FEBRUARY 2021 Discussion of Wrestling

[John from Cincinnati]

3 minutes ago, Casey said:

I really don't understand how the WWE/Saudi partnership isn't the winner. That shit is fucking gross.

And considering it's led to WWE propagating some questionable stuff in service of a gross relationship, it counts as an actual promotional tactic!

[Gordi the former AEW fan]

1 hour ago, username said:

Ignoring everything else everyone else has already covered for a moment, most disgusting promotional tactic basically ignoring the whole widespread "speaking out" movement is the one that is the biggest "what in the hell were any of you thinking?" thing in this entire thing. It kinda shed a light on how many awful people were getting away with awful activity for ages, including at times by people who ran promotions and used that to their advantage which seems like a more disgusting thing than a round of layoffs (which don't get me wrong, sucked). 

 

 

WWE continuing to employ wrestlers with sexual misconduct allegations finished tied for 8th, along with how Bushiroad mishandled the death of Hana Kimura.

I'd imagine many voters simply didn't think of it as a "promotional tactic."

Good Lord it's depressing to read the full list (per reddit):

Most Disgusting Promotional Tactic

WWE firing everyone during a pandemic

WWE operating without COVID testing

WWE banning talent from third party opportunities

WWE running in Saudi Arabia

AEW continuing Matt Hardy vs. Sammy Guevara

Rey Mysterio losing his eye angle

Dana White attempting to run a show on a Native American reservation

(Tied) WWE continuing to employ wrestlers with sexual misconduct allegations, Bushiroad handling the death of Hana Kimura

WWE turning Drake Maverick firing into storyline

 

On the upside: There really were a lot of very good matches and wrestlers and tag teams and shows this year, at least.

Edited February 28, 2021 by El Gran Gordi

[Niners Fan in CT]

knowing what we know now (we knew all along but now confirmed) about khashoggi..  what was to stop the reported hostage situation with WWE talent from going completely left and turning deadly? 

[Elsalvajeloco]

Dana White attempting to run a show on a Native American reservation was a goddamn year ago. 

That feels like it happened three months ago. Also compared to other stories, it's rather nothing.

[Gordi the former AEW fan]

Just now, Elsalvajeloco said:

Dana White attempting to run a show on a Native American reservation was a goddamn year ago. 

That feels like it happened three months ago. Also compared to other stories, it's rather nothing.

At least it's an actual promotional tactic. (As were the Mysterio and Maverick angles).

[odessasteps]

Also, promotions getting around commissions is as old as the hills. 

[Elsalvajeloco]

15 hours ago, El Gran Gordi said:

At least it's an actual promotional tactic. (As were the Mysterio and Maverick angles).

Yep, I agree. However, I felt this was going to be one of those stories that's big at the moment and then fade into nothing. And that's what ending up happening and UFC ended up profiting more because they ended up canceling that one show for the sake of running a bunch of other shows when they came up with their own covid protocols. It's funny cause the initial story basically made out ESPN/Disney as heroes for telling Dana to stand down when in actuality they ended up putting more money into their pockets.

That was back when the coronavirus story was just a month old here in the U.S., and everyone was very anti-running ANY sporting events. Now a year later, due to fatigue of the story, no one gives a damn anymore. And if you follow UFC like I do, you would know that people (whether it be fighters or their cornermen) are still getting covid-19. It happens with every show now. It seems like their restrictions are as lax as ever, which would explain why there are more positives. Yet, very few if any are outraged. So to me, the initial story became a story because (1) just to LOL @ Dana White and (2) to create mostly false outrage (although I do agree Dana and the UFC were completely too overzealous to continue running). 

To me, what has became a more disgusting promotional tactic is Dana bragging about being the first one back. It was clear he was going to get the last laugh and that all came cause of the initial story and ESPN/Disney being only concerned about their bottom line. Yet, folks were hailing them as heroes. 

[The Natural]

Watch this.

[thee Reverend Axl Future]

This is me whenever ratings start getting discussed, parsed, analyzed, dissected and/or compared...

The Most Disgusting Promotional Tactic used to be more "most embarrassing/repulsive angle or gimmick that a promotion did to draw heat, get publicity and/or make money" but it occasionally devolved to "thing that I don't like that this promotion did", but now I guess it can be "bad thing that happened to wrestling". I mean the Speaking Out movement shouldn't be what is voted on, but rather how a particular promotion dealt with the effects of it. "Fritz Von Erich's fake heart attack" ('88) or "José González's babyface push one year after Bruiser Brody stabbing case" ('89) were the classic ones to me. On the other hand, "Bob Backlund as WWF Champion" won in '82, so it has always been a bit ambiguous.  

- RAF

[DangerMark]

This is the correct response to ratings talk. Possibly awards talk, too.

[odessasteps]

IIRC, the first year it was someone billed as a monster build in a lab. 

[Robert S]

1 hour ago, odessasteps said:

IIRC, the first year it was someone billed as a monster build in a lab. 

Yep, in 1981 (at that time there was no voting yet, I think public voting started in 1982):

"Gene LeBelle Promotion claiming the “The Monster” was built in a laboratory"

mookieghana (or should I say AEW's Chris Harrington?) has the full history of the awards:

https://sites.google.com/site/chrisharrington/mookieghana-prowrestlingstatistics/wo_awards_history

Edited February 28, 2021 by Robert s

[Mister TV]

7 hours ago, Niners Fan in CT said:

knowing what we know now (we knew all along but now confirmed) about khashoggi..  what was to stop the reported hostage situation with WWE talent from going completely left and turning deadly? 

The Saudi’s were just F’ing with them, there’s no way in hell they’d hold anyone from the WWE hostage. The Saudi’s do TONS of business with western companies and they’re not going to jeopardize that by holding employees of a western company hostage. Sure they’ll do dickish things to make a point and scare low level people but it’s not going to escalate to an international incident  

 

[Burgundy LaRue]

11 hours ago, Brian Fowler said:

I think it's worth remembering Reigns also missed almost half the year.

My counter argument is Dynamite was awarded Weekly Show of the Year in 2019, despite being on air for only three months.

Observer readers lean a certain way, and that's fine. The voting reflects their base. People read and listen to the Observer and largely agree with Meltzer's opinions. It's the same way most of Cornette's listeners agree with him.

[Burgundy LaRue]

16 minutes ago, Mister TV said:

The Saudi’s were just F’ing with them, there’s no way in hell they’d hold anyone from the WWE hostage. The Saudi’s do TONS of business with western companies and they’re not going to jeopardize that by holding employees of a western company hostage. Sure they’ll do dickish things to make a point and scare low level people but it’s not going to escalate to an international incident  

The biggest indicator of that is about 20 wrestlers/WWE personnel getting on a private plane a few hours into the situation. If it was a hostage take, I don't see how that happens. I don't doubt the Saudis making them uncomfortable for a sick thrill, though.

[Niners Fan in CT]

Final thing on the WON..     as said We've had March Madness here which is our own equivalent (and much more entertaining)  version of Wrestler of the Year (or arguably Most Outstanding Wrestler).  

There were years where WWE midcarders like Cesaro made deep runs.  Rusev made the semis or finals one year.  We had a luchador make a deep run. Bayley vs. Sasha was a finals.  New Japan wrestlers have made deep runs.  independent wrestlers have made deep runs.  i don't believe this voting body is as slanted as the WON voting body at all and that would prove out with additional categories. 

Also, for the most part i think the winners were fine.  AEW had a monster year.  Mox and Omega had great years. The promotion overall has been on fire.  None of my posts are anti-AEW.  it's the best promotion i regularly watch. 

 

 

 

 

[Peck]

Thoughts out to Jim Crockett Jr. and family.

https://www.f4wonline.com/other-wrestling/wrestling-promoter-jim-crockett-jr-grave-condition-334466

Quote

On Saturday's Wrestling Observer Radio, Dave Meltzer reported that legendary wrestling promoter Jim Crockett Jr. is in "grave condition" as both his liver and kidneys are failing.

"It's not looking good," Meltzer said.

Nothing else regarding the 76-year-old's condition is known at this time.

Wrestling was in Crockett Jr.'s family as his father founded Jim Crockett Promotions which Junior took over in 1977 after his father's death in 1973. Before that, he was an short-term owner of two minor league baseball teams. He became NWA President in 1980, the first of three terms he served in that position over the next 11 years.

During his second term, he purchased the Saturday night time slot Vince McMahon owned on WTBS and the rest is history. JCP eventually re-positioned itself as the NWA as he owned six territories and was president of the organization. 

He sold JCP to Ted Turner in 1988 who renamed the organization World Championship Wrestling. Once again, the rest is history. He flirted with getting back into the business several times, but instead settled on a life outside the business in Texas.

 

[Infinit]

Damn. This makes the timing of Conrad's recent interview with Mr Crockett seem impeccable. From the sound of it, the interview was very in-depth. I'm glad they got his memories and stories on record before his health deteriorated.

[Matt D]

Dumping this armchair wrestling psychology at the end of the month:

Bobby Heenan probably had ADHD. He had both the super quick one-liners no matter the situation and the insufferable need to fidget with things (usually action figures but sometimes other things) while hosting Prime Time with Monsoon.

[matt925]

Nothing noteworthy, but I finally unfollowed Dave on Twitter. The ceaseless, never ending barrage of idiocy he engages with every day finally broke me. I’d rather just not read it. 

[Elsalvajeloco]

6 hours ago, Niners Fan in CT said:

Final thing on the WON..     as said We've had March Madness here which is our own equivalent (and much more entertaining)  version of Wrestler of the Year (or arguably Most Outstanding Wrestler).  

There were years where WWE midcarders like Cesaro made deep runs.  Rusev made the semis or finals one year.  We had a luchador make a deep run. Bayley vs. Sasha was a finals.  New Japan wrestlers have made deep runs.  independent wrestlers have made deep runs.  i don't believe this voting body is as slanted as the WON voting body at all and that would prove out with additional categories. 

Also, for the most part i think the winners were fine.  AEW had a monster year.  Mox and Omega had great years. The promotion overall has been on fire.  None of my posts are anti-AEW.  it's the best promotion i regularly watch. 

To me, the people who vote on the WON awards are just about as reflective of a diverse audience as here with the only exception being you get to explain your rationale in depth here and there are perhaps more people willing to be contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. It's easy to dismiss the WON award voting because you're just seeing the numbers being tabulated (same with who enjoys what and what they didn't enjoy on a PPV). So it's just faceless and nameless voting. 

Now I wouldn't disagree with one of your earlier points that Dave has his acolytes. We already know that's a given. The problem with that though is it's very dismissive of people being able to have original thoughts. That's why I have to disagree with you that nobody here is as influential. Yes, they might not be an outright tastemaker like Dave has been over the years. However, I doubt this is the early tape trading days and the pro wrestling boom of the mid to late 90s to the early 2000s where Dave's influence was at it's very peak. You can go back and read old wrestling reviews from that time period, and you see these are copy and pasted Dave's thoughts and information from the Observer written into these reviews.

More importantly, this board has a bunch of smart and well researched people IMO (you definitely will not agree with ALL of them of course on different topics). However, it's hard to say none of these folks can be influential when we have our own favoriting system you can actually see. I would never say people agree with Matt D or odessasteps or gordi etc. because they have avid followers here, a bunch of liked content, and thus those people who gave them a like can't come up with their own personal opinions. Moreover, I wouldn't say there is a WWE bias because I know people openly dislike Dave and/or they cannot stand AEW or AEW fans. To me, if I'm going to give the folks who vote for the WON awards that credit, I have to give this forum that same credit. IMO it's not bias as much as it's what it is: people like what they like.

However, if you did the exact same categories here and you didn't have a chance to discuss anything, I'm pretty sure you would come with mostly the same winners and very similar placement for the nominees or candidates with perhaps a few changes in the order. Thus, people would still be heated and upset afterwards (perhaps because they have more faith in "this" system as opposed to "that" system). The only difference is you wouldn't be able to put that on one person. Whenever you're talking awards of any kind, for whatever reason, people seek that validation for the stuff they like. And if the stuff you don't like or didn't like as much wins, you have to come up with a way to discredit that system or it's criteria. In actuality, you should probably just dismiss awards as whole because 9 out of 10 times you're going to have the exact same thoughts and feelings the next time around. Nothing is going to change in a year. In the same vain, nothing really changes here. If someone dislikes Misawa and Kobashi this year, they're probably going to dislike them going forward. There might be one or two people who change their minds because another member recommended something, but it's not going to be a whole sea change on 90s All Japan. This board would suck if people just have different, conflicting thoughts on every subject from one day to another. People definitely have their differing and dissenting thoughts (some more inflexible than others), but for the most part, it's not to the point of aggravation. There is a ton of agreement here. I don't see that as hive minded or anything. It's just that there are reasons people congregate here that are very similar to the reasons people subscribe to the Observer. It might not be 1:1 the same, but still very similar whether or not you love Meltzer or completely hate his guts. 

[Niners Fan in CT]

28 minutes ago, Elsalvajeloco said:

More importantly, this board has a bunch of smart and well researched people IMO (you definitely will not agree with ALL of them of course on different topics). However, it's hard to say none of these folks can be influential when we have our own favoriting system you can actually see. I would never say people agree with Matt D or odessasteps or gordi etc. because they have avid followers here, a bunch of liked content, and thus those people who gave them a like can't come up with their own personal opinions. Moreover, I wouldn't say there is a WWE bias because I know people openly dislike Dave and/or they cannot stand AEW or AEW fans. To me, if I'm going to give the folks who vote for the WON awards that credit, I have to give this forum that same credit. IMO it's not bias as much as it's what it is: people like what they like.

i do think the posters you named and several others are likely influential but there is a variety of taste among them and something like March Madness you had posters making their case, posting matches and interviews and opened a new door for some folks who were unfamiliar with those wrestlers. i don't know how that process affects the results but to me the outcomes seemed more varied.  i can't imagine with WON we would ever see two women at the top of the Wrestler of the Year list or a WWE midcarder in the top 4 etc. 

i agree on awards overall.  it's mostly a discussion so people can feel good about what they like.  

[Elsalvajeloco]

10 minutes ago, Niners Fan in CT said:

i do think the posters you named and several others are likely influential but there is a variety of taste among them and something like March Madness you had posters making their case, posting matches and interviews and opened a new door for some folks who were unfamiliar with those wrestlers. i don't know how that process affects the results but to me the outcomes seemed more varied.  i can't imagine with WON we would ever see two women at the top of the Wrestler of the Year list or a WWE midcarder in the top 4 etc. 

i agree on awards overall.  it's mostly a discussion so people can feel good about what they like.  

I think that's more on the sample size (and the type of sample size) if anything. And for the previous sentence, that definitely would affect the results or else why do it? With the WON awards, unless you're on the F4W forums or anywhere else those folks migrate (hell, some of them are likely here as well), you're not going to get a chance to huddle up and make a case for anything. Moreover, if someone is making a case, what goes into is the person making that case. Who am I likely to trust: You or some poster who has 15 posts and I never heard of? Even if we disagree on 99% of everything. Unless we're just on completely opposite ends of the spectrum, I am leaning your way. Now do that with someone who I agree with at least HALF of the time. That would perhaps greatly influence my voting. See, you're never going to escape any type of influence. Dave's way is that he's not going to do it like a general election where you can campaign for (or as done here, "pimp") your favorite matches or wrestlers through the newsletter. That way has its faults, but I doubt any way here would avoid having faults. However, I would never discredit it because there is no perfect system for awards or voting. It's just the general acceptance of the system that makes it that way and gives it any semblance of power. 

If Dave's way was so fucked up, the level of participation would nosedive even if he had his ardent backers. Same way here. And again, it also doesn't help that wrestling (largely WWE) is in this weird place where it's not as bad as it was in 1991-1995, but it's definitely not super popular. That definitely applies to its critical appeal. That's always going to play into voting. There is a decent contingent here that doesn't like WWE at all. Are there enough people to counterbalance that? Yeah, but I can only come to that conclusion through anecdotal evidence and just the "feeling" that it may feel fairer. There is probably a number of people who vote on the WON awards who feel the same way. I wouldn't dismiss that either.

[odessasteps]

44 minutes ago, Niners Fan in CT said:

  i can't imagine with WON we would ever see two women at the top of the Wrestler of the Year list or a WWE midcarder in the top 4 etc. 

Maybe the year (95 or 96) when Toyota won Most Outstanding if there had been more support for Hokuto,  Nakano or another AJW woman. But that's also something Dave pushed very hard to his readers as revolutionary and cutting edge. 

And there are probably a number  of "WWF midcarders" that could have gotten support in the mid 80s, Steamboat most likely and Savage if you consider the IC title (the workers belt) as midcarders and not people who often headlined the B shows. 

[Gordi the former AEW fan]

I started up a 2020 Awards thread in huge part because I'm genuinely curious to see how much opinions here might diverge from the ones at the WON. 

Another thing is this: I wonder how many people put real thought into their awards ballots vs how many people who would like to put real thought in but are pressed for time so end up mostly going chalk so they can at least get a ballot in. I'm sure some people literally keep a notebook on this stuff. On the other end of the spectrum, when I did my post on the WON awards in this thread, the one with all the blue text, I just had the reddit thread with the results and a random wrestling site listing the winners open in my browser and I did a fair bit of cutting and pasting. I tried to come up with some "alternative" candidates, but I didn't think of Lulu Pencil until after I posted it. I remember loving one of the Mox vs Darby matches but I couldn't remember if it was 2020 or 2019... It's not like I had a couple of days to really work on it and do research and stuff. I wanted to contribute to the discussion while it was ongoing.

So I can imagine that kind of stuff also lends itself to results being a bit same-y and predictable sometimes. Maybe people who've been busy with other stuff and didn't have time to watch everything might have felt safe going with "obvious" choices like The Bucks, Omega, ZSJ... if they still wanted to get a ballot in. Similar to how a washed-up vet with a great pedigree will often make the pro bowl or the all star game over a younger player who is obviously better but hasn't been voted in before.

That being said, the WON results mostly seem very reasonable to me and a fair representation of pro wrestling in 2020. It's not like Mox and Omega and Bucks and ZSJ are bad choices!

And I'd still very much like to see everyone's personal lists.

Edited March 1, 2021 by El Gran Gordi