Simple question, really, and just something I was thinking about. We all have different backgrounds to professional wrestling, and its something that has taken up a large portion of our past, present, and potentially pur future. Admittedly, this section takes a good portion of nostalgia to keep it running, as well as a good portion of understanding how it works. Part of the Old School Section, admittedly, is pulling back the curtain. Like Dorothy exposing the Great Wizard, part of what makes the Old School is taking a good part of the past, looking at it from a realistic standpoint, and taking it at face value. Granted, that becomes extremely difficult at times, because we all love our memories. We all have those memories of wrestling that, to some extent, we wished were real. It would make us feel better to go back to that time, innocent as possible to how we felt professional wrestling "worked", and where we knew everything that was going on was the real deal. No one, not your parents, your friends, your siblings, your pets, no one could prove to you it was "fake", the cursed four letters that if said compared to professional wrestling, would launch a tantrum the likes of which would make an eight year old proud.
Right, Vader?
By the way, love how The Undertaker just sits there as cool and calm as possible. Absolutely love it.
The point of being, in The Old Section, we must shed away all sense that what we're watching is better than the new product, just because we grew up in that era. In the Old School Section, I feel it's important to not assume that the product is better just because we were younger, but realistically, and unprejudiced, point to what was good about a wrestling era, and what was wrong. For example, I've heard plenty of people claim the "Attitude Era" was a shit era for wrestling, an era in which the raunchy angles drove the show, rather than the "Golden Era", in which wrestling was the driving factor of the show. Of course, some of us grew up in the Attitude Era, and others in the Golden Era. Naturally, it's going to bring up hotly contested debates regarding the matter, and that is of course led by the nostalgic feelings brought up by the memories of our childhood, or perhaps our introduction into wrestling. What I find to be more the case, as expected, is those that come from a certain era can't help but feel as though there era is just that much better, regardless of any sense of evidence put out by the person they're arguing against. What I feel is often lost in the shuffle is any sense of objectivity, in taking a realistic glance at the era in which one comes from. This leads to skewed debates, which get absolutely nowhere, and leave us at an impasse the likes of which perhaps will never be solved. The lack of ability from wrestling fans to view something with objectivity is something that, admittedly while kinda cool, also leaves a particularly negative stigma on wrestling fans. The fact that we're so damn objective about our product we love so much, and can't bring ourselves to ultimately accept that our television, our PPVs, our house shows, and our wrestlers both have positive and negative traits to them leaves the stereotypical image to the mainstream media of the belligerent wrestling fan. As wrestling fans, I personally feel we never do the company in which we support, or the time era in which we were fans, justice by glossing over the negative aspects of a program. Its akin to the child who puts his fingers in his ears, and bellows as loudly as possible, La-la-la-la-la. Far too often, especially in this section, I see people arguing theyre case, not with objective facts and data, but raw, seat of the pants everyone knew facts, and a bleeding heart. For every well thought out and developed post, there comes a chorus of posts to tear the OP down, blinded by the sheer rage that anyone could begin to question their era. Its almost as though someone took their Jack Johnson, and whipped it in their face, or even worse, like someone would dare to question their fan hood, in some Freudian manner.
Personally, I feel as though this is the wrong way to look at wrestling. I have no issue with a fan having passion for the business, but I do hold issues with those that cant allow themselves to look at the topic discussed in an unbiased matter. Objectivity is the one and only way one can accept the promotion in which one was a fan of at the time, and learn more about that promotion. To say The Attitude Era was a better era compared to The Golden Era is something that cant be done by pointing out merely all the good within the promotion within that given era. Rather, both sides must come to an agreement that, indeed, both eras shared a sense of both good and bad. There is no quantifiable way to support your argument without, at the least, acknowledging that the side in which youre arguing isnt perfect itself. Too often, people neglect to admit that something is wrong with the era in which they used to watch, and looking at the program from an impartial standpoint. I feel as though, as it pertains to The Old School, if one is to have a credible argument, they must do so by understanding the context of the era, the competition in place, and the wrestlers which surround whatever one considers Old School. That, partially, is the aim of the JTMFTG. Some of the gimmicks in there, while bad, also had a context of the era, and other such things. The Underfaker gimmick, because I grew up in it, didnt seem bad to me as a child, but in looking back, Ive realized it was not good. However, it wasnt bad because of the actual angle itself, but rather, the context in which it was taking place. Weve seen far goofier, and indeed more asinine angles get over in other eras, in which wrestling fans were more accepting to the inane, and otherwise illogical. Hell, The Undertaker himself is an asinine gimmick that got over in an era in which fans were more accepting to the inane, and otherwise illogical. Placing the Underfaker in another era, potentially, could have been the difference between the gimmick getting over, and not getting over.
Theres plenty of ways to view the Old School. I personally choose a manner in which objectifies everything one sees, and places no era on a pedestal, based on my uprbringing. How do you think we should review all that is Old School?
Right, Vader?
[YOUTUBE]q_QuQtnxWMU[/YOUTUBE]
By the way, love how The Undertaker just sits there as cool and calm as possible. Absolutely love it.
The point of being, in The Old Section, we must shed away all sense that what we're watching is better than the new product, just because we grew up in that era. In the Old School Section, I feel it's important to not assume that the product is better just because we were younger, but realistically, and unprejudiced, point to what was good about a wrestling era, and what was wrong. For example, I've heard plenty of people claim the "Attitude Era" was a shit era for wrestling, an era in which the raunchy angles drove the show, rather than the "Golden Era", in which wrestling was the driving factor of the show. Of course, some of us grew up in the Attitude Era, and others in the Golden Era. Naturally, it's going to bring up hotly contested debates regarding the matter, and that is of course led by the nostalgic feelings brought up by the memories of our childhood, or perhaps our introduction into wrestling. What I find to be more the case, as expected, is those that come from a certain era can't help but feel as though there era is just that much better, regardless of any sense of evidence put out by the person they're arguing against. What I feel is often lost in the shuffle is any sense of objectivity, in taking a realistic glance at the era in which one comes from. This leads to skewed debates, which get absolutely nowhere, and leave us at an impasse the likes of which perhaps will never be solved. The lack of ability from wrestling fans to view something with objectivity is something that, admittedly while kinda cool, also leaves a particularly negative stigma on wrestling fans. The fact that we're so damn objective about our product we love so much, and can't bring ourselves to ultimately accept that our television, our PPVs, our house shows, and our wrestlers both have positive and negative traits to them leaves the stereotypical image to the mainstream media of the belligerent wrestling fan. As wrestling fans, I personally feel we never do the company in which we support, or the time era in which we were fans, justice by glossing over the negative aspects of a program. Its akin to the child who puts his fingers in his ears, and bellows as loudly as possible, La-la-la-la-la. Far too often, especially in this section, I see people arguing theyre case, not with objective facts and data, but raw, seat of the pants everyone knew facts, and a bleeding heart. For every well thought out and developed post, there comes a chorus of posts to tear the OP down, blinded by the sheer rage that anyone could begin to question their era. Its almost as though someone took their Jack Johnson, and whipped it in their face, or even worse, like someone would dare to question their fan hood, in some Freudian manner.
Personally, I feel as though this is the wrong way to look at wrestling. I have no issue with a fan having passion for the business, but I do hold issues with those that cant allow themselves to look at the topic discussed in an unbiased matter. Objectivity is the one and only way one can accept the promotion in which one was a fan of at the time, and learn more about that promotion. To say The Attitude Era was a better era compared to The Golden Era is something that cant be done by pointing out merely all the good within the promotion within that given era. Rather, both sides must come to an agreement that, indeed, both eras shared a sense of both good and bad. There is no quantifiable way to support your argument without, at the least, acknowledging that the side in which youre arguing isnt perfect itself. Too often, people neglect to admit that something is wrong with the era in which they used to watch, and looking at the program from an impartial standpoint. I feel as though, as it pertains to The Old School, if one is to have a credible argument, they must do so by understanding the context of the era, the competition in place, and the wrestlers which surround whatever one considers Old School. That, partially, is the aim of the JTMFTG. Some of the gimmicks in there, while bad, also had a context of the era, and other such things. The Underfaker gimmick, because I grew up in it, didnt seem bad to me as a child, but in looking back, Ive realized it was not good. However, it wasnt bad because of the actual angle itself, but rather, the context in which it was taking place. Weve seen far goofier, and indeed more asinine angles get over in other eras, in which wrestling fans were more accepting to the inane, and otherwise illogical. Hell, The Undertaker himself is an asinine gimmick that got over in an era in which fans were more accepting to the inane, and otherwise illogical. Placing the Underfaker in another era, potentially, could have been the difference between the gimmick getting over, and not getting over.
Theres plenty of ways to view the Old School. I personally choose a manner in which objectifies everything one sees, and places no era on a pedestal, based on my uprbringing. How do you think we should review all that is Old School?
