due to the awareness that is easier to obtain from the internet, global issues, etc. It is a deep rooted issue that has a lot of minutia and also ties into both intelligence level and overall capacity of critical thinking. I went to a Peachstate Wrestling Alliance show a month ago that had more "natural" heat than any show I have been at in years. Security had to restrain different people, chants of "you scared" were chanted profusely at the heels and overall the narrative was that of an Georgia Championship Wrestling show from 30 years before. The show also drew 280 people with extremely limited social media presence in a town of 30,000 an hour from Atlanta. Compare this to an AWE show I went to the next day which only drew 85 people and while most of the individuals were there with sincerity, I do believe a certain portion of that crowd was there to be a part of the show. That kind of goes into the marketing framework of the promotion and makes it different, but it can be at the expense of more patrons.

 

SCI amplified the issues even more. A heavy contingent of outside forces attended the show and I didn't get much in the sense of them trying to put "over" the action that was going on. However, social media was abash with claims of hyperbole and an overall feeling that there was some uneeded hyping and hand raising over the amount of photos, companionship, etc that has been claimed over that weekend. As I have tried to state in the final two weeks, I was there really for a wrestling show and a weekend with my wife away from my son. I was unable to hang out or build any deep connection with anyone that was travelling to the event. However, I was at WM 29 and while that was a lackluster show, I was able to form relationships that I cherish. If others had that same type of epiphany at SCI, I must take that at face value. While the crowds weren't necessary as heated in the traditional sense as the Peachstate show, I thought SCI showed a good mixture of what a smarky crowd could look like in 2016 without being overly annoying and relying on the next catchy chant. There is still little moments though where awareness is an issue. Take the Night 2 ovation for Billy Buck after his match. Billy Buck had a good match with Anthony Henry. I didn't find his performance exceptional but adequate and therefore consciously didn't partake in the standing ovation when he left the ring. My wife was at her first wrestling show and remarked at this point whether this was going to happen after every match. That was a clear moment of someone picking up on some sort of routine that didn't feel necessary earned to a newcomer. Should we as fans now applaud every performer because I realize the risk they are undertaking? These are the meta issues that can sometimes creep in without being warranted and take me out of the micro wrestling match being performed in the moment.

 

I think 2016 wrestling has been amazing. I do think some chants are too meta and can be detrimental to my enjoyment as well as the entry point for people overall. My wife again laughs uproariously when I told her they could be a "these two guys" chant. We are watching an athletic performance where crowd interaction is different but I don't know of any other median of entertainment where some of these chants is that on the nose. This is Awesome was fine the first time, the repeat offenders and it being chanted for most *** matches is annoying. I find it ridiculous to bring up Thesz or other shooters and talk about mat working without acknowledging someone like Jack Gallagher who is a great technician, entertaining, and won legit shoot fights. Unless you think everyone is less of a wrestler in professional environments than in the 1950's, in which case enjoy your walk uphill to work in the snow. I also think 2016 and the availability of media sources has actually brought back a refuge for the fan that clings to the territory eras. There is something out there that should be relatively easy to find and enjoy in this product. I have no doubt that if we had 1983 house show footage for all the major promotions, there may be just as many great matches as this year, but there is still a magnitude of great stuff happening now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, the "this is awesome" chant was originally intended to be sarcastic. The first one was during the Monster's Ball match at Victory Road 2004 (yes, it's another thing we can thank TNA for), and the guy who claims to have started the chant says he did it to mock Raven, who had been a dick to him at a previous show. He had no idea that it would metastasize into what it has become.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's pretend that Parv is right and that the Dallas Takeover crowd had never seen anything Nakamura had done before that night. Nobody used YouTube, nobody even knew Japan had wrestling, and they didn't watch any of the hype videos on NXT leading to his debut. They heard his music, saw his entrance, and then watched the match with Zayn for however long before the "fight forever" chant started.

 

What's more likely in this scenario: that a talented and extremely charismatic wrestler engaged in a very good match with a beloved hero got over by being talented and extremely charismatic, leading to an entire arena cheering for him in addition to their beloved hero, or a couple thousand assholes said to themselves, all at once, "let's show how meta we are" before they shouted their approval?

 

Your argument, Parv, is flawed, as it ignores the trend of meta-based entertainment in pop culture at large. Please do quote more literature in defense of your personal disgust with the way current fans interact with their preferred entertainers in 2016.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It happens with every generation. I watched a sit down interview with Buddy Rogers where he shat all over the early 80s WWWF that Titans review.

I suspect he was raising valid points in that interview too.

 

 

Well, let's see:

 

Rogers says some of the things they're doing today insult people's intelligence and that there's no need to resort to them. He thinks they should get back to wrestling and that there should be more rules. In his day there were suspensions and fines, and he tells some story about how he was suspended for two years from the state of New York for shoving a guy after a match was over. The interviewer mentions that nowadays guys are bringing chairs into the ring and Rogers says they use everything next to machine guns if they can carry it in there. He says it's ridiculous because there's some super wrestlers like Backlund and Muraco. The interviewer blames it on the promoters and Rogers goes off on a tangent about how wrestling can still draw because it's the second oldest sport in the world next to running. The interviewer senses that Rogers wouldn't mind getting back into the sport and having some control over it and Rogers admits he wouldn't mind getting back into the business in a "supervisory" role. Rogers knows he could do a lot for wrestling and mentions a young guy he managed in Florida who is the greatest athlete he's seen in wrestling in the last 25 years and would set the place on fire. That man being Jimmy Snuka.

 

Rogers calls wrestling the greatest show on earth. It's got action, it's got strength, it's got "everything about it," and if they resorted more to wrestling it would even be greater. The public don't want to see constant kicking and hair pulling. They want to see some holds. In Rogers' day they had holds where a guy would give up or you'd beat a guy with a hold and you hardly see that today. The interviewer says everyone has a costume these days and Rogers says you don't need that. There's such a thing as charisma and being colourful but you can overdo that too.

 

Later on, the interview gets a good line in about how Rogers used to hang out with Nat King Cole and how he couldn't imagine Backlund hobnobbing with Barbara Streisand.

 

................................................................

 

You can interpret Rogers' comments anyway you like. Maybe there was more wrestling in Rogers' day but there was also a hell of a lot of the stuff that "insulted people's intelligence." And everything that is wrong about wrestling "today" can be found in Sheik vs. Slaughter, which last I checked is considered pretty much the height of that era.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This discussion is much like reading reading an extemist political site. Some valid points, but in the end it all comes back to this:

 

I am not for moving on the issue now, ten years ago, or in ten years time. I just hate that variety of crowd, always have, always will. And I won't watch modern wrestling until they are purged.

Parv will shit on modern wrestling instead of seeking out modern wrestling where crowds don't act like snoby anglosaxon reddit users while the majority of modern wrestling he decides to even give a chance is still the one where you're most likely to have those types of crowds.

 

 

They might look at 70s and 80s AJPW crowds as an example of an audience that can be respectful while also maintaining the capacity to lose their shit, laugh, or whatever else.

If you watch those shows it's pretty clear those crowds don't take wrestling more seriously than people today. In fact a New Japan crowd even TODAY probably acts more seriously than All Japan crowds those days did because they've been conditioned to do so after decades of New Japan, well, not being a total joke like it is today. :) And that is with all the american BS Gedo does currently. Yet Parv's reaction to watching a little bit of modern New Japan was "what is this post-modern BS". He is a gimmick after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Dave Meltzer - chiefly responsible for producing Scott Keith, CRZ, The Rick, and a hundred other fans who knew better who in turn created many thousands more fans who knew better.

Ah, the anti-Dave Meltzer point now. Gotta love it. Well, first, Jim Cornette and some other guy whose name eludes me invented the star rating. So there. And if we have to blame Meltzer for something, blame him for *us* then.

 

Also, I love the idea that a crowd full of people actually having fun is a bad thing. Really, I'm annoyed as anyone by some of these chants, but the line has to be drawn at some point too. Pro-wrestling is entertainment. People going to a pro-wrestling show and having fun *with* or *against* the show are entitled to do so. What about those "smart marks" chanting "We want Flair!" at the GAB 90 ? Were they guilty of being corrupted by "Evil Meltzerism" already ? Of because they were chanting for Flair and shat on a crappy show, they were decent old-school fans still in the "Garden of Eden of kayfabe" ( :rolleyes: ) ?

 

And yes, kayfabe existed. Form the pro-wrestler's point of view. But let's not pretend the people ate it up without thinking. I never, ever "believed" in pro-wrestling, not for one second.

The Evil Meltzerism Theory is one of the dumbest fucking things ever.

Less evil Meltzer and more every Tom, Dick and Harry with a keyboard thinking that they were Dave Meltzer. Even you could manage the subtle distinction between those two things. Perhaps.

 

 

 

What's funny is that most people didn't think they were Meltzer. He wasn't online until the late 90s, and by that point the people you mentioned were established online. He didn't have a great deal of influence on any of them. He was mostly known online as a "news" guy in the era, and that would only be when people were crediting him with the stuff they were lifting from him. As writers, CRZ was miles removed from Dave, The Rick was closer to just a guy writing, and SKeith was more into putting over SKeith and the WWF than worrying about stealing Meltzer's style. All of them cut their teeth in RSP-W in a *conversational* environment.

 

It's a bit like saying Dean got on a keyboard and thought he was Meltzer, or that any of the DVDVR boys did. Or that Dylan did, or Daniel when he showed up, or any of the long timers.

 

I'm terribly surprised by any of this. You writings on hardcore fandom from the 80s and 90s has always been crap. But you might want to peddle it to people who weren't around in those days. There still are a number of us who were.

 

Hey, remember that time you and Meltzer went to Tokyo!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, as somebody who 'grew' up as a smart fan with RSPW, Scott Keith rants, and various other second tier wrestling message boards before eventually wandering over to the nascent DVDVR and the like in the mid to late 90's, Meltzer wasn't really a presence beyond the 'guy who Micasa got his newsbits' from.

 

I can absolutely see people clinging romantically in a few years to 2013-2014 with Shield six-mans and the rise of Bryan.

I actually saw a couple of posts along these lines over on Reddit in the last few weeks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pedantic to the last. Sometimes, I resent having to explain things that should be obvious: I didn't mean they actually thought they were Dave Meltzer. I was talking about them all thinking they are "smart" with a particular sense of hubris and snark. This really is obvious from the things I've said. But, it's alright, opt instead to take the comment literally. Fuck's sake.

 

And Meltzer certainly was an influence on all of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This discussion is much like reading reading an extemist political site. Some valid points, but in the end it all comes back to this:

 

 

I am not for moving on the issue now, ten years ago, or in ten years time. I just hate that variety of crowd, always have, always will. And I won't watch modern wrestling until they are purged.

 

Parv will shit on modern wrestling instead of seeking out modern wrestling where crowds don't act like snoby anglosaxon reddit users while the majority of modern wrestling he decides to even give a chance is still the one where you're most likely to have those types of crowds.

 

 

They might look at 70s and 80s AJPW crowds as an example of an audience that can be respectful while also maintaining the capacity to lose their shit, laugh, or whatever else.

 

If you watch those shows it's pretty clear those crowds don't take wrestling more seriously than people today. In fact a New Japan crowd even TODAY probably acts more seriously than All Japan crowds those days did because they've been conditioned to do so after decades of New Japan, well, not being a total joke like it is today. :) And that is with all the american BS Gedo does currently. Yet Parv's reaction to watching a little bit of modern New Japan was "what is this post-modern BS". He is a gimmick after all.
What? I'm not a gimmick, I genuinely hate the phenomenon of the post-modern crowd and I blame bookers for pandering to them and workers for not sticking to their guns instead of giving in to them. It's too late now, it's happened. I've said modern NJPW seems computer game-y and oddly sterile. I haven't seeked out any modern wrestling, the vast majority of stuff I've watched has been pimped stuff for GWE purposes. And some PPV's of WWE and NXT to ensure that my Network subscription wasn't being used entirely to watch WCW shows I already own and have already seen. I cancelled the Network.

 

There is great wrestling going on all over the place and there has been for the past decade. But I'm not a fan who just watches for great matches. I need the total package, and how many hours of my life do you want me to waste looking for it in 2016 when I've got God knows how many DVDs here of stuff from when it was presented in a way that I actually enjoy?

 

Fucking gimmick, what a cheek.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pedantic to the last. Sometimes, I resent having to explain things that should be obvious: I didn't mean they actually thought they were Dave Meltzer. I was talking about them all thinking they are "smart" with a particular sense of hubris and snark. This really is obvious from the things I've said. But, it's alright, opt instead to take the comment literally. Fuck's sake.

 

And Meltzer certainly was an influence on all of them.

 

I rarely agree with Parv's takes on things, but what is up with the deliberately obtuse opposition to clearly made points?? Are we really arguing that because other people exist in the world with opinions on wrestling, that Dave's influence (the single most influential voice in wrestling criticism) is irrelevant? Jeff Sullivan is an influential baseball analyst, but nobody would be as foolish as to dismiss the influence Bill James has on his writing, right? James didn't invent advanced statistical analysis, but you can't deny that he's the guy who popularized it. I like to think that I come to my opinions on my own, but I'm not so full of myself as to think that I'm beyond influencing. Dave didn't create the language we use to discuss wrestling, but he certainly helped to popularize it and he has influenced us all in one way or another. To deny that he has an impact on the very way we discuss wrestling is to be a ridiculous person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They might look at 70s and 80s AJPW crowds as an example of an audience that can be respectful while also maintaining the capacity to lose their shit, laugh, or whatever else.

 

I mean there are other models too, but within a wrestling context, that's probably the closest to ideal I could think of for a product that has severely downplayed the face / heel divide, and which foregrounds the matches and wrestling.

 

It's kind of a shame that when Bryan and co were taking their cues from Misawa and co, the crowds who worshipped them didn't also take their cues from the AJPW crowds who worshipped the pillars.

 

That's a pretty interesting point. For the influence of 90's All Japan on 21st century US wrestling, the crowds could not have been more different.

 

I completely agree with Jvk here. Those crowds are insufferable and often damper my enjoyment of matches, even when the matches are legitimately great. Sad it has gone from "that was a great match enhanced by a great crowd" to "that was a great match despite the crowd".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your argument, Parv, is flawed, as it ignores the trend of meta-based entertainment in pop culture at large. Please do quote more literature in defense of your personal disgust with the way current fans interact with their preferred entertainers in 2016.

What is "meta-based entertaminment"? Something like Community? You-Tube videos like this one? I'm just wondering what you think the causal connection is between that and twats chanting "we are awesome" at wrestling shows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few genuine questions...

 

  • What percentage of your standard WWE crowd know who Dave Meltzer is?
  • What is primarily to blame for All That Is Wrong About Pro Wrestling Today - bookers or the wider cultural shift?
  • Has there been a change in the socio-economic make-up of a pro wrestling crowd? And is this a factor?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is primarily to blame for All That Is Wrong About Pro Wrestling Today - bookers or the wider cultural shift?

I'm going to try to keep this short so it can't be misunderstood:

 

- I blame the bookers entirely because they failed to control the crowds and pandered to their worst instincts.

 

To be clear:

 

- I believe that crowds in any generation had the potential to behave like crowds do now. For example, Philly crowds in the early 80s could have gone this way if Vince Sr hadn't been such a man of complete conviction.

 

And:

 

- The "Death of Kayfabe" was nothing to do with fans believing or not, and everything to do with bookers and workers pandering to smart culture. It's Gabe screaming about a "5 star classic" that he booked himself. It's Heyman doubling down on a hardcore base. It's Russo's worked shoots. All of these things encourage fans to think about BOOKING rather than about investing in characters and their actions.

 

WWE didn't help matters because:

 

1. Building up mythos of ECW in 00s.

2. The way they booked Punk and Bryan made them "indie martyrs", which created its own phenomena and basically made the problem 10 times worse.

3. The troll-y booking of Roman Reigns, a ham-fisted attempt at captialising on this "phenomena" and taking back control, actually ended up giving a clear message to the fans that they could sabotage their shows.

 

It's kind of far too late now. I do blame the bookers for not being stronger. The crowds are their Frankenstein's monster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...