|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Mar 9, 2014 5:19:47 GMT -5
Disclaimer: Dear Admins, if this seems more appropriate for the Classics Board, I apologize. Jim Ross recently spoke in an interview & described Professional Wrestling as a simple, somewhat "mindless" portrayal of protagonist vs antagonist or hero vs villian drama. This is a relatively apt description of Professional Wrestling as it is today & has been for various generations. However, relatively apt does not suffice when one is in need of a foundation by which all trees of deduction & truth are grown. Professional Wrestling is by definition a form of art. This has been true since the day Carnival Promoters began rigging matches to entertain delusional crowds back in the late teens of the 20th century. The issue lies in what were these men originally known for embodying the prefix "Con" as a badge of honor attempting to accomplish? Even if they were doing it solely to achieve a profit, they were still forced to create the illusion of an authentic, wrestling contest devoid of a pre-determined outcome. This categorizes them as "Theatre Artisans" no different than a Magician performing tricks on the corner in desperate need of the rent by 4:30. They are performing an illusion to make money. Creating art in spite of their view of it as a mere means to an end. This basis of necessity for realism reigned true as commoners found it all, but impossible to decipher Carnival performances matches from the genuine article. This is predominantly due to the fact that little beyond the winner was pre-determined, but it laid the groundwork for Ed "Strangler" Lewis & co. to form the "Gold Dust Trio" & revive the Professional Wrestling circuit from a dead sport to an evolutionary concept in a revolutionary disguise. Lewis, Mondt, & Sandow did not revive the sport they'd all grown up practicing respectively, but rather killed it completely, only then to go on parading around the corpse in a way so contrived, no one could tell it was actually dead. They figured out how to make the crowd feel it's breath on their faces when it talked to them. That's one Hell of a magic trick... Until you know the secret of course. The best matches are basically fixed matches with little planning aside from scripted trash talking or perhaps working light when applying dangerous holds to avoid injuring their "opponents" & inadvertently ruining the plan. This creates the basis for Professional Wrestling as was first introduced as the chaotic, collamity to cruise through the occasionally, crummy, quietness that overruled America's living rooms prior to the nationalization of Television. And sets up for the questions I've been pondering. The foundation of Professional Wrestling is the art of creating "Worked Shoots." Matches that are undistinguishable from the real thing. If this is the defining element of the art, & we've basically abandon it almost completely, then what are we really watching? How do we map out the critical points of Wrestling's transformation & how do we define skill from mediocrity in an art where the defining concept is all, but completely missing from the supposed "artists" performances? An equally important question is "What does it mean to be a wrestling fan, if you don't value matches created to achieve the art's defining element?" All sincerely thoughtful posts, spelling/grammar corrections, factual corrections, questions, & non-derogatory comments are genuinely appreciated. Thanks for reading. There will be more added soon.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 28, 2024 17:15:39 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2014 5:50:17 GMT -5
I don't agree with JRs mindless comment.....it really depends on the wrestlers and the story they tell in the ring/promos. Sometimes its "mindless drama" others times its a work of storytelling art between two compelling characters. Often times antagonist vs protagonist but not always as we saw with Hogan/Warrior or Shawn/Bret yet the story was just as compelling if not more so. It all depends on the quality and work each wrestler puts into the angle......that's the problem today....its still a art but its so forced, overproduced and polished up it feels like cheap cookie cutter art you find in the dollar bin. Current times has its moments but I think we can all agree the quality of wrestling has gone down mainly because everything is tweaked to such a fine point by management wrestlers cant just be themselves and tell their own story in the ring.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 28, 2024 17:15:39 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2014 7:06:09 GMT -5
Your posts are so deep and long
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 28, 2024 17:15:39 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2014 8:13:25 GMT -5
Your posts are so deep and long I swear. I feel like I'm reading an article about advanced nuclear theories when reading his posts.
|
|
|
Post by ricflair4ever on Mar 9, 2014 9:23:16 GMT -5
Wrestling may have the very strange distinction of devolving while evolving. The art of the wrestling itself and the way its cconceived (creative/story wise) gets closer to extinction every year ,yet the performance of the guys in the ring evolves from headlocks to dives and the presentation certainly gets more modernized. I think we could have the best of both worlds if todays wrestlers werent stifled so much creatively. Part of what makes a great worker is ability to cut a promo.......not memorize a script. Ability to call a match on the fly......not be told what every spot should be. Allow for originality and uniqueness to stand out. The one good thing that has changed is the return to the story telling in the matches themselves. They seem to have achieved a good balance of ring psychology and high spots nowadays. For so long,the ADD style booking just didnt seem to have time for ring psychology and logic. For the most part, WWE has brought that portion of the "lost art" back into it.
|
|
|
Post by Chip on Mar 9, 2014 10:22:38 GMT -5
the way the WWE presnts its product in the current era, they absolutely believe that 80-90% of their audience are "mindless fans" watching the show its not really about a lost art as it is about society changing to be faster, quicker and so impatient with life. we are trained as humans living in america to get everything now, and go through a constant flow of something "new"
there are a large portion of the wrestling fanbase that does apprecite a great match. but they are so few and far in between sadly due to the WWE being more concerned with just going through the motions, promoting their product as the greatest thing on earth and having most of the talent going through their nightly routine because dumb fans.
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Mar 9, 2014 10:56:53 GMT -5
I don't agree with JRs mindless comment.....it really depends on the wrestlers and the story they tell in the ring/promos. Sometimes its "mindless drama" others times its a work of storytelling art between two compelling characters. Often times antagonist vs protagonist but not always as we saw with Hogan/Warrior or Shawn/Bret yet the story was just as compelling if not more so. It all depends on the quality and work each wrestler puts into the angle......that's the problem today....its still a art but its so forced, overproduced and polished up it feels like cheap cookie cutter art you find in the dollar bin. Current times has its moments but I think we can all agree the quality of wrestling has gone down mainly because everything is tweaked to such a fine point by management wrestlers cant just be themselves and tell their own story in the ring. I think it's safe to say he was only describing the general concept not being too difficult to follow. He's too talented & passionate to genuinely think that about all of Professional Wrestling. An art in itself can't be such, as such a description is only relatively applicable as far as slang is concerned for filler matches. Secondly, an art form can't be completely refined, or completely unrefined. It can be used with immense refinement & intellect or it can be abused by claiming mediocrity as greatness. There's no denying or any desire to deny wrestling is filled with great stories, but as a mark for truth, I'm not happy saying this without completely understand why this phenomenon I think I adore in relation to every important Who, What, When, Where, & Why. It was thought of a cheap trick to con saps out of their cash, So what? Chemistry came from Alchemy, Science from Mythology, Philosophy from Religion. The charlatan is always the pioneer regardless of their reluctance to do so. I immensely agree with your comments on the "over production" of the business. It's a serious detractor to the quality of any artistic production.
|
|
|
Post by Nivro™ on Mar 9, 2014 10:59:43 GMT -5
Your posts are so deep and long I swear. I feel like I'm reading an article about advanced nuclear theories when reading his posts. You actually read them? I just go straight to the comments
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 28, 2024 17:15:39 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2014 12:40:02 GMT -5
Your posts are so deep and long I swear. I feel like I'm reading an article about advanced nuclear theories when reading his posts. agreed
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 28, 2024 17:15:39 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2014 13:40:33 GMT -5
I swear. I feel like I'm reading an article about advanced nuclear theories when reading his posts. You actually read them? I just go straight to the comments I try, hard to get out of the first paragraph without a headache though.
|
|
|
Post by RybackV1 on Mar 9, 2014 13:45:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Next Manufactured’s Sweater on Mar 9, 2014 18:07:49 GMT -5
JR's right. And it's not a bad thing.
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Mar 9, 2014 20:54:07 GMT -5
JR's right. And it's not a bad thing. What is your reason for choosing cognitive dissonance as virtue? Please just answer me straight forward, because I'm tired of your condescending attitude. I may come off as a know it all to you, but that doesn't justify everyone's belief that I deem myself superior. I ask for I DO NOT KNOW. I am ACTUALLY asking the forum members out of respect. I was arrogant about my writing. I'm sorry. So will you please explain your belief based in lack of knowledge? I'm not calling you dumb. We both know that is a fallacy, but you admitted you don't study the history to the extent I do, & I don't have the qualification to decipher the entire history & theories of wrestling, so how are you? If I'm missing something, please tell me.
|
|
|
Post by punksnotdead on Mar 9, 2014 21:08:29 GMT -5
I agree with JR as well.
When is the last time WWE truly challenged you with an intricate, thought provoking and inventive storyline? Seriously, when is the last time you felt WWE presented you with something of substance that fell outside the realm of the Russo famous 7 angles of doom, or whatever the hell he calls the handful of angles that all other stories in pro wrestling are formed. WWE's biggest weakness is their storytelling. It's the biggest difference between the current era and the Attitude Era imo. That's not to say the stories were more than surface deep then either, because most of that was just Springer shock TV, which is a guilty pleasure for plenty of people.
There have been times when I thought pro wrestling went beyond surface deep, Sandman vs Raven and Dreamer vs Raven both come to mind, but damn near everything we see each week is just hollow entertainment. I love Emma, I think she's hilarious, but her entire schtick is stupid and ridiculous, but it makes me laugh. Pro Wrestling is just my "Real Housewives of ___________________" addiction, or the Bachelor, or the Kardashians, or whatever.
Do I wish WWE would challenge me, sure, but they're not going to for the foreseeable future. WWE aims the show at kids, or at worst people looking to not be challenged from an intellectual standpoint. The problem with WWE is that fans latch onto wrestlers like they do pro sports teams, so they wan't to see their "team" succeed. Which is how we end up arguing about it for hours on end. Wrestling is no different than any other TV show or film, we are going to talk about it, and judge it, and wish it went a different direction half the time. That doesn't mean we think we are talking about rocket science. It's a simple form of entertainment, like He-man or Ninja Turtles. Doesn't make it any less fun or entertaining but I've never claimed that watching WWE is some display of intellectual prowess.
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Mar 9, 2014 21:21:09 GMT -5
I swear. I feel like I'm reading an article about advanced nuclear theories when reading his posts. You actually read them? I just go straight to the comments Your problem with me makes no sense. I don't understand why you equate me to a fool for wanting to understand things for what they are regardless of my desire for the truth to be true or not. Even if it's not anymore complex than you claim, what proof do you have? Have you studied the history of it cover to cover? Do you have a unified theory of defying artistic criteria? These things have shown evidence that they can shed light on the subject, so why do you detest or mock me for my curiosity? Secondly, why do you care? Clearly nothing could change your mind, so why bother acting as my detractor? I've given you no reason to dislike my questions. I apologize for my past arrogance & stupidity, so why do you still consider me a fool? I don't see any other rude members of any other website publically apologizing for their mistakes. So why? Why mock me for trying to go beyond empty proclamations of love for wrestling?
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Mar 9, 2014 21:31:25 GMT -5
I agree with JR as well. When is the last time WWE truly challenged you with an intricate, thought provoking and inventive storyline? Seriously, when is the last time you felt WWE presented you with something of substance that fell outside the realm of the Russo famous 7 angles of doom, or whatever the hell he calls the handful of angles that all other stories in pro wrestling are formed. WWE's biggest weakness is their storytelling. It's the biggest difference between the current era and the Attitude Era imo. That's not to say the stories were more than surface deep then either, because most of that was just Springer shock TV, which is a guilty pleasure for plenty of people. There have been times when I thought pro wrestling went beyond surface deep, Sandman vs Raven and Dreamer vs Raven both come to mind, but damn near everything we see each week is just hollow entertainment. I love Emma, I think she's hilarious, but her entire schtick is stupid and ridiculous, but it makes me laugh. Pro Wrestling is just my "Real Housewives of ___________________" addiction, or the Bachelor, or the Kardashians, or whatever. Do I wish WWE would challenge me, sure, but they're not going to for the foreseeable future. WWE aims the show at kids, or at worst people looking to not be challenged from an intellectual standpoint. The problem with WWE is that fans latch onto wrestlers like they do pro sports teams, so they wan't to see their "team" succeed. Which is how we end up arguing about it for hours on end. Wrestling is no different than any other TV show or film, we are going to talk about it, and judge it, and wish it went a different direction half the time. That doesn't mean we think we are talking about rocket science. It's a simple form of entertainment, like He-man or Ninja Turtles. Doesn't make it any less fun or entertaining but I've never claimed that watching WWE is some display of intellectual prowess. I never denied that wrestling is used in a simplistic manner, but a medium of story telling can't be entirely profound or simple. Books for example. The stories of BABAR are delightful, but direct. They're still books just like the novels of Tolstoy. A performance of a wrestling match can be used in the exact, same manner of varying scales of profundity. I'm not saying that simplicity is bad. Ignorance to the capacity for beautiful storytelling is my issue. I'm not saying the conclusion is completely wrong, rather I'm questioning the means of arriving at such conclusions.
|
|
Chief
Main Eventer
Joined on: Apr 21, 2008 15:36:44 GMT -5
Posts: 2,849
|
Post by Chief on Mar 9, 2014 21:42:37 GMT -5
I think wrestling is best when it's executed simply. Simple doesn't mean stupid.
Complicated booking to me indicates over thinking which leads to over booking.
It doesn't help that there are really only a handful of unique wrestling angles.
It's the measure of a truly great pro wrestler to take these simple stories, these simple twists and turns and make them into something special and something important.
Now with all that being said I believe in this day and age the conventional rules of wrestling are out the window. The internet has changed wrestling in a huge way.
With the smarter fan base you get more crowds who just cheer who they like and pick their own heroes.
|
|
Chief
Main Eventer
Joined on: Apr 21, 2008 15:36:44 GMT -5
Posts: 2,849
|
Post by Chief on Mar 9, 2014 21:43:51 GMT -5
And I'll just throw out a simple angle recently that still has resulted in beautiful story telling - Wyatts vs Shield.
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Mar 9, 2014 21:49:48 GMT -5
I think wrestling is best when it's executed simply. Simple doesn't mean stupid. Complicated booking to me indicates over thinking which leads to over booking. It doesn't help that there are really only a handful of unique wrestling angles. It's the measure of a truly great pro wrestler to take these simple stories, these simple twists and turns and make them into something special and something important. Now with all that being said I believe in this day and age the conventional rules of wrestling are out the window. The internet has changed wrestling in a huge way. With the smarter fan base you get more crowds who just cheer who they like and pick their own heroes. I love you. I'm not even in 100% agreement, & I still love you for presenting a thoughtful, reasonable, accurate account of the subject. I wouldn't think the traditional rules are completely irrelevant as that requires one to define the validity of the conventional rules or what they even are, but I'm still thankful for your post.
|
|
Chief
Main Eventer
Joined on: Apr 21, 2008 15:36:44 GMT -5
Posts: 2,849
|
Post by Chief on Mar 9, 2014 21:55:03 GMT -5
It's an extremely interesting topic.
WWE and TNA treat us like idiots sometimes and don't think we remember stories and alliances and rivalries from months back while small companies like Chikara worked the internet into a frenzy with their long thought provoking intricate angle.
Personally I like a mixture of both. I think your top storyline should be one that is both thought provoking and somewhat complicated. It should leave us obsessed fans thinking endlessly about the potential possibilities.
Then the rest of the rivalries should be your simple but not stupid stories.
By the way I really have a problem with WWE treating us fans like the lowest common denominator
|
|