Is the actual "wrestling" better now?

[britishbulldog]

As far as tempo and moves probably. As far as psychology not a chance.

[Allie Kitsune]

Kind of. It's definitely more athletic.

I feel like the viewer in some ways is kind of spoiled in that way. You don't have as many stand-outs because the base level of work is where it is (that is to say, people who would have stood out are now closer to the current average).

And maybe you get a little bit less variety in size because guys who could have gotten by in the slower paced eras mostly can't keep up today (so if they're around, they're gonna stay at the lower end of the card where they'll never be expected to go 25 minutes or longer).

I'm not saying I want 2 plodding fat (or overly-roided to the point of being unable to move) guys to eye-poke and clubbering-forearm each other for 10 minutes as a title match, or anything like that.

Just that, on some level, I do miss a little bit of the ugliness.

[Fundertaker]

It is more exciting, but it's also one of those "too much of a good thing spoils it". The floor is really high for what a fan demands, so the bar was also raised tremendously when it comes to the in-ring product, and it gets increasingly difficult to reach or surpass said bar to stand out, thus great matches will be ignored for years until quality reverts a bit and people start to discover them.

[yokohamacpfc]

The training is a lot better, back in the day a month or two of learning how to run the ropes could get you on TV if you were in the right place at the right time now they generally go for people with several years of matches either in developmental or indies and/or a background in another sport. An exception could be the WWE's women's division just pre-pandemic where both Lacey Evans and Shotzi were put on TV far, far too early and neither career has really recovered.

Storytelling is subjective but I can't help but wonder if The Bloodline and Punk/MJF stood out a lot more than they would have done in previous eras because the rest of the card was light on good stories. There are different approaches too, AEW tries a lot of nuance with its stories which frustrates some while WWE like its feuds to have regular big spots to use on a highlight reel that can water down the blow-off match itself, again subjective.

[smokinvokoun86]

I don’t know if it’s better, it’s different. They definitely more athletic and you do get the sense that maybe everyone is working harder. I do still hold a love for old school wrestling. I can watch Dynamite from today, then a Monday Nitro from 1996 and a Mid South episode from 1982 and still find a ton of enjoyment in all of them. It’s just different styles. Plus, wrestling is subjective anyway.

[deezy]

Mar 18, 2023 17:54:55 GMT -5 britishbulldog said:

As far as tempo and moves probably. As far as psychology not a chance.

This 💯. To me psychology is a lost art today. Some wrestlers today are good at it but overall, not at all.

Plus being more athletic and having spotfest matches doesn't equal better work rate to me. It's all subjective really.

[J. Hova]

Agree 100% on the athleticism is an all time high but psychology is in the dumps. I'd much rather watch a match where things matter or a heel working over a body part the whole match and have the babyface make a comeback until that body part gives out and leads to the heel winning as opposed to the spotfest that resembles me spamming finishers on a video game.

[Zone Was Wrong]

Completely subjective to the person. Personally? Yes. But I always enjoyed the athleticism of the cruiserweights when I began watching WCW. It's why ROH and TNA caught my attention. But that doesn't mean that's all I like. I think nowadays you can find most types of matches that fit your fancy.

And just because a match is super athletic, doesn't mean it's without psychology as well. One of the best in ring stories in the last few years was Hangman/Omega vs the Young Bucks. Crazy match with a rich in ring and out of ring story.

So just because the match style doesn't fit your likes, doesn't mean it was without story. Hell, I hated the Goldberg/Lesnar match at Mainia everyone loves but I can still acknowledge there was something about it that was captivating.

So really just comes down to preference and where you're looking for it at. If one promotion doesn't have it, try another.

[Deleted]

Every single aspect of in-ring wrestling is better now - the moves, the psychology, the athleticism, everything.

I can see how it might be arguable to folks who became fans during the Monday Night Wars era, as things were at least unpredictable then, but once you’ve sat through hundreds of jobber squashes and the occasional ten-minute S.D. Jones vs Steve Lombardi match, getting something like the Elite vs Death Triangle on weekly TV feels like something you’d ask a genie for.

[thecrusherwi]

There’s more action now, but I think it’s all down to preference. As a simulated competition where both sides are using a coherent strategy in an attempt win, I think work in the past is often better. As a spectacle, today is hard to beat.

[johnnyk9]

I’m almost done with 1992 getting ready to watch 1993 I think the wrestling then was great

[lockedontarget]

A match being faster paced and having more big moves doesn’t mean it doesn’t have psychology or storytelling.

A lot of these matches some of you are saying have no psychology absolutely do, they just tell their stories differently from older stuff.

Bucks matches are a perfect example of that. Their stuff is full of drama, have clear pacing, and tell a story in the ring. But they get accused of not having psychology anyway.

Modern wrestling has a higher focus on fighting spirit, bursts of adrenaline, exchanges of offence, and just a general more comic book/anime approach to combat. It’s not “realistic” but psychology and storytelling doesn’t have to be realistic. It just needs to tell a story. A fight in Dragonball or One Piece tells a story too.

[Dr. Bolty, Disaster Enby]

Mar 19, 2023 13:08:04 GMT -5 lockedontarget said:

Modern wrestling has a higher focus on fighting spirit, bursts of adrenaline, exchanges of offence, and just a general more comic book/anime approach to combat. It’s not “realistic” but psychology and storytelling doesn’t have to be realistic. It just needs to tell a story. A fight in Dragonball or One Piece tells a story too.

And it's not like older wrestling is necessarily more "realistic," either. Armbars being a life-or-death element in a fast-paced contest is far more realistic than armbars as restholds, just as an example. It's less about realism and more about what the audience of the day believes.

[lockedontarget]

Yeah part of telling a good story is knowing your audience and what they will respond to.

[ThankGodForSidJustice]

I would say but so. Although I don't think it's by as much as a lot of people think. Today they are obviously more athletic and they have a much higher percentage of guys who can go and not nearly as many slugs.

However I think the psychology was better back then and I also thought it came off as more professional as well in that while they didn't/couldn't do as much what they did do was executed better in that it didn't come off as sloppy and phony in that they weren't botching moves as much. Like nobody would confuse say Jake Roberts or Greg Valentine for being super athletic but you would never see them throw a strike that looked like crap with a bunch of air or still take a bump even if they got by something that was botched and didn't look good. I think they did a much better job making it look real back then. Likely mainly because people still thought it was real back then.

[Aceorton]

The moves are cooler and more varied now, sure. But they are generally far less realistic. And they have to keep coming, coming, coming or the audience gets easily bored.

Is that "better" wrestling? Subjectively, I'd say no. The old style and pacing allowed the workers to do more with less and still get huge emotional investment from the audience (far bigger than what I see today, except with certain beloved stars). The older stuff just feels slow and boring by comparison now because we've gotten used to guys going 100 mph and hurling themselves everywhere and hitting 25 German suplexes. You have to watch old matches through the right lens. Those of us who grew up during that time are able to do that more easily, I think.

[Zone Was Wrong]

Mar 19, 2023 14:22:25 GMT -5 Aceorton said:

The moves are cooler and more varied now, sure. But they are generally far less realistic. And they have to keep coming, coming, coming or the audience gets easily bored.

Is that "better" wrestling? Subjectively, I'd say no. The old style and pacing allowed the workers to do more with less and still get huge emotional investment from the audience (far bigger than what I see today, except with certain beloved stars). The older stuff just feels slow and boring by comparison now because we've gotten used to guys going 100 mph and hurling themselves everywhere and hitting 25 German suplexes. You have to watch old matches through the right lens. Those of us who grew up during that time are able to do that more easily, I think.

Eh, I started watching in the early to mid 90s. Never got truly interest until the cruiserweights. So personally still thought a lot of it back then was too slow paced until the smaller and faster guys got showcased. I think it's less time period someone watched in and more preference and what you're looking for in wrestling.

[Red Mage Riot]

Mar 19, 2023 14:22:25 GMT -5 Aceorton said:

The moves are cooler and more varied now, sure. But they are generally far less realistic. And they have to keep coming, coming, coming or the audience gets easily bored.

Is that "better" wrestling? Subjectively, I'd say no. The old style and pacing allowed the workers to do more with less and still get huge emotional investment from the audience (far bigger than what I see today, except with certain beloved stars). The older stuff just feels slow and boring by comparison now because we've gotten used to guys going 100 mph and hurling themselves everywhere and hitting 25 German suplexes. You have to watch old matches through the right lens. Those of us who grew up during that time are able to do that more easily, I think.

I'm gonna debate you on the "less realistic" thing. The Irish Whip exists, wrestling is not realistic, never has been. Or a guy with two fully unrestrained arms sitting in a bear hug for 2 minutes instead of just slugging the guy hugging him in the temple. I could go on. I grew up during the early-90's into the 00's and yeah, wrestling is WAY better now.

[Ultimo Gallos]

I think for me it is more I have more access to wrestling I enjoy now.

As a kid in the late 70s thru late 80s I watched any wrestling on TV. But there was lots of it I really didn't care much for.

Now thanks to streaming,dvd,digital downloads and all that I can go and within 10 minutes usually find me a match or show to watch that fits what I want out of wrestling.

For weekly wrestling only things I watch are Impact,NJPW on AXS,WOW and ROH. Each hits the right spots for me. I want serious stuff I got NJPW and ROH.

[Ultimo Gallos]

Mar 18, 2023 17:54:55 GMT -5 britishbulldog said:

As far as tempo and moves probably. As far as psychology not a chance.

Depends on what you watch. I just saw a match last night. 20 minutes mostly based around the heel workng the face's knee. Had 400 fans,sold out event, on their feet and yelling and rushing the ring.Lots of psychology in the match. But each guy had over 20 years of working TV and indies all over the US and knew what to do to get the crowd into the match.