anarchistxx

Which black wrestlers have I said 'strangely negative things' about except Scorpio? And my 'virulent racism' amounted to no more than three or four posts as a young teenager that were subsequently blown up out of proportion by a few IWC stalwarts, mostly from DVDVR; people like yourself who I seem to remember at one stage accusing numerous people of only not liking Mark Henry because he was a 'fat, sweaty black man' or something equally as poetic, which questions whether it's possible in your psyche to dislike a coloured wrestler without demonstrating racist undertones. As for 'not explaining how you got over it' - what do you want, a ten page thesis on how I was converted on wrestling sites I visit maybe twice a year? Opinions slowly morph over time, and usually its unexplainable. It isn't like I suddenly read 'To Kill A Mockingbird' and had an epiphany. I simply grew up. The darker implications of that particular episode was that four or five people, most notably you and the blessed Phil Schneider, men in their mid-late twenties with websites and seemingly busy lives, spent a month chasing a fifteen year old boy around the internet so they could castigate him for a few ignorant political statements he made. It says a lot about the state of your respective lives. What was most bizarre was the several others on Smarkschoice at the time making equally offensive statements; it was only the young teenager you pursued. Without wanting to sound like Resident Evil, that possibly indicates a desire to put down the easiest, youngest target (a form of bullying) - probably as an attempt to counteract the torment endured in your own lives and youths when you yourselves were the victims of abuse. I'm simply curious as to why nobody has mentioned it after 2005 except you, Schneider and the other dude that runs DVDVR whose name escapes me. Why are you so obsessed? Why do you care so much? Why does no other person care enough to ever bring it up?

Yawn. Six years on and you still have nothing better to do than try and incite reactions about offhand comments that have long faded into the past for anyone else. You really are a tragic little man. Guess it's a personal thing, he never had me rooting for him like I would the other faces of the period. He didn't seem interesting enough, which is possibly the lack of a well formed character. Even guys like Benoit and Malenko who are accused for lacking charisma seemed to have identities. It may just be that I haven't seen enough ECW, I don't think I've seen more than 10-15 matches from him in that promotion, although its all been the heavily pimped stuff. The Acolytes had more of a character, identity and purpose, though, and the Hardyz looked good and were at least vaguely contemporary.

^^^ Not sure I've seen that, but on a similar note, Kong/Nakano in the cage is phenomenal as I remember, I'd definitely want to see that included. Best finish to a cage match I've seen as well, with the huge dive from Bull and then sprinting out of the cage as fast as she can, instead of doing the usual suspenseful crawl.

I actually think something like the WM16 'Triangle Ladder Match' would be a better pick for this. Yeah, Shawn/Razor was the first major match in the style, but that tag match is the zenith for me, and the precursor to these endless multi-man ladder matches that the WWE has rolled out for years now. It's a violent, athletic, exciting and spectacular match with well defined character and a fantastic crowd. But it depends who this list is aiming towards; the general non-internet wrestling fan? (does such a thing exist anymore?) The guy just getting into Puro/Lucha/Classic wrestling who wants a guide of where to go first? The hardcore fan who wants to get any classic matches he's missed? I don't necessarily see the real point in a list like this, though it would be interesting as a Smarkschoice/DVDVR style poll. If 'Greatest Wrestler of All Time' is doable then 'Greatest Match of all Time' is fairly achievable, though 'Greatest Cage Match of all Time' or something similar would perhaps be a more manageable aim. Good match, but I'm not sure they achieved anything peak-ECW didn't do just as well. Joe/Necro from 2005 is a better option for me as a truly gory, violent match with a great story to boot. Plus, with the ROH/CZW match it is, a. Dependent on context a great deal, and the whole wrestling v hardcore thing that had been going on in the first half of the decade, not only between internet fans but with guys like Flair wading in. Probably the perfect time for it as well, with the Flair/Foley stuff and the ECW resurrection the year previous. That's what gives this match half of its heat, the very real disdain between fans of the two promotions. b. You probably have to watch some of the build up to get the most out of the match, which a project like this doesn't allow for (another reason why it's floored IMO) Again, this a very good PPV match - but what exactly makes it must see? There's no way this is more essential than Magnum/Tully or Bret/Owen or even Wargames 92 and Shawn/Taker if we are including gimmicked cell matches. It just didn't stand out to me at the time, maybe I need to rewatch. For contemporary stuff, I'd be tempted to nominate Jacobs/Whitmer if it didn't have BJ Whitmer in it. Fuck, I hate that guy, but loved Jimmy Jacobs at the time.

Given Vince McMahon's recent statements and the overall direction of the company, I wouldn't hold your breath for any 'classic wrestling' to be shown in any sort of quantity. I've got a feeling one of the major purposes of this channel will be to plug any movie/TV/general entertainment projects the company drifts into.

I think Kroffat/Furnas might have had some decent matches in WCW, but they certainly wouldn't have gone anywhere; it wasn't exactly a company with an incredible tag division. I'm not even convinced match wise they'd have done any better, aside from maybe a couple of reasonable pairings they could have faced like Booker/Stevie (who even still are a lot below Davey/Owen who they had some great tag matches with). Were they even that great of workers? Keeping in mind that in AJPW they were facing some of the greatest of all time. They clearly weren't totally carried, but they never repeated those performances on a wider scale. As for Scorpio and Snow, these two have exactly the right place in wrestling history for me. I think they were both vastly overrated as workers on the internet a few years ago. Scorpio especially, as although he can go in the ring, I find him to have a real lack of natural charisma and he doesn't have a great look either. Snow suffers from exactly the same problems, except he has slightly more charisma but slightly less ring talent. I think the main difference, as mentioned, is Douglas would do a ton of deadly looking shit then finish them off with this poor looking basic wrestling move. Rock's matches were usually more minimal in terms of stuff he did, so his finisher was able to get over as a deadly end to a match. There's also the big difference of context; ECW is a more gritty/ realistic, violent style of wrestling where such a tame finish comes across as underwhelming. WWE, on the other hand, is more cartoon, more polished and generally where they condition their audience to believe a certain thing and the audience dumbly goes along with it (hence Undertaker using a legdrop as a low-level move on the same card where Hogan is finishing top guys off with it).

Yeah, I guess. It has to have had a huge build to it, but be more about the spectacle than the content. More people remember Andre/Hogan I suspect than some of the perhaps technically superior matches on that card or around the time period, which is similar to more people remembering a big famous blockbuster than some cult classic French film that film enthusiasts think is the greatest thing ever shot. And even if they saw the French film, they probably wouldn't like it, as they're looking for easy escapism rather than more specific qualities as to what makes a great film. Clearly, the greatest films are the ones who are able to convey a compelling, memorable film whilst also containing the little elements in the acting and the pictures that more serious film watchers enjoy; just as the best wrestling matches of all time should be driving the live crowd and TV audience crazy as well as sucking in the smarks (is that still a useable phrase?). Who uses the match as the only unit of analyses? For a start, for anyone to actually care about the match itself there has to be some kind of emotional attachment with what is happening and the characters involved, which comes from the build, the booking/scripting and the personalities. This is the reason that when my mate put on an episode of Raw from early 2000 he'd downloaded recently I watched it and enjoyed it immensely; the in ring action was reasonable at best, but the fun part was watching all these unique characters that era provided that I myself had an emotional investment in at the time as a youngster. A day later, I thought I'd re-pique my interest in wrestling by watching Dream Rush that was randomly lying around waiting to be thrown out, and it wasn't nearly the same as I haven't been familiar with most of the undercard wrestlers and even for Nakano/Kong and the famous main event tag I had to remind myself the story behind the whole thing. Dream Rush is a fucking awesome event by all accounts, much better than some random WWF TV episode from the early 00s, which solidifies the point that even the best match is worthless without anything to care about or any reason. That's not to say Hogan/Andre is good though - it fulfills some criterion but fails on others (mainly, it's a slow, sloppy, terrible looking match). The reason it's even halfway watchable is the redeeming factors of the heat, the build and the two guys involved. An example of a far better version of this is the Matsomuto v Nagayo hair match from AJW in 1985. Two stars with massive crossover mainstream appeal wrestling a grudge match with something important on the line, in front of a huge, red hot crowd after a fantastic build. The difference in in ring quality between the two is phenomenal. It's possible to have a build like Hogan/Andre and a payoff that isn't sloppy and based on a spectacle. Essentially, a top match should contain all of the important elements, such as Rock/Austin at Wrestlemania 17 with the most iconic characters ever and a wonderfully built feud; or the 06/09/95 AJ tag, with all its various elements and the respective journeys the characters had been on over the past five years; or even the 2009 KENTA/Nakajima match, which I fucking loved even though it was the first match I'd seen in two years. Why? I cared about the characters and the dynamics, I dug the build up and bought them as top stars, and they worked a great story of a war of attrition that had been emotionally involved. Hogan/Andre contains some elements of a great feud/match, and as such it's rightly remembered more than some technically fantastic Benoit/Finlay match or indie flip-fest. It is, however, nowhere near being a great match, even if it's vaguely essential viewing for the blossoming wrestling fan. But as Dylan says, this should barely need an explanation, of course wrestling is about more than the match itself.

What a horrible comparison; Andre/Hogan isn't in the least analogous to Shakespearean literature. Shakespeare, however archaic, is at the very top of his genre both critically and commercially, and has formed at least somewhat of a blueprint for all stage writers since. His works are absolute classics. If you were to make an even tenuous connection to wrestling, it would be perhaps to sixty minute draws from the 70s and 80s, with guys like Flair, that to the connoisseur are exciting and fascinating, but to your average mainstream wrestling fan, conditioned only for today's product, would be beyond dull. Andre/Hogan is something totally different - it's historically important, as established, but it's also a poor match, and one that the contemporary viewer would still not enjoy. It isn't like Shakespeare; hard work, hard to understand but rewarding once given insight. Instead it's easy to watch, easy to understand, but just not very good, especially compared to the standard and style of wrestling in the modern era. It's almost impossible to equate this to historic literature/drama. Something like de Sade's Juliette shares a few similarities in that it's something famous in the genre, absolutely terribly written and a book that you want to have read but don't necessarily enjoy reading. Yet it's an incredibly daring, even groundbreaking work, words which categorically do not apply to Hogan/Andre. As is Looking Backward by Bellamy, similar in that it was the biggest seller of the time but doesn't really hold up today, and was possibly outshone by News From Nowhere (the Steamboat/Savage of the card). That doesn't work either, though; Looking Backward is highly important as a work of utopian fiction, not just as a literary event, in the way that Hogan/Andre just isn't important as a wrestling match rather than as a entertainment event. Even if music, it's hard to find something that was famous, important, commercially huge yet fairly awful. It's all subjective anyway. One thing is for sure; there is absolutely zero connection between the works of Shakespeare and the main event of Wrestlemania III.

It's not hard to figure out: the fanbase changed, and the product changed with it. Perhaps there was a certain loosening of attitudes in popular culture that allowed people to accept more risque characters, but that had been going on for decades.

Not watched Raw for years; were these people impersonating the politicians, or were the USA presidential candidates actually live on Raw making references to wrestlers? Pretty astonishing if it's the latter, especially for a company with the drug and death and health problems that WWE faced in those years.

If you read what I actually said, it was that I held those views for a short time three years ago in my youth, and haven't mentioned them since because they are simply not what I think anymore. If you read the original threads it only started to get ridiculous with people trying to wind the likes of Woodoo up. The point was the discussion of that incident didn't belong on this particular forum, given the name. But this is besides the point of the arguments here... Not true at all. The comments Bix made had nothing to do with me at all, I wasn't even posting on your board at that point. Any criticism's I have had of Mark Henry and Booker-T has been down to the fact I don't enjoy watching them work. I have made similar criticisms against numerous other guys at the time. If you can find any thread where I specifically put on those two guys unfairly, I'd like to see it. Neither are anywhere near MOTY contenders.

Wow. One of the guys who nobody had in the death pool. I am genuinely in shock.

At the time of my life, I regard wrestling as a long way behind... - Socialising - Clubbing/Going out - Travelling - Sport (Tennis, soccer) - Writing - Music - Making films - University - Theatre (Work) - Reading - Films/Television However, I still find time to watch maybe one match a week, sometimes more, often less. It's a nice way to spend half an hour. In 2005 my life was pretty boring, and I watched and bought a ton of wrestling, coinciding with the mass DVD era. I got burned out in 2006 when my own life picked up in activity, then I went travelling and working round the world for about a year, which meant I watched none or very little wrestling, excepting the periods where I returned home for some weeks. So what I'm saying is, I enjoy wrestling, but it is not a major part of my life. Still, I'm not one to use many websites, but I find myself drawn to a couple of wrestling sites/forums daily, which takes up around fifteen minutes, so I'm still a small part of the IWC.

Good article. In England, I have written that this problem here stems from University Professor's having to publish by requirement at least two research papers/journal articles a year, and it is generally specified that it is on a new subject. Since most of history has been exhausted, many have to come up with new hypothesis and theories that they may not believe just to satisfy their establishments. This is not restricted to academics, since many populist historians fall into the trap of constantly searching for a new angle. In some cases, such as the re-evaluation of Richard III it is perhaps a good thing, but only if it is backed by strong research and is not merely theory for theories sake. To relate this to wrestling, Dylan's post made a lot of sense; new angles being presented to make new talking points, or simply to have something to say.

I'm sure S.L.L. will be asking you to prove it. Wait...

No, since I'm not prepared to trawl through tons of old threads, many of which are on forums that no longer exist anymore. It's just the way I remember it. Well most people seemed to go pretty crazy about the Wrestlemania match (which wasn't any level above what he's done in other post comeback years) so I think things are changing. Again, I don't know enough. Again, I remember it otherwise, but to prove it so would be a long and tedious process. I recall Phil and Tomk saying Henry was decent, and the bandwagon jumpers going crazy and overexaggerating him completely. The problem starts when people start saying, and I quote, "people who don't like Mark Henry don't like him because he's fat, black and sweaty". So far we've proved I can't/won't prove anything. Can you prove that they weren't calling him one of the best workers in the company? (Regarding Moves) Well, not in as many words, but if you put in a search for 'moves~!' or whatever on the DVDVR (for instance) search engine, I'm sure you would find hundreds of results. The phrase itself applies ridicule in the way it's executed, and the refusal of people to accept that others didn't like Jerry Lawler matches because his offence was shit. Possibly. One example is the Mayweather/Show match, which was good for novelty value but nowhere near MOTY type quality. Phil offers profuse praise, next thing you know it's on all his readers' MOTY lists. The same thing with the John Cena arguments. I'm sure if you go back to Non-Stick era DVDVR you will dinf the majority criticising him. Can you prove people don't follow their opinions? Can you prove otherwise? It's counter-productive though, because once everyone agrees with Phil or Tomk or anyone...well, the interaction stops. The argument about Cena being a great worker is a major example of a thing where now, you're not allowed to have a constructive argument in many places on the issue, because you will either get ridiculed for liking him (he sucks, no offence, no variation etc) or in some quarters (DVDVR) you will get ridiculed for not liking him ('sorry he doesn't do enough movez~!', 'if you don't like Cena you don't like wrestling' etc).

Thing is, Rob strikes me as really apathetic about wrestling these days, and doesn't care enough to argue his points to the death. A lot of the people, who got burned out in the middle of the mass DVD era, I would wager feel the same was as him. I am certainly one of them. These were pre-set opinions that are sensible and arguable (i.e Mark Henry is rubbish). The whole thing got a bit ridiculous with people calling Henry a Top 5 WWE worker and saying everyone on the roster was better than HBK (though that train of thought certainly seems to have turned), and I think people got sick of arguing these points they thought of as absurdities. Which left the people who held those opinions with nobody to argue with, and thus discussion fades etc in a cycle that has seen the wrestling internet become predictable and inactive, only lifted by DVD projects and occassional major polls. This is by the by, and indeed I have digressed so much that I'm not sure what the original point was, which could well be the point. To me, I think things should become more moderate. Henry is a serviceable worker. HBK is a consistently decent worker. Moves can enhance a match (ROH 2004). Overkill and too many moves without a place or reason can damage the match, and further matches on the card (ROH 2006). People resort to extreme opinions to rile people up, spice things up, look 'cool' (if this is at all possible when discussing obscure Japanese Indy wrestling matches etc), to get noticed, or merely to follow the trends started up by the likes of Phil, Tomk and other 'respected' reviewers and commentators who can do no wrong. The middle ground is usual the correct ground in the long run, and there are usually merits to both sides of an argument. I've rambled too long...

My bad then, I don't really trawl the wrestling internet any longer, when I was more active it was a bit of a backlash. I wholeheartedly agree with Rob's sentiments in those linked threads though.

1-2-3 Kid/Razor Ramon v Diesel/Shawn Michaels (Disc 1) (30/10/95 WWF) This was again a blast, not without it's fault. The biggest of those was Shawn Michaels kicking out of far too much and with some real suspect selling, including being back on offence ten seconds after a Razor's Edge. No denying the pacing and variation here, you have Nash doing a diving shoulder block, and everyone pretty much exhausts their move sets. Never mind the haters, moves (sorry, should that be movez~!) are cool, I'll take this over minimalist any day. I'm over exaggerating though, since it isn't like we've got Kobashi in there, and these guys are really limited in terms of offence usually (minus Waltman)...luckily there's four of them and no wasted time. Interesting that I rate this the same as the Guerrero/Barr/Santo/Octagon tag that I never got into...thing is, I can recognize how great they both are, even if I prefer this more. Neither are among the truly great tag matches. A note on star ratings; they apparently suck and are uniformly ridiculed now. For me, they are still extremely useful as a gage to the quality of a match when a. Not wanting to read spoilers before you buy, and b. Comparing it to other bouts. ****

I'm sure everyone has matches for them how this is for me. By that I mean a match where they can watch from a distance, and see a great match unfolding, but not connecting with it at all. This just didn't do it for me, and I can;t put my finger on why. Two great rudos, two great technicos, two of the greatest of all time in their prime, technically excellent, varied offence...and I still didn't get into it. It's clearly not a bad match, so where the emotional pull went is beyond me. Shame, since I really wanted to love it. I get the feeling most people would go crazy over it though, so...****

Picked Volume 1 of this up a couple of weeks back to restart my interest in Pro Wres as well as the PWO comp which I'm nearly through. My random thoughts on soome of the matches here... Low-Ki v Hotstuff Hernandez (Disc 1) (22/04/07 IWA-MS) Bald ugly big guy against bald ugly little guy. I much prefer Low Ki when he's heeling it up and spitting at his opponents, rather than here when he plays the pseudo-martial-arts character who's pretty stiff but makes BJ Whitmer look charismatic. One view of the crowd leads me to suspect it's chock full of life's losers, and my suspicions are confirmed as they sneak in both a 'Kobashi' and a 'This is awesome' chant before this one is out. The setting is really perfect for this kind of match, blood stained mat probably carrying some sort of sexually transmitted infection, dimly lit, you can tell they paid less that $250 to rent this building, and if not they were fucking robbed. If only we had seen a crazed southern crowd throwing things, chewing tobacco and generally threatening a riot. All said, this was a whole load of fun. They basically stiff fuck out of each other for fifteen minutes, with some cool size based spots thrown in along the way. The best thing about pseudo-martial-arts Ki is that he doesn't mind selling, absolutely throwing himself about here, most notable for an insane choke-hold-into-overhead-suplex. This is Ki though, so you know he's going over, and it feels a bit of a let down considering the beatings he's taken, and when he's only responded with a few admittedly cool kicks. ***3/4