Loss

Really great and well-written. I want to elaborate and comment on a few things you said. I agree that any match can be compared to any other match, as long as both matches are worked. Usually, people who argue that you can't compare are people who also have a "greatest match of all time" in their minds, which means that in one way or another, they've thought about what they've seen and decided that one match in one era was better than another match in another (or possibly the same) era. Of course, some also take this line of thinking too far. Context is important, but it's not a crutch. You're not going to see Rey Jr.-style highspots in a 1970s AJPW match, but you might see 70s highspots built in similar fashion with the same goals and results. I think when people say you can't make comparisons, they're typically people who think that one of the aspects of a good match is the difficulty and variety of moves, which I think means absolutely nothing. I'll talk a little more about this later. Agreed. Selling is the most important aspect of pro wrestling. I often talk wrestling with people who don't quite grasp what psychology is, or they categorize it into "ring psychology" and "crowd psychology". Truthfully, good psychology, at its core, is nothing more than good selling and logical strategy. The other argument you often hear is that casual fans don't care about psychology, which usually means the person doesn't know what psychology is as well. Casual fans will react to a lack of logic in a match almost every time out, sometimes even more so than we who are accused of overanalyzing it. Bad psychology is being able to kip up after having your back pounded on for 20 minutes or executing picture-perfect dropkicks after having your knee worked over for the majority of the match. There's also what's called "Test" selling, where moves are executed normally and all the selling takes place between moves. That's not good selling either. Good selling affects the direction the match takes, it doesn't just mean that you shouldn't forget to hold your arm or limp. Again, agreed. There are exceptions, as you pointed out. My favorite example of this is the Arn/Tully v Luger/Windham match from Clash I. Luger wants an early win, and after a clothesline and powerslam, immediately attempts the torture rack. It doesn't work and leaves him as face in peril, which doesn't defy the logic at all, and gets over the point that despite Luger's best efforts, he's not going to win the tag titles for his team by throwing the big guns out immediately. That - in turn - gets the match over and makes the stuff before the false finishes kick in down the final stretch carry some meaning. That last part is where I think the WWE style fails overall. Between the opening bell and the babyface comeback working to the finish, there isn't much work of consequence going on. Shawn Michaels matches often start with headlocks, for example, because that's what long matches are supposed to do. Seriously, of all the guys to criticize CM Punk for working like he's in a "simulated" match, Michaels, who works every match in that "simulated" style, is the worst guy to be throwing that criticism. Agreed. Now, about moves. I don't care if the wrestler has a lot of offense, as long as they can do everything clean that they do attempt and as long as they aren't repeating the same sequences over and over because they don't know what else to do. I've heard people complain that the problem with WWE style is the toned-down moveset, when honestly, that makes no difference to me whatsoever. The problem for me is that so many of the same moves are used in every match up and down the card to set up the same spots and the same finishes. Variety is important in getting matches over as unique to me, but not necessarily in showing off athletic ability. However, I always get the impression that TNA fans just care about highspots, which is why everyone in the promotion except Evil Owner Jeff Jarrett gets babyface pops. Very true. Expanding on this, a lot is often made about matches playing off of each other, as that was a staple of 1990s AJPW. You do hear claims sometimes that WWE matches do this, but I don't think they ever do this, and if they do, it's not intentional at all. I can honestly say that aside from Slaughter/Sheik on 06/16/84, Bret/Taker from ONO '97 and Rock/Jericho at Vengeance '01, I've never seen a WWF/E match play into another match where it was obvious that it was a purposeful spot. Sometimes, it seems like it is, but that doesn't mean it is. If the announcers aren't playing it up, I tend to think it was just coincidental. And of the three examples I mentioned, only one (Bret/Taker) actually has the announcers explaining how successful Summerslam strategy is affecting the way ONO is worked. Well said. I do think heat is important as well, but I also think that needs some explanation. There is difference between noise and heat. The Worldwide Arena crowd in WCW had signs telling them who and when to cheer or boo, but it was terribly obvious to viewers at home how phony and contrived it was. The matches had incredible noise, but no emotion, which was obvious. Then there are plenty of matches like Kawada/Muto on 02/24/02 that are incredibly heated, but the work is so subpar that it doesn't really matter. In a case like that, they could be having any shitty match under the sun and the fans would pop because of the personalities involved. Then, there are matches like Benoit/Malenko at Hog Wild '96 that someone always inevitably mentions as an example of a good match that the crowd hates. I don't think this example really applies at all, because it was a non-wrestling crowd that didn't even pay for tickets, nor were they even vaguely familiar with the product. Put that match practically anywhere else and I guarantee you the heat would have been off the charts when they kept extending the time limit. There are cases when the wrestlers are doing everything they should be doing and the crowd just doesn't respond. That's not the fault of the wrestlers. To me, heat factoring into match quality is important when it's the direct result of something that has happened in the match. It's an enhancement, and it can make the difference between *** and ***1/2 for me in some cases.

Samoa Joe v Bryan Danielson - ROH MX Reunion 10/02/04 This match seems to be in the shadow of Joe/Punk I & II, which is a shame, because I think it's a better match than both of those. Easily the best match I've ever seen in ROH, an all-time classic, and my choice for 2004 MOTY, unless there's still something out there I need to see from that year (I guess I need to see Joe/Punk III). I'm going to do a full review of this in the very near future, along with some other stuff, but at this point, I'd call this ****3/4. I think the main difference is that Joe/Punk telegraphed the 60-minute draw for me on both occasions due to the pacing. While the action was great, I didn't think any of the nearfalls were all that believable until late in the match, and there also weren't as many pin attempts as you'd expect in that environment. When there was a pin attempt, it was off of a cradle or rollup, which I think did little to put over the great offense in the match, in both cases. I understand that it was believed at that point that the best strategy against Joe would be a quick pin since you couldn't go toe-to-toe with him and succeed, but he was also the one not attempting pins after big moves when you'd think he would. Danielson/Joe didn't have that problem, as the match was built more toward a finish than a series of sequences, with each move being a little more dangerous than the one before it. Sure, there were quick pin attempts mixed in, but they didn't do it at the expense of the match itself. The heat in the building when the fans thought they were about to see something really historic was very awesome. Danielson also is so head and shoulders above Punk in every way in this match -- the coughing selling, the crowd interaction that doesn't kill the rhythm of the match, the counters ... it was a much more believable "chase" than that of Punk. And while I sound like I'm burying Joe/Punk, I'm really not, it's just that the flaws I noticed in both of those matches were huge strengths of this match, which may be causing me to like it more and overrate it. But it was an incredible match worth going out of your way to see, whether this opinion sticks with me down the road or not.

There's also the option of turning Matt Hardy, but he'd need six months of a really big push before anyone would buy him against Batista. I think Benoit/Hardy would be a nice program for both after the Best of 7 runs its course, actually. They've had good chemistry in the past.

Batista/Benoit would be the better route, I think. Why, when their talent roster is probably thinner than it's been at any point since 1996-1997, they would keep some of their best talent away from main events is beyond me. Benoit/Orton as heels against Batista/Taker/Rey makes the most sense.

I haven't watched any Eddy since he passed away, but I'd imagine it will be surreal at the very least, just as it was watching Perfect/Bossman from WM 7 knowing both guys are dead, or as it is watching any number of matches from World Class.

I just watched Bret/Yokozuna from Wrestlemania IX. I'll be damned if Bret doesn't give quite the amazing performance there, despite the fact that Yoko is horrible. Proof that Bret at his peak could have a *** with anything, animate or inanimate. Had Yoko been even halfway game, this would have been remembered as a very good main event, just because Bret was FEELING IT. The Hogan crap after the match, to this day, still pisses me off, though. There's lots of unintentional humor in that last segment, with Savage saying nary a word during Hogan's post-match celebration, choosing to stand up and give rather sarcastic applause instead. And when they do the final wide shot, being outdoors, the sky, which had been beautiful and sunny all day, starts to get a little darker.

Agreed. And if you book with the idea of making everyone a star, no one is. So much parity booking in WWE the last few years that people have come to expect wrestling to be that way, where there aren't any ruffled feathers on or off screen and people just coast along trading wins back and forth on every PPV before moving on to something else. If you look back on companies with multiple singles titles, there has always been a reason for them. The Intercontinental title was a belt that got pushed when WWE started running two sets of house shows and needed another strong belt to headline the B shows. In the early 90s, it morphed more into a belt for guys climbing the ladder and when Russo started booking, it became a prop and lost all meaning. It really doesn't serve any type of purpose at all and is not reflective of the company pushing a wrestler, despite the arguments of someone who will typically point to an IC title reign as proof of the company getting behind a wrestler, when it usually means dick all. And in WCW, the TV title was originally created just because Crockett would be getting a cable deal soon and wanted a belt that could be defended on television to draw ratings, without giving away too many big matches and killing any reason to come to house shows. The US title had roots in the territory as the top title (merged with the National title in August of '85) and still meant something in the Mid Atlantic area and was capable of drawing. Not that it would have happened by '85 or so, but if the Board of Directors pulled a power play to get the belt off of Flair, they still had their top title held by one of their top stars, and it had lineage for local fans and could draw. When Lex Luger won the World title while holding the US title in 1991, the belt lost all meaning and was a prop for the next 10 years, just as it has been in WWE since getting revived. Secondary titles in a national wrestling company where there's only one touring group are really meaningless. It's just a wrestling standard that was based on a territory business model where house shows are the main source of revenue that was applied to a national business model based on television ratings and pay-per-views, to little or no success.

Meltzer has said the standing ovation was staged by the company with plants standing up to give Benoit the ovation and everyone else in the crowd following suit. Not that that takes away from the moment at all, since it was a moment created by the company that was appropriate, and not that it didn't accomplish what would appear to be the goal of getting the match and/or Benoit over.

Just goes to show that you never really know who's going to be a star and who isn't early in their careers. Austin, Rock, Flair and Hogan were pegged as definite superstars of the future pretty early in their careers, but there have been plenty of others to get the same hype, only to disappoint.

I think Benoit/Angle is a pretty good match, but I also think it works better if you watch the entire Royal Rumble show, good and bad, than if you watch the match on its own. The key thing to remember is that they were following the worst World title match the company had put on in quite some time, the crowd had turned on the show, and they were in the PPV equivalent of the SNME death spot and had to get the crowd back on track. That they succeeded is a major credit to them. Now, as a match, it's good, but it's not one I'd call an all-time favorite or anything, just because Benoit is working on such a different plane than Angle that it makes the match uneven. I think this is more of a great performance from Benoit than it is a great wrestling match. The Rumble, as a whole, seemed like a colossal failure to me because the booking set up the show to get the following guys over: Kurt Angle Brock Lesnar Chris Benoit Chris Jericho Scott Steiner They were so close, and I think with Angle and Lesnar, they did an admirable job, but they just squandered Benoit for months after this when he had momentum and they could have expanded on it, and I still think Steiner was purposely buried by HHH because he was getting over in that spot, so it was decided that he'd be exposed in a 20-minute match to "prove" that he didn't need to be in that spot. And Jericho was turning in one of the two or three strongest Rumble performances ever (there was a 15-20 minute stretch with Jericho/Los Guerreros/Hardyz/Rob Van Dam/Edge/Misterio/Nowinski that is probably my favorite 20 minutes of a battle royal EVER) when they ruined it all by doing the Michaels run in and having Test be the one to eliminate him. The Rumble that year was built around Jericho attempting to beat the longevity record and also follow in Shawn's footsteps as the second guy to ever draw #1 and still win. They made him #2, for no discernable reason except to make it seem less impressive, then eliminated him early when a Jericho/Lesnar finale would have helped both guys tremendously, since Jericho would have been far able better to bump for Brock than Taker and there would have been a logical reason for either guy to win. Just one of many missed opportunities from the last few years.

I watched Wrestlemania VII. Really well-booked, well-paced card, top to bottom. Opener was fun, but nothing that was going to steal the show, but it did set a nice tone. Harts/Nastys was also better than it gets credit for. I also liked how in their effort to get as many people on the show as possible to get the WM payoff, instead of doing multiple three-ways and four-ways that suck and have zero heat, they kept a revolving door beside Gorilla Monsoon at the announce booth and had guys coming out all night and doing commentary with him, with Heenan doing most of it to ease into his post-managerial role. I think the biggest surprise on the whole show for me was Perfect/Bossman. Really nice match, and Boss Man was in AWESOME shape, probably the best I've ever seen him in. This wasn't really a Wrestlemania match, though, which I think is where it felt short. It felt more like a match they'd show you on free TV to get you excited about seeing Perfect/Bossman, considering the sprint-style pacing, the DQ finish and the Andre appearance. That happening on Superstars leading to the Perfect/Boss Man match at WM with Andre in Boss Man's corner and Heenan signing some new musclehead that he swears can offset Bossman in the other corner, but still giving a clean finish with Andre getting in some shots on the outside, would have been nice. These two had chemistry, despite the silly premise of the feud, and Boss Man was better than he gets credit for being.

That post shows no understanding of wrestling at all. None. Seriously, if no one gets pushed and everyone is portrayed as being on the same level, we get 2001-2005 WWE.

Brock was good, but he disappeared so quickly, long before he ever met his full potential.

My problem is that this match was wrestled like it was in a gym with no audience.

Angle is a better athlete than Taz, but as a worker, there really isn't much difference, honestly. Taz was booked far better than Angle really ever has been while in ECW, though, and seemed a lot better than he really was as a result. There's no reason Angle could not have been the greatest wrestler of all time, but he started in the company around the time HHH starfucked his way to the top and new guys weren't getting as much help as they were before that. He also had the disadvantage of coming through the WWF farm system and peaking physically during a monopoly, so he never got a chance to learn to work any other styles. That's the sad thing about Angle -- as flawed as he is, WWE will never produce a better homegrown talent. Ever.

The toning down is a good thing. I do agree with that. I just think that's when all the matches started looking exactly alike up and down the card -- right after KOTR '01.

Piper was great, and it's sad that his life took the road that it did. I wish the young guys would watch his old promos, because we haven't had a heel in ages that knows how to get under people's skin like that. He fought a lot to become a major star. I love the story that when Vince Sr. saw him for the first time, he refused to bring him in because he was so scrawny. But that was part of what made him such a great heel in his younger days. Awesome babyface at times as well, but as a heel, he shined brightest. I think wrestling missed the boat in some ways by never doing a Piper/Savage blood feud in 1986-1987. The insanity of it all would have been overwhelming.

Kurt Angle - I resent him. He got a push Chris Benoit or Chris Jericho would have had far more success with in 2000-2001. His needless risk-taking and gross injuries are the main reason WWE-style wrestling has become headlocks and spinebusters. And he has nearly succeeded - at times - in bringing superior talent a level down. He gets a lot of praise because of his amateur background, but he rarely does anything that he's been able to translate from that background. I don't think he's horrible, but he's not a great worker. He's a once-good worker who's now very deteriorated and stale, and while he's not as much of a detriment to the company as HHH or Shawn Michaels, he's not exactly helping the cause either. Shawn Michaels - Michaels is probably better at subtly burying his opponents than HHH. He has almost never put over an opponent as having any type of advantage whatsoever over him, unless it's a size and strength advantage, which is probably why his best matches are against guys so much larger than him. We've seen him try to outwrestle Benoit, outfly Misterio and upstage John Cena in the past 18 months, and none of it has worked. Punches like a girl, has the look and build of an old lady and is synonymous with an era that's ancient history in wrestling years. He's one of the best in the company, but that's an indictment of the working style in WWE, not a compliment. I used to enjoy him, now I can barely stomach to watch his matches because I'm so sick of him. Like Kawada~!, I prefer him as a babyface tag wrestler. Nothing else he has done has aged well at all. He could be beneficial to the company -- as a positive locker room influence, as a money-drawing heel -- and refuses to do either. He's in major need of an image makeover that he'll never get as well. AJ Styles - Terrific athlete, but really uneven in the ring. As malicious as it sounds, the best thing could happen to him would be an injury he'd have to work around, because it would make him work smarter and still eliminate many of his highspots. At the rate he's going, he'll be another Sean Waltman/Jeff Hardy type who wrestles such a high-risk style at a young age and is considered yesterday's news before he even turns 30. Christopher Daniels - Better than Styles, and I think he's pretty good, but he wrestles the exact same way as both a face and a heel, and that's very annoying. Kenta Kobashi - It's funny how people always talk about Kawada's selling and Kobashi's offense, because on the surface, I always think of Kobashi's selling and Kawada's offense. Haven't seen him work in years, but always loved him and thought he was awesome. He did some things that were annoying after you expect him to move past those tendencies, like cry on false finishes, but he's probably the most emotion-filled wrestler ever, for better or worse. One of the best workers of all time, without much question, and he's probably had more ****+ matches throughout his career than all but a handful of wrestlers. It's just sometimes difficult to figure out where the good ends and the bad begins with Kobashi, but at the same time, that's one of the reasons I like him so much. John Bradshaw Layfield - Great talker, the best in wrestling currently in fact, and I actually think the A Few Good Men skit *was* a money promo from him. Really solid worker who does his best work opposite luchadores. With them having heat backstage and with Juvi's background, that would probably be a huge guilty pleasure feud that would be far more entertaining than it deserved to be. Necro Butcher - Still haven't seen the Joe match, but hopefully will soon.

Agreed. I think we could probably do a better WWF set as well if we ever made the choice to do so.

Unpinning. I'll still post in this from time to time, quite often at certain times even, but I feel like an egomaniac having it pinned in the folder. It's my opinion, not The Acceptable Great Wrestling Matches Topic To Be Pinned So It Can Be Read By All.

Nearly two months since anyone has posted in this topic. Unpinning. If it sustains itself, great. If not, it'll fall to the bottom of the page, just like other threads.

2005 is over, and it's been three weeks since this thread has had additions. Unpinning for now.

Better one day early than never. Wild Pegasus v El Samurai - NJPW 07/07/95 How do I put this nicely? THIS IS A VERY BORING MATCH. You could have heard a pin drop in the audience until about the 18-minute mark, when they sort of pop for a few spots, and then you don't hear another peep until the 25-minute mark, when they start doing the quick, try-to-get-the-fall-before-the-time-expires false finishes to only passing heat. No semblances of roles here, no advantages or disadvantages from either guy. It's often stated that NJ juniors in the mid-90s did pointless matwork for the first 5-10 minutes of their matches that had no affect on the match at all. This is that same philosophy stretched out to 25 minutes, with five minutes of semi-engaging stuff following it. Not either guy's best. The BOSJ final in '93 blew this out of the water.