Old School Vs. New School

Dickmcsavage

This is something ive been thinkin about for a while. You see in my mind wrestling has changed dramatically in the last 5 or so years. You don't see it so much in WWE but more so in the indies and in TNA. What im talking about here are moves that are just more like extreme gymnastics than they are actual wrestling. Im talking about moves that have just got one too many flips for my liking. Theres an ad on TWC for this rapper guy who just epitimises what im trying to get across. He performs these ridiculously OTT moves and even goes so far as to do a double moonsault of a cage to the outside. Now dont get me wrong, its an impressive feat to pull something like that off but i'd rather watch an extremly agressive, hard hitting match between the likes of Benoit and Angle with moves that not only look impressive but are within believable boundaries if you know what I mean.

Im just wondering what are peoples opinions on this. Do people fee the same way or am I just too old school for the new school?

Larry David

I agree. I like old school. Anything I watch now is mainly 80's WWF. I can't watch anything new except the odd bit of NOAH & Shoot interviews.
I love all those new "Classic" WWE DVDs like Piper, Billy Graham, Warrior, Jake, Bret, Pillman, etc, etc.

The business is dying slowly now and will not, and cannot, ever be the same again. The magic is gone, and it's getting harder to make any money from it.

Tricity Bendix

To be perfectly honest, I think you need a mix of all styles to excite a broad TV audience. No-one wants to see an endless supply of technically brilliant matches between guys like Jamie Noble, Chris Benoit, Chris Jericho, William Regal, Kurt Angle, Gregory Helms etc...


I'm going to shut the fck up now cus I've just realised I've picked a WWE dream roster.


I think my original point still stands. You just need someone better than me to explain it.

In defence of the New School, I give you guys like Kendrick and London, Edge, Shelton Benjamin, & Matt and Jeff Hardy. All these guys use high impact spots to get themselves noticed (not just by using gymnastics, as you've noted, but also by using extreme hardcore violence, as in the case of Edge). Its hard to argue that these guys can't put on an exciting match that isn't worth seeing. I don't care how weak-ass Edge's spear is, watching him put Foley through a burning table with it is something I would pay to see.

Larry David

b.ie curious wrote:

I don't care how weak-ass Edge's spear is, watching him put Foley through a burning table with it is something I would pay to see.

That's where we differ. You admit he has a weak looking, awkward, clumsy spear - yet you would pay to see it! I want something I can believe, and every aspect of the business is so exposed now, it's impossible to believe anymore. I can't watch WWE, and would never pay to see them live again. In fact, I can't watch most wrestling anymore - the business is just so horrible now - full of smarks & smarky promotions (even WWE) trying to work the net fans - it's pathetic. When kayfabe died, so did pro-wrestling, & it's attendance worldwide has dwindled. It's a sinking ship that will never recover.

Tricity Bendix

I don't have attendance figures or viewership numbers stretching back to the highs of the late 80s, so I guess I cannot retort.

I would agree with you regarding the love of the classics. There simply isn't a comparison with the Roberts-Savage feud these days (I still remember it today even though I was only 5 or 6).

But we do differ on burning table action.

Ruu_Old

I can't remember the last WWE event I watched on telleh. The odd time I would catch Smackdown on, I wouldn't be too bothered to watch it. I think it has gone downhill a long time ago, too many sleazy gimmicks for my liking, thats just my opinion anyway. I prefer the classic stuff as well, getting my old videos (official Silvervision ones ) shipped over from the house and can't wait to watch them again. Hope to pick up a few tagged classic DVDs at Christmas time also.

Larry David

b.ie curious wrote:

I don't have attendance figures or viewership numbers stretching back to the highs of the late 80s, so I guess I cannot retort.

I use Powerslam for attendance figures for all the big shows. WWE house shows used to get 12-15,000 in the 'attitude' era, now they get 3,500, and they need to come to the UK (& Ireland, & Aus, & Japan) regularly now, and whore themselves out to sustain their business.
When WWE came back with a big boom in the late nineties, there was still an element of kayfabe & a lack of internet - now the cat is out of the bag, and it can't be put back in. Every aspect of the business and insider secret has been analysed & exposed so much now, so that most marks are now smart to how the business works (i.e. smarks). Even some of the wrestlers & promoters themselves (on a smaller scale) are total marks.
A mark has been most accurately described as someone who spends more on the wrestling business than they make from it. i.e. if a promoter runs shows at a loss, he/she is a mark. And also, if a "wrestler" spends more on training, ring gear, gym memberships, travel expenses to shows, than he/she makes from getting paid to wrestle on shows - they are also marks, by definiton. Most of the business (bar WWE, All-Star, NOAH, CMLL, TNA, and a few others) is being runs by marks - VERY few promotions make any profit nowadays, so what's their reason for doing it? They are marks, that's why. They all work daytime jobs to fund their losses & expenses, just to they can be one of 'teh boyz'.

Fozzy

I'm in two minds on this one. I love the good old school stuff, as there was also plenty of bad matches going on years ago. Now there's a lot more wrestling for people to get their hands on, so there's a lot more bad wrestling too. But the good section of it ranks up alongside the old school stuff that I like, and I wouldn't actually distiniguish between them in my mind. To me, it's just good wrestling

I have to say though that overly acrobatic moves don't impress me. They tend not to mean anything in the context of the match, and are therefore pointless. Still though, there are wrestlers who do acrobatic moves that are not overly flashy and still make sense

Reganio 2

I have to admit I never really seen the old school stuff except the very odd match. But I dont think i would wach wrestling without the high flyers eg Jeff Hardy but i wouldn't really watch it if it was only them. I think you need to have great wrestlers like Benoit, Angle etc. But you also need risk takers like Hardy, Benjamin etc. The thing I really hate is these over dramatic moves as I said before Essa Rios had this move where he bounced on the ropes and flips and everything but then done an armbar ok it looks great but its just an armbar. It is great watching the likes of Angle v Benoit but if that is all they show you miss out on the likes of Hardy v Nitro like the ladder match last week when Jeff does the Swanton Bomb and lands on the ladder dont say you didnt go ouch and think that was some bump he took there. So you really do need both.

P.S. as you can see Jeff Hardy is my favourite wrestler did you all watch the ladder match v Nitro what a match and what a bump.