Loss

And yes, there is no way to discuss this wrestling topic without getting political, so I'll allow it in this thread.

There are limits to that, and you know that's true. People cared overwhelmingly that Hillary Clinton called racists deplorable and that Barack Obama called people in small towns bitter, yet they talk about everyone else being snowflakes.

#100 - #51 is up! Sleaze, I hope to get back to you today on everything, especially #269. http://placetobenation.com/countdown-top-500-matches-of-the-90s-100-51/

Words matter. They directly and indirectly affect our attitudes toward just about every issue. We cede the language, we cede the narrative. We cede the narrative, we have nothing. This cuts both ways, whether it's insistence on saying "radical Islamic terror", always prefacing criticism of the Supreme Court with the word "unelected" or calling them "judicial activists", evolving from "illegal alien" to "undocumented immigrant", calling black shooters "thugs" and white shooters "lone gunmen" or determining as a society that calling someone a "pussy" or "cocksucker" is offensive. There are political costs and political benefits to all language, so I'd rather people just figure out what they truly believe and then try to win the argument on the merits. Maybe language isn't the most important thing, but it has an outsized role to play in all of the important things.

#150 - #101 is up! And yes, Sleaze, I'm waiting to respond to you because I know it better be good! http://placetobenation.com/countdown-top-500-matches-of-the-90s-150-101/

Agreed. Fine to talk about the relevance of the article in the WON, the quality of the writing, etc.

Agreed.

I thought that was a great read and was perfectly relevant. Dave was uniquely qualified to approach it the way he did. No one else could have quite pulled that off.

I will say that I usually don't read match reviews until after I've watched a match. Most of the time, I look for the star rating (or similar value assignment) and determine if the reviewer is saying it's worth my time, yes or no. After I've watched it, I'll go back and read the review to see how the thoughts match up to my own. I do that because I don't want to be influenced by existing opinion as much as I can help it.

She certainly is. She has a lot of flaws that are undeniable, but her body of work is equally undeniable. This is an atypical match for her in how it's worked, but more people tend to like it as a result. This is a late 70s madman match from New Japan Classics transported to BattlARTS in 1999. ****1/4 is my star rating. There is another match between them I like more. It's a handheld match. They go old school with it and get lots of time. #364 is a really strong ranking. I am. I think the main reasons it's great are because it's a teaser of what could have been and it's Kawada stepping outside his comfort zone.

Nothing really. Just that the difference between an original ****1/2 rating and a new **** rating is enough to move it down a few hundred spots on such a competitive list. I think it's a great combination of action, blood, psychology, a finish that was a wow moment at the time and the best aspects of WWF theater. I would have gone higher if it felt a tad more epic, but I'm comfortable calling it a **** match. I do like the War Games match, but not as much as most. As good as it is, it also feels like a match with some missed opportunities and unfortunate limitations. They did great within that framework, but there are certain expectations that come with War Games that I don't think were met. This match, on the other hand, is everything you'd want from a quintessential Southern tag. It didn't feel like it was missing anything. I like those matches too, but I put this one above those pretty easily. Just as a point of reference, every match below this one I have at ****. This is my first ****1/4 match. We're in 4.25 territory for a long, long time. I have always defended the way this match was worked and always will. I don't even think it was just not the wrong choice. I actively think it was the right choice. I'm glad I have someone else on my side. There are two '99 matches actually, and both are terrific.

If you want to get why I love early 90s Jeff Jarrett so much, watch this match. It's on the Network buried in the middle of one of the long Best of Global videos. Eddie Gilbert also puts on a master's class. That was my favorite aspect of the match. You'll go crazy for this one, and you can trust me on that. It's also 11 minutes long, so it doesn't at all overstay its welcome. I've gone back and forth on the Bash match. I thought it was better than WM8 the first time I saw it and not as good the second time. It's time for a tiebreaker. In short, it's a massacre. I suspect this is a ***** match in full. I see it as a holy grail. The part that aired was awesome enough that I felt comfortable putting it here, even with only 10 minutes shown.

Please do. It's a really strong TV match. He definitely is. He rarely went above that mark, but he has quite a few ***-**** matches from 1990-1993, including more that just barely didn't make the list. I sincerely believe you will love this match. It's worth going out of your way to watch. I thought it was a really strong thinking man's match. There's a lot of really cool detail work. Windham was in a groove as a heel and we know Steamboat's story. I can absolutely admit a lot of the flaws in this match, but for some reason, they didn't phase me much. I think what appealed to me most about this is that because we got it with no commentary or production sweetening, we were able to hear the action a lot more, which made it all seem so much more physical. I sometimes think WWF/WWE matches are probably better than they seem to be because even stiff shots don't seem that way because of the overly processed way they film matches. Here, you could hear breathing and smacking of skin and stuff like that. It makes a difference. It's not quite as good, but it's still pretty great. It's in some ways a primitive version of the Survivor Series match. You'll see what I mean if you watch it. I might have gone higher even with the clipping, but I thought there were too many hot tags in too rapid succession. I still think it's a great match, mainly for Kobashi's tremendous bandaged performance. It grew on me after a rewatch. I don't see it as in the same stratosphere as their post-1996 matches, but it's still great. I do agree that it's a master Bret Hart performance. I think if I was ranking matches based on one-man performances in carrying a match, this would be in the top ten of the decade. But I do think this was on the bland side at time, and Davey Boy looked awful. Everything great about the match is because of Bret Hart. I like this one more just because Pillman seemed more fired up. He was fired up in the February 1990 match too, but with the Horsemen feud happening during this time, there was a stronger hook in '91 I think. The only great singles match Flair had in '91 IMO. To me, this is the only time Hogan vs Flair was ever done right, or at least the closest example of it. Hogan seemed motivated to have a great match debuting in WCW and the atmosphere was awesome. I get the criticisms, though.

Finish going through 1997.

What are everyone's thoughts on the expiration of time match in Memphis? I love that as a concept. It probably wouldn't work now, but it worked great for the time and place.

#350 - #301 is up. http://placetobenation.com/countdown-top-500-matches-of-the-90s-350-301/ And Sleaze, I owe you two replies, which I'll get to this weekend!

HHH did mix things in that are his own, so I wouldn't say that about him in the ring most of the time. I don't see Tommy Rich doing a Thesz press or someone doing an O'Connor Roll other than Pat O'Connor as cosplaying. I would say, though, that HHH was cosplaying Ric Flair during Evolution as a character.

And that being said, I can't think of a Dick Slater *match* that feels like cosplay. To me, that's stuff like indy wrestlers copying sequences in Misawa-Kobashi matches.

That's a very good wrestling example. I like Dick Slater, but he's a Terry Funk clone. I like Tom Pritchard promos, but he's a Roddy Piper clone.

I just thought of a good music analogy, which I know GOTNW just loves. Lenny Kravitz isn't as good as Prince or Hendrix. Why? There are many reasons, but the main one is that almost all of his entire sensibility is derivative.

It should be on the WWE Network.

Sometimes there's not even a lull. In the Bret Hart era of WWE, it's been pointed out that matches were typically constructed in five minute acts. It's not that they stopped, it's just that that's how momentum shifts occurred. Once you see it, you can't unsee it. As for the question, I neither prefer it nor oppose it. It all comes down to execution.

That's awesome! I hope you check in and let us know how it goes.

Where does this idea that Flair didn't do matwork come from? Most of his title matches do a lot with a headlock. The figure four I consider matwork. Garvin worked a front facelock for a big chunk of their title change. Steamboat worked a hammerlock at Wrestle War '89. I can think of dozens of other examples. I don't really get it.

Hmmm, without counting up anything, I'm guessing 1992-1994 and 1996-1997 are the peak years as far as representation. I'm hoping a stathead will want to produce some numbers on stuff like that at the end.