anarchistxx

If you think that's why ROH has failed you are deluded. ROH has failed because of; - top stars leaving - a style that is popular only with a niche - that niche being increasingly able to watch the product illegally for free more quickly and in better quality - lack of good characters to complement the good workers - poor business decisions - poor production - poor booking team/s for much of the last few years Among many, many other reasons. Mainly it has probably failed because as a business model, creating a product that caters mainly to smarks and hardcores just isn't profitable in the long term, especially when you try to overreach. It's lasted about as long as ECW in its Heyman incarnation. When you lose your talent and fresh ideas and momentum it's hard to carry on. They lost Samoa Joe, CM Punk, Bryan Danielson, Low Ki, Homicide, James Gibson and others in the space of a couple of years. That's a whole lot of top level talent - that two of those workers are now the two most over wrestlers in the WWE is testament to how good they were. I and others simply lost interest when it was clear the replacements were nowhere near as entertaining. As for the original post, I'd say that clean finishes certainly help a big match because they're definitive. Nothing worse than a match with a huge build ending in an anticlimactic DQ or no contest. It's also clear that there are other finishes which can help a feud or match. It really depends on the circumstance.

How absurdly patronising. Wrestling is 'supposed' to work as profitable entertainment. Whichever way that aim is achieved. ROH fans couldn't care less about wins and loses - they just want to see good matches. That is how wrestling 'works' for them. And there isn't anything wrong with that.

So it looks like Brock is jobbing again at Summerslam. HBK has clearly been added to the feud so Brock can job but stay somewhat strong, as presumably the finish will include outside interference. Stay strong, that is, so whoever he jobs to next will still get a rub. McMahon really is a self serving bastard, he's ruined what could potentially have been a fantastic years run. And it's also hurt himself, as if Lesnar went unbeaten it's a huge boost for whoever finally got the victory over him.

I think people are underestimating Benoit here. He was incredibly over with the crowd, often more than anyone else on the show. His pops were huge, he could work a good match with pretty much anyone, they needed a fresh face at the top. I think he was sort of ruined by not going one on one with Shawn at Backlash - the crowd absolutely despised Michaels that night and were ridiculously behind Benoit. HHH was just a distraction to the real story. A clean win over HBK would have really kept the momentum going. And to call his title win simply a 'gold watch' assumes that there were other, more attractive options at the time to hold the belt. The opposite is true - the only potential title holders on Raw at that time were; Triple-H (had pretty much had the strap for two years, stale) HBK (didn't work a full schedule) Booker-T (never really considered a top guy by management) RVD (backstage issues) Kane (stale to the point where he wasn't a legitimate guy who could carry the company) Chris Jericho (first title reign considered a failure) Randy Orton (too young, too early) He was crazy over, he could work, he was loyal - clearly the best candidate at the time to bring some freshness to the belt. If anything felt forced it was Mysterio's reign in 2006 - everybody knew he wouldn't have got anywhere near the title if it hadn't been for Eddie dying and the story of him 'doing it for my friend'. There are parallels, too, in that he was only allowed to beat truly top guys in a triple threat environment. I don't think either Guerrero, Benoit or Mysterio ever got a clean win against a truly top guy. Of the three it was Benoit who was pushed the most in his tenure - The Rock tapped to him more than once as did Kurt Angle, Trips, Shawn etc. I don't think HBK or HHH would have gone down to Guerrero, which is why I think Benoit's reign was far from just a 'golden watch'.

Um, at no stage did I say that Shane McMahon was more credible than Rey Mysterio. The point I made was that Shane McMahon holding his own, using weapons, in a brawl against an already exhausted Kurt Angle, was no less believable than a tiny guy like Rey Mysterio getting in a lot of offence against a 500LB monster. There were extenuating circumstances as to why Shane was able to somewhat hold his own, and since the ending was him getting pretty decimated then I don't see the problem. And there's also the fact that Shane, rightly or wrongly, has always been presented as fairly competitive, willing to put his body on the line to compete. He isn't like a referee where the slightest touch knocks him down for the next ten minutes. LT beating Bigelow at WMIX is a far bigger insult to wrestling fans than Shane knocking Angle down with weapon shots. A little different, firstly because Butterbean was a 'specialist' in a different discipline, and also far past his prime and overweight and generally a bit of a joke by that point. Big Show is a guy who has run through pretty much all the big names in the company. I'm not saying it's unbelievable that Mysterio could compete with him, only that it's no less believable than Shane McMahon putting up a fight against Kurt Angle.

It's not beyond the realms of possibility for the viewer to believe that Shane engaged in some training before stepping into the ring. Is it really expected he would have agreed to a match otherwise? Rey might be a trained athlete; but a featherweight boxer beating a heavyweight boxer in the ring is to me no more absurd than a regular guy beating a boxer in a bar fight, as an analogy. Come off it, we live in the age of the internet. I'm sure most wrestling fans are aware of TNA somehow. TNA actually gets better ratings than WWE over here.

This kind of discussion would appear fairly absurd to general smart fans and general wrestling fans who see HBK as a lock for the top ten of all time. Then again, to the general population 99% of discussion on a forum like this seems absurd, so what's new. This has been going on for years really, in 2005 people were claiming Rosey was a better worker than Michaels. So the whole argument has become slightly silly and oversone and not, for me, worth having. The people who think Michaels os overrated aren't budging, and neither are the ones who think their viewpoint is ridiculous. I personally would include Michaels in a mandatory top hundred of all time - he's been in too many matches I enjoyed to claim otherwise, although I suppose if I'd seen every worldwide pimped worker as much as I'd seen Michaels it might be somewhat closer (although that does mean I've seen his worst stuff as well as his best, which isn't something I could say for the Puro workers I'm into).

A journalist writing about UK actor/celebrity/personality Stephen Fry once quipped that he was 'a stupid persons idea of what an intelligent person is like'. I can't seem to paraphrase it into what I mean here, but basically I think Kurt Angle is the wrestling example of that. Having said that, I still think he is better over his career than John Cena. I suppose I am now what would be termed a casual fan; I watch the occasional PPV, the odd highly regarded match from Japan, a couple of times a year I dig my old DVDs out and watch old things. So for me it comes down to who I would rather watch in a ten minute match when I’ve taken the time out to view some grappling. The answer is unequivocally Kurt Angle. I know ‘I’d just rather watch him’ is a reductive, straightforward way of assessing the issue, although that is what it boils down to in essence. But to enter the spirit of the debate, here's a few badly worded bulleted arguments for Kurt being the better worker; - I like fast paced matches with lots of reversals, twists and turns, little downtime, and dare I say it a good range of offence and lots of moves. Angle provides that, albeit often at the expense of story, selling and subtlety. We shouldn’t discount how much questions like this come down to personal taste. I know minimalist wrestling is in vogue now, evidenced by fairly limited athletes like Jerry Lawler getting universally praised due to other elements they bring to the table, and guys working grumpy veteran style like Bubba Dudley are valued more than people like Angle who work more like traditional internet superworkers. But Angle's matches are more entertaining to me; his formula is more enjoyable than Cena's. - Cena is the better seller generally, but not by the margin some here are suggesting. Even though he sells better in a match, he still doesn't mind blowing the work off to run through his largely lame comeback routine. It's not as bad or as formulaic as Hogan, but it can still get pretty intelligence insulting. I've seen him take severe beatings that he blows off to blast out a five knuckle shuffle. The Lesnar match is a good example of him getting battered the full match, selling it brilliantly, and then it all turning out worthless. Angle, on the other hand, just eschews selling generally, although I find that easier to ignore for some reason. And Kurt can sell; the Summerslam 2001 match with Austin where he's bleeding all over the place before mounting a desperate, fiery comeback is a prime exa,mple. As is the rematch at Unforgiven, which is even built around Angle selling the neck and fervently avoiding Austin's attempts at a piledriver. The best comparison for Summerslam is Cena/Umaga I suppose, a match I enjoyed considerably less, although the major difference is that Cena was carrying Umaga, whereas Angle was the one being carried by Austin. . It’s almost like Angle was better before he started believing the hype about how good he was, and decided he needed to put on a 'ring clinic' instead of focusing on selling. - The major reason is that I just don't find Cena believable as a character or as a worker. His acting is phony, his character is phony. Angle is a better talker – Cena’s promos are, again, cheesy, phoney, scripted, fake, unbelievable. He could never pull off all the goofy comedy that Angle was involved in 2000-2002 without people cringing from embarrassment. Angle does intense better as well - Cena just appears cliched, over the top, whereas Angle makes you believe he's angry, motivated and wants to fuck shit up out there. Angle also seems more like a legitimate badass; his moves look effective and often violent, he's athletic - he seems to me like a competitor, whereas when I watch Cena all I see is someone playing at being a cartoon hero, which stops me enjoying his matches. Angle was awesome in 2006 as the 'wrestling machine', ploughing through guys and being presented as unstoppable. It actually reigned in his worst qualities of overdoing things and underselling things, as he was booked to go short, hard and not give much away. - Angle also seems more versatile; he can fly off cages, he can mat wrestle, he can have WWE style main events with dozens of near falls, he can brawl. With Cena you know exactly what you're getting, and it takes some like like Punk or Lesnar to inspire him into something different. Maybe Angle is very predictable now; I wouldn't know as I haven't seen him regularly for years (although I did see the brawl with Jarrett which was excellent). But circa 2000 to 2004 Angle could work anywhere on the card, with anyone, and put on something at least vaguely entertaining on a base level. Cena also had two of the most unmemorable Wrestlemania title matches in history, against Miz and JBL. I get the feeling that Angle would have at least pulled something out of the ordinary/crazy out to differentiate the matches. I also don't understand why some people are so opposed to Shane getting in so much offence at King of the Ring. Angle had wrestled two hard matches already that night, and in a wild, no holds barred fight it isn't too out of the question that Shane would be able to mount some sort of attack. It's certainly no more unbelievable than, say, Rey Mysterio having a competitive match with Big Show. I’m not sure if I’m really best placed to argue this one anyway; I haven’t seen either guy on a week to week basis for six years or more, although I have seen the pimped matches. So my argument isn’t that Angle is a better worker now, more that he’s a better worker in an all time sense. I also think, unless there has been a ridiculous sea change in the last couple of years, that Angle would be considered by a country mile the better worker by most internet fans (do we even use that term anymore? Are all fans internet fans now?). Just look at comments in YouTube videos and on most forums to see how hated Cena is, and how much of a scapegoat he is for the current product. Most people still think Angle to be a very good worker, if not the superworker he was perceived as in most smart circles circa-2005. One thing cena does have is a sense of occasion; the Punk match last year exemplified that, helped as it was by being in Chicago and by Punk’s excellent promos in the buildup. Angle has no mystique, his matches don’t feel like an event anymore, if ever. The last one that did is probably Angle/Michaels a Wrestlemania, or Angle/Joe for the internet fans who just wanted to see their dream match. I guess as I've got older I've become less interested in dissecting a match, and more interested in a match that can suck me in, feature some cool shit, go back and forth etc. Neither of these guys would crack my top fifty of all time, and maybe not even my top hundred, although I've seen next to no Mexican wrestling.

That can't be the case at the top level, surely? I'm certain WWE will carry a pretty sizable wardrobe and makeup department around with them.

Nothing is boosting business for WWE at the minute; I don't think there are many if any people they could bring in and get a huge buy rate. Lesnar v Cena with only three weeks of build isn't going to change that. WWE is stupid to think otherwise. It might just be that WWE has reached its limit of people who will pay for their product. There is no data for people (like me) who watched it illegally on streams and on torrents in the days afterwards. I'd wager far more people watched the stream of Over The Limit than, for example, Elimination Chamber. But I have no way of proving that. Either way, there really isn't a whole lot you can do to make those people pay for the show. And yes, having Cena going over was still an absurdly bad decision. Because it looked ridiculous in the context of the feud and match, making Lesnar look weak. Because Cena jobbed to one of the least over guys on the roster two weeks earlier. Because Cena jobbed to a punch a month later, to a non-wrestler. Because Lesnar is brought in as a monster heel then jobs to Cena straight out. Because they could have got more money out of a rematch, with the easy storyline of Cena raising his game to gain revenge.

From the shows I've seen, Jericho has been excellent lately. He stands out as far and away one of the best actor/promo guys on the roster still, Orton seemed so forced and wooden next to him in the duel PPV interview. The feud with Punk was nowhere near as bad as people said, the matches were great and the alcohol angle was really fun for me. I'm very surprised at the stick he's gotten lately. Thought he was excellent in the four way last night too, his facials, his trash talking, his timing, he stood out to me as the best worker in the ring. I haven't seen a whole lot of criticism of him, except from people on here, and this place is a real bubble in terms of even the general smart fan consensus.

Punk had a few matches in the indies better than that, the 10/16 Samoa Joe match is a long way ahead. The Cena match last year was better too, maybe not due to the ring work but because it was an incredibly hot angle, his hometown and the ending was perfect. Still, fun match, especially working that style in that context and having it get over. Fun to see the two guys get a good amount of time on a big WWE show, they've earned it. Daniel Bryan is all kinds of fun, he almost persuades me to watch full time. Almost, because then I'd have to sit through junk like the rancid main event on a regular basis.

As someone who was nine in 1999, I can tell you that me and all of my friends absolutely loved Crash Holly and thought he was hilarious, even moreso when he was involved in all the ridiculous 24/7 hardcore title stuff. None of us could have cared less about Goldberg or WCW in general. Whether we'd have seen Goldberg as the more exciting guy had he had WWF booking is debatable, but Crash was one of the five or ten wrestlers we all loved. The whole undercard back then was great. Alright, it was often juvenile, and the in ring stuff maybe wasn't great, but as a kid caught up in the boom you absolutely went crazy for even guys like Venus, D-Lo, X-Pac, Hardy Boyz etc and even dudes like Bossman, Test, Billy Gunn et al were over in their own way. By 2000 with the Radicalz, Too Cool being absurdly over, Kurt Angle, Jericho...you just had an undercard all involved in storylines, all with character traits, and all eliciting a reaction. Russo has to deserve some credit for that.

If they really do have him for a year, a good way to keep him fresh and at least somewhat interesting is to have him work with a different guy every month. They have fresh matches with Punk, Orton, Bryan, Sheamus, Henry, Rey, Jericho, HHH and rematches with Undertaker and Rock. The win last night pretty much killed Lesnar's unstoppable monster aura, not just the win but the fact Cena was left standing and triumphant at the end of the event. The only way to keep him compelling is to throw fresh matches at him quickly and at each PPV.

Looks like HHH will be beating Brock too at some point after what happened last night, whether it's at Wrestlemania or sooner. It'll be almost hilarious (and just like Vince) if the only reason they have brought Lesnar back is to job him out to all of their top guys as revenge for him walking out on them and becoming credible elsewhere,

I don't agree with this particularly. If you're building up a monster heel it makes sense that he's unstoppable for a while - because who you're really protecting is the top face who finally stops him. If CM Punk or Randy Orton or whoever they want to give a huge rub to beats Lesnar now it's much less impactful, given that he's already lost. And not only lost, lost to a guy who lost his own last two big matches, one to a guy who the fans remember as perennial jobber Albert. Even if they want to give the rub to Cena for beating Brock, it makes much more sense to have him get destroyed first time around, and then come back rejuvenated and finally beat the guy who took him out. Rather than in a match with just a few weeks build. That's disregarding the fact that the finish was stupid in the context of the match; the chain shot and the FU were pretty much the only offensive moves Cena hit in the entire twenty minutes. For him to get completely squashed all match and then recover to win with a couple of moves just didn't make sense. It made Lesnar look weak. It wasn't even a flash pin where they could paint is as a fluke or Lesnar losing concentration, it was decisive. Lesnar throws everything at Cena and can't put him away, Cena hits a couple of moves and Brock is finished. That's how the casual fan sees this.

So the main event was superb as well. Lesnar was just insanely good in this. His grin of delight and arms raise celebration after he flew out of the ring. Lifting the referee with one hand and tossing him back in the ring. Wiping Cena’s blood down his body. You totally bought him as a vicious badass who actively enjoys causing pain. Understated too, not like your typical WWE monster heel. Not sure it did much for WWEs involvement in anti-bullying campaingns but highly enjoyable to watch. The whole match was stiff as fuck, two hardway cuts. And then Cena goes and wins. What an anticlimax. They build Brock up, both before and during the match as an unstoppable monster, and then he loses clean to the guy who jobbed to Albert two weeks ago. Unbelievably stupid. What a downer to end on. Presumably Lesnar gets the win back at the next event; if not they've just destroyed their biggest draw in one night. EDIT: But damn, this closing promo Cena is giving with blood running down his face turned the crowd, probably the best he's done in years. Still doesn't change the fact that very much the wrong man won. The more I think of it the Tensai job the other night was probably Cena's punishment/compromise for refusing to job tonight. Perhaps that's why he's off for a while, suspension/dispute over tonight's result, from the sound of his promo he's taking a lot of time off. The sensible result was Lesnar destroying him tonight and Cena getting his win back at Wrestlemania.

Didn't even notice this was on until I saw stuff trending on Twitter. Gutted to have missed Bryan/Sheamus, sounds awesome. Just caught most of Punk/Jericho and by fuck was it awesome. Crowd was super hot, solidly behind Punk and the match itself delivered. Love the fact they wrestled in kind of street gear, really added something to the feel of the match. The table spot was great, everything was really crisp in execution and looked brutal. There were cool ideas like the fire extinguisher counter to the Walls of Jericho, some of the nearfalls sucked me in, especially the Anaconda Vice. Easily the best match I've seen since Punk/Cena last year. Brilliant stuff, had me marking out in a room on my own at 3AM watching a pixellated stream. I don't really get the dynamic of this main event; is Lesnar meant to be heel, face or in the middle? Cena seems full on tweener at this point, they spent a lot of time before the match picking up the dueling chants in the crowd. Lesnar doesn't look anywhere near as ripped as he has been. EDIT: Man, a helpless Cena being towelled of blood while Lesnar laughs in the background is the best image in the WWE in years, this is awesome.

It's no different than the 'talk backs' we used to have one night a week during every theatre performance run we did. The actors and director would be on stage and people could stay behind and talk to them about the play and ask questions etc. Always drew a good crowd and was interesting. Everyone at a ROH show knows/accepts wrestling is fake. It can't be business exposing if the business has long been exposed. It's a good idea if people are willing to pay for it.

I actually prefer the Summerslam match at Wembley to the overblown Wrestlemania epic. The Warrior/Rude series of matches are much better than both though, especially the Summerslam 89 classic, Warrior never had a better match than that. Rude and Heenan's promo before the match is gold too. "you won't need any of your stupid face paint after this match, because you'll have a blue eye and a black eye courtesy of the intercontinental champion" Something along those lines anyway.

The best commentary job for IWA I heard was in the first Necro/Joe match, with Dave Prazak, Eddie Kingston and Punk calling things. Besides the numerous (and hilarious) Rob Naylor name drops, they sell everything like crazy, but not in a contrived way, sounding disbelieving at just marking the fuck out for everything. Instead of them trying to be all epic and talking about 'what a gut check' or some ROH call where they put all the selling and stuff other in cliches and analysis, you just have Kingston screaming "He just kicked him right in the fucking head!!!". Really adds to the craziness and spontaneity of the match.

I'd pay good money for an IWA comp. One of those promotions I never took enough notice of when it was churning out great stuff, most of us were to caught up in ROH and then PWG and even Chikara around that period to see more than the really pimped stuff (e.g. Joe/Necro). Seems like the epitome of awesome hardcore wrestling fandom, sleazy, dirty, half full gym halls, blood, gore, ridiculous bumps, distorted sound, crazy feel. The amount of good stuff in US indy wrestling period from 2000 to 2006 is pretty spectacular actually.

There was an official comp with matches from Samoa Joe's first year in the company, and everything on that was really good as I recall. Back when Joe was motivated and people were bandying about that he was the best in the world. The triple threat with Daniels and AJ still holds up too, and I despise Daniels. As long as you don't go in expecting the Meltzer 5* classic, and just settle for a fun spot fest that has brilliant timing and fluidity for all its flaws. Otherwise, there was a cage match involving AMW and Elix Skipper/Daniels that was really fun, including this spot which still looks incredible today . Only seen very sporadically since 2005/2006, I remember there being a pretty decent Jarrett/Angle match with quite a lot of blood on one of the GoodHelmet sets. I've watched Impact two or three times this year (it's on terrestrial in the UK so you occasionally come across it channel flicking), and for match quality TNA is such an awful promotion. I was astonished when I saw people pimping these Bubba Ray Dudley matches that seemed so terrible to me, people were actually suggesting this guy had become a great worker. That's probably an argument for the decline in match quality standards thread though.

I don't think you'll find any especially great matches in that period, mostly since the majority of his outings were in only vaguely competetive squash matches. The difference (and what got a lot of people excited) was just how fun and destructive his squash matches were. The majority of squash matches in the modern era tend to be pedestrian, boring and don't really do a whole lot to get the new dominant heel over (Lord Tensai last monday for instance). Whereas Brock's were fast, and he actually looked like he was throwing these guys around violently. You bought him as the unstoppable monster. Having said that, him and RVD had a surprisingly fun match at King of the Ring (but even this only went five or six minutes), and the rematch at Vengeance wasn't bad either if you ignore the terrible finish. I guess whether you enjoy Lesnar's initial work comes down to whether you like wimpies. It wasn't until the Summerslam match with The Rock and the cell match with Taker where people began saying Lesnar was a top level worker in addition to being an awesome character and spectacle. I don't think he's going to be anywhere near as entertaining this time around. Part of the fun was that he was so much faster and more athletic than your usual monster heel. Given he's ten years older and a whole lot less motivated, it's unlikely you'll see as much of that. If they're smart they will keep his matches short and violent and fast. If he's working face you don't want him taking offence or ten minutes, and if he's working heel he won't be able to carry a ten minute control segment. I'd agree with this. It certainly plays to the aforementioned strengths of working fast, violent athletically impressive matches. Him throwing Show around was a great spectacle and given the size of both men they didn't need to work a long match as long as they brought the bombs early. Turning him heel and having Show beat him (even with help from Heyman) was a bad idea though. I don't think anyone outside of Eddie has gelled with Show as well as Brock did, the broken ring match was great too. In a two year period, to have had great matches with Rock, Benoit, Undertaker, Angle (debatable for some I know) and Show is pretty impressive. The variety as styles he went up against shows what a versatile worker he was, and in there you have great WWE style main events (v Rock), violent bloodbaths (v Taker), monster heel v underdog face (v Eddie) and more 'technical' matches with plenty of reversals and submissions (v Benoit/Angle). Plus he's also having serviceable matches with a young Cena among others on TV and more minor PPVs. His resume is pretty impressive.

Saying they 'don't exist' is simply shorthand for you saying you personally wouldn't rate them on the same level. They exist for me, although I'll admit it's a few years since I watched any Nitro. I haven't got a record of stuff I watched and loved, but in 1996 alone I remember a load of matches with Rey/Malenko, Rey/Ultimo, Benoit/Guerrero, Benoit/Regal, Finlay/Regal, a few Benoit/Anderson tags sometimes with Flair involved, Juventud was in some fun stuff. Now a lot of these are just fun sprints and pretty short from what I remember, but that doesn't make them any worse for it. They fall into the same category of Punk/Henry - enjoyable matches all the more pleasing for being on free television. Not match of the year contenders (although you could make a case for the July 8th Rey/Malenko match and the Benoit/Guerrero bouts as being lower end candidates). As for Raw in 1996, I'd put Austin/Vader, Bret/Goldust, Owen/Mero on a similar level from the disc or two I watched lately, I wouldn't be surprised if other gems showed up if I explored the year further. Just because you watched it all lately and changed your opinion on it doesn't mean I'd feel the same on a rewatch. We have widely differing tastes. Where and when did I say Raw was having 'weekly classics'? If anyone is using hyperbole here it's you. The whole point of the argument was that you were arguing Punk/Henry as a great match and I (among others) thought it was merely decent. And by that measuring stick, there are many 'decent' matches on Raw during this period. That's the argument. Your definition of 'good' may not correspond with everyone else's. Have you not considered that people may genuinely watch mid-late 90s TV matches and prefer them to the stuff you trot out as being good from the last few years? We all look for different things in our wrestling. I for one struggle to engage with modern WWE matches because the workers give me no reason to care. Charisma, character and uniqueness are thin on the ground. People like Ziggler, Swagger, Barrett, they're interchangeable. They might be competent workers putting together decent matches on paper but they struggle to put them over in the ring to a guy like myself. A singer with a great range and a nice voice might objectively sing 'Blowin In The Wind' better than Bob Dylan with his crackly whine, but their version will never hold a candle to the original because they can never match Dylan's feel and emotion that he was able to put into it. Which is probably why you prefer watching Jerry Lawler to Davey Richards; one can technically and athletically do a lot more but the other makes the limited stuff that he can do much more important. The workers from the 90s were more varied and distinctive than the workers today. They engage me more, so I enjoy their stuff far more than a bland, modern worker who ostensibly seems to be working a better structure, with better looking offense etc. That's just bullshit. I'm far from an AJPW fetishist - if anything, I prefer NJPW and AJW from that period. But the matches across those three promotions from 92-96 do absolutely slay anything going on today. And unless you're a WWE fanboy (like yourself) or someone who loves Davey Richards style ROH main events it's hard to argue. If those three feds were churning out quality matches week on week today the WWE product would look even worse. They get overrated by optimists because there really is nothing else to jump on these days, especially now it's become uncool to like spotfests and Davey Richards style main events. Dylan, you’re the wrestling fan equivalent of a music poptimist. Your usual obsessive music fan (obsessive wrestling fan) will like a few pop songs (WWE matches) a year, enjoying the production (layout) and the lyrics/personality of the pop star (story/selling/character work). They will argue that the particular pop song stands out from the crowd in terms of fun, replay value and is enjoyably catchy rather than annoyingly so, or has depth beyond that of the usual pop song. Often the producer and songwriters (backstage agents) get the credit. As big music fans they take a pride in listening to every genre (styles and promotions) and they pride themselves on their eclectic taste. The poptimist will go further. He/she will enjoy the majority of mainstream chart songs (WWE matches). While the general music fan will find most pop music empty of emotion, boring, derivative, repetitive and formulaic, the poptimist will insist that there are hidden depths to the songs. The general music fan will concede to enjoying the occasional big Beyonce single (the occasional well built, well constructed main event), but the poptimist will insist that even the album tracks (TV matches) are worthy of attention as more than filler, and in many cases outstrip the more popular mainstream song. I will easily concede that Dylan has seen a lot more wrestling than me; he has probably watched more matches some weeks than I’ve watched in five years. That doesn’t change the fact that he has specific tastes (that don’t mesh with mine). He’s probably the biggest WWE fan out of all the mega smarks (i.e. internet wrestling fans who watch Puro and old stuff). He’s also a huge Mark Henry fan. Given those two facts, it’s unsurprising that even a moderately impressive Mark Henry match on WWE TV gets the hyperbolic treatment from him. While Dylan is a great writer and extremely knowledgeable, he’s not someone I would ever take a match recommendation from since he seems so caught up in the styles/workers that he likes. And that’s fine, you likes what you likes and I like what I like. At this stage in my fandom, I like spotfests, hardcore brawls. Dare I say it, I like to watch someone with a massive moveset doing interesting counters and taking huge bumps from athletic offence. If possible it makes sense and builds suspense and isn't just my move your move. I’d much sooner watch the Young Bucks or the Briscoes or Necro Butcher than anyone on WWE television, because they’re exciting, have good, well defined characters, are extremely over and have matches with a lot of heat at a fast pace. I’d much sooner watch WCW cruisers than Jerry Lawler, it's a style that requires less of me. If that makes me a fan stuck in 2004 than so be it. And that doesn’t mean I like Davey Richards; I saw a couple of his matches at a friend’s and they were overlong and over the top. I think he has a good look, works an impressive/stiff style but needs to be reined in by the booking. I’m not really sure where I’m going with all this. It’s 4AM over here, so I’m beginning to ramble and the coffee is wearing off, so I’ll just leave it at this series of scrambled thoughts. Wrestling is subjective anyway – there is a Rock v Rikishi match from late 2000 that I would rate in the top ten in the history of the company, which probably seems far more absurd than calling Henry/Punk an early MOTY contender. Just remember that your opinions (i.e. saying that American TV matches from the mid 90s better than Punk/Henry categorically 'don't exist') are simply opinions and not facts. It's all down to personal taste.