Loss

Awesome! Seriously, Rudo, that was a great post, but I thought that was the most thought-provoking point you made and it's SO TRUE. The "what is wrestling?" debate with goodhelmet is always fun and never gets old, so I'm loving this thread. I will be responding to his response to me either later tonight or tomorrow.

I think what he's saying is that expecting every single wrestling match to be competitive, serious and well-worked is trying to make wrestling something it isn't. It's not the goal of every match to be the best one ever, nor should it be, nor can we hold it against every match that can't be or isn't. The same argument applies to me when I'm going through my DVDs. I have to take breaks sometimes after great matches, because if every single match I watch is great, I become numb to them. They all start running together after a while. We saw what happened in the late 90s when the bar became raised too high with dangerous bumps and highspots. I remember King of the Ring 2001, when they were without Rock and HHH already and Austin, Benoit and Angle walked away from the show injured. Chris Jericho was considered the lucky one, walking away from the show with a concussion. In that case, the blame can be laid on the promoter for raising the bar so high that the wrestlers had to kill themselves to not underperform based on fan expectations. And those expectations have the ability to be manipulated. Take the greatest match you've ever seen. We all most likely have differing views on what that match is, but let's say that your favorite match is a 45-minute classic featuring two wrestlers who hate each other pulling everything out of their arsenals to show that this match is special. They reference past matches, the crowd is molten, there are tons of nearfalls ... whatever personal criteria for what constitues a great match in your mind. Okay, now imagine eight matches exactly like that on one show. Watching two matches like that back to back would leave me numb. Watching eight would burn me out on anything the company could ever do again, and my expectations would be so high that there's no way they could perform at that level for any length of time. It's great for the short term, but in the long run, it only hurts them. Wrestling at its core, is entertainment. But wrestling, at its core, is death when *presented* as entertainment. I have a problem with indies making match quality a selling point. Wrestling is visceral. It's based on emotion. Fans should care who wins and who loses because they relate to the characters personally. You take out the visceral nature and you take out the emotion and you're left with, as goodhelmet said, two guys rolling around in their underwear pretending to fight. Who cares if a match is "technically proficient" -- that's a nice concept, but that's not wrestling. That's something else entirely (gymnastics?) and watching it based entirely on that guideline is trying to change the definition of something that has been pretty consistent in its definition for a long time. The art of a good wrestling storyline has basically been lost, because in the past ten years, quite frankly, there have been far more offensive, badly written and badly executed storylines than satisfying ones that are done right. So that creates an attitude among the hardcore fan that the promotion is going to do everything they can to screw up a show, but the guys in the ring can still save it if you factor everything else out. It's understandable how we got to that point. It's also unfortunate that we've had indies try to surface as alternatives that haven't grasped that concept. Sports entertainment is not a phrase that's even said in WWE all that much. But, watching ROH, you'd think they say it constantly in WWE. Truth is, while Vince McMahon still has my resentment for creating the term, the indies are far more obsessed with the term than Vince is. Wrestling has always been sports entertainment, and for the record, it was DAVE MELTZER who coined the term. Vince just started using it later. That's what wrestling is. It's sport and it's entertainment. The problem with WWE isn't that they strive to be both sport and entertainment, the problem with WWE is that they rarely do either very well. 90s All Japan Pro Wrestling was sports entertainment. It had the feel of a sport and many people were entertained by it. Very rarely does an indy promoter ever stop to think about what the term means and what exactly it is that they're fighting against, possibly because if they did, they'd realize how silly it is to do so. Are they saying Vince and WWE are embarrassing because they have their writers/bookers create a reason for every match to happen? Or are they saying Vince and WWE are embarrassing because they book their storylines in such poor fashion and the matches aren't as good as they should be for such a large, arrogant company? I have no problem with the latter, but it seems like the former is their point of view more often than not. The goal of a wrestling match is to get the desired reaction from the audience. How I decide whether I like a match or not is in seeing what methods they use to reach that destination. I think this is lost on the majority of people, but the reason words like "psychology" and "transitions" get thrown around is because if you're looking at the very core of what they're doing in the ring, that's how they get to Point A to Point B. I care that if a wrestler attacks another wrestler's arm, he sells it all the way through because that's a great way to get sympathy for a babyface. I care that the babyface sells that arm because being able to perform moves normally without the arm hurting tells the audience that the struggle isn't real, that the heel isn't a threat and that the match is trivial. It's NOT because logically, it should play into the finish, or because it's the "technically proficient", correct way to work a wrestling match. Let's use Hulk Hogan as an example. Lots of people think he sucks. Why do you think he sucks? Because he doesn't execute a lot of great moves and because the ones he does execute look like shit? That's bullshit. Let's ignore his ability to capture a live crowd's imagination and say he's a shit worker because he doesn't have a cool shooting star press. Bravo, watch gymnastics, and the rest of us will move on. It's like saying AJ Styles is better in the ring than Hulk Hogan because he has more moves, ignoring the fact that he really understands very little about how to work a match. If PWG is trying to make every match a MOTY, then how can you distinguish them? How can you go back and say one was better than the other? How does the main event mean more than the undercard, which it should? It's a lost concept on many, but all things are not supposed to be equal in wrestling. Certain wrestlers should be established as being better than others. Certain matches should be more memorable and exciting than others. That's how you get people and events over -- by making them stand out of the pack. I agree that my standards are higher because I've watched more footage from more eras in more styles and in more companies. But wrestlers in training should be watching just as much Memphis footage as they are All Japan footage -- two almost totally different products in how they do business, but they both have the same fundamental goal ... to reach an audience. Goodhelmet, in all honesty, your post really makes you sound like you hate wrestling and that you're constantly having to justify watching it, which I know isn't true. Phrases like "there are better forms of entertainment out there" and saying that you no longer care who wins and who loses throw me off, and prove that you just might be a little jaded. I know I am. If not, why were you a fan of both WCW and the WWF at one point and what caused you to stop watching? Obviously, there were wrestlers in both companies you liked but the way they were handled tested your loyalty to the promotion. Those wrestlers are still there. What's different between now and then? And honestly, I'm not sure that when wrestling is at its absolute very best, there are better forms of entertainment out there. It's why I'm a fan. Think about your favorite movie and think about your favorite wrestling match ... on an entertainment level, would you say they're equal to each other? I would, personally. I could write on this subject forever, but I've written enough for now.

What's your take on this? I have a lot I want to say, and I'm not even totally sure where to start. I'll come back to this shortly, but I thought he made some excellent points.

If you think the match stands out as great, nominate it. Be as selective as you possibly can, obviously, but work within your own guidelines. Now if there are two Benoit/Smith matches that are equally great, but feature the same wrestling sequences and the same finish, there's really no point in nominating both, but that's just common sense. Use your best judgment.

I'll probably get the show for Liger/Joe.

Homicide/Corino ... Wow. Talk about a match that had more violence than any match I've seen in WWE in some time. They sort of overdid it with the nearfalls, but that's really picking nits. Some of the parts were probably a little excessive or gruesome, but this was a hell of a spectacle regardless. This match had more heat than anything I've seen in ROH at this point, and the biggest compliment I can pay this match is that it made me forget I was watching an indy. Didn't quite make sense to start a blood feud blowoff with a collar-and-elbow tie up, but stuff happens. Need some time to figure out where I stand on this completely.

Just watched London/Danielson from 04/12/03. Lots of things I loved about the match, and lots of things that did nothing for me. I'd like to give this a second viewing sometime after seeing the 12/07/02 match first. I thought Danielson was a great heel, but I thought London was way too Indy Innovation for my liking. He played his role well enough, but Danielson was the one with the charisma. The next match on my disc was Joe/London from Death Before Dishonor and London was getting an enormous pop. I stopped the disc at that point, but I think he owes Danielson a debt of gratitude for getting as over as he did in ROH. Things I liked were Dragon going all Destroyer early on and having fun with the matwork, London's headbutts on the top rope to knock Danielson off balance, Danielson's great limb work, the crowd (while still a little annoying, they actually got behind the babyface and booed the heel at times -- MAJOR testament to both guys there) and the best of three falls stipulation, just because the first fall left me wanting a lot more. What I liked less was that some of the moves weren't really sold as long as they should have been. When London caught Danielson with that springboard Koppo kick, or whatever you'd call it, and Danielson sold it like he was completely loopy and disoriented, I thought it would take more than 45 seconds for him to have a counter to London's next attempted move and be ready to move into the next sequence. Still, for two guys who were relative unknowns at this point with no experience working in front of a large crowd, this is an excellent match and one I enjoyed watching. More seasoning and I think they could eventually capture a Flair/Steamboat vibe -- they had the right idea going in that direction, and I think that on a global scale, they just may have been more with the times in 2003 than Flair and Steamboat were in '89. So, the whole, the good will of the match, for lack of a better term, makes it come across as being even better than it is. Nice match.

Just watched Misawa/Kawada from 07/24/95, which is a hell of a sprint that gets a lot of praise from me. Misawa does so much to put over Kawada without losing to him here, and even though I knew the outcome in advance, I still bought the powerbomb as a nearfall because 6/9/95 was in my mind. Great match! Next stop ... all the ROH I have that I haven't watched yet. I have maybe one or two 2003 discs before I delve head first into 2004!

I noticed it too, but didn't say anything because I thought I was overreacting. Him standing on Big Show's shoulders while Cena and Hardy stand lower on the ground is the image he knew good and well would be the last one on RAW.

Hogan is the only guy I can ever think of who's oneupped every Clique member at some point. If he wasn't so dastardly himself, I'd love him.

Shawn is a selfish asshole. Coming out the night after doing a job to the guy the company wants strong to headline a dream match at Wrestlemania by making fun of it and basically exposing the business as being fake is unprofessional, any way you slice it. He's still the same Shawn he always was, he's just addicted to Jesus instead of cocaine.

Copani is Hassan's real last name. He was given the last name "Magnus" in OVW, and everyone assumed that was his real name.

What is the right way to get the most out of fresh talent you have coming into the company? (1) Shove them to the top of the card. Don't have them lose at all if they're new because the fresh stars shouldn't be putting over the stale ones. or ... (2) Force them to pay their dues with the crowd and work their way through the ranks. Each point has merit, but it seems like in many cases, by the time WWE decides a wrestler is ready for a big push, they're no longer fresh and a lot of the novelty is gone. I think of guys like Rob Van Dam and Chris Jericho that should have been pushed hard immediately and weren't and suffered for it, but on the flip side, I think of guys like Kurt Angle and Brock Lesnar that were pushed super hard immediately when they weren't really ready for the spot they were given. So what's your take?

For me, all things equal (and really, they are), the only thing I can use to say one match is better than the other is to compare Kobashi in 6/9/95 to Akiyama in 12/6/96. And I think Akiyama is *slightly* better at his role than Kobashi is at his. Akiyama isn't fighting injury, he's fighting inexperience in this environment and he's finding himself in the same place others have been before him. Kobashi is great, don't get me wrong, but he's still awfully spry for someone who has what's supposed to be a worthless knee. There's not a way to phrase it where it doesn't sound like I'm insulting the '95 match, because I'm not, but that's the deciding factor for me -- I like Akiyama in his match better than Kobashi in his match.

I ended up going ****1/4 for Maeda/Fujinami and ****1/2 for Asuka/Nagayo. Maeda/Fujinami is #56, Asuka/Nagayo is #26.

Jumbo Tsuruta & Genichiro Tenryu v Riki Choshu & Yoshiaki Yatsu 01/28/86 I knew I loved this match, and was excited about rewatching it. I didn't expect it to make my top ten, though, and I certainly didn't think I'd end up calling it my personal pick for the #2 men's tag match of all time. It hit the mark, on both sides. What I think this match has over 6/9/95 is the opening few minutes, first and foremost. The early stages of the '95 match are great as well, but the work to start out is more fiery and emotional in the '86 match, so it gets the edge for me. I also find it interesting how despite the matches being nearly 10 years apart in age, they both have the same finish. GREAT doubleteam moves here -- I think Choshu/Yatsu are more impressive as a tag team than Misawa/Kobashi, although I admittedly say that with hesitation. Jumbo/Tenryu are almost on par with Kawada/Taue. Where as 6/9/95 is an extremely well-built match that builds so beautifully from one climax to the next all the way throughout, this match is a 30-minute plus balls-to-the-wall sprint that admittedly probably has a less smooth flow to it, but grabs the viewer early on and refuses to let him go. I also find it slightly more impressive that guys are working at the level displayed here in 1986 than in 1995, if only because this match stands out far more in the context of its time. I love wrestling.

Lioness Asuka v Chigusa Nagayo 02/26/87 Almost as good as Devil/Chig from 8/85, but not quite on the same level. The wrestling was almost as good, save for the giant swing being repeated at least three times, and the only other thing keeping it from reaching that level was that Masami was a strong heel, and this match was a war between friends. They deserve credit for not wrestling this as a "friendly" match, instead as a competitive match, and the problem isn't the intensity or the wrestling as much as it is that they're both total babyfaces.

Agreed. Quality over variety. No spice of life here.

Akira Maeda v Tatsumi Fujinami 06/12/86 Not nearly as great as I remember it being, but still a fantastic match. Fujinami's underdog selling and Maeda's _brutal_ offense makes for a great match. I had some problems with the structure of the match at times, and I think the double TKO at the end would have been a great transition to the final stretch of the match instead of the finish itself. Maeda was on offense for most of this, which was probably for the best considering the strengths of both guys. Probably wouldn't make my top 20 or 30 matches of the 80s, but still worth seeing.

I think both. HHH is pushed as the most important person in WWE, so anyone is going to get a rub being associated with him, at least to a certain degree. Orton and Batista were movers and shakers when aligned with HHH, and they got the supergroup push as Evolution to match. They said what they were going to do and they did it. I think it's a strong combination of both.

I had never heard of Mae Young until 1999. I'm convinced she was created in a lab.

Yes, this sounds like a weird topic, but browsing through some of the DVDs, I noticed that most wrestlers looked like the average Joe 20 years ago, and now, they all look like bodybuilders. There's something perversely charming about someone the size of an Adrian Adonis or Buddy Rose bumping like crazy, and it's sad that if someone who looked out of shape had that amount of talent today, they wouldn't get an opportunity to showcase it, as wrestling is all about looks now. Here's hoping Trevor Murdoch makes it far.