Jump to content
Pro Wrestling Only

World's Worst Man

Members
  • Posts

    397
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by World's Worst Man

  1. I think it all depends on how the match plays out. I've seen matches where a guy will work a body part for no other reason than to use that to create an opening for himself. Or he'll use it for a fall back if he ever gets into trouble. Like if a guy works a leg for a bit, right before he wants to hit a big move, he'll attack the leg, then quickly transition into his big offense. Or a guy will work a leg, and if he starts falling behind in the match, he'll counter-attack the leg to get out of trouble. As long as that sort psychology is played up, I have no problem with working a body-part that doesn't figure into the finish. As long as it makes sense, it's fine with me.
  2. I posted this on my blog, Loss suggested I make it a topic. This is just a bunch of stuff that I feel is necessary in all forms of pro-wrestling. Some people say you can't compare different wrestling styles. I say nonsense. While different styles require one to look for different things, there are a number of criteria that are constant in all forms of pro-wrestling. Once that is known, all that is left in order to compare the different styles of pro-wrestling is to decide whether one match does a better job in its genre's specific criteria than the next. This is of course all my opinion, in case the reader is one of those who get offended whenever one doesn't add "In my opinion" at the end of every line they type. So here are four fairly general criteria, that I try to apply to every wrestling match I see. Selling. Without selling, pro-wrestling falls apart. Afterall, how is one able to simulate a real fight, when none of the techniques do any damage? This is perhaps the most important aspect to good pro-wrestling matches, yet so many completely ignore it when it's convenient. Great selling creates drama - One wrestler is getting dominated, only to reverse the tables with a big move. Both men are down, who will gain the upper hand? Great selling creates a greater sense of realism - Thrity minutes into the match, both men are slowing down, showing visible signs of fatigue and damage. Selling is the one of the best ways to make a wrestler or move look credible. It also makes the seller look good, if he can come back after being visibly hurt. Selling is important, and it's a shame that so many "fans" simply disregard the relevance of it, claiming it's "smarky overanalysis" whenever selling issues are mentioned. Building/Setting Up Spots. Building and/or setting up spots is an important component of wrestling logic. It doesn't make sense for a wrestler to rattle off a bunch of easily blockable/counterable spots, early in a match. The opponent isn't fatigued/damaged enough to be susceptible, so it doesn't make any sense for him to "allow" himself to be hit with those moves. This is where long-term build comes into play. Keeping spots for later in the match, when the opponent is more fatigued/damage, and thus more susceptible to the move. On the other hand, there's setting up spots in the short term. Using strikes or counters to setup a spot. This is generally, not a big problem for most wrestlers. However, there are some who don't seem to get this concept. As an example, without naming names, I recently saw a match where the wrestlers were in neutral positions, opposite one another. One of the combatants simply walked up to his opponent, grabbed him, and suplexed him. I don't think I need to explain the absurdity of that situation. Suffice to say, this is something else that ties into the logic of pro-wrestling. Competent execution. Simply put, making the moves and strikes look somewhat realistic and painful. If it's a brawl, the emphasis is on good-looking striking and creating an illusion of a struggle. If it's a technical match, the emphasis is on creating matwork that doesn't look completely contrived, and hitting moves that look somewhat painful to the opponent, without looking painful to the user. If this isn't present, the wrestling isn't believable. Which then makes the selling seem absurd. Transitions are also something that falls under this subject. Basically, properly changing the direction of a match. The wrestler's swap control segments, the match moves from a "feeling out" phase to a "control" phase, etc. Story. The story of the match. Two men, struggling on the mat, trying to wear their opponent down so they can hit their own big moves. A heel dominating the face, while the face attempts to fight his way back. A larger opponent trying to force his will on the smaller, quicker opponent, while the quicker wrestler tries to use his speed to his advantage. And countless other storylines that are played out in pro-wrestling matches. Without a story, why are they wrestling? Edit - I also feel the story needs to somewhat clearly defined. There's a million things one could infer from a pro-wrestling match, but a lot of it would be so small and obscure that it would be doubtful that the wrestlers were actually going for that. If the story bits are clearly defined, there's almost no room for that doubt. These are basically the standards that I apply to all wrestling matches. The latter two topics have their own specific criteria based on what style of pro-wrestling is being used. As long as one doesn't try to apply a specific criteria to every pro-wrestling match, it is no problem to compare different styles of wrestling. And I must admit that there are occasionally times where one or more of the basic criteria are lacking, for perfectly acceptable reasons. I'd rather not get into that now, because it would likely take a lot of time to go through them all. But I'd certainly welcome any discussion about specific exceptions to the rule, or any discussion about this subject period.
  3. 1995 was actually a fairly disappointing BOSJ league. Benoit and Guerrero's semi-final was rather lackluster, as was Benoit and Otani's final. Both nights it just seemed to be an off-night for all of the guys involved, which is quite a coincidence considering they were all probably top10 workers at the time. Otani and Kanemoto managed to have a great match in one of the semi-finals, which is ironic since Kanemoto wasn't even close to Benoit or Guerrero. Oh Well. I'm watching the 1995 G1 Climax at the moment. Really nothing to talk about so far, through the first part of the set. Chono and Flair had a fairly dull, but otherwise alright 30 minute draw. For some reason, Koshinaka went over Muto clean (Muto was IWGP Champ at the time). Muto and Chono then had a bloody match that wasn't all that well-wrestled, but looked like they'd have a hot story, but the ending came before it even got a chance to get going. Not a very good league so far.
  4. Kurt Angle - Most overrated wrestler ever. Has obvious selling flaws and doesn't setup his spots very well. He's better at short matches, and gets to be barely passable in long matches. Shawn Michaels - Another guy with selling issues. Is more worried about getting himself over than putting the opponent over. Quite overrated himself, but not as much as Angle. AJ Styles - Really spotty, but has shown that he can "keep it in his pants" and wrestle fundamentally sound if he wants to. He generally needs to be matched up against a good worker to have a good match though, otherwise he tends to go nuts against lesser opponents. Christopher Daniels - Fairly good worker, he sometimes gets a little spotty. Like AJ, is hit or miss, but he's a bit more consistent. Kenta Kobashi - Still a very good worker. His biggest flaw is the no-selling nonsense, but it's not a huge mark against him, because unlike Angle, he clearly knows how to sell, but he decides to use the fighting spirit stuff as a shortcut for building drama. Basically, if Kobashi is wrestling a "big match style" (vs. Sasaki, Akiyama etc) he isn't all that good due to the selling/spottiness nonsense. If he's wrestling lesser matches (ones that a lot of people don't actually see, like w/ Hashi vs. Akiyama/Kanemaru), he's still legitimately great. John Bradshaw Layfield - Seems alright, but that's it. He looks good against good workers, but he can't elevate a match against a lesser worker. A perfectly acceptable wreslter compared to some of the stiffs in the E. Necro Butcher - Sloppy. Actually seems to have ok psychology, but past that he doesn't bring anything to the table. Honma and Yamakawa from 99-2000 kill him as far as deathmatch workers go. If Necro wasn't taking sick bumps, he'd be a dime a dozen guy.
  5. Once the DVDVR Best matches of the 80's get around to those categories (which may be quite some time), I'd get involved in the discussion. Otherwise I don't have the footage outside of the WWF stuff and some fairly "standard" oldschool stuff to be able to discuss it at any length.
  6. I definitely think 6/9/95 is the best standalone match out of the 5. You probably don't even need to see any leadup matches to see that it's the real deal. On the other hand, you kind of need to see the leadup matches to 6/3/94 and 12/6/96, otherwise you would never "get" a lot of the story that's being told. To me, that makes 6/9/95 the better match, while the others had the better overall story. Hokuto vs. Kandori I haven't seen in a long, long time. I have it here on DVD, just gotta get around to watching it. The Dream Rush tag I didn't even think was *****, because of some minor selling issues and sloppiness. I wouldn't put it up there with these other matches. A for other matches, Kobashi vs. Misawa 1/20/97 is probably #4 on my list, behind the 3 previously mentioned AJPW matches. I'd put their 10/21/97 match up there too, along with Kobashi vs. Hansen (7/29/93). Liger vs. Otani (2/9/97) is probably the best juniors match I've seen, but I didn't give it the full monty, so it's not up with those AJ matches. I also have yet to see their 1996 match in full, but I have it on DVD now, so things may change. So 1. 6/9/95 2. 6/3/94 3. 12/6/96 4. 1/20/97 5. 10/21/97 I don't want to put Hokuto-Kandori up there without watching it again.
  7. I saw the Benoit-Booker and Juvi-Kash matches. Benoit-Booker was a slight bit better than their 2nd match, but nothing to write home about. A good match, but dime-a-dozen for some promotions. The reports of Juvi-Kash must be greatly exagerrated because of how the crowd reacted or something. It was really just kind of an average match, but it certainly didn't deserve to get shitted on. They pretty much did the best they could given the time and creativity restrictions they have to deal with.
  8. Hogan was passable when he wanted to be. I wouldn't ever dream of calling him good though, just because it just wasn't there. Even when he was doing technical wrestling, his work was just not effective. His selling wasn't very good, his offense looked awful and his "technical" matches never had any story telling.
  9. 1981 was Brody & Snuka vs. The Funks, which was a great match in its own right. 1988 was just short of the full monty for me just due to how one-sided it was. That's alright in terms of the story, but didn't create enough back and forth drama in the match.
  10. I don't think Race's physical stature would hurt him in the eyes of the fans, but he'd never get a serious push in the WWE. That says to me that Vince McMahon is to blame, not the fans. Small guys can make it if they're talented, it's just a matter of being booked well. It seems redundant to always bring these guys up, but Austin, Bret Hart, HBK, Benoit, Guerrero were all guys who did well for themselves despite not being physically big. All of them had the talent and charisma to succeed. Then look at a guy like Lex Luger, who was pushed for years, yet never had any sort of large following. He had no ability or charisma, and he failed, despite having a ripped physique.
  11. I think Rey could get a believable title run based on a fluke win over a bigger guy. He's over enough that people wouldn't shit on him, and a flukey rollup/surprise type win isn't something that's going to make people question the logic of a guy the size of Rey beating a guy the size of Kane or UT. He can never beat the "skilled" giants consistently though, it just wouldn't make any sense. But a short title reign, maybe with a couple defenses against smaller guys and another flukey win over a big guy wouldn't be the end of the world.
  12. If guys are booked as high end wrestlers, meaning they're given wins and made to look good, people will think they're "skilled". So in Rey's case, people think he has ability and skill, so if he challenges a bigger guy who's booked like a jobber (unskilled), Rey winning would be expected. But if he faces a bigger guy who's also been strongly booked (skilled), then Rey would be expected to lose, while putting up a good fight. Just like boxing or MMA really. Royce Gracie beats a bunch of stiffs that outweigh him by 60 pounds. If he fought a Nogueira-caliber guy, that outweighs him by 60 pounds, he might not get blown out, but he still clearly loses. Size can make up for small differences in skill, but if one guy is much better than the next, it won't matter what the size difference is.
  13. I can't defend the Special K guys, or most of the ROH undercard types you're talking about, just because very few of them are actually decent. But I'd argue that the real issue is ability and ring attire, as opposed to size. Just to use your high-spot argument as an example, it wouldn't be a stretch to believe that a small wrestler could hit a large wrestler with a dive, as long as it was properly setup. Meaning if it was preceded by weardown holds and other moves that would stun the opponent. Then it works with the "worn down wrestlers are open to big moves" logic. But a lot of these guys don't do that, either because they don't know how or they're not able to for whatever reason. Then there's also the matter of carrying one's self as a wrestler, which means having wrestling ability along with looking credible (proper ring attire or whatever). KENTA's announced weight is 176 pounds, and I'd say that's generous. But he's a hell of a worker, and he looks convincing in the ring, so his size isn't a big deal. So yea, I don't think the size matters, at least not to me. Gene Snitsky to me is no more credible than some ROH undercard guy, because he's absolute garbage in the ring.
  14. The people who complain about wrestlers being too small should watch some MMA. Then I would ask if they think Kid Yamamoto is too small to be taken seriously, considering he could murder them in a real fight. Not to mention the fights where a small guy is competitive with an equally skilled bigger guy, despite eventually losing. So knowing that, what's so difficult about watching 2 150-180 pound guys wrestling each other? Or a 170 pound guy putting up a good fight against a 250 pound guy? The real world proves that it happens, so why is it so a leap in logic to believe it can happen that way in pro-wrestling? One might know that the 150 pound ROH undercard wrestler has no real fighting skills, and would probably get beaten up against a 200+ pound guy. But one also knows that wrestling is pre-determined, yet they suspend their disbelief anyway. Believing the wrestlers can really wrestle is just part of that suspension of disbelief.
  15. If Benoit vs. Booker from Smackdown was great, I've probably seen about 15 very great to best match ever candidates this year. But I digress. It was a good match. They really didn't build it well, as they were throwing spots out almost immediately. It seemed like they wanted to fit all of the offense into the allotted time, which they didn't have enough of. If they went 20, they would have had some time to actually make some of those spots meaningful. There was no real story going on in the early portions either, although the they built up to the ending really, really well. This is another contender for WWE TV MOTY, and probably the 4th or 5th one that Benoit has been involved in.
  16. Kobashi probably meant more to those fans than Hogan did to the WMX8 fans, so I don't see how one is alright, but the other isn't. It was basically a once in a lifetime opportunity to see Kobashi live. With that being said, the chant was kind of lame that early. But in the end, I didn't care. I watch wrestling to see good wrestling. The crowd, commentary or wrestling ring (give me a break ) has nothing to do with how well the wrestlers are performing.
  17. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a password protected forum. Enter Password
  18. Feud of the Year - Jun Akiyama and Makoto Hashi's teacher vs. student storyline. Story of the Year - Guerrero/Hashimoto's death. Hashimoto's death was a bigger deal in Japan than Guerrero's was in the US, but Guerrero's was a bigger deal world wide. Company of the Year - NOAH Best Champion - Satoshi Kojima Most Popular Wrestler - Kenta Kobashi Most Hated - Triple H Overall Best Wrestler - Samoa Joe Most Improved - Go Shiozaki Rookie of the Year - Go Shiozaki (Debuted 2nd half of 2004, so I'd consider him a rookie) Tag Team of the Year - I don't know for this one. KENTA & Marufuji broke up half way through, Nakamura & Tanashi didn't do anything for the 2nd half. No one else has really been lighting it up. WWE MVP - Batista. Doesn't seem to have lost his heat. TNA MVP - Samoa Joe RoH MVP - CM Punk. The Rave feud and world title run were both money. Really close call here. Puro MVP - First instinct is to say Kojima, but All Japan doesn't seem to draw. Taking Kobashi seems like a copout. I'll say Satoshi Kojima.
  19. I always took it to mean pro-wrestling ability, which includes everything, not just the spot:resthold ratio. Although I guess there's backlash against the term these days, because of its "traditional" meaning. It's probably one of those terms that one should clarify their definition of when using it. Anyway, the ROH slagging is pretty much nonsensical to me. They generally put out 2-3 quality matches a show, and the rest is typical indy stuff/thrown together crap. And you can pretty much tell which matches will be worth watching, and which won't. There's basically a handful of ROH wrestlers who are churning out the good stuff. So how is that different than any other competent promotion? The crap in TNA is just as bad as the crap in ROH, but TNA's best stuff isn't even sniffing ROH's best stuff. Ever watch a whole NOAH show? Usually 2 good matches, 1 or 2 passable matches, the rest is horrible. Why ROH is held to a higher standard, I do not know. It's like I said before. Compare ROH or NOAH's junk to WWE's junk, and you'd never know why those promotions utterly kill WWE's product. Compare best on best, and it's blatantly obvious.
  20. Can I skip some categories?
  21. KENTA & Marufuji vs. Hidaka & Fujita 5/8 Akiyama & Kanemaru vs. Kobashi & Hashi 8/19 8/19 takes all of the Kobashi/Go tag matches from this year, and tears them to shreds. 5/8 just tears everything to shreds
  22. Not to mention the marginally above-average matches get tons of praise, when they are still marginally above-average matches Going out of one's way to see a **3/4 match gets mind-numbing after a while. For me, anyway.
  23. On the last tour of Japan, their 2 shows drew 50% and 70% houses. Just a little fun fact. I don't really care who watches what. People can watch whatever they want and be entertained by whatever they want. What I have a problem with is people who still cling to the WWE and claim that it's a good product and that they put on great matches. Because the difference is, in the latter case, they can't really intelligently defend their position, while the other side of the debate can. One can draw their own conclusions about that. I will say, if people do think the WWE to be terrible, they shouldn't watch it. I can see watching a show every now and then just to make sure it's still terrible, but watching regularly doesn't make any sense. There just doesn't seem to be anything to gain by watching a god awful TV program.
  24. You're talking about an elimination series. Those are always good fun and would have worked perfectly in the scenario you stated. New Japan likes to run these, because they usually have 2 stables pitted against each other. Unless there's a reason to have those matches (like 2 groups fighting each other), they're pointless though. But seeing as how WWE has the Smackdown vs. RAW thing going, they could easily do a match like that involving the 2 groups. They might not produce very good stand-alone matches, but the series as a whole usually has some good story-telling going on.
  25. If it's a 16 man elimination match, going 104 minutes isn't a big problem. In fact, matches like that need to go a long time, otherwise they're terribly illogical. If you do the math, it actually works out to one elimination every 7 minutes or so, which seems very reasonable. A lot more reasonable than having 7-8 guys get eliminated in a 2 minute stretch, being beaten with moves that would never end a normal match (which was the case with a recent 16-man match from Mexico that I saw). Now if it was singles, or a tag match, then going 104 minutes would almost certainly be a big strokefest.
×
×
  • Create New...