Loss

*whispers to MiB that you can't mod the main event style* Because good booking is even more of a rarity than good wrestling, and it should be celebrated just as much when it happens. When's the last time you saw it? I can't remember the last time I saw it, at least on a consistent, long-term scale. If someone says, "You should really check out OVW, it's some of the best-booked wrestling out there", that means just as much to me as "You should really see Misawa/Kawada. It's the best match of all time!" But I like to fancy myself as a student of the game. There's no "wrestling versus angles" point of view from me, because I'm a wrestling fan, and both are major parts of pro wrestling. In the same way I don't make a distinction and choose one over the other, I don't think the average fan does either. The one thing we all have in common is that we want a good product. How we get it is where the disagreements start. There's absolutely nothing wrong with enjoying a match that doesn't hold up to scrutiny, as long as you're not going to falsely say it's better than something that's actually great. That's an important distinction to be made. And chances are, if you see the buildup to a match, and it's good, you're most likely to get lost in the moment, and wrestling is all about getting lost in the moment. Now, you're probably wondering, if it's all about getting lost in the moment, why I even bother to look at it critically. Well, I tend to watch the match now, and ask the questions later. I'd never sit down and take notes on a match on my first viewings of it. I'd do it if I was planning on writing a detailed viewpoint of it later for the purposes of discussion, or if I was doing a review of it or something, but that initial viewing is not something one should rob himself of experiencing. It's the great stuff that makes wading through all the crap bearable, not to mention that all the crap helps put it in perspective how great the great stuff really is. That's why every once in a while, it's not a bad idea to catch an episode of RAW. Or, if you're gutsy, Smackdown. Believe me, I understand that viewpoint. I agree with it even, but I agree with it hesitantly. But, I'd like to think I'm a leader, not a follower, but I'd also probably like to think that I'm not annoying you with this post. That said, I'm not about to sit back and let other people do the dirty work and tell me what to think. Yeah, if something is recommended enough, I'll search it out, but recommendations are most valuable when people are recommending matches that don't look good on paper. Those are the matches I want to hear pimped, not stuff that everyone knows will be good based on the participants anyway. I'll pick that stuff up based on who's involved, and I'll form my own conclusions. They say opinions are like assholes, in that everyone has one, and they very well may be right, but there are tons of matches out there that there aren't even opinions available for. I'm not going to not check it out because I haven't heard anyone else say it's great or that it sucked. I can blaze my own trail, thank you very much. Reviews come in handy, also, when you take footage you've already seen, and compare your thoughts to those of someone else who has seen the same footage. If they've seen it, and your views are largely in line with each other, then you can pretty much take their word on most everything they say. Even that is almost cheating, though, but I totally understand the reasons it would be done. I'm starting to sound like Bill Clinton. Time is precious, but I don't consider watching wrestling to be a waste of time, even if it's a bad match, because I love pro wrestling that much. Now I'm sounding like Comic Book Guy. Word of mouth is often overrated. Sometimes, it's unavoidable, unless you want to drop $500 a month to keep up with all wrestling around the world (which is about what it would take to get all of Lynch's TV, all the lucha, all the indy shows, all the OVW TV, all the British stuff, tape RAW/SD/Velocity/Impact/Heat and order the WWE and TNA PPVs every month). And if you want to catch up on the old school stuff, prepare to shell out more cash. You could conceivably spend $1000 a month on wrestling tapes for five years, end up with mountains of footage, and still have stuff you haven't seen. So, believe me, I understand why. I do. But I don't need someone else to tell me that a Jumbo Tsuruta match, or a Chris Benoit match, or a Bret Hart match, or a Ric Flair match, or a Jushin Liger match, or a Toshiaki Kawada match, is good -- if I haven't figured that out by now, I might as well give up because I'll never get wrestling. I need them to tell me when marginal workers become great workers, if only for one night, and I need them to tell me when someone new is on the horizon that I should pay attention to. The Dustin renaissance is great for creating a buzz about Dustin, but I'm not going to seek out those specific matches. If I see Dustin against Windham, Steamboat, Vader, Arn, Eaton, Cactus or someone like that from a '92 WCW matchlist, I'll know it's probably good and I'll take my chances. And I'll be happy to filter the good down to you. You're 100% right. I just wanted you to mention some gimmick matches you've liked, but when I re-read the thread, you already had.

I am going to have to poke my nose in to this now. Basically, I agree with certain things you're both saying and disagree with certain things you're both saying. I'll elaborate. Keep in mind this post may not be very "easy on the eyes", because I'm going to use the quote function. Now then ... Preferring a traditional wrestling match to a gimmick match at all times, without exception, is a matter of opinion. I think the three teams went out there with the intention of stealing the show that night, by virtue of competing with other wrestling matches on the show. Benoit/Angle. Austin/Rock. HHH/Taker. Jericho/Regal. Eddy/Test. All non-gimmicked singles matches. Their goal was to make the best of the spotlight and try to put something out better than anything else to take place that evening. So, with that said, I don't think they accomplished their goal. Austin/Rock was the easy match of the night, and I'd probably put Benoit/Angle ahead of TLC II, and I'm not even a huge, huge fan of that match or anything. That said, "spotfest" is not a negative term. It's just a style; a type of match. Deep down, I prefer to watch a match with some substance to it, but I've seen spotfests that had that as well. Look at Rey/Psicosis from the '95 J-Cup. That match is almost totally devoid of storytelling, and I'd still rank it above **** because they accomplished the goal they set, and they made it so irresistibly fun that denying that would be wrong. The fans showered the ring with money afterward. They established roles well, which was really all that match needed to be fucking great. Then, they could go out there and just tear the house down. Then, you have Rey/Psi at BATB '96, which I'm not as big a fan of, and there was more wrestling in that match than there was at the J-Cup. I'd probably call the BATB match ***3/4-****, but it wasn't quite the classic it was pimped as immediately after it happened. You know what the difference was between the two matches? HEAT. Real, tangible heat. At the Bash, the crowd popped for the spots. They did that in WAR too, but that match had more heat. Which match accomplished its goal better? The WAR match. Therefore, I'd consider it the better match. So, in this example, I think Sass has a point. That said, I'm not sure that you're really arguing it either. And you should. As Sass said, it's hard enough to view wrestling as escapism anymore because kayfabe is a dead artform. Wrestling matches aren't intended to be watched with a keenly critical eye. They're meant to involve the crowd and make the audience suspend disbelief, even temporarily. TLC II isn't the best example of this happening, because even if the workers were trying to sell a story, the audience isn't willing in investing in it anyway. They want spots. They want to see someone get their ass kicked and they want to see crazy shit. Sounds like a Sabu match, doesn't it? I have to side with Will here. A spotfest is worth watching if they don't let up between the moves, and the moves are executed properly. This is the difference between Rey/Psicosis and RVD/Lynn. Rey doesn't stall the crowd or stop when the match is starting to gather some momentum and start pointing to himself. Psicosis is also a far better worker than Jerry Lynn, but that's another discussion. In this category, yes. I think I'm siding with Sass here. Again, though, I don't think Will is writing off the garbage style by not liking TLC II. I don't think he said it with the intent of it being debated. Those same crutches exist in straight wrestling matches. Brawl outside the ring into the crowd. Run interference. Start needlessly kicking out of finishers. Cage matches themselves are limited in the number of spots they can pull off. Ramming someone into the cage face first is essentially the same thing as putting them into the ringpost, or the Spanish announce table. Grabbing someone's leg is akin to kicking out of a pin attempt. Cage matches can't spill outside the ring. Someone like Jushin Liger, who normally does a dive to the floor in most of his matches, couldn't do that in a cage match. How would he work within those limitations? If Taue couldn't do the Nodowa off the apron, what would he do instead? There is intrigue there. The whole point of a cage match is to keep the match in the ring. Most great matches tend to spill outside the ring. In some ways, you have to work harder, just not smarter. I do think the guys in TLC II were busting ass. This is why, using this as a base of discussion, taking Shawn/Razor from Summerslam '95, which is an incredibly smart gimmick match that plays off of Wrestlemania X, or War Games from Wrestle War '92, which has so many subtleties that I don't think they've all ever accurately been pointed out, would be a much better example. Agreed with Will here. They were both fat bastards who their childhood friends describe as lazy and unmotivated before getting into pro wrestling, by all accounts. Nothing really to add here. Hey guys, what's up? This is the heart of the discussion. Right here. These two points of view. Okay, now there's a contrast, Will, because even though you've already pointed out that you don't have a problem with gimmick matches, you point to one that's not even a match you'd consider good as an example. Moving on. How do you know that? Compare that to how fans on June 11, 1976, knew that. They knew it because they knew the wrestlers involved, they'd seen them compete, they'd seen their high points and low points, and they were wanting to see what would happen next. It's a little different than reading it in a match review. That's a shortcut. A cost-effective shortcut, but a shortcut nonetheless. If you don't see surrounding footage to see where the standard of work was at the time or what led to it, then you may still love the match, but that's entirely incidental. You're not watching it with the perspective they want you to have. It's hard to evaluate their work when they're not even working you the way they wanted to do so, is it not? That's why wrestling is an art form. Right there. It's about working the audience, not having the audience interpret it however they choose. That point of view has been largely lost, and it's had both its advantages (better quality over time) and disadvantages (impossible standards with the fans in the driver's seat more than they should be). The goal of a pro wrestling fan should never be to see as little footage as possible to understand things, but rather to see as much as they possibly can to "get it" as much as they possibly can. "Backstory" isn't really applicable here. "Setting" is more appropriate. If you know, through watching as much as you can (reading here may be the only choice admittedly, just because we don't exactly have a lot of 1973-1974 lucha libre and Japanese footage to watch alongside this), who the Destroyer is and who Mascaras is and why them meeting is monumental and what makes the spots so fun, and why the crowd interprets those spots the way they do (i.e. it was a novelty in that environment), then you're getting the match. If you just think the spots are nifty and that the match was well-worked, that's great, but that's only part of it. Think of it as a circle. Damn, I wish I could draw on message boards. "A" is a small circle. "B" is a medium-sized circle that has "A" inside of it. "C" is a huge circle that has both "A" and "B" inside of it. If you like the spots and the matwork, that's "A". If you like the psychology and the way the crowd reacts to everything, thus enjoying the spectacle, that's "B". If you understand that it's a lucha match in front of a crowd that doesn't get to see lucha matches, and that they are seeing one of their favorites, The Destroyer, go against the most famous luchadore in the world at the time (possibly), then that's "C". I want to have "C" on every match I watch. Otherwise, I'm only cheating myself. Otani's 1996 in this case would be "C". He was coming into his own throughout the year and suffered many heartbreaking defeats and also had some big wins along the way. 1996 was a test of Otani's fortitude. This match was a high-profile tournament that was supposed to feature the best of his peers in a tournament and he wanted to win to prove himself. That has as much to do with the match as does whether or not Otani's long-term selling of the arm is effective. Some matches have "C" without having "A or B". Some have "A" without having anything beyond that. In the same sense, some watch wrestling only concerned with "A" and "B", when "C" is crucial. Which is the most important part? I'm not sure I know the answer. How do you know Kawada is good and that Albright sucks? By watching other matches from them. Seeing Albright against others in AJPW really puts in perspective how impressive this match is. Without it, one might think Albright is a great worker and that this was just another in a long line of great AJ matches. They wouldn't be wrong, but they'd be missing out on a big part of the picture. And what was once a ** snore can become a ***1/2 match. It works both ways. You're right that the work in the match can go a long way in establishing roles. That said, if it's not consistent with the buildup, that deserves criticism. If it is consistent, it deserves praise. How do you know if it is or not? By watching the buildup. There are no matches like this. Well, there are, but who's calling them great? Yes. That's not what Sass is talking about. It's impressive, but a match can't reach those levels without some type of push or hype. That's part of what wrestling always has been and always will be. I've never seen horrid buildup result in a great match. Never. I'm not. If I'm reviewing a match that's great in spite of itself, I'm going to point out that it's great in spite of itself, and the lack of buildup for the match to play off of is going to limit what the workers can do. Yes. But the match shouldn't be expected to be good enough on its own. For the record, I hated Misawa/Kawada the first time I saw it. Thought it was plodding and slow compared to other stuff I'd seen stateside. It does make a difference. And if you're not interested in that, if you're content to just like it without loving it, when the potential is there for you to love it, then you're not getting the full experience. You're missing out on a large part of the picture. And on point #1, I concede to Will. On point #2, I concede to Sass.

The LOD DVD should be cool and will probably sell well, and I'm guessing they'll bring Animal back to promote it. That shouldn't be hard with his brother heading up Talent Relations. The reason those DVDs probably aren't released in the USA is that I believe Vince can still market the WWF initials outside of the United States.

The best stuff in 2002 took place on TV more than on PPV, so this should be an easier year for those who were paying attention; however, the booking was so atrocious for most of the year in WWE that sometimes, it was hard to enjoy the forest because of the trees. My big pick would be Booker T & Goldust v Chris Jericho & Christian, RAW 12/23/02. The Smackdown Six stuff is what gets talked about the most, but this, I think, was better than anything to air on TV during the SD6 period. Nice setup with Jericho cornering Goldust backstage before the match and telling him that everyone knew he was the weak link of the team, that he was a total joke and was riding Booker's coattails, etc. Really sweet, basic tag work that accomplishes more in getting one of the participants involved (Goldust) over than any of the SD6 matches did to elevate anyone. It's a shame they never followed up, because this was such a great way to get Dustin over as someone who mattered and not just a joke. He's the savior of his team, and Jericho and Christian are terrific heels. Match goes around 20 minutes or so, and sees some really awesome comebacks from both Booker and Goldust. In many ways, I'd call this the unsung 2002 MOTY. That's not saying it was the best match of the year, because there are a few I'd place above it, but it deserves far more mention than it gets. I'd probably clock it around ***1/2-****, leaning on the higher end. Anyway, there's plenty to choose from in 2002, so there shouldn't be difficulty coming up with anything.

Right. It was 2003. There's a lot I'd like to say about it, but I'll refrain for now, and just say if I had to pick a match of the decade, only looking at WWE, it would probably be either Steve Austin v The Rock at Wrestlemania X-7, Chris Jericho v The Rock at No Mercy 2001 or Steve Austin v Chris Benoit from the 05/31/01 Smackdown.

The WWE lawyers are incredible at what they do. I have sympathy for anyone who goes against them, because they're going to need all the help they can get. I sincerely hope Brock has a fantastic lawyer, because Vince's lawyers are bloodthirsty sharks. Jerry McDevitt is respected by just about everyone in that part of the country who knows anything about the legal profession.

I think this goes back nicely to one specific thing that Sass just said better than I could, even though I've tried for a long time -- balance. What a nice word. This, in many ways, ties into the discussion we had a while back, Will, and sort of revived recently, about how the storylines and the angles are just as crucial and important as the matches, and that it's all part of the experience of watching wrestling. One really shouldn't shortchange the other.

Thanks for the summary, HTQ. Yes, it's definitely allowed. Encouraged, even. The only things I guess I can really mention are the Haas/Benjamin v Eddy/Taijiri tags, which I haven't even seen, but are supposed to be really fun. They happened in spring.

Not on TV, but Meltzer and Keller have both confirmed that it will happen, as did Linda McMahon in an investors conference a while back. The date is unknown at this time, although most expect it to be in MSG later this month, where a RAW/Smackdown supershow has been promoted for months.

He had a match with HHH in the build to Mania that I thought could have been worlds better had HHH sold. Goldust was game that night, but Hunter wanted to look invincible. Who knew?

I seem to remember HHH having a better than expected, 25-minute match with RVD in June of 2003 on RAW. Is my mind playing tricks on me? I mean, I know the match happened, but how was it?

Jericho v Michaels could have been much better than it was. I wouldn't even go so far as to call it a good match, and I blame that entirely on everyone involved in the situation, from the writers to the announcers, except the wrestlers. Jonathan Coachman was absolutely horrible on commentary, and they are working some really good segments in the ring while Lawler makes jokes about them. There are some really cool spots, such as Jericho burying his head in the turnbuckle to get more leverage on the Walls of Jericho, and my favorite sequence of all, which needed great commentary to work and they didn't have it. There was a sequence at Wrestlemania where Shawn tried to headscissors Jericho out of the ring, but Jericho pushed him off of his shoulders. In this match, Shawn tries again, Jericho tries to push him off, but Shawn lands on his feet, goes for it again, it gets reversed again, and finally Shawn reverses it in a new way and gets him out for good. It was a nice little suspense sequence and a really cool homage to the WM match that showed how Jericho remembered what happened to him before, and how Shawn, the veteran, is very good at thinking on his feet. Orton's interference. Problem. Lawler and Coach. Problem. Doing this in front of an apathetic SoCal crowd. Problem. Not doing the rematch months earlier when it would have actually mattered. Problem. The work in the match. Not too shabby.

I still don't think they know what they're doing with Eddy. They keep trying to turn him heel, but every time they've ever done so, it just makes him a bigger babyface. With Cena's appeal being somewhat marginal (although, admittedly, they are trying to correct that), if they turn Eddy heel and put him against Cena, the crowd will support Eddy. It's a big, unnecessary risk, and it could potentially damage everyone involved. Jericho/Guerrero, Jericho/Rey, Jericho/Cena, and even Jericho/Angle v Eddy/Rey feuds are all possibilities if he jumps, and all could be in high positions on the card. There's also Jericho/Taker, which does have some appeal since it's never been done, and they could rehash the feuds with Booker and RVD as well. I'm surprised Rey jobbed in the first round of this tournament, considering he's coming off of a big WM win and they plan to push him hard this year, according to both Meltzer and Keller.

The title says it all. I can think of quite a few TV matches from this year that have already been forgotten that are fun matches, and I'll try to post them, but no one got involved in the 2004 one, so I'll let someone else make the first move.

Okay, if no one has anything to add, we'll go to 2003.

Jericho should definitely be Cena's first program, OR they should switch him to SD and turn him heel and build to it as a big defense at Summerslam or something. Either way, put Cena over in the match. I think it might be best to do a Cena/JBL rematch first, just because that's what people expect. Angle would have made a great post-WM opponent for Cena based on how strong he looked coming out of WM, but he's already beaten Angle convincingly on the path to the title. They weren't thinking ahead. Regardless of what they do with the draft (and they are still doing it), Jericho going to Smackdown and becoming the top heel is the one thing that pretty much *has* to happen.

Doesn't look like a horrible show, and Angle/Eddy is next week. They really go all out to make London sympathetic, don't they? I think he's the type that will probably get more over getting his ass kicked than he will being dominant, as long as he wins in a convincing way when it matters.

Right. I think managerial interference falls in the same category as Ric Flair putting his feet on the ropes to get a pinfall, or Ted DiBiase hitting someone with a loaded glove.

The ref spot is in the MX/Rock & Rolls match from Wrestle War '90. I agree with you ... to an extent. Cornette is a performer, he's part of the MX package, he's a large part of why the team gets heat. It wouldn't make sense for him to stand in the corner and hug the ringpost all night considering his personality. To me, Jim Cornette interfering in a match as the manager is different from another wrestler who has an ongoing feud with someone doing a run-in to cost someone a match because Cornette was as much part of the MX unit as Eaton and Condrey. He was every bit as good of a worker as they were too, but in a different way. Yeah, you weren't going to see him take huge bumps (aside from falling off of a scaffold) or get in credible offense, but he could do things to work the crowd at ringside, and teasing interference or even deliberately interfering in the match isn't going to take away from it. Both Funk/Jumbo from 06/11/76 and Hokuto/Kandori from 04/02/93 have someone at ringside trying to help one of the participants, and those are still among the greatest matches of all time. There are times when interference, even from a second or manager, is wrong and unnecessary and takes away from the match. Cornette finding a way to get out of the cage when the MX went against Pillman and Zenk at Capital Combat '90 would have been bad booking, because the crowd was hyped to see a clean match based on the stip, and they got it. Having interference in a cage match is never a good thing. Bringing in extra bodies who were a large part of the storyline anyway to work highspots with everyone else, as was the case at TLC II, doesn't take away from the match at all.

I wouldn't consider the interference in TLC II a detriment, for one reason, which is that everyone had someone on their side who could interfere for them. The Hardyz had Lita, E & C had Rhyno and the Dudleyz had Spike. It was natural that they'd interfere in a no-DQ match, and it also gave them more bodies to do even more spots with. If any one of those teams didn't have a third man, I would have hated it, but since they all had someone else who could step in, it was nice. It's the same way in old Southern tags -- when you have someone at ringside to neutralize the heel manager, you have someone else you can do sequences with in the match.

I'm not sold. I'll really have to watch some of his singles matches because I have never seen a solo Christian match I have ever liked. I'll try to do a full list in the next day or so. He's probably the most improved wrestler of the past 12 months.