Loss

I did quite a bit of rewatching. Everything I originally ranked ****1/4 or higher I rewatched and then I selected certain things that stood out in my memory in the ***1/2-**** range. And like I mentioned above, I really tried to move away from my head and more toward my heart in how I approached the ranking. There are some matches in the lower part of the list I probably feel more fondness for than matches higher, so it's not all that, but I thought it was more fun to rank matches that meant something to me.

Part 2 is up! #450 - #401: http://placetobenation.com/countdown-top-500-matches-of-the-90s-450-401/

The only point I'm making -- and it's not at all the Kamala and Norman examples you provided -- is that many of us approach wrestling in a cerebral way, so we like cerebral wrestlers. There's nothing wrong with that. Yes, I do think people either try to control for their biases or embrace them fully, openly and unapologetically. Either approach is fine. There is a certain type of match many of us see as the ideal, be it the Flair-Steamboat or Misawa-Kawada or even Bock-Hennig, that lends itself more to classic matches. The world title match that goes 30+ minutes with the slow build to a hot finishing stretch. That's not a match a wrestler like Kamala is likely to work, nor should he, so maybe he doesn't get his due like he should. But I do think Taue's character wrestles with his head and Kobashi's with his heart, and that absolutely plays a role in how we talk about both of them.

Ok then, maybe that means you are aware of it. It's there and hard to deny. I'm not even necessarily criticizing it. But it's absolutely there.

So the belief that Taue was better than Kobashi has absolutely nothing at all to do with the nature of their characters? I always thought that played an implicit role. I don't think it's intentional or something people spend a lot of time thinking about, but I do think if the character is a tactician, he'll probably be favored over the character that's a hothead.

I do agree with the general point that sometimes workers are branded as not being smart because intelligence is not the most defining characteristic of their character. The kayfabe and non-kayfabe gets obfuscated.

I'm actually not a big fan of Chopbashi -- not because he was limited physically, but because his matches became so redundant. Even then though, there are quite a few matches I think are really good. But yeah, before that, I agree that he's the most talented wrestler of all time. Dave compares him to Michael Jordan.

Always seemed to me like Sting delivered when he was challenged to do something different. He wasn't put in a position to carry anyone very often and he did an admirable job of it here. Maybe the only other example I can think of with him in a similar role is the Benoit match from '99, which didn't make my list, even though I think it's a really good match. I like the Austin-Steamboat BATB match. But something holds it back from going over the top for me, and I've never been able to figure out what that is. I dig Austin trying to get himself DQ'd and Steamboat being too resourceful for it. The WCWSN match seemed to escalate much better to me. I'll probably say this a few times, but 490 out of 3500+ matches is an impressive ranking. I consider all 500 of these matches elite. But yeah, I can see an argument for going higher than I did. Generally speaking, I agree with you, but I do think this match stood out as special. I always mean to watch their Reno handheld match from 1/23/93. Marty has called that his best match ever. I watched it again tonight for fun and still thought it was great. I loved when WCW would mix and match guys like this. I wish the Faces of Fear had taken on smaller teams in competitive matches more often. The dynamic works better I think because it provides a bigger contrast. Yes, it was Savage. Inter-match selling isn't a very common thing in the WWF, so I thought that was pretty cool. I also liked how giving Savage was. In beating him, he also established him as a real threat. Shawn I think had trouble looking tough early on, probably because the WWF was so size-driven and his opponents were still in that mentality, so they weren't as willing to tango as much as I wish they were. What's most impressive about Owen-Kid at KOTR is that it has a fully fleshed out beginning, middle and end. Maybe it would have been better with more time, but it only getting four minutes and hitting the level it did is what makes it special. I like the SuperBrawl match, and that's really the only other singles match they had that I like. One reason I prefer this one is the booking. I didn't have this on the list at all at first. I think because stuff like the fire extinguisher became a comedy spot and the powerbomb through the table became so overdone. Plus, I think the psychology of Shawn being the one to use Mad Dog Vachon's prosthetic leg was a little backwards, even though Vince did try to make clear on commentary that he didn't even know what he was doing. However, it didn't feel right leaving it off. The very best sequence of the match to me is Diesel spinning out of the superkick attempt to hit Shawn with a GREAT lariat. I also like this as the type of match Shawn needed to establish himself as champion. He showed he could go the distance and slay the giant. I've seen Rey-Psicosis from Bash at the Beach so many times and I've always thought it was a really strong match. But it's never been something I've seen at quite the elite level most people do. I think Rey and Psicosis actually had a much better match that will show up later. I do wish they had worked a match to fit the storyline, with Shawn taking Owen a little more seriously since he sidelined him. But the match they chose to do was very well-worked. Great match, yes, but the finish was flat and it seemed like some of the heat was lost after Rude's introduction, which is electric. It was actually worked as a "protest match", which was always a little factoid I loved about it. They were trying to make a point to WCW powers-that-be that as we know fell on deaf ears. I love the hell out of this match. We're already in territory with sacred cows I think. All of these matches are matches I consider great. It's in superb company. Glad you liked it! If this project sends people to explore stuff, that is awesome and I am thrilled. Owen-Shamrock at Fully Loaded is a very overlooked match. Owen knowing how to use the room to his advantage because he grew up scrapping in there was a really great touch. Because they were being filmed so close-up and there was no crowd, they really laid in their shots too. Tremendous match. It's short, but it didn't need to go very long. Bret-Backlund from Superstars is also very different for the time period. I liked the exchanging of holds in this one quite a bit. The post-match angle elevates it even more. Steamboat/Douglas vs Blonds from Clash 22. I wouldn't have anything else in the series at this level, although I do like all the matches. I loved how the announcers emphasized the faster pace because of the 30-minute time limit instead of the usual 60-minute time limit, and I also absolutely love that they got a belt shot over as something fatal, with blood and everything.

I don't really use the term, but I would guess it comes down to facial expressions, intensity, the ability to react in the moment and character conviction.

It's completely unfair, but I think the reason people don't really talk about Flair-Garvin that way is because they worked with the actual guys and learned from them instead of watching tapes and copying stuff. I think a good wrestler is perfectly capable of learning things from tape, but I'm sure it's also easier to pick up on some of the subtleties when you learn directly from the people who actually put in the time.

I think it's perfectly fine to comment and rate stuff you're seeing for the first time, as long as you put those opinions in pencil instead of pen. And I think most people here take that approach.

Part 1 is up! #500 - #451 http://placetobenation.com/countdown-top-500-matches-of-the-90s-500-451/

Well, something like Benoit-Malenko at Hog Wild in '96 would have been much better in front of an actual wrestling crowd, even doing the exact same things move-for-move. Atmosphere is a big part of what makes a match good or bad for a lot of people.

Dave places a lot of value on how effective matches are. I think that's all he means.

You won't get any argument from me on those basic ideas. As far as American stuff goes, I think you'll find a good cross-section of styles and approaches -- stall-a-thons and spotfests, Hogan main events and juniors matches, singles and tags, big shows and tiny shows ... it's pretty much all represented in some form. I'll post here when it's posted at PTBN with a link. EDIT: I'll also say here that everything I considered ****1/4 or higher is somewhere on the list. After that, I went more with passion picks than matches that I think are objectively the best. (I know that sentence will open a can of worms, but hear me out.) So if I considered a match **** but felt like it wasn't particularly memorable or unique, I bumped it to make room for a match that may not be quite as good, but that I still consider really good and almost at that level. So rather than a list that comes from the head only or from the heart only, I tried to make it more of a mix, leaning toward heart.

We'll start posting 100 matches a day at Place To Be Nation tomorrow. We'll start with #500 and count down to #1.

Hansen-Jumbo is like Austin-Undertaker. The car can't have two drivers. That's I think why neither matchup ever met its potential.

I haven't looked at the list in a good while. I'll take a look and do any needed clean-up, then post it. I hoped to eventually have a new review for every match, but if I do all of that, I'm not sure I'll ever get out of 90s wrestling, and I am ready to move on. So I'll just drop the list and then answer any questions anyone has after doing so.

Here's the deal. I have the matches ranked. But it's just of those on the yearbooks, and I felt bad saying "of the 90s" when there's still a good chunk of stuff out there I haven't seen. It's a quagmire I find myself in often, and I end up stuck at the gate.

I don't think it's right to look at someone not going in the HOF as "punishment". Lots of guys didn't have the careers they should have for reasons outside their control. They aren't HOFers because the HOF is based on the career they had, not the circumstances that prevented the career they could have had from happening.

Can human joy exist without human suffering?

I like to see what else is going on around the world at the same time so that I get the appeal, as far as what makes it unique or special. I know that's unconventional, but it helps me frame context.

this is more or less where i'm at, but i'd like to take it a step further: i feel similarly about psychology. specifically, i don't see unfocused strategy as an inherent problem. i've seen guys who make $10 million a year screw up the most basic principles of sports tactics, and don't understand why people assume pro wrestlers shouldn't make mistakes there. working the arm then switching to the back halfway through the match is perfectly reasonable in my eyes - plan A shouldn't always work! When it comes to offense, I agree. When it comes to defense (selling), guys have to at least demonstrate being hurt by stuff that's theoretically supposed to hurt. Psychology is at its core more about connection than logic. It's just that traditionally, the way to form that connection and help people suspend disbelief was through crafting something logical and through selling, whether it was to silence the skeptic who said "those guys know how to fall" or to get people to emotionally invest in something that they know isn't real. When wrestlers really treat what they do as a set performance more than a series of improvisations and reactions based on gut feeling, that's fine, but when wrestling starts being presented that way within its own presentation ("we're going to steal the show!"), those connections are formed from a completely different sensibility than they have been historically. And I still struggle to find the art in it, even though I'm sure it's there.

Re: the Lawler mention earlier in the thread, I'll make a contentious statement that I believe pretty strongly: most of his matches as a heel suck because he maintains no credibility at all. Like, not even demonstrating the ability to execute a wrestling move. The great performances are definitely there from time to time, but I find his heel instincts to be terrible and counterproductive most of the time, both in the ring and as a promo. In interviews, he often takes the HHH approach of focusing on his opponent's real perceived weaknesses, but can sort of get away with it because his wit is far superior to HHH. But they really approach heel promos the same way. Luckily, he has spent most of his career as a babyface, where he's one of the greatest ever. I wouldn't say I've "soured" on Lawler, but I don't consider him a great babyface and a great heel like I did for a long time.

I would say Jim Cornette, and not just for his sometimes questionable podcast stuff. When I watched SMW on the yearbooks, especially in 1995, it amazed me how he would take punches from active wrestlers and not bump or sell it like he'd been shot. Check out the Bodies-Gangstas brawl that spills into the street for a glaring example. I always felt like managers should oversell and he didn't, at least not in that case. I also thought he often interjected himself in feuds that didn't need him, like Snow/Unabomb vs Rock N Rolls. As a wrestling mind, I still have a great deal of respect for him, but I've come to see him the same way I see Bill Watts -- an old doctor who is still better than anyone at diagnosing, but can't treat the disease because the medicine field has passed him by.