Jump to content


cad

Member Since 08 Jun 2015
Offline Last Active Nov 11 2017 10:20 PM
-----

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Holy Grails

04 November 2017 - 11:02 AM

 

Nothing on that channel is just being unearthed now. Even if it hasn't been on Youtube before it was stuff that was easy to find.


In Topic: How have your tastes in wrestling changed?

03 October 2017 - 11:01 PM

 

Isn't it fairly simple? The more you've been exposed to, the harder it is for something to feel different enough that it changes the way you think about anything, and the more top level stuff you see, the tougher the comparison becomes for everything else.

 

To use an example, Atlantis vs Blue Panther from 1991 used to be considered one of the classic matches from Mexico, especially if you're just limiting it to championship style. Then you go to the thread about it on this site, with all the posts in it coming within the past five years, and it may not even rank as a consensus four star match in there. Could be that it's a different set of opinions coming from people with different tastes, sure. But I'd guess that it's more that there's so much readily available to watch now, even just in the category of championship wrestling from Mexico, that the match doesn't stand out like it did back when the field was smaller.

 

I definitely think that's one way to look at it, and it's probably the answer to the question as I raised it. But the reason I raised it was more to bring up that I think there's this subconscious idea that liking less wrestling is a sign of better tastes. I just don't see it that way. The fan who is harder to please isn't so much the fan who always has a point, or whose recommendations are always going to be good. But I do think we've biased, without intention, having "higher standards" over having better standards. I'm not sure I'm formulating this in a way that makes sense or if this is even the thread to hash it out. Just something on my mind.

 

In a way it goes hand in hand with my first response. If seeing more and knowing more raises the bar, then higher standards would indicate that this is someone who knows his stuff. I agree with what you're saying--tearing down something that other people like isn't any more intellectually demanding than building up something that other people don't--but it's also human nature. If a woman looks in the mirror and likes what she sees, and then she goes out and someone tells her "Hey, you have a really big nose," and someone else tells her that she has a pretty smile, what do you think is going to stick with her more? Now let's say that she herself has never really thought much of her teeth. And the person who complimented it is a cheery, optimistic soul who tries to see the beauty in everything and make people feel better when they're down.

 

Instead of a dumbass analogy, let me try a wrestling example. One of my favorite wrestlers is La Fiera. Someone writes a scathing review of Fiera vs Negro Casas, which I think is one of Fiera's best matches. Someone else calls Fiera vs Atlantis a lost classic, one of the best championship matches in CMLL history. With the first one, maybe it would hit a nerve somewhere inside of me and have me thinking, "Hmm, did I miss something when I watched that match? Was I too busy marking out to actually pay attention to it? Maybe I was just biased towards one of my guys." With the second one, well, maybe they'd have a logical point, and they could frame things in a way that made the match read like a classic, but it's going to be hard to override the memory of watching that match and not loving it. Tendency toward self doubt might just be a personal thing, but I think it's a lot easier to for love to be torn down than to be created out of nowhere--so a nasty review about a match I thought was outstanding is going to hit home a lot more than a glowing review of one for which my primary recollection of it will be not enjoying it. And if it's from a person who tries to see the good in everything, my thinking is going to be that I might have to TRY to like this match in order to actually like it, and that's just not how I do things.

 

(Sorry for the double post. I didn't know whether that or a long post in which I replied to two different people would have been a bigger breach of message board etiquette.)


In Topic: How have your tastes in wrestling changed?

03 October 2017 - 10:21 PM

Is there a consensus about the classic matches from Mexico? There are only 8 posts in the Atlantis/Panther thread and half of them are favorable. Some people compare the match disfavorably to Azteca/Dandy, which was a popular match at the time but went on to have its own detractors later on. I wouldn't put too much stock into what people are jotting down on a particular given night. A match will either stand the test of time or it won't. Unfortunately, Panther vs. Atlantis isn't an important enough match for people to revise their opinions on it every decade or so. 

Maybe it's just confirmation bias, but I can recall people talking about Dandy vs Angel Azteca. Atlantis vs Blue Panther not so much. I haven't been on this board very long, so maybe I wasn't here for what you're referencing, but the only detractors I can remember for Dandy vs Angel basically came at it from a "Nick Bockwinkel wouldn't have wrestled like this" way rather than actually criticizing the things that made that match unique. It felt like annoyance that something like THAT was challenging Flair, Steamboat, Misawa and Kawada. That speaks to Dandy vs Angel having a reputation. No real need to take Atlantis and Blue Panther down a peg, their match isn't threatening Flair. We should do that for a thread though, consensus classics from everywhere (by "we" I mean "one of you," of course).


In Topic: How have your tastes in wrestling changed?

02 October 2017 - 09:48 PM

Isn't it fairly simple? The more you've been exposed to, the harder it is for something to feel different enough that it changes the way you think about anything, and the more top level stuff you see, the tougher the comparison becomes for everything else.

 

To use an example, Atlantis vs Blue Panther from 1991 used to be considered one of the classic matches from Mexico, especially if you're just limiting it to championship style. Then you go to the thread about it on this site, with all the posts in it coming within the past five years, and it may not even rank as a consensus four star match in there. Could be that it's a different set of opinions coming from people with different tastes, sure. But I'd guess that it's more that there's so much readily available to watch now, even just in the category of championship wrestling from Mexico, that the match doesn't stand out like it did back when the field was smaller.


In Topic: Who is the greatest booker ever?

25 September 2017 - 11:07 PM

I feel like Antonio Pena needs to at least be in the team photograph here, even if not at #1. As Bix said on the latest BTS...strictly in terms of booking wrestling--angles, gimmicks, finishes, feuds and payoffs, etc., not promoting or marketing or even running an organization--he may have had an even better mind for the business than Vince. Pena also had a hand in designing costumes and masks for his guys, which I don't think any other booker anywhere can say.

Huh, I was reading this thread and thinking how Peña was more of a McMahonlike candidate, but then a lot of his booking feels overwrought to me. His biggest achievements IMO were making the EMLL easily the number one promotion in the country (largely on the strength of TV) and then creating a promotion from out of nowhere that overnight became bigger than the one he'd just helped build up, and had a different way of doing business than any promotion in Mexico. I don't know that either of these falls under what would traditionally be called booking. No doubt the wrestling programs that he booked helped these things happen, though.