Loss

Please ... just shut up. You are making things up completely out of thin air and you're well aware of that. What? Where did that come from? I was being serious, not making anything up at all. When did I -- or anyone else -- say anything that suggested that watching modern WWE is like eating a disgusting sandwich?

RVD/Lynn was, yes, but almost all ECW was overly calculated and manipulative, which was both endearing and annoying at the same time.

Please ... just shut up. You are making things up completely out of thin air and you're well aware of that.

http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/wrestlers.jpg

Reed has slipped, but not that much, and still looked pretty good. Same for Manny. I wonder if this is what prompted Watts to give Reed a shot in WCW shortly thereafter. Two 80s holdovers have a solid match. Interesting within the yearbook concept because I'm pretty sure both guys fell off the planet after 1992. Loving the post-match Manny interview.

Both are heatless matches based around limb work built around a babyface overcoming all odds to win. Sure you can.

The case for 1987 is pretty much in Crockett, Memphis and New Japan. There's not enough footage from Mexico, although what's out there is outstanding. All Japan and the WWF were clearly worse. There's more notable Joshi in 1997, but there were also way more promotions running. I would hear a case, but I lean toward '97. But I don't think it's a slam dunk.

Yes it's AAA, but I do have high hopes for this being awesome, as I really like all of these guys. The opening fall matwork between Panther and Solar was sensational, I could have watched that for another 30 minutes. There are some amazing wrestlers in this match. Super Astro stands out, like he always does, but WOW is Solar awesome. The best AAA match I've seen on any yearbook to date. Really good mix of high flying matwork, heel/face structure, comedy and brawling. Low-end MOTYC.

"Self conscious epic" would be like the HHH/Shawn "LOOK AT US, WE ARE BLEEDING AND WRESTLING FOR 45 MINUTES" HIAC in '04. Matches that don't feel organic because they tried too hard to be a forced classic.

And that gives me a good idea. How about a "Then and Now" comp? With every match in these, I'll try to pick a match from early 00s WWE that I think would make a good comparison. Everyone could watch them side by side and make the choice. It wouldn't even have to be a comp I guess, maybe just a pair of links. But I think it speaks more to the debate over quality than anything any of us could say without doing so at this point.

I think a good comparison match for Masters/McIntrye would be the HHH/Jericho match at Wrestlemania. Both matches are pretty much laid out the same way. I don't know which would look better with a side-by-side viewing, but I wouldn't expect the gap in either direction to be significant.

I would be more than happy and I will provide youtube links. My favorite "random" WWE match of the year so far is Chris Masters v. Drew MacIntrye http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hx560rlH8zs Well that was waaaaay better than I expected it to be. McIntyre is a guy that could be pushed as a new Barry Windham-type wrestler. I know Masters is the guy that's gotten the credit, and I thought he was solid, but Drew really showed superstar potential. There were a few awkward moments, but they came from trying too hard. The exact opposite of a self-conscious epic. This was a pretty earnest match with a few minor missteps, but overall a strong command of the basics. The match is built around a Masters knee injury with Drew building to a figure four, with Masters fighting him off and beginning his comeback. I don't want to overstate the case for this, but it's definitely a match worth watching. I will say it breaks my heart to see wrestlers working this hard and not getting much reaction, but when you have two guys putting this much thought into what they're doing, I can see how that becomes secondary. I'll continue watching when I can, or in between 1992 yearbook stuff when that starts to feel stale.

I think El-P is being unfairly picked on. The guy says plenty of positive things about wrestling and plenty of critical things about wrestling. He doesn't care for the modern stuff. Check out the yearbook threads.

Dylan, you've never provided any shortage of match recommendations, but for the purposes of this discussion, are there particular things you could recommend I watch? Maybe 5-10 matches? If so, I'll be happy to watch them and share my thoughts.

It's taking everything I have not to do the same here.

One of the values of the yearbook is that we can remove all the horseshit and keep the good stuff in order to enjoy the product. How is that any different than recording a RAW, watching the good stuff, fast forwarding through the shit and enjoying the good-great matches? If we were to do a yearbook for this year, leading up to the MITB Main Event, we would include Punk's Greatest Promo Ever, the contract signing, the Cena-Vince stuff and it would pay off. We would include a video package summing up the Sheamus-Mark Henry feud to get to the Summerslam match. With access to the internet, DVR, etc., you can easily understand a character, his motivations, the history of a feud without having to sit through it. There is no requirement that you have to sit through every promo to understand the workings of a match. Also, Dylan never said he ignored previous matches in the feud in judging a current match. He just chose to skip all the bullshit... something we have always done and continue to do with wrestling. To Dylan... I'll make that Punk/Cena comparison to Hart/Austin soon. (1) The yearbooks aren't a "best of". In fact, the yearbooks are all about placing everything in its proper context. Even there, it's the attempt, and it's an approach that has occasional gaps that have been pointed out. But it's a really good start. It's hardly a perfect way to watch wrestling. The perfect way would just be to go back and watch all wrestling that has ever happened that's available, but I would like to start a family, advance my career, take up tennis, go to concerts, read some books and generally pursue other interests before I die too, so no way am I doing that, nor am I guessing most will. (2) When did I say here that you have to sit through everything? I was debating the idea that those things are meaningless, not that you have to see them in full. I know you in particular see the value in video packages and have said so many times. I do too. So the argument isn't about what to sit through, as much as it is that I can't keep "in-ring" a separate thing, because booking and general presentation are things that either contribute to or take away from the in-ring for me. Not enough to prop up something bad on its own, but it is a way to make decent seem good, good seem great and great seem classic.

My problem with the "I don't watch wrestling for the angles and promos" point of view is that you're judging the entertainment value of a whole (WWE TV) based on a portion (in-ring). Of course, anything is good if you ignore the things that aren't good about it. It also really glosses over and downplays the effect good booking, good promos and good angles have on wrestling. Those things exist to make the wrestling seem better, and when done right, it works. I am incapable of divorcing wrestling from everything surrounding it, because the who matters. The why matters. The where sometimes matters. Counters and reversals may get over strong in a Misawa/Kawada match that would not work quite as well with two indy guys executing the sequence equally well in the exact same order, because they don't have the history of interaction that Misawa and Kawada have. To ignore booking, promos or angles is also to ignore the entire concept of a feud or series of matches. Part of a wrestling match. It ignores the value of a finish. Part of a wrestling match. It ignores the value of the history between the two wrestlers. Part of a wrestling match. Look at 2000 WWF. I don't doubt that the wrestling quality is better today -- not because I watch tons of modern WWE, but because quite a bit of the 2000 WWF, when looking at it now, doesn't seem as good as it did at the time. But part of what made the wrestling so good in 2000 was the booking, and I think it's a mistake to ignore that. For example, HHH was pushed hard in 2000. Really hard. And he got over. At the same time, it was his first major run on top, so he was still relatively new in the position. HHH was seen as a strong top guy, but not so much so that fans didn't believe he could be beaten. It's why a Jericho nearfall in a 2000 match meant so much more than a Jericho nearfall in a 2002 match (using that example because it's one I can think of where HHH faced a guy when both were hot, then they feuded later when both were cold). Because in 2000, there was a chance HHH could be beaten. In 2002, everyone knew better. Those things matter. That's not just exclusive to the U.S. stuff. I almost always see the All Japan heavies matches as better than the New Japan heavies matches. I'm hardly unique when it comes to that. But one thing that keeps me interested in New Japan heavyweight matches is that it's not always easy to call a winner -- I am a big fan of Riki Choshu as a booker. It's part of what makes the wrestling matches themselves interesting. I'm all for anyone watching wrestling the way they want to watch it. If that means removing all sense of context, so be it. Where I have disagreement is in taking that fragmented watching approach and using it to make arguments about the overall quality of an era. If the argument was that "For meaningless wrestling, this is pretty great" (and maybe that is the argument -- I don't want to create a strawman or misrepresent what Dylan is trying to say) it would resonate more than calling it "better" than an era that's more fondly remembered.

Rey is of course awesome. But I feel like to balance out the discussion, it should be mentioned that most of the 1992-1996 AAA trios matches he was part of opposite Juventud or Psicosis and company really don't hold up well at all. In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't mean much, but I don't think "he was always awesome" is accurate. I would say 1995 was his first great year, and a lot of the matches people praised at the time -- especially the touring matches in ECW and WAR -- don't look all that good today. Still, 16+ years of being awesome is a remarkable ride.

If Punk is going face, he'll inevitably team with Cena at some point. I hope that's hyped well and built up well instead of thrown out there without thought. If there's someone to team with Del Rio, that could even be used as a Vengeance main event or something. Maybe Miz?

There is still enough momentum in the feud to do a third Cena/Punk match. I can understand why they're keeping them separate for now, but I think that's my biggest disappointment, that they seem to be going in opposite directions now.

My God, it's been 10 years. Will the "What?" chants ever die?

Here's a positive: WWE used the angle as an excuse to lie to GLAAD and avoid a potential sponsor fallout regarding Punk's comments, and when Punk ended up sticking around, no one noticed.

I definitely don't think anyone should be expected to be a star on the level of Austin or Rock (or even Cena) to be considered over. I hope that wasn't how my point was construed, because that's a ridiculous standard that only a few wrestlers in history could achieve. I do think with anyone they put the title on, their goal should be to get them over at that level, whether they fail or succeed. Over in modern terms to me means someone who gets a bigger reaction than most other people on the show. There are plenty of guys on the modern scene who I think are perfectly okay that don't fall into that category -- Morrison (who's been going sideways forever) and Truth are the biggest examples. I personally haven't seen anything to suggest Del Rio is more over than they are. Your comparison was to Miz, which is an interesting comparison because I brought up Miz earlier myself. Miz I guess didn't work out as champ or he'd still be in the title picture. All I ever heard the entire time Miz was champ was how terrible he was for television ratings. Hearing Del Rio comparisons to Miz doesn't get me excited about his prospects, especially because Miz had the reality TV exposure that helped artificially shove him over the top that Del Rio doesn't have. I just feel like we've all seen this movie (Someone wins MITB and has a brief period of stardom before being forgotten about) that I don't think it's a particularly effective path to the top at this point. Again, Miz is the most recent comparison. He headlined Mania and won ... and then ended up in a feud with Alex Riley. Everyone gets a turn at the top in modern WWE. What ever happened to Wade Barrett and Sheamus? I have said more than once in this thread that I don't think this is a Punk burial. That's a separate argument. I just think it was not a compelling scenario. Yes, Punk can withstand it and stay over, and he likely will, but why is the threshold doing things Punk can withstand right now? There's no movement (or quite frankly, expectation from even their devoted fans) that they try to capitalize on the momentum he got. You don't have to tell me I'm not the target audience for WWE. I'm an early 30s affluent urban gay liberal; I am aware of this. There is nothing in that description that screams target audience for WWE. That said, I'm not sharing my opinions with WWE executives. I'm sharing them with a group of wrestling fans who come closest to watching wrestling the way I do. Can you explain how you think this point has relevance to the topic? I don't think you meant it this way, but it comes across as a personal comment. I don't think it's your style to come at people like that, which is why I'd like you to explain, if you don't mind. I agree with this. There has never been in history a successful wrestling turnaround built around the idea of luring back old fans. Angles designed to put people on top who were hot at one point tend to fall really flat and play to diminishing returns. The Attitude era is over, and it's not coming back. Competing wrestling promotions are not coming back anytime in this generation either. Some people have had a tougher time coping with that than others. But I do think there is ALWAYS value in looking at concepts that were tried in the past -- both those that did and didn't work -- and then trying to modify them to fit the times, cater to the target audience and add a few twists and tweaks. You could argue that's what all of wrestling is. There are certain basics of wrestling that you can apply to any era of wrestling from any country or promotion in any style that always make it good. Having a champion that feels like the absolute best guy on the roster (not necessarily the best worker, but a guy who could beat anyone anytime) is one of those things. To make it work, he has just enough vulnerability that you have a core group of other guys just below him who fans believe on the right night at their best could beat him. Not only is that element not very strong in WWE right now, it feels like it is 100% completely missing. WWE has historically been built around strong champions when they've been at their best (and sometimes even during dark periods), which is why the Del Rio win annoyed me. The initial intrigue of this that hooked me in was how strongly they put over the belt. That's why the tournament felt like such a strong detour. "Special" to me definitely doesn't mean shoot comments and indy appearances. I think that would have turned me off, not to mention that it probably would have gone over the head of their target audience. If anything, HHH's involvement has made this angle seem shootier than it was at one point. The contract signing full of terms like "heel" and "workrate" and even the ironic comment from Punk making fun of contract signings felt like a guy doing MST3K-style commentary making fun of wrestling during a wrestling show. It wasn't Russo-like, but it was like the worst Hall and Nash stuff. "Special" just meant there was a buzz from the fanbase that hadn't been there in a long time. Maybe that's still there to some degree. This thread having so much activity over a modern angle suggests there is still something. But again, as you said, WWE doesn't cater to fans like me, but fans like me seem to be the main ones digging this the most. Not to sound too much like Dave, but there has been no ratings increase and the preliminary buys for MITB didn't reflect the buzz. And I'll say it again (and again and again) -- this is the best thing WWE has done in a very long time. Punk's stock has risen, he had one of the best matches in company history at the last PPV and for a brief period, there was a genuine intrigue to me over where this was going next. But even if there are still people backing this, it's hard to argue that this has the same level of intrigue it had going into MITB. If it was working as well as I'd like (I'd love to see something like this work because it might encourage WWE to try shaking up the status quo a little more), the intrigue would have continued to build over the last two months instead of peaking a few weeks in.

Well if anyone was wondering how naming names with referees not being allowed names would be reconciled, you now have your answer.

I understand that point of view, and as I have said a few times in this thread, this is the best thing they've done in a long time. But it's still really bad. I do think announcing a tournament the night after the PPV was a big misstep, and to me, HHH replacing Vince was the moment when they did fuck it up. Not really much they can do to come back from that. If there's are positives, it's that Punk's stock has risen in the past couple of months and they had a great match last month on PPV. There is not a single other thing that I can point to as a positive.