Loss

I would also add that cases on in-ring work are mostly about big influence that's generally perceived as positive. Daniel Bryan (and CM Punk) seem to have inspired some changes in WWE that are still sorting themselves out. I see no hurry to induct Daniel Bryan because I'd like to have more time to see how far the changes reach and out long they sustain to truly measure his WWE impact. At the same time, by conventional standards, the work case that was there for Chris Benoit and Eddy Guerrero and Jushin Liger and Rey Mysterio and Dynamite Kid is already there for him.

The argument Dave always makes for Bryan is that no one has ever won Most Outstanding Wrestler that many times and not gone in the WON HOF for work. I think as a work candidate, Bryan has a super strong case, but again it shows that the owner of this HOF really sees it as about historiography more than history. The thing to remember, and I say this every year, with cases built on work, is that it's not about actual great work. It's about work that's well-received and well-regarded when it's happening. Sometimes, the two overlap, but that's not what this is about. So the case isn't that Bill Dundee had a great working punch and could sell, or whatever. It's that the hardcore readership at the time was saying, "Wow, what a great worker!" Show popularity. That's it.

Sure, it's enough but if he's going to be on Twitter, I'd prefer that he provide value instead of just fighting with trolls who don't even subscribe.

Since he's not immortal, I really wish Dave's Twitter could be something far more useful than it is.

Jay Briscoe. Matt Hardy. Corporal Robinson. Damien Wayne.

I'm not a huge fan of the modern WWE working style, but I still think it's capable of producing the occasional MOTYC. Of course there are styles I prefer over others, just like anyone else, but my mentality is that there is good and bad within each style. Yes, all styles are not created equally, but I don't really think about it that way. The type of wrestling I like is wrestling that's good. The type I don't is wrestling that's bad. That's my ultimate bias. Triangulation is possible.

JvK, what do you make of my response on the first page? I ask because we seem to be having different conversations. I also ask how you reconcile what you are saying with things like the WTBBP episode you did ranking your top 100 matches. They weren't all from the same company/era/style, but by ranking them, you were making comparisons.

I've seen ****1/2+ singles and six-mans involving Mexican minis.

All styles aren't created equal but that doesn't mean we can't make an attempt to approach them all with the same mentality. Bad matches can happen in great styles and great matches can happen in "bad" styles, which I suppose is not so different from what you're saying. But anyone who has ever called a match a MOTYC has already made a comparison to matches that come from different styles, be it the intent or not. It's hard for me to think of any widespread wrestling genres that are completely incapable of creating a great match.

I don't expect it either. But Bryan talking about it publicly like this is sort of out of character for him, and honestly on the unprofessional side. That's why I wouldn't be surprised if there is at least some level of working here.

I don't think this is the case, but I will point out that if this was an angle building to his return, this is exactly how WWE would want him to act when interviewed. Likewise, this is exactly how they wouldn't want him to act if there was no return coming.

I look at every match the same way. It's just that I'm looking at every match in a more broad way, which is "How are you approaching your audience?" To drill down more than that I think dismisses a lot of good wrestling. So my universal criteria is, "Is this match right for its audience?" Of course there are more factors than that but those are going to vary based on time and place, promotion, audience and other contextual matters. That also doesn't mean that every match that is "right for its audience" is great. But it does mean that's a bare minimum requirement. What do I mean by that? It's not so much a matter of giving the audience exactly what they want or getting the most heat possible. It can be that sometimes, but it isn't always that. It's often not that. Let me try to break it down. Please realize this is a work in progress, not a final statement from me on where I stand: It considers what the audience knows and expects and what the audience has and has not seen before that match, and it manipulates that knowledge, expectation and experience in a way that works. Is that vague? Yes, purposely so. For me, it should also be clear to the person watching with a critical eye that the wrestlers are calling the match and not the fans, but I could see differing opinions on that. You can get into other factors for a match, such as execution, selling, action level, believability and even heat (which I do think is something different than what I'm describing), and those factors are entirely dependent on context in my opinion. In fact, not all of those things matter equally (or at all) at all times. I try not to draw a line in the sand at all beyond that. It's not all that matters and it's not enough to elevate a match on its own. But it's a required ingredient in all great wrestling.

The universal standard is the ability to adapt to the setting, I think. There are endless ways to do that. Wrestlers that can give the marks what they want or expect while still hanging on to some sort of conviction in how they are getting there are pretty cool. More later.

I wish they'd come up with the idea to move him sooner because while I do like the Slater-Rhyno tag team, I think Slater and Swagger would be even better.

I don't see the big deal in praising a 7 minute match to that extent after saying that from your experience matches generally need at least 8 minutes to reach that level. Unless you're absolute about it it's even pretty consistent. It's certainly completely different than praising a two minute match like that. Beginning/middle/end indicates a match needs at least three parts, I think you can have a great match with two control segments so I don't really look at it as splitting it that way. Beginning/middle or middle/finish can be kinda glued together I don't believe in perfection but relatively perfect/five star is commonly used and everyone knows what it means. My issue with the part I bolded ("from your experience") is that the words are rarely said and I'm not even sure it's just tacitly understood, especially in cases when people are seeking objective standards about what wrestling is supposed to be. People tend to see the potential for greatness as only what they've personally witnessed, and yes, it sounds pedantic, but I really believe in at least trying to avoid that because it strikes me as a little solipsistic. It was what tied me in knots with ranking wrestlers from GWE when I haven't seen them all, and it's where I struggle with questions like this too. I haven't come across very many generally accepted "rules" about good wrestling -- to the extent they are even rules -- that don't have exceptions. It's similar to the simplistic idea that good wrestling is Remembering To Sell The Leg During A Comeback and bad wrestling is Forgetting To Sell The Leg During A Comeback. The hyper focus on it fosters a reductive way to watch wrestling where only one thing matters.

I wouldn't say there is a bias toward long matches as much as there is a bias toward matches that are long enough. I've seen plenty of sub five-minute matches I'd definitely categorize as fun or even good (***-ish), and even one that comes to mind that I'd call great (Lawler-Snowman), but even that I wouldn't rank at **** or more. Why? Because it still feels incomplete. Because I have yet to see an example of a match with that little time that doesn't feel like it would have benefitted from more time. Just like I have seen plenty of matches that would have benefitted from less time. I don't want to say it takes at least 8 minutes or whatever because I'm not sure it does. I can only speak to my viewing experience, not what's possible in all worlds. And I'd hate to say "a match has to be at least 8 minutes to be great" and then see a 7 minute match that flipped that idea on its head. In general, I think a great match needs to have a compelling beginning, a compelling middle and a compelling final stretch. I wouldn't say that can't happen in five minutes. I just haven't seen it happen. I'd also add that I've never seen a match I'd call perfect. I've been non-committal but I'm pretty sure that doesn't exist.

19 minutes and 37 seconds. I don't mean to be dismissive, but I don't really see how this can be standardized. However much time it takes for a match to have a strong and fleshed out beginning, middle and end that doesn't feel like it was too short.

I think this is because you are far more unencumbered by the idea of being "fair" (whatever that means) than I am.

I get a ****1/4 match not being a MOTYC, but I also think that's pretty safely a great match, at least by the standards I'd apply. I was hoping to capture more talk about good matches that you feel strongly about even if you'd never argue them as MOTYCs.

I started this thread because of my admiration for the Kevin Owens-Roman Reigns match on Raw last night. I wouldn't call it an all-time classic or anything like that, but it was definitely a very good match that impressed me and that I'll remember for a long time.

What are your favorite matches that you think are safely very good but fall short of great, either barely or by a big margin? I do think sometimes we focus so much on the super super high end that a lot of very good matches get forgotten that shouldn't. What matches stand out to you the most as being enjoyable that aren't going to be anyone's MOTY but still are really good and worth seeing.

He really doesn't. That's why his star ratings are most valuable as an idea of what the consensus opinion was at the time. But when we have very different takeaways, I think it's worth remembering that many of the matches were rated based on a JIP TV version and we saw something in most cases unedited.

Yeah frankly if there was anything offensive or embarrassing about the whole thing, it was Punk saying this. I almost did a cartoon spit take when I heard him say that on a Countdown. He fucking what. Undertaker said that too, for whatever that's worth.

I suspect he changed at some point. He went from babyfacing Rush Limbaugh on commentary at Clash 22 to saying within the last few years in a blog entry that Real Time With Bill Maher is one of his favorite shows to watch.

Also, keep in mind that footage being available or not available has never been Dave's strong suit. He once said excitedly on WOR that he had a copy of the World Wrestling Peace Festival, something that has been in circulation forever. He was super excited to see complete 1994 Super J Cup matches on New Japan World because he only watched the JIP TV versions at the time. LBOA was more of a PWI legend than a WON legend.