• Welcome!

    We're a UK based community of cult entertainment fans - so whether you're into WWE, Marvel, DC, Game of Thrones, Walking Dead, Star Wars, Doctor Who, Star Trek and more - join us!

    It's free to register, so why not sign up and discuss whatever you're into...

Does age matter?

Dave7g

New Member
Messages
13,648
Ratings
319
Points
0
I'll get shot down here pretty quickly since this forum has a very young user base, but...

An older fan here, legitimatley going on about 20 years or so and that does not include becoming a wrestling fan the moment my father's lovegoo said hello to my mother's eggs, as some people have claimed to be watching when since they were 2 years old, sure you may have been watching, but you can't remember anything.

It just annoys me when someone has an opinion on something that happened say 15 years ago, or will come out with a matter of fact - fact, about something I may have seen on TV at the time and just can't remember right, yet they can throw out facts and figures from some website about it and act as if they should be interviewed for one of WWE's DVD documentarys.

I get shot down here all the time by people who may be watching for maybe 2 years, yet know it all, and in 2 years they most likely won't be watching anymore.

I'm not having a go at anyone at all, I just wondered if the older members had the same thoughts from time to time?

I will not have a 12 year old reminisce about the USWA!
 

dpddave

talent spotter
Subscriber
Messages
4,658
Ratings
182
Points
113
I've often wondered about that aswel. I've heard guys on here my age or younger say things like "I remember when Rock/Austin/whoever was starting out and I predicted he would be a big star"

What you predicted that when you were 8 years old??

I cant even remember what happened on RAW 7 weeks ago never mind 7 years.
 
Messages
6,143
Ratings
174
Points
0
I don't particularly like it when people throw out my argument over a certain subject because of my age. In my opinion if I've seen it, then I have just as much of an opinion on it as you do. I've got stuff dating up to 1978 and over 500 tapes/DVDs from WWE to AJPW to NWA to JWA to SMW to ROH and the magic of certain stuff isn't lost in those tapes.

I've been watching weekly for near on 10 years now and can still remember 90% of the stuff I've watched. I can legit say I did first starting when I was about 3. I've got a taped from Sky Wrestlemania 9 video and some old WWF TV shows taped from Sky somewhere, if we hadn't gotten rid of Sky around 94 I probably would have load more taped stuff.

Sure I can't reminisce about some that happened 15 years ago, but I can give my opinion on it, so to me age shouldn't matter, knowledge should.

I mean you could have a wrestling fan who is 35 but doesn't have the foggiest clue on what ECW if he was only watched WWF or WCW at the time, does the fact he is 35 and I'm 17 while I've watched more shows and know more about it, make his opinion greater than mine?

I've spent far, far to much time researching, hunting down, spending far to much money to gain the knowledge of the Pro Wrestling from the past. And again I've spend far to much time watching stuff like WCW Power Hour and AWA Superclash's but I believe I can rightly have and join in on discussing about older stuff, newer stuff and the like.

Although I agree with the point:

I get shot down here all the time by people who may be watching for maybe 2 years, yet know it all, and in 2 years they most likely won't be watching anymore.
I can't say this for anyone else, but I know I'll probably end up watching wrestling 4LIFE~, I'll probably be that sad **** you see dragging his kids to the shows.

Anyway that's my two cents.
 

The Beltster

Well-Known Member
Messages
22,370
Ratings
603 1
Points
113
some people have claimed to be watching when since they were 2 years old, sure you may have been watching, but you can't remember anything.
How can you say that for a fact? I started watching the WWF in December 1983, I was coming up on 4 yrs old, and I VIVIDLY remember the Shiek taking the belt from Backlund, and then dropping it to Hogan and going insane for the Hogan win. Before that, I remember watching World of Sport with my Uncle who used to take me to the Guild Hall to see the matches. I specifically remember not having my own seat because I was so young, and had to sit on his lap. I remember seeing Tony Sinclair get his ass handed to him by Giant Haystacks who I was sh*t scared of. So, Although I dont remember every little detail, I remember certain moments, and when it comes to Hogan and the WWF, I clearly remember a great deal from the early years, and from 1987 onwards I'd say, I remember almost everything that happened in the WWF from memory alone.

As a matter of fact, I remember more stuff that happened in the old days than I do the 2000's. As a kid you could ask me at any time who held what belt and I'd tell you with ease including when and where they won it and who from, cant do that anymore.

When the Attitude Era began, and everything got crazy, it became much harder to remember who held what and in what order. Easier to remember what I loved than what I didnt give a toss about.

It just annoys me when someone has an opinion on something that happened say 15 years ago, or will come out with a matter of fact - fact, about something I may have seen on TV at the time and just can't remember right, yet they can throw out facts and figures from some website about it and act as if they should be interviewed for one of WWE's DVD documentarys.

I get shot down here all the time by people who may be watching for maybe 2 years, yet know it all, and in 2 years they most likely won't be watching anymore.

I'm not having a go at anyone at all, I just wondered if the older members had the same thoughts from time to time?
It used to bother me when young fans on here would tell me I'm wrong on certain things, or have an opinion on something they dont really understand and tell me mine was wrong. There are certain things in wrestling you had to live to know the scale of. Hulkamania is one, Austins boom period is another. Unless you lived it and were a fan at the time, you cannot understand how big or important it was just from reading articles online. Its impossible.

I also hate when alot of younger fans show no respect for the older stars. Its not a matter of having to like them, but understand the work they put it to allow todays stars to have a place to work.

Overall though, I dont really get bothered by it anymore. I think I've done a relatively decent job of proving to people I know what I'm talking about the majority of the time over the years so I kinda use my own merits to defend my opinions.
 

Dave7g

New Member
Messages
13,648
Ratings
319
Points
0
A 4 year old is twice as old as a 2 year old. I have very vague memories of watching WOS, I remember Kendo Nagasaki, but little else. I was a big fan from around the age of 8 or 9, but I honestly can't remember much, bar the names. I was in complete control once WWF was being shown, that's when my love of the Apter mags was born.
 

The Beltster

Well-Known Member
Messages
22,370
Ratings
603 1
Points
113
A 4 year old is twice as old as a 2 year old. I have very vague memories of watching WOS, I remember Kendo Nagasaki, but little else. I was a big fan from around the age of 8 or 9, but I honestly can't remember much, bar the names. I was in complete control once WWF was being shown, that's when my love of the Apter mags was born.
I have memories going back as far as I can remember, pre-WWF days. Still, I'm sure its different for everybody.

I remember watching WrestleMania 2 on cable using the little dial on the wall to change channels. I used to have WWF Magazine sent over every 2 months, and then monthly, by a relative in Texas before it was available here.

I loved the Apter magazines aswell, until about 1993 or 1994 when I got hooked on Superstars of Wrestling which would become PowerSlam, and I realised how tacky and false Apter mags were.
 

DraVen

Well-Known Member
Messages
22,400
Ratings
367
Points
83
I don't think age matters at all. I've always been one of the young ones here and yet I've managed to destroy so many older guys in arguments because at the end of the day, if you know what you're talking about, it doesn't matter. When it comes to WWE pre-1990, I know very little and therefore I don't speak about it. Give me modern day wrestling and I'll hold my own with anyone. Ditto 1997-2000 WWE. I was 10 in 1997, yet I consumed myself with it and studied it and can remember so much of it completely off the top of my head. I can remember exact shows I saw, exact matches etc, stuff that I haven't seen since. I imagine anyone who was obsessed like I was would be the same.

Age doesn't matter. Knowledge does.

As for the "2 year old" thing, I saw WM6 and remember Hogan and Warrior fairly vividly. I don't remember any other match on the show without watching it, but I remembered Hogan v Warrior. There's a lot of vivid memories I remember from ages 2, 3 and 4.
 

The Beltster

Well-Known Member
Messages
22,370
Ratings
603 1
Points
113
Age doesn't matter. Knowledge does.
I agree to a degree, but you (not you specifically, you get my point) are going to argue something with me that I lived through and was a huge fan of at the time, and you werent even born, you can have as much knowledge about it as you can find and I would say you wont understand certain points about it because you didnt live it.

An example the Austin thing. There are people here who I've seen question Austins immense influence in 1998/1999 specifically. They know he was a huge draw because they have read about it, but there werent the ones going into town and into shops and seeing Austin merchandise in mainstream clothing stores, and they didnt see one in every 5 teenage guys wearing Austin 3:16 shirts, or mentions in magazines, newspapers and TV outside of WWF programming.

There are times like this where you have to really live in that time period as a fan to really understand the scope and scale of something. Alot of people read up on something and believe that can give you an opinion that cant be wrong because "Meltzer said it".
 
Messages
21,601
Ratings
338
Points
0
Age matters to a degree, in that it only really does when you try and talk about something you know little about. As Dra just said, its knowledge thats important, and knowledge can come from experience or it can come from research. Whether having the actual experience of living through it is better is really dependant on the circumstance, because while its good to have seen it live and know how it went down and the impact and what not, it can also give you a biased recollection of the past, based on if you were a fan of whoever, or even, dare I say, if you were younger and just enjoyed it all, a mark. Not to say I disagree with your point Belty, but there is the other side to that as well.

As for myself, I'm 17 and have only been watching since late 2003, i.e. "when wrestling got crap", in a general sense. I know I cant argue with someone older about the 80s or even the Attitude Era, simply because I wasnt there, and I dont know much about it. I cant really come up and say "Austin wasnt that popular" because how would I know? With that kind of information its hard to get it as well as the 'real thing', i.e. having lived through it. But I think if someone my age were to watch old shows and such, they could have a valid opinion on it as anyone who watched it live. In terms of understanding the reaction and the impact of old stuff the experience would be better, but in terms of say calling Wrestlemania 2 a good or a bad show, for example, I could watch it today and have a completely valid opinion on it, simply because its all just opinions.

And, my final point is that in terms of watching today's product, I can have just as valid opinion on it as a thirty-something. Just because I didnt live through the Attitude Era doesnt mean I cant watch wrestling and decide what I like and dont like, and what's good and not so good. I'm intelligent, I understand how wrestling works (to a degree) and so I can see for myself how good something is, and my opinion shouldnt be any less valid than someone's who has been watching for longer than I have. I mean, I hate to say this because it will only invite him into the thread, but we all know our favourite poster always loves to point out how old he is, and I respected my cat's opinions on wrestling more than his. Just an example of how old doesnt always equal better.
 
Last edited:

The Beltster

Well-Known Member
Messages
22,370
Ratings
603 1
Points
113
But I think if someone my age were to watch old shows and such, they could have a valid opinion on it as anyone who watched it live. In terms of understanding the reaction and the impact of old stuff the experience would be better, but in terms of say calling Wrestlemania 2 a good or a bad show, for example, I could watch it today and have a completely valid opinion on it, simply because its all just opinions.
I agree that watching the old stuff would give you a valid opinion on whether you enjoyed it etc, there is the huge difference in fan expectations today, so if you had been a fan in 1986, watching WM2 live, your opinion would be alot different than it would if you watching it in 2007 and realised how dated and crappy it actually is. I think everybody holds the era they grew up with special to themselves and thats where the age thing comes in. Like you said, it is somewhat bias, for sure.

And, my final point is that in terms of watching today's product, I can have just as valid opinion on it as a thirty-something. Just because I didnt live through the Attitude Era doesnt mean I cant watch wrestling and decide what I like and dont like, and what's good and not so good. I'm intelligent, I understand how wrestling works (to a degree) and so I can see for myself how good something is, and my opinion shouldnt be any less valid than someone's who has been watching for longer than I have. I mean, I hate to say this because it will only invite him into the thread, but we all know our favourite poster always loves to point out how old he is, and I respected my cat's opinions on wrestling more than his. Just an example of how old doesnt always equal better.
I agree with you here 100%. You do NOT need to be a long-term fan to have a valid opinion on wrestling if you are watching it currently. A person who watches their first show has as valid an opinion as somebody who has been watching for 20 years and watches that same show, they wont have the same understanding on the business, but what they thought of the show is as valid as anybody else.

But going back to the age thing, I do think that a person who has been watching wrestling for 25 years and who was a fan at the time watching, say, WrestleMania III, will have more of an appreciation of Hogan vs Andre for example. Fans of todays product slate the match as being sh*t, but to me it shows a severe lack of understanding of what the business was like 20 years ago and the impact and importance of that "sh*tty" match.

Its when a person who has been watching for 6 months and rips guys like Hogan, Flair and so on as old farts who have no place in wrestling that the age and experience factor comes into it, because if you had any idea of what Hogan and Flair had done, you would give them their dues.
 

Paul

Well-Known Member
Messages
36,514
Ratings
584
Points
113
Its when a person who has been watching for 6 months and rips guys like Hogan, Flair and so on as old farts who have no place in wrestling that the age and experience factor comes into it, because if you had any idea of what Hogan and Flair had done, you would give them their dues.


I disagree. Why should past acomplishments mean anything if they are being crap today?

I stress that Ric and Hogan both have a place still IMO in the ring, its just I cant get behind the idea that a new fan should give a damn about the past if the people from there are being crap in teh now.



Do I make sense? I cant word it right. :lol:
 
Messages
21,601
Ratings
338
Points
0
Yeah, it depends what you mean Belty. Saying "Ric Flair looks pathetic in the ring these days" is a lot different to undermining his impact on the business or his past accomplishments.
 

The Beltster

Well-Known Member
Messages
22,370
Ratings
603 1
Points
113
I disagree. Why should past acomplishments mean anything if they are being crap today?

I stress that Ric and Hogan both have a place still IMO in the ring, its just I cant get behind the idea that a new fan should give a damn about the past if the people from there are being crap in teh now.

Do I make sense? I cant word it right. :lol:
I dont have a problem with a new fan disliking Hogan or Flair for their current work, nor for their past work, but to come on the scene and slate them for their careers and basically put guys like Rey f'n Mysterio over them as all time greats to me, shows a complete lack of understanding of pro wrestling.

I dont mark out for Lou Thesz, and I consider his style to be boring, same with Bruno, but I'd certainly never discredit their place in wrestling or their contributions to building the 'sport'.

Thats what I have issue with.
 
Messages
21,601
Ratings
338
Points
0
I dont have a problem with a new fan disliking Hogan or Flair for their current work, nor for their past work, but to come on the scene and slate them for their careers and basically put guys like Rey f'n Mysterio over them as all time greats to me, shows a complete lack of understanding of pro wrestling.

I dont mark out for Lou Thesz, and I consider his style to be boring, same with Bruno, but I'd certainly never discredit their place in wrestling or their contributions to building the 'sport'.

Thats what I have issue with.
Well yeah of course, a kid coming on and saying "Cena iz better than Flair ever woz" is stupid, but I dont think that happens too often. These days its more of a case of people saying that Flair should retire or what not, which isnt too hard to understand regardless whether you agree or not.
 

Laffy

Wales forever!!!
Messages
7,457
Ratings
201
Points
113
I have been watching wresting since I was six I was watching Flair, Piper etc. before hand but do not remember it just have the tapes of what was recorded for me as a kid. My first match I have that in a family film shows me marking out for Flair was in 1979

On December 18, 1978 Ricky Steamboat won the U.S. Title from Flair in Toronto, but Flair won it back from Steamboat on April 1, 1979. Then on August 12, 1979 in Greensboro, NC, Flair recaptured the World Tag Team Titles with Blackjack Mulligan. I have all three matches on tape and family films of me watching them enjoying them and loving Flair but to be honest I do not remember it at the time just watching the tapes as a young 6 year old experiencing the magic again and falling in love with Ric all over again.

I could probably talk about a lot of the old wrestlers but it would be through videos I have downloaded, recorded or bought. My first match I remember watching was when Harley Race won the title from Flair in 1983, but Flair regained the title at StarrCade 1983 in Greensboro, North Carolina in a steel cage match. I do not remember how I saw this match though I believe it was through friends at RAF Alconbury. After Piper defeated Valentine for the U.S. title on April 16th, 1983, the feud between the two men intensified, leading to a dog collar match at Starrcade '83. The dog collar match was brilliant one of Piper's best matches.

I think knowledge is good but you still can not beat the memories of how you felt watching the matches.

I can not talk much about WCW as I never saw it at the time as my folks thought it was rubbish it was also the time in the early 90's where they stopped me watching WWF as I was not working for my GCSE's. I really got back into it at UNI in 1997. I have bought all the DVD’s and matches from people here on this site and on other forums when there is something I need and can not get.

I do get annoyed when kids half my age question me on points where I know I am right but have learnt to live with it and just prove my point in a researched manner. Also Omar on occasion has shown me that I have been wrong and has shown pointed out DVD’s where I can see the points raised and this has only helped to intensify my knowledge.

I believe I have a good wrestling collection from 1994 - 2007 are all converted on DVD or originals. All my recorded ECW matches and 2989 WWF/NWA videos from 1982 onwards. I have lots of 1PW DVD’s, ROH, WCW, NOAH, IWA JAPAN, All Japan Pro Wrestling, CMLL, and AAA. But have only seen them from DVD’s I have collected and bought rather than actually watching it at the time.

Age does not matter if you can back it up, but if not do not cause arguments for argument sake.
 

The Beltster

Well-Known Member
Messages
22,370
Ratings
603 1
Points
113
Well yeah of course, a kid coming on and saying "Cena iz better than Flair ever woz" is stupid, but I dont think that happens too often. These days its more of a case of people saying that Flair should retire or what not, which isnt too hard to understand regardless whether you agree or not.
It happens more than you think. The amount of times I've heard younger fans rip Flair or Hogan or even Austin who's era wasnt that long ago is more than I remember.

When Hogan took the belt in 2002, long term wrestling fans were fine with it, even if they werent fans of Hogan, because they understood why it happened. Young marks lost their f'n minds "Oh how the hell is it believable that Hogan beat Triple H?!"

Its believable because its FAKE, and because Hogan is a main event level star in wrestling and its believable that he is going over at any given time. All you need do is look back over his career and legacy to see this, and thats where alot of newer fans who choose not to watch old shows fall short, because they dont know the history of even the last 20 years.
 

DC

Well-Known Member
Messages
34,040
Ratings
539 2
Points
113
It used to bother me when young fans on here would tell me I'm wrong on certain things, or have an opinion on something they dont really understand and tell me mine was wrong. There are certain things in wrestling you had to live to know the scale of. Hulkamania is one, Austins boom period is another. Unless you lived it and were a fan at the time, you cannot understand how big or important it was just from reading articles online. Its impossible.
That's my main argument when someone under a certain age says this was sh*t and that was sh*t. Sure, maybe now it seems sluggish or boring to them, but at the time, it was fantastic (Wrestlemania VII springs to mind for me).

As Beltmark said, unless you experienced something at the time, you can't fathom what it meant. A lot of people will say they understand the significance of Hogan slamming Andre, but they don't. To them it's just Hogan slamming a large man, something he did throughout his career.

Age isn't the be-all and end-all. IMO, experience is more important.
 
Messages
21,601
Ratings
338
Points
0
It happens more than you think. The amount of times I've heard younger fans rip Flair or Hogan or even Austin who's era wasnt that long ago is more than I remember.

When Hogan took the belt in 2002, long term wrestling fans were fine with it, even if they werent fans of Hogan, because they understood why it happened. Young marks lost their f'n minds "Oh how the hell is it believable that Hogan beat Triple H?!"

Its believable because its FAKE, and because Hogan is a main event level star in wrestling and its believable that he is going over at any given time. All you need do is look back over his career and legacy to see this, and thats where alot of newer fans who choose not to watch old shows fall short, because they dont know the history of even the last 20 years.
Well of course, and to a lesser degree it was the same when Hogan went over HBK, or Orton or anyone else in the 21st Century. In terms of questioning the believability of it then I agree with you for the most part.
 

King

Well-Known Member
Forum Leader
Messages
12,655
Ratings
282 1
Points
83
Good thread!!

My earliest memories on Staurday mornings watching Bid Daddy and co then watching the build up to WMII on SKy.

I still think to this day that WMIII is superb,I'll never change my mind about it but the majortiy of folk on here probably think it sucks beside the Savage/Steamboat match.

I was also a huge fan PWI but as stated above Superstars Of Wrestling which later became Powerslam changed that for me.
 

Paul

Well-Known Member
Messages
36,514
Ratings
584
Points
113
I dont have a problem with a new fan disliking Hogan or Flair for their current work, nor for their past work, but to come on the scene and slate them for their careers and basically put guys like Rey f'n Mysterio over them as all time greats to me, shows a complete lack of understanding of pro wrestling.

I dont mark out for Lou Thesz, and I consider his style to be boring, same with Bruno, but I'd certainly never discredit their place in wrestling or their contributions to building the 'sport'.

Thats what I have issue with.

Fair enough, I think we were agreeing. :p


That's my main argument when someone under a certain age says this was sh*t and that was sh*t. Sure, maybe now it seems sluggish or boring to them, but at the time, it was fantastic (Wrestlemania VII springs to mind for me).

As Beltmark said, unless you experienced something at the time, you can't fathom what it meant. A lot of people will say they understand the significance of Hogan slamming Andre, but they don't. To them it's just Hogan slamming a large man, something he did throughout his career.

Age isn't the be-all and end-all. IMO, experience is more important.

Yeah, I use the same argument about music. :)
 
Top