Loss

This was flirting with Full Five status for me until that awful finish. It really did feel like the culmination of a rivalry that showed a true sense of progression. Hansen guzzled Colon in the first couple of matches just like he always did everyone. The last two matches showed Colon fighting back and here, it was clear he had Hansen's number. The match never would have worked as well as it did without allowing Hansen to be Hansen early in the feud, because his perilous state as they moved from one match to the next became increasingly surreal. All of the extracurricular brawling around the ring didn't bother me, mainly because of what I'd label an iconic visual in wrestling history when the camera panned back to see the overjoyed reactions of fans in the stands. They were working toward the King of All Blowoff Cage Matches, then when Colon went outside, I was kind of in awe of him as a babyface, because he was taking the fight to the bad guys and looked incredible doing it. Unfortunately, a cage match does imply that a finish like that can't happen, and it did anyway, so the feud lacking any clean finishes does hurt it some in my eyes in terms of all-time rivalry status. But as a series of matches, it's only barely beneath that, and this is a near-miss where I really wish I could go all the way. ****3/4

It's funny that Bret would always say stuff like that when he had a reputation for working really stiff. I realize stiff can be safe in some cases, but some guys took it a step further than that even.

Talk about a picture that perfectly captures the essence of Eric Embry.

This was just awesome! Wow. I didn't expect to like this one as much when I saw they were going longer, just because the 10-minute zone seems to have been so perfect for them. But I was very wrong on that. They built and built to that figure four so much. Just classic, All-Japan style build to a big move or hold. This was Colon as a pissed off babyface seeking retribution, and I love that match that was 90% babyface dishing out and working the leg still had that chaotic feel. Over and over, Hansen seemed desperate to just get this over with, trying for a pinfall with his feet on the ropes and finally taking the DQ to use the crutch just to break the figure four. Colon holding the ropes while fans screamed for him was such an awesome sense of retribution. There aren't many matches where Hansen gets eaten like this, and I think it takes a special guy to get that idea over in a way that seems credible. Colon stayed on him enough and was aggressive enough that it absolutely was. This was the match that made me a believer in Colon as a great worker, where the previous ones I was more inclined to see Hansen's greatness merely out of familiarity. Four matches so far, all very different and all great. ****1/2

- Undertaker & Kane vs Kronik - Take your pick from Heroes of Wrestling - Sabu vs Sandman from November To Remember '97

- Sid Vicious vs El Gigante Stretcher Match at SuperBrawl I - Triple Cage Tower of Doom at Uncensored '96 - The 1999 Royal Rumble - Kennel in a Cell - Pat Patterson vs Gerald Brisco Evening Gown Match at King of the Ring 2000 - Sting vs Jeff Jarrett at Halloween Havoc 2000

I think we're still at a phase where I wouldn't call anyone too high. My tune will completely change when we get to the top 150 or so.

How was Styles vs Zayn?

Yeah, it was purposely left vague, although we had countless criteria conversations, which were my favorite part of the project, more so than the ballot or anything else, because it helped me formulate some thoughts I can take with me when this is all over. This folder has all of those threads. Reading through them should give you a good idea of the journey many of us took.

Hansen did extremely well for me even without it. I don't know if it would have bumped him up, but it might have. Guys at that level really do live in close quarters.

There are WWF main events in the 90s that are better than All Japan main events in the 90s. If we focus too much on the handicap, we in some ways downplay the achievement of something like Bret-Austin at Survivor Series being better than every single Triple Crown Title match in 1996, or Wrestlemania XIII being better than all but one Triple Crown Title match in 1997. The difference in opportunity is a real thing, but guys like Bret Hart were often able to overcome it anyway. I'd rather see that weighed more (an equally great match that is even more impressive as a feat) than to put a ceiling on what WWF headliners in the 1990s were able to accomplish. That they had those moments where they were able to hold their own on a global stage shows that they didn't have that ceiling, or those matches could never have been as good as they were. The All Japan guys did have a lot more high end matches, and they were in an environment that valued it more so it makes sense that they would. But they also made the most of the opportunities they were given. The great wrestler in the environment conducive to good matches will probably always rank higher than the great wrestler in the environment not conducive to good matches, just like the Baron Corbins of the world will always get more chances to get over on top in WWE than the Sami Zayns of the world. It's wrestling, and when we agree to limit our compass to ring work, it makes sense that the wrestlers in the more workrate-heavy companies are going to benefit. We made a choice going in to put more stock in that.

What a fantastic match! The false finishes were incredible, among the best I've ever seen. I love the looonnnnggg tease of Hansen touching the fourth corner, which made Colon breaking his momentum quite the great moment in wrestling drama. I also liked how they for the most part stayed in close proximity to each other, which made all the strikes more palpable. ****1/2

Wow do I ever not want to rehash anything about that thread (the very thought of it makes me ill) but I will say that I have evolved on my thinking some since that time. However, far, far more than that, I've found better ways to explain where I'm coming from. More than anything, I think that's the biggest difference between now and then. But yes, full disclosure, I did throw out the line in that thread that great matches are the perfect metric for comparing wrestlers when I meant that informed conclusions that derive from analysis of good matches are my preferred method for comparing wrestlers. That's very much a phrase I wish I could take back.

To be clear, and I'm only speaking for myself here, but: * Any match I rate ***1/2 or higher is something that I would say has accomplished something remarkable * I don't think a great match has to be a certain length of time, but sometimes more time helps (I'll also note that sometimes, more time hinders) * I don't think a great match has to be a main event, but sometimes it helps * I don't think a great match has to be part of a great storyline, but sometimes it helps * I don't think a great match has to have great announcing and production, but sometimes it helps * I don't think everyone involved in every great match can claim credit for the quality outcome * If I had to guess, I don't think every match I consider great necessarily aimed to be great * I am interested in piecing together what made a match work for me and not just race to the value judgment at the end * I care about what is effective with the live crowd and consider it important, but won't dismiss something that is not effective with the live crowd out of hand * I think there are so, so, so many ways to skin the cat So using the matches as a compass to rate the wrestlers comes with all of this happening first. I've never once used a calculator to compare to wrestlers, and I don't plan to start now.

The goal of making an album or movie is also to make money, but there is still a critical enterprise associated with both of those mediums. Art and commerce can be separated and often are, but I also don't think they have to be in opposition to each other.

This makes me think the ideas we have about what makes a great match are something we need to explore too, because I think Bad Match Theorists (for lack of a better term, but it also makes me laugh ) sort of assume that those on the other side think matches that aren't sprawling epics aiming for MOTY status are a waste of time. That's not true at all. I think it's a worthwhile question because I can think of a lot of great matches where it being that probably wasn't the primary objective. In fact, in most cases, those are probably the best matches of them all. "The goal" is interesting too, because I don't really care what the objective is as much as what the outcome is. And again, I prefer to talk about it as good matches, not great matches. And I feel like shifting the conversation where we're using good matches as a barometer is far less alienating. Yes? No?

So much makes sense now in terms of the opposition to this, because I think it's a misunderstanding. I don't know of anyone who thinks it's a math problem in that sense, and I can't say I've seen that argued. I think the idea is more that the best way to assess wrestlers is to look at the quality of output. I think everything about a wrestler is theoretical until the matches become good. It's not he with the most matches in terms of the highest number, it's he who had good, enjoyable, memorable matches more than forgettable ones, bad ones or ones that don't meet expectations on paper. It should be called Good Match Theory.

My list is something I'm not overly proud of, to be honest. I took a lot of time on it, but made so many mistakes and do have regrets. Chad's is probably more me than me, at least in some ways. Still, though, the list is like 5% of this project's appeal to be, maybe less.

Shawn with better offense would mute like 90-95% of the issues people have with his work, wouldn't it? Just saying.

Haha, well thank you, that's very good to know, although I think you'll find some high praise of Bret Hart coming from me, not just when talking about him but talking about how other guys have worked with him.

I really don't see how it's any more relevant than the price of tea in China. Praise of Kobashi is about being a freakish athlete with great charisma. Sometimes, that's all it takes.

Lothario supporters should be proud. That's a hell of a showing for such a new discovery. Nothing at all to be sad about.

I voted for Gannosuke, though not as high as I thought I would before making my ballot.

Bingo. If someone thinks all of those HHH matches are great, they should rank him.

For what it's worth, I'm not sure anyone has ever been as right for a role in wrestling history as SMW Commissioner Bob Armstrong. I marked out so much when he would pull off the clip-on tie when someone wanted to fight. Going to the USWA as a heel with a list of demands was great, great stuff too.