[King Steventon]

Sometime in mid-2005 or 2006 (I forget which), I discovered internet message boards and became your everyday internet smark. Calling every match I liked "four stars plus", thinking wrestling quality should be the only goal of a promotion, marking out to highspots and high impact moves and finishers, disliking any match that had a screwy finish, thinking table spots and chairshots were epic, and so on. I thought Amazing Red was one of the best guys I've ever seen and barely batted an eyelash when Finlay made his WWE debut.

I think back to those times and cringe, I imagine if the board I first posted on was still around I would get a good laugh at some of the shit I wrote. Amazing Red matches do not age well, and Finlay matches are usually quality. I remember watching Taka vs Hayabusa from FMW for the first time (what must have been three years ago) and thinking it was one of the best matches ever thanks to all the insane highspots, headdrops and finisher kickouts. I imagine if I was to rewatch it to day I would dislike the spottyness, the poor selling and the overkill. Likewise I watched Finlay vs Benoit from Smackdown at the time and thought it was quite boring. I watched it a month or so back and was amazed at it. They hit hard and worked extremely snug, fighting for every hold and making every move feel like a struggle. They managed to capture a sense of authenticity rarely seen in the WWE with the way they struck each other and the way they bumped around the ring. They kept it very simple, working basic holds and doing basic moves, but made it feel like a real contest, and managed to covey the sense of hate between the two perfectly. But because no one kicked out of a finishing move, at the time I didn't like it. Taka/Hayabusa went (IIRC) 20+ minutes and had a clean finish putting over Hayabusa as the ace of the company, Finlay/Benoit went (IIRC) about 15 minutes, was on free TV with not much build, and had dirty finish. And it was the better match.

Tastes change, and flaws become obvious whilest you realise the quality you had previously missed. Its the difference between modern day Kurt Angle who does lots of highspots and high impact moves, but wrestles the same match every week, and modern day Undertaker, who has been using more or less the same moveset for a decade but wrestles a lot of different matches. It's the difference between guys like Tyler Black and Jerry Lynn who have a big moveset but little personality and a guy like Stan Hansen who mostly did punches and lariats but was able to tell many different stories in the ring. It is the difference between HHH and Shawn Michaels not knowing their limiations and attempting to work epic matches beyond their stations and guys like Big Show who stick to what he is good at and does it extremely well. It's is how guys Eddie and Benoit could make anyone look good but guys Billy Kidman and John Morrison are handcuffed to highspots.

I have seen many people hard to please who do not care for a good five minute TV match, likewise I have seen those who toss out star ratings and "OMG MOTYC" trophys at every show based on their initial marking out of the near falls rather than considering the quality of the work they have watched. I like to think I am somewhere in between, despite being the guy who usually dishes out the negativity, I watch a lot of wrestling, both stuff I have seen previously and stuff that is new to me, and I enjoy most of it. If I didn't, I wouldn't bother. At the same time, I give my praise to the dedicated craftsmen as opposed to the famed crowd-popping spot wrestlers.

So that is me, I dunno why I made this thread, but I thought it would be interesting. How have your tastes in wrestling changed over the years? What do you enjoy more of that you previously didn't? What stuff does no longer amuse you the way it once did?

[Tommy Platinum]

Well first of all when I first got into wrestling back in 2000, I basically watched for the storylines and loved any match that was brutal, or contained a lot of spots. I basically loved all the overbooked finishes they used to do with a load of ref bumps, run-ins, chairshots etc. I also loved over the top, overkill situations such as the 6 man Hell in a Cell, and I remember marking for Rikishi's bump onto the truck. When I got round to seeing King of the Ring 98 and Mick Foley's bumps in that match, I vividly remember describing it as "the best match ever". Yeah I was only young, but I was basically a spots mark.

When I got back into wrestling and joined an internet forum in 2006, I was basically one of those nostalgia fans who only like things that remind them of "the good old days", that being the tail end of the Attitude Era for me. That's why I immediately got into TNA and took a liking to Abyss. I still liked the hardcore spotfests, out of control brawls and all that kind of stuff. I only bought Summerslam 2006, the first PPV I'd watched since early 2003, because Mick Foley was on the card, in a gimmick match no less. However, I gradually began to appreciate other styles of wrestling, and basically developed an ability to judge the quality of matches, as well as an appreciation of the art of wrestling, psychology, storytelling, little things that help to tell the story in the ring. I did have some pretty terrible opinions in my early days as an IWC member. I still thought Triple H was the best thing going, and one of the best of all time, I still rated hardcore matches higher than others, I hated guys like Finlay and Matt Hardy, thinking they were boring, but have since learned to appreciate their work. I did, however, become a Cena fan pretty damn quick. Not sure why but I immediately found him entertaining in the ring, and since then, while my knowledge of wrestling in general has improved, I am still a big fan of his.

I think the main thing was that I always used to write off matches if they involved a guy I didn't like. For example, I hated Batista, so naturally assumed that everything he touched would turn to shit. This probably changed at Wrestlemania 23, when he put in a great performance against Taker in one of the matches of the year, and then did so again the following month. I think it was at that stage that I realized that it's not as simple as "this guy is a good wrestler, this guy is bad." Even limited wrestlers can often put on good matches in the right situations against the right opponents. I will still seem like a "hater" in certain situations when it comes to certain wrestlers, but I honestly think that I am not really biased in any way when judging matches nowadays. I dislike Triple H, but I can always say he has some very good matches, even if they have become few and far between nowadays.

Another big difference is that I never questionned the legendary status of certain wrestlers in the past. Guys like Kurt Angle are constantly described as great technical wrestlers, so I didn't question it. Guys like Taker, HBK, even HHH to an extent are some of the biggest stars of all time and are almost universally considered damn good, so I basically assumed they had no flaws, and would enjoy anything they did. I remember loving, for example, the Triple H vs HBK last man standing match and Hell in a Cell. I pretty much thought any big match with 2 guys of their stature was automatically great, especially in an environment such as those. Nowadays, I have learned to question these so-called wrestling truths, and I have learned that a lot of very popular and highly rated wrestlers do have limitations, and not everything they do is going to be great. When I watch those matches now, I'm embarassed that I used to say they were great in threads, because I don't see them as anything special at all. I used to think Triple H was the ultimate wrestler, but now I notice his limitations becoming more and more apparent. Even guys I still like such as HBK, I can acknowledge their bad matches and realize that they are not perfect, and are actually bad at certain things.

It's basically been about becoming more objective for me, rather than a distinct change in wrestling tastes, but I guess I have just broadended my horizons as my tastes have become more varied and I don't only enjoy one type of match. I think we all had a phase when we used to be a spots mark. I'm sure 2006 Tom would have loved John Morrison's current stuff, but now I realize there's a lot more to wrestling than athleticism/spots.

[KenTheKiller]

I started watching wrestling before I can even remember. It was the mid 90s, pre-attitude that I first remember. Guys like Yokozuna, Psycho Sid, Vader, Goldust, The Undertaker, all out landish or ridiculous in their own way mixed in with guys like Shawn Michaels (my dad called him gay and hated him, thus I did) and Bret Hart who were more "real". At the time I was all about storylines and the actual in-ring product meant very little to me. This is good as in a few short years that would be a common place as the Attitude Era rose. Out were the outlandish characters and in were the more realistic but exaggerated characters. Besides the Undertaker who remained a God to me, nobody could compare to the Texas Rattle Snake. Just like my dad hated HBK, he hated the Rock and so did I. He loved Bret and Austin, so did I. But the Undertaker remained my #1 regardless because he was just too damn cool!

Around 2002 or so is when I started to become more into "match quality" despite still not being smart to the business really at all. I realized that it wasn't legitimate of course, but I knew nothing on how it was done. I didn't really want to know. In a way I was sheepish, if WWE said something about a wrestler I went with it. I rooted most faces and boo'd most heels. Undertaker was always an exception of course. Before I continue I should say I was very scared Austin was going to screw over the WWF and that WCW would win the war and when Jericho attacked the Rock I was about to snap. Luckily Taker came out and kicked his ass and Angle saved the day. I've drank a glass of milk a day ever since.

Where was I? Oh yeah... in 03 I lost TV for awhile but kept up via magazines, friends, and going to my friend's house to watch RAW and Smackdown. I still distinctly remember Goldberg vs. Kane vs. Triple H hype for some reason. Around this time I started preferring Smackdown because of the in ring work. Not that I knew why it was better, but it was just more exciting. Oh and Undertaker was there. Damn McMahon burying him alive. I knew he'd be back though!

Skip ahead a little bit and mid 2004 I joined the IWC (though not as a member of any site.. just a spectator). A few months prior I read some wrestling book and "smartened up" so to speak, and thought I knew what I was talking about. I still enjoyed in ring work more than angles but I also became more critical at first. For maybe a year and a half I'd say until Wrestlemania 22 I was pretty critical. I was a "this sucks" nub and for a little while, due to his shoving down and going over Jericho, Angle, HHH (who I liked at the time a little bit), etc. I didn't like John Cena. After his good match with HHH and people's over the top criticisms I realized I was a fool. Over the course of the next three years I, while still critical of the product, try to find the positives and what COULD be good out of what happened. I enjoy wrestling as much as ever and it pretty much takes over my day to day. Whether it's RAW, Smackdown, ECW, iMPACT, PPVs, anything I watch online, posting, WWE 24-7, DVDs, wrestling books, BTBs, etc. every day I do plenty of wrestling related activities. It isn't just a hobby it is pretty much my favorite thing in life. Yes I'm a nerd.

I too used to mark for spot matches and I still enjoy them, and sometimes I may overrate something but I truly enjoy most of what I watch. While I think things could be better, I know things could be much worse and even the worst shows have something that entertains me or someone that entertains me. I've evolved into a less critical fan during my stay on the net which is rare and I wonder if I didn't become smart if I'd love the business like I do still.

And lastly, the Undertaker is STILL my God. >.> Just now instead of Bret Hart, Stone Cold, Kane, Triple H, Randy Orton, etc. CM Punk has risen to be his replacement whenever he retires. As for that HBK ... and the annoying Rocky... they are now two of my favorites ever. So while some things change, plenty has remained the same and my enjoyment of it has only increased.

[Bigpapa42]

Good thread idea.

I recently had a somewhat similar experience when I watched through the SummerSlam DVD boxed set (and both the WM and Royal Rumble ones before that). It was very interesting to rewatch stuff that I had watched as a kid in the late 80s and early 90s, and even through the Attitude Era stuff. Its nostalgic to rewatch all of that, yet eye-opening. It makes you realize how much my perspective has changed. Watching now, its not just so much about cheering the good guy and booing the bad guy.

My tastes have evolved since starting back up last summer as well. Going outside the mainstream to stuff like ROH and quite a bit of puro has made me appreciate things differently as well. A well told story hooks me more than anything.

[King Steventon]

I know what you mean Tom, I don't see it as black and white as "a wrestler is good or bad" so much any more. Wrestlers can be good at certain aspects and bad at certain aspects. Jeff Hardy takes some insane bumps and is a very good seller, but is terrible at controlling a match and has terrible offence.

I think a big part of it is being more open minded and not just buying into what companies tell you. Most fans will tell you Main Eventer X is better than Mid-carder Y because of all the epics X has put on whereas Y has done nothing of note.

[Harmony]

Originally Posted by Lord Steventon
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 20 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I know what you mean Tom, I don't see it as black and white as "a wrestler is good or bad" so much any more. Wrestlers can be good at certain aspects and bad at certain aspects. Jeff Hardy takes some insane bumps and is a very good seller, but is terrible at controlling a match and has terrible offence.

I think that's been the big change for me.

When I Started watching, I was typical mark and didn't appreciate the bigger picture, but now I don't care for heel or face, I care for work rate and ability, performance and innovation.

[Strong Machine]

For the most part I think since joining the IWC I have avoided being turned against a wrestler by discussion forums (there are likely a few exceptions). I have changed my position on certain wrestlers but alot of that has to do with the on screen goings on.

When I first joined a wrestling forum, CM Punk was very popular for his work on the indies, but I had not seen him, so I became anti-CM Punk however that changed as soon as he debuted on ECW. I became a fan right then.

I was a big Batista fan for years but that changed because I thought he was going to beat The Undertaker at WrestleMania, I am still slowly building my fandom for him back.

My favorite match now is the same match that I liked when I was 3, Bret Hart vs. Mr. Perfect at Summerslam 1991. I remember watching my VHS of that show so much just for that match (along with the jailhouse match), I did not know what I liked about it, i just did and now when I watch it, I understand why it was so good.

[Crest Fall]

I don't know if I've ever had a change in taste like Steventon has (as I've never really been all that into spotty matches, outside of a few guilty pleasures), but I have had changes in the way I watch wrestling. A few years ago, when I got into Indy wrestling, I would analyze everything and rate it and then go on and have debates about it. Nowadays I just like to sit back, watch, and not expect too much out of the product. I find it's much more enjoyable that way. Maybe I would have got sucked into loving spotty wrestlers and whatnot, but when I got into Indy wrestling it was when Jimmy Jacobs was starting to break out in ROH and I just gravitated towards his character and brawling style. I've been drawn to wrestlers like him ever since and would usually rather watch a Jimmy Jacobs match than a Dragon Gate one where they kick out of 99 different finishers in a single twenty-five minute match.

[Bigpapa42]

Originally Posted by Harmony
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 20 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I think that's been the big change for me.

When I Started watching, I was typical mark and didn't appreciate the bigger picture, but now I don't care for heel or face, I care for work rate and ability, performance and innovation.

Much the same. What I appreciate has changed. I don't care if you are a face or heell - I care about how well you do it.

[Internet God]

Fantastic thread idea! Props!

My taste in wrestling has changed drastically ever since I started watching about five or six years ago now. Before, it was all about storylines and the entertainment factor of it. I never really used to care about the match quality and whatnot. I mean, looking back, I watched alot of shitty matches back then and didn't even really care. Nowadays, I'm like, I can't believe I actually watched that horrible match that many times.

A great example of that would be Undertaker vs Dudley Boyz from Great American Bash 2004. I used to watch that match all the time, I don't know why, just enjoyed everything about it. Nowadays, I look back and I'm like, what the fuck?! I can't believe I actually liked that match and whatnot. Nowadays, I don't even really pay attention to the whole heel/face type thing. I just watch the matches and look at the match quality itself.

Nowadays, I hardly watch any mainstream American wrestling and if I do, it's past stuff from WWE and TNA. Not the stuff they're putting out today. I watch tons of Puro, PWG and ROH. Before, I would have thought a forty-five minute Misawa/Kobashi match was boring and whatnot. Nowadays, I love every minute of it.

A couple years back, I was a huge anti-Cena mark and just really didn't like anything involving him. Nowadays, I actually can tolerate him and realize that he has put on some good matches. Before, I just absolutely hated him and didnt' think he did anything of quality. Now I realize how hard he works, that he has put on good matches and that he has a tremendous workrate. While I'm not a fan of his, I can admit to realizing all of those qualities.

Like Papa said, watching Puro, ROH, and whatnot, has really made me appreciate different factors about wrestling and whatnot. I've had alot of same experiences lately. Lately I've been going back and watching some old WWE stuff that I haven't watched in a few years and it really is eye-opening on how much my perspectives have changed over the years.

I don't care about heels or faces anymore. Alot of times people have to correct me about who's heel and face because alot of times, I'll just say that this match and that match should happen but then somebody has to remind me that, well they're both heels so that won't happen. I forget about heel/face thing, because I don't care! I care about good matches, workrate and whatnot. Doesn't mean I'm a fan of certain guys like Cena who have good workrates, I can just respect that quality nowadays.

I do kind of have a small obsession with rating matches and constantly looking to see what a certain match was rated before watching it. But yeah, my taste in wrestling has changed drastically over the past couple of years. Before, I would have preferred WWE and mainstream wrestling over Puro, ROH, and PWG. Nowadays, I can't really stand WWE and TNA. I can't even stand watching TNA matches anymore really. I can't the commentary and some of the cheesiness that stems from TNA, more so today's TNA product, not a couple years back.

Earlie today for example, I was re-watching Angle/Jarrett from Genesis this year and I almost turned it off about fifteen minutes into the match. I just couldn't stand the cheesiness on commentary and how they were over-hyping the whole damn match.

But yeah, once again, great thread idea!