Talk:Professional wrestling in the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wrestlemania III[edit]

The article stated "In front of 93,173 fans and one of the largest pay-per-view audiences in history". I'm not going to get involved in the attendance argument, but the PPV audience isn't even close to being the largest. In terms of buyrate yes, but the total number of buys was only in the 400,000 region. I've removed the reference to the PPV audience to reflect this Sasaki 18:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What just happened to this page?[edit]

It looks totally stripped down and torn apart. Gruntyking117 22:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just A Note[edit]

If "pro wrestling" is defined (with the exception of rare shoot fights) as wrestling matches in which the performers are paid for their performance, and the outcome is predetermined, then this "sports entertainment" type originated LONG before what is... well... said by just about everyone I've read. For example, in the late 4th century, the Christian clergymen Gregory of Nazianzus spoke of "those persons who in the theatres perform wrestling matches in public, but not that kind of wrestling in which the victory is won according to the rules of the sport, but a kind to deceive the eyes of those who are ignorant in such matters, and to catch applause" (Oration 27).—Preceding unsigned comment added by JustinKi (talk • contribs) 23:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great catch! This article definitely needs another couple of paragraphs on the history of "worked" wrestling in other times and cultures. - Geoffg 03:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline[edit]

I see the article is sticking to important facts at times, but is really suffering because of the choppy milestones added to the article. The entire section about wrestling's beginnings is littered with important firsts in wrestling (1st african-american, 1st pay-per-view, etc.) These are important, but wouldn't fit directly in an encyclopedia entry. That's why I decided on making a timeline for these small trivial facts to go into.--Screwball23 talk 15:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request[edit]

Sorry for doing it this way, I wasn't sure how. Can somebody mark this as needing more research? It's got factual inaccuracies all over the place. If I get time, I'll re-write the whole article (Since it's marked as needing grammar and tone corrected) but for now can it just be marked as stated above?

Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.94.162 (talk) 14:29, May 14, 2007 (UTC)

  • It certainly has. My jaw dropped when I read the line "Professional wrestling, already an established sport in the United States by the early 1900s, became international in the late 1920s, when it was introduced to Australia in 1927 and Great Britain in 1930." I guess all of those Georg Hackenschmidt matches in the UK in the 1890s and 1900s weren't pro wrestling, then? Re-reading the current text for this article, it strikes me as a remarkably parochial piece. The first part seems to concentrate entirely on pro-wrestling in the US, although the timeline is more international in scope. Even so, it still woefully underrepresents the history of wrestling in the UK, Canada, Mexico and even Japan.--Cyberinsekt 23:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I was working with a text dump and i made the article as best I could with the info given. it wasn't at all to disregard the histories of foreign pro-wrestling promotions. However, pro-wrestling as we know it is different from lucha libre or japanese hardcore wrestling. they may have been linked in history, but as far as storylines, practice, media/publicity, and entrepreuneurship/viewership, the United States is the innovator and the dominant force that made pro-wrestling what it is today. What I'm saying is, from how i interpret it, wrestling was re-introduced into a more theatrical, modern style from the US in the 20s-30s.--Screwball23 talk 01:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The main factual inaccuracy of the article is referencing the USA as the country of origin of pro wrestling. The sport actually began in it's current 'worked' form in the late 1880's. The earliest match I've seen record of was in London in 1887 between a Pole and an Englishman, the names of both escape me. The confusion probably arises from the fact that the first sanctioning body, as such, was the National Wrestling Association, an offshoot of the National Boxing Association, which was later succeeded by the National Wrestling Alliance. The Alliance is often believed to have evolved from the Association (Hence WCW's claim that the world title dated back to 1905) but they actually ran alongside each other briefly until the Alliance became too powerful and ran the association out of business. Incidentally, there are records of worked/fixed/predetermined wrestling matches dating all the way back to ancienct Greece, but they've never been properly verified. Chasing Lamely 20:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Hebnerscrewjob.jpg[edit]

Image:Hebnerscrewjob.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hooker[edit]

I have read the biography of Lou Thesz, Hooker, and I clarified the misinformation on the article. A hooker is a dirty wrestler, who uses hooks, illegitimate wrestling holds to gain an advantage in a match. The article originally said it was an experienced wrestler who would help a spectator who had little to no chance of winning an open challenge during an athletic show. That was wrong, and I've corrected it.--Screwball23 01:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

origins[edit]

I remember reading a lot of posts complaining that this article was not recognizing early wrestling. I created an origins section, and would be more than happy to add ancient wrestling history.--Screwball23 talk

antonino rocca[edit]

i wrote a lot on him in his article, maybe more than he deserves. however, lou thesz describes his major success as one of the largest stars of the 50s, and how he was used to bring the ny promotion over with the fans. since the ny promotion is now the #1 because of the television transformation that the mcmahon family brought on, and they did it through guys like rocca, i think having him as the first prime example of a TV wrestler from an authentic competitive wrestler was a great idea.

but, for the fanbase out there that likes rocca, i would welcome criticism on the talkpage. --Screwball23 talk 00:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. There seems to be support for tagging the article for expansion. Dekimasuよ! 06:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of professional wrestling → Professional wrestling in the United States — Article only covers the history of professional wrestling in the United States. Very similar articles but the target page is in much less detail. Page name to be consistent with other professional wrestling articles by country. —Aaru Bui DII 12:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:
The purpose of making a WikiProject Pro-Wrestling is to establish a page with wrestling info from all over the world. This is the best wrestling history article on Wikipedia and shouldn't be moved just because most of the history is American. In fact, even though pro-wrestling is very American and has great history in American culture, international wrestling could still be added easily to this article. It's all a matter of adding research.--Screwball23 talk 23:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The Attitute Era?[edit]

What happened to the time of Stone Cold 3:16? What about the Rock's catchphrases? Why isn't Mankind mentioned? These guys made pop culture and put themselves into the media. They are huge names in the US and abroad and they aren't mentioned in the history of wrestling. pitiful.

This articles reads more like a factual chronology than a history. The lack of knowledgeable statements make it dull. I want to enliven it from being a simple text dump of facts. That's a reason why I added refs from Online World of Wrestling. Those are real fans with reliable opinions, and the website is very well-kept, so I'm going to add info from there.--Screwball23 talk 02:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

80s wrestling boom a huge crock[edit]

Reading Hooker by Lou Thesz as well as Memoirs of a Wrestling Pitchman, I've learned that the so-called "80s boom" of wrestling was a huge crock devised by McMahon. He lied to the media and made it seem as if wrestling was dead during the 60s and 70s, when, in fact, the only difference between the 60s and 70s was that there was no wrestling on television networks; the numbers of fans and the popularity was not changed greatly (it only receded a little because it was overexposed during the 50s.) The 80s boom was told as a story by McMahon because he managed to get NY media attention and TV time on network television, and made it seem as if nothing was going on before. In fact, the only slowdown then was in the WWF in the New York area, where wrestling was in a long-time slump compared to the Midwest.--Screwball23 talk 20:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monday Night Wars[edit]

The Monday Night Wars section is loaded with useless detail and arcane info that probably doesn't even belong on the Monday Night Wars article. The fact that the tide turned and explaining small details as to how this occurred is non significant in the scope of professional wrestling's history; rather, a shortening of the Monday Night Wars is long overdue.--Screwball23 talk 03:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Histoy of professional wrestling[edit]

This article has been a struggle from the beginning. The people I need to read and contribute to this page should be casual fans or critics of the sport, especially valuable among them would be those with knowledge of older wrestling promotions, and the wrestling scene of the 60, 70s, and the 80s.

To be honest, I like this page because wrestling was a long-time interest of mine. I've matured and don't consider myself a fan any longer, but I've been enticed by books and materials about what wrestling was like and what it has meant through history. What matters most to me is keeping this page in moderation to fans and non-fans. Wrestling has lost widespread popularity, but I don't think its history should be written simply by those few loyal fans who have held onto the passion. Instead, I feel that wrestling, for all its popular culture references, raging fans in the 80s and its lasting touches of Americana, should be written with a more widespread, different perspective.

I appreciate all comments and suggestions, and welcome all criticisms.--Screwball23 talk 23:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what is up with this article.[edit]

I have deleted a lot of opinionated stuff that was near the end of the article. You could tell it was done by all one person; a wwe hater. It said stuff like "Wrestlemania 23 was the most unsuccessful wrestlemania of all time." we need to clean this up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyrule Historian (talk • contribs) 01:48, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

what are you talking about this articale is wwe biased it needs more info on tna ect and i would appertiate if you didnt delete tna or any info plese just because your a cena fan dosent mean you need to poop on the truth —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lagman7700 (talk • contribs) 01:53, October 3, 2007 (UTC)

decline paragraph[edit]

Most people would consider this paragraph biased in some way. Sure, there are those avid Triple H fans who would deny that he was overpromoted at the expense of over stars; in the article, i was cautious to keep proper perspective, which someone dumbed down and made it seem as if all of it was a distant rumor (WHICH IT IS NOT!):

Backstage politics, notably nepotism on the part of the McMahon family, is seen as a major reason for the thinning-out of major main event superstars. The largest culprit is wrestler Triple H, who married into the McMahon family in 2003. Their relationship has been a reason for concern because of his subsequent overpromotion at the expense of other superstars. In particular, when Triple H was champion in 2003, three renowned former WCW superstars, Kevin Nash, Scott Steiner, and Goldberg were hired and placed into unsuccessful championship feuds with him, only to soon be released by the company.[20] The result has been a nearly impenetrable barrier to advancement, worsening the wrestling product through the difficulty of creating new stars.[20]

Firstly, let me explain one thing: This article is not a figment of my imagination or something from wrestling forum boards. This was written in consideration of all that happened in wrestling since 2003, namely, the demise of WWE and the thinning of major superstars. Read "World Wrestling Insanity" for the exact details, where you will see the facts of the McMahon-HHH relationship laid out. That being said, I wrote it in simple language, and without bias. I'll take each sentence thru:

Backstage politics, notably nepotism on the part of the McMahon family, is seen as a major reason for the thinning-out of major main event superstars.Duh! Backstage politics plays a major role in the demise of all wrestling promotions, and since WCW and ECW, most fans are aware of that. The role of the McMahon family's nepotism, placing Vince, HHH, and his select wrestlers as main-eventers is seen as the major reason wrestling sucks today. That is not controversial. The largest culprit is wrestler Triple H, who married into the McMahon family in 2003. True. If anyone wants to read about the relationship, they don't have to read about Stephanie, and find out about the on-screen/offscreen relationship, or any of that. Triple H married into the family, and he is the largest culprit in the backstage politics criticisms. Don't forget I said nepotism was the major, but not the only reason; if you can find another reason, put it in. Their relationship has been a reason for concern because of his subsequent overpromotion at the expense of other superstars. In particular, when Triple H was champion in 2003, three renowned former WCW superstars, Kevin Nash, Scott Steiner, and Goldberg were hired and placed into unsuccessful championship feuds with him, only to soon be released by the company.[20]Cold, hard facts. In 2003, Triple H was champ, and had recently married into the family. Was it listed as the reason for his widely-viewed "overpromotion"? No. I said that the relationship has become a concern because afterwards, he was promoted over large WCW stars, whose careers went down the crapper because of their failed feuds with him. (Mentioning their bland creative characters might help, but it isn't really necessary.) The result has been a nearly impenetrable barrier to advancement, worsening the wrestling product through the difficulty of creating new stars.[20]True. In 2003 and since, every star has needed to come through Triple H to become a major hit. Look at Batista or Randy Orton, for example. His overpromotion ruined the impact of the WCW wrestlers, and has worsened the product because of the lost main-event talent.

There, I laid out the facts, and explained my revert. Remember, over-detailing info is common in wikipedia, and I want to write facts rather than go off into distancing facts as rumors (it is often seen that...Some view...etc.) If someone still has an issue with what I wrote, I welcome criticism on the talk page.--Screwball23 talk 22:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with you that the rewrite used a few weasel words, I would say that the original paragraph in question needs a lot of citations. Otherwise, it sounds like original research. You say the statements in it are facts, and I understand that you take find their truth to be self-evident, but that's not enough for Wikipedia. For example, "[nepotism] is seen as a major reason..." by whom? "The result has been..." according to whose analysis? I think most wrestling fans would agree that what you write is the conventional wisdom, and that the currents you describe in recent WWE politics are significant in the history of professional wrestling, but we still need reliable, verifiable sources for those conclusions. - Geoffg 06:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend you pick up the book "World Wrestling Insanity" and find out exactly what I mean. All my references on this topic come from there. As much as I hate to distance the facts away in terms of other's opinions, there is some room for compromise; if you want to put a perspective on the line: "Backstage politics, notably nepotism on the part of the McMahon family, is seen as a major reason for the thinning-out of major main event superstars.", you could put "is often viewed by wrestling critics as" or "is criticized by wrestling fans as" instead of "is seen as". The other line, "The result has been a nearly impenetrable barrier to advancement, worsening the wrestling product through the difficulty of creating new stars.[20]" is also open for some interpretation. Firstly, I understand that the barrier to advancement is not the only reason for wrestling's monotony in recent years. I think the loss of a good creative team and the overuse of WWE programming (remember, 5 hrs a week!) are major reasons, too. But I stated those in other paragraphs. When I talk about WWE programming today, I mention the excessive programming. When I mentioned many other WCW talents lost, I opened up the creative team argument. But now, since I am dedicating this paragraph to the worsening of wrestling only in terms of McMahon nepotism, so I leave Triple H as the important issue here.

What does that mean? I say the line stays, because I have it referenced, and also because I have just proved it right in the previous line, talking about how star wrestlers Goldberg, Steiner, and Nash were all used poorly and removed because of Triple H's overpromotion at their expense. The result clearly was a barrer to advancement, and it definitely has been difficult to create new stars since.--Screwball23 talk 17:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be removed. The whole article needs a load more refs (75 - 100 for an article like this). Yes, it will take time but slowly and surely this article will become better and better, and hopefully one day hit GA, and maybe, just maybe, FA. Davnel03 17:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there should be a paragraph on the decline of wrestling. If you look at the WWE Raw ratings they have gone from a 5 in 2000, to a 4 in 2001-2002, 3 from 2003-2013, and a 2 in 2014-2017. Raw just recently (June 5, 2018) posted it's lowest rating of the year and averages 1's and 2's rating-wise. There is a painfully obvious trend of decline which has been occurring over the past 15 plus years (Satanhhh (talk) 04:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Another edit changd this paragraph, complaining that the Goldberg feud was misleading and erroneous. "In particular, when Triple H was champion in 2003, three renowned former WCW superstars, Kevin Nash, Scott Steiner, and Goldberg were hired and placed into unsuccessful championship feuds with him, only to soon be released by the company.[21]" Firstly, Nash had injury problems from the start and Goldberg had many loyal fans and was often hated for his never-lose gimmick. However, even though Golberg did win the title, his first loss to Triple H in the Elimination Chamber match devalued his debut in the WWE. He was to eventually win the title, but his early losses to HHH put him under the Game. Secondly, Scott Steiner was unquestionably used uncreatively in the WWE, changed into an unpopular babyface. Many criticize this decision as the deciding reason for his lackluster WWE career in 2003-4. Long story short; even tho Golberg did achieve some success over HHH, he was certainly not overpromoted over Triple H.--Screwball23 talk 01:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ABOUT CHRIS BENOIT I think an edit should be made noting that the theory of steroids being a possible cause for the apparent murder-suicide has actually been proven incorrect and is just a means for the United States to go after steroids. Medical tests were done on Chris Benoit's brain, and the result was that he had a severely damaged brain, damage that could not have been done by steroid use. While the doctors did not go so far as to say the brain damage definitely caused it, it is far more likely than not, and it certainly proves that steroids had absolutely nothing to do with it despite what the media likes to say. -Brandon Harwell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.201.55.10 (talk) 10:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I would say that I added a note that the steroid theory as to Chris Benoit's actions has been proven conclusively false.--12.201.55.10 08:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Brandon Harwell[reply]

International information.[edit]

I added significant facts about the Golden Ages and Japanese and Mexican wrestling pop culture heroes, but much more information is needed on non-American pro wrestling in this article, by someone with greater knowledge of it than me. -- Kevin Browning 07:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article covers information on American professional wrestling to the appropriate depth for the Professional wrestling in the United States article. It would therefore be more appropriate to replace that article with this one and begin a new "international" overview article from scratch. We already have separate articles on professional wrestling in Australia, Japan and UK. --202.180.172.85 01:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, good luck. This just goes to show you how undetermined the people here at wikipedia are. If you wanna waste time to cut and paste an article under a slightly different name, or merge sections, go ahead. As far as I'm concerned, this article covers many of the main points of professional wrestling and the focus should be on the content, not the title. But hey, do what you want.--Screwball23 talk 12:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Top Picture[edit]

Gotch/Hackenschmidt at Comiskey

I think the article is in dire need of a lead picture. Preferably something old looking to represent how old of a sport wrestling is. I thought the picture to the left would appropriatly fit the bill. Any suggestions?--Endless Dan 17:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That might work, but it needs a fair use rationale, or it might be deleted. It really should have one already. Nikki311 18:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe picture with all the important influences? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.187.176 (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't ask for citation.[edit]

I'm trying to ask for citation on a statement, but whenever I try to save it, it says that it's been filtered because it has a blacklisted link in it, when all I put was the regular {{fact}} that I normally put. Why is that?

This article has been dumbed down[edit]

It comes as no surprise to me that this article has been dumbed down in the last few months. The title was changed because it was easier to change the title than actually do research, and phrases have been dumbed down over and over again. Fakeness? Seriously, this was supposed to be the prime article for the WikiProject and retards decided to work against all that I did.

Forget it, I'm done with the entire Wikiproject. --Screwball23 talk 19:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:B137.jpg[edit]

The image Image:B137.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --11:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is professional wrestling like.[edit]

WRESTLING IS FAKE!!!. KMJ 09... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.183.139 (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ethnic terrors[edit]

Before my recent edit gets reverted, I would like to point out the fact that Arabs and Nazi villain characters were very common in wrestling during the early 1900s and all throughout the 80s and 90s (even Mohammed Hassan in the 2000s.) --Screwball23 talk 22:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SSS instead of SS in profe s s s ional[edit]

Taken from the redirect page; spasces added for emphasis:

American profe s s s ional wrestling


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Redirect page

Jump to: navigation, search


  1. REDIRECTHistory of professional wrestling in the United States76.170.88.72 (talk) 06:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on History of professional wrestling in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Professional_wrestling_in_the_United_States&oldid=1204932989"