Loss

Vader-Misawa and Vader-Kobashi, while both had good matches in 1999, fell short of what I was hoping for. The Vader-Akiyama interactions in this are great, and between that and Chad's hype for their TC match later this month, I'm really excited about seeing it. Everyone else here is very good as always, but it's Vader who brings the freshest dynamic, and it's Akiyama who has the best chemistry with him. I thought Kobashi would be Vader's Sting in All Japan. Akiyama is his Sting if this match is any indication. Misawa and Taue crafted a nice parallel match with this one and I enjoyed it also, and Misawa even pinned Taue for the finish. But most of the spotlight was on the other pairing, and rightfully so. Very good match on the road to 1-23. ***1/2

Because this is awesome.

I think six stars is not to be taken literally. It is a way of describing his enthusiasm for the match as a figure of speech and nothing more. It's a five-star match that he wanted to distinguish from other five-star matches.

And even then, it's 15 years with a major promotion. Rey started in '89, but he didn't put him on until 2007 for that reason. He called it the "Harry Smith Rule", since he started wrestling at 13 or 14 or whatever age it was.

Probably a good moment to add that star ratings live and breathe, just like opinions on matches live and breathe. When we share something, we're sharing an opinion that is always subject to change. Thoughts on wrestling matches come in pencil, not pen.

They are of significant importance, for sure, but ultimately, they are still one person's opinion, and that's all they can be. Of course there should be a high personal standard (I'd say the highest possible standard) for giving the full five to a match, but it shouldn't be that lots of other people agree with you.

The star rating is shorthand. It's basically a way of saying, "If all these words don't matter to you and you just want to know if this is good and if so, how good, then this cuts to the chase" without forcing the user to read multiple paragraphs to figure it out. If the reader wants to read all that, it's there. If they don't, they don't have to.

I use star ratings but agree with every word of that post otherwise. I don't think consensus is needed to give a match any rating, and I think the best match should simply get the best rating. The only caveat I would add is that there are some ***1/2 matches that speak to my heart more than some ****1/2 matches. Doesn't mean they are better. It just means they hold more sentimental value with me for whatever tangential reason.

Yes, heel Lawler's penchant for running down strengths of his opponents in promos is problematic, and that's something I've criticized him for many times. Cena does it occasionally, but even if he did it even more, I'd still be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt because of the differences in how promos are crafted now and how little autonomy wrestlers typically have in what they say, even in some cases someone at Cena's level. I actually had the last few weeks of Smackdown still on my DVR and went back and watched it for the purpose of this thread. It was one line and not at all the focus of the entire segment. (It was a very good segment that has me interested in a match on a show I had no intention of watching.) I was left with the impression from reading that it was, and that struck me as the usual WWE fluff where people who are feuding tend to trash each other as worthless based on semi-shoot comments hitting on any weaknesses in how fans perceive them until they have their match. I call that HHHism because his time on top is when those promos became the norm in the company. I don't think it's always as explicit as the stuff he would say to someone like Cena or Booker T either -- even the Undertaker told *him* he wasn't as good as Shawn Michaels. So yeah, chalk it up to half evil self preservation and half just seeing that as what wrestling is. I don't think whether something is true or not determines whether it is appropriate to include in a promo, for the record. Sometimes it is appropriate and sometimes it's not. The Lawler-Snowman feud was about a bigger issue than professional wrestling being played out within professional wrestling. The real elements were there because of Snowman's appearances on urban radio when he was legitimately on the outs with the territory. Cena-Styles is something different. Cena only benefits from nepotism in a kayfabe sense. Daniel Bryan has no actual power in the company and everyone watching knows that. Styles was doing what good heels do -- explaining something truthfully as he saw it in a way that made sense, with a dose of exaggeration and delusion mixed in. I do recall that in Cena's return he challenged the winner of the Styles-Corbin-Ziggler match to a title match at the Royal Rumble, and that Daniel Bryan wasn't involved in the decision to give Cena the match at all, but rather that he acted on his own. Anyway, we are probably giving WWE storylines more thought than they do. Styles was very good in the segment, and he stayed on the right side of the HHH-Russo divide that I called out. The whole reason I got involved in this in the first place was because of the talk of Smackdown being the best wrestling TV ever. I will again say that every time I have watched it, I have liked it. I just questioned that label.

What part of what Snowman said to Lawler are you referring to specifically?

Cool. The explanation I got before was just that Styles was cutting promos that he only got a title shot because he was related to Daniel Bryan.

I still think "You were the man around here for 10 years, and when I beat you once, it was great. When I beat you twice, it was awesome and when I beat you three times ... I can't imagine how you could ever show your face around here again" or something to that effect would be so much better and get people so much more hyped for the match than "You only got this match because you're related to Daniel Bryan".

Again, that type of Styles promo isn't Russoism, it's HHHism. You are completely awful and undeserving of my time and I am only facing you because I am being forced to do so, not because you deserve it.

I get why you are taking this jab, but you could say the exact same thing about the Lawler v. Snowman feud. There is a way to do these sort of angles that meshes reality and the world of fictional wrestling without fully submitting to the "this is a shoot!" style stuff that made Russoism so destructive. I agree there's a right way to do it, but the whole "The only reason you were successful is because ..." stuff citing real life issues is not it. And I should clarify -- it's less pure Russoism and more of a mix of Russoism and heel HHH-style promos where you harp on people's real perceived weaknesses and put as much focus on them as possible instead of attempting to downplay them by putting your opponent over strong and then putting yourself over even more. There was a reason heels didn't call Dusty and JYD fat, or call Hogan bald. WWE even knows this -- you'll recall that they edited out the line from Rock in his promo on Cena about being a fake suburban guy going into Wrestlemania a few years back. It's cool that people are enjoying Smackdown. I'm not trying to say that shouldn't be the case. When people have said Smackdown is good in previous threads, I haven't said "No, it's not" -- it was only the best ever talk that got my attention. In my opinion, there are systemic issues like the way heels cut promos that are so intrinsic now to how wrestling is put together that would prevent any TV show from being in the conversation for best ever until they are admitted as bad and wrong by the people in charge and changed for the better. That is just one of many examples of that, of course. I think it's great when wrestling leverages reality, especially when the story writes itself. To that extent, Dean-Renee-Miz is good as long as it doesn't assume that everyone watching already knows the score and takes the time to fill in the blanks for the casual viewer. Nattie trashing Nikki Bella over her relationship with John Cena doesn't even make the attempt to respect her as a talent though, which kinda makes the match seem less important.

I'm sure there are still people involved who didn't grow up as fans, but saw an opportunity to make money, a la Sting, Luger, Warrior, Goldberg or Brock, but I would imagine there are fewer of those types than ever in wrestling now.

So the storylines are Russo-style extensions of Internet gossip, all based on pushes and card positioning? I mean, yes, that is an improvement and a change, but it's not transformative. It's a good show. I haven't seen anyone arguing that. When I've tuned into Smackdown, I've enjoyed it. The best wrestling television ever part was the only part that gave anyone pause. That seems extreme. A show can be good without being the best ever and that's ok. The best ever is a bit more trailblazing.

Anyone interested in discussing this? In terms of hot crowds and wrestlers being over up and down the cards, yes. Even guys like The Godfather who weren't much in the ring served a hugely valuable role in the opening match during this time. The matches on TV weren't often great, but they were almost always fun. There were a lot more crowd participation spots then than there are now.

***** - Can reasonably be compared in quality to any match I've ever seen. The cream of the crop. This isn't reserved for best matches of the year or even decade so much as best matches I've ever seen. ****3/4 - This isn't something I see as quite as good as the very best matches I've ever seen, but it's at a minimum one of the best matches of the decade. Maybe the work itself is every bit as good as in some ***** matches, but the match isn't quite as transcendant. If I debate in my mind on whether a match is ***** or not, it's ****3/4. ****1/2 - MOTYC. One of the best matches I have seen during that time period. Represents its style, its performers, its company, its weight class, etc exceptionally well. While I think ****3/4 and ***** matches should have crossover appeal to any fan, whether they are normally a fan of that particular style or not, I don't think that's necessary for a ****1/2 match. A ****1/2 match can simply be the best of its kind, or among the best of its kind. ****1/4 - Fantastic match. Maybe a MOTYC in some years, but on the low end of the spectrum. This is usually a match I see as missing something to get to the MOTYC level more than it is a **** match that has something extra, for whatever that's worth. Maybe it has a weak finish, or questionable booking, or bland atmosphere, or one moment that works against what the match was aiming to achieve otherwise. **** - Great match. Not MOTYC, but an exceptional match by either global standards or the standards of the company, performers, style, weight class, etc. A **** match is a match that I see as hitting every note that I hoped it would and that can be reasonably expected. It doesn't creep into higher territory, nor does it aim to creep into higher territory. However, if a match is overly bloated but contains a lot of really great work, I would probably give it ****. For example, if 30 minutes of a 45 minute match are exceptional and the other 15 are overkill, I'd probably land somewhere around here. ***3/4 - Excellent match bordering on great, usually not quite at that level because of either something like a weak finish or a few off moments that bring the match down. If I'd say "This would be a great match if not for ", ***3/4 is about right. ***1/2 - Very good match well worth seeing. I tend to rank a lot of matches ***1/2 that pull my heartstrings. What usually keeps them from going higher is that either they weren't given enough time, there were extenuating circumstances beyond their control or I admired what they were going for so much and they came close to pulling it off, but they didn't quite get there. When I think of a typical ***1/2 match in my mind, I think of a really hot 10-minute TV match. ***1/4 - The B-plus player of wrestling matches. A step above the average good match for sure, but only a step above. Maybe a solid match that has an outstanding finish or a really great singular moment in it would qualify. *** - Good, solid match. Glad I saw it. Everything was done very well. Nothing world changing, but so what -- it was good while it lasted. Every wrestling card should have at least one of these to justify its existence. My mind has trouble computing matches under ***, so I don't do ratings below that.

Yes. In fact, I would argue Dave's influence is the reason that style became popular in the first place. He's always had a pretty strong mind for the wrestling business, and as people inside wrestling started to listen to him more on matters of booking and hiring and promotional direction, they started listening to him more about the working style too. No one in WCW had a good enough clue about the Japanese or Mexican scene to recommend good hires when they decided to launch a cruiserweight division with global influence. Bischoff consulted with Dave on that stuff. There's a reason the WWF cared more about match quality in the 90s than in the 80s, and more in the 2000s than in the 90s, and more in the 10s than the 00s, for example. The WON is why people even cared to seek out Japanese wrestling, and most people thought it was great initially because he taught them that it was. That doesn't mean that people are incapable of independent thought or that most fans blindly repeat his opinions, but just that he has shaped the way almost all of us watch wrestling, self included. He's even shaped it for people who have no idea who he is (although I suspect his name said over the loud speaker at an NXT show or even at Cowboys Stadium for WM32 would have gotten a big pop). The general morality of what is good and what is bad wrestling I think stems from Dave's personal tastes. If not his, then whose? (My favorite PWO question ...) A lot of current wrestlers read the WON as teenagers and it's been around their entire lives. That doesn't even get into the fact that most indy fans either read the WON or read sites that parrot their news and views on wrestling from the general WON mentality, so this becomes the accepted standard of "good" and the message is a candle burning at both ends. People inside wrestling hear it. Fans hear it. It becomes religion. All of that said, I've said this before and will repeat it. Dave does like action, but I've seen him pan stuff with plenty of action. He used to hate on Sabu and RVD all the time, for example. It's not just about that. He cares about what's hot and what's in style. He cares about what's cool. He cares about things that seem daring. He cares about guys who aren't just technically good, but who come across as major stars. He cares about what's over. If you look back at the last 35 years of the WON, "Dave likes everything with huge heat unless it involves Hulk Hogan" is more accurate than "Dave likes everything with crazy highspots".

I am a little surprised they haven't done The Rock yet.

It seems like Shibata is in A LOT of repeat match-ups. Fair read?

Yeah, I would like this dropped now, please.

He's the first person to say it's as good as any wrestling ever, and that's the only part I'm questioning. And I'm just confirming, not even disagreeing.