Loss

As a separate point on the "learned psychology" of All Japan matches, my gut tells me it's probably a combination of intended attempts to play off of previous matches (which I'll add are mostly used for false finishes) and American fans probably reading too much into some of it. I don't take issue with building off of previous matches as a practice at all. In fact, it's something I appreciate in wrestling. I am only questioning its value in a company like WWE.

I still see the average WWE fan experience as the 5th grade kid in his John Cena shirt who brings his parents along. I realize that for the bigger events, it's mostly hardcore fans traveling from all over the world. These are clearly people who follow wrestling news online and are aware of indy and international wrestling to varying degrees. They probably also remember key spots in matches and respond to attempts to play off of them. But that's also an audience that WWE seems to resent and only deliberately plays to within NXT. Anytime there is a divide in what the audience wants, Vince pretty much always sides with the 5th grader in the John Cena shirt. So that was my point -- that I see that first audience as the intended audience for WWE matches with the rest of us as hijackers who just happen to be along for the ride. The company will gladly take our money, but they'd rather we just shut up and go with what they're presenting. So it's hard for me to see performers in WWE crafting matches that are catered to any audience but the kid with his parents, because to do so would be incongruent with their promotional vision (again, aside from NXT), which seems designed to draw that 5th grade kid and his parents first and foremost.

Not something I'd point to as a positive. EDIT: That was in response to Matt's post, not Dylan's.

If it's the house style, it's a misplaced style in a company that doesn't value it. It's overthought wrestling for an audience that isn't paying attention to it. If this is true, that midcarders are building off of previous efforts with subtle attempts to build on earlier matches, it seems like a vast misdirection of thought and resources -- like thought for thought's sake. It demonstrates a lack of understanding of their audience, and it's not something I'd point to as a positive.

I will answer that question this way: In WWE, if an 8-year-old isn't going to understand something, it's probably not a good idea to do it. In other words, any match choice that only works for people who follow closely and pay attention is what I'd call a really bad example of psychology in a company that is geared toward attracting casual fans. The WWE style is not and has never been fueled by creativity, but rather by predictability. And I don't even mean that as a bad thing. It's just a different philosophy where they want people to pop for anticipated spots. That's the house style. Predictability within a WWE context is a good thing, and Cesaro has his signature spots that are very over within a WWE context, and I'll give him full credit for that. For wrestlers working indy shows with more hardcore fans, yes, I do think creativity and changing things up is very important. I also don't think the "learned psychology"-type sequences are out of place when they happen in smaller companies more geared to hardcore fans. Finding that type of work in WWE is like caviar at McDonald's.

I don't want to completely downplay this point, because I think it's interesting. But I would question the wisdom of doing "learned psychology" in a company that doesn't emphasize the specifics of the in-ring style outside of nearfalls and finishing moves. I don't know about that type of wink-and-nod referential wrestling in a company that's supposed to have mass appeal. Without seeing it in practice for myself, it at least sounds on the cutesy side. Wrestling that even the most casual observer can't fully understand seems misplaced in WWE.

This is what it seems like to me. We're at a point where people were freaking out about Kevin Owens being "buried" after losing a feud to Cena that saw him presented as a big threat to him and where he beat the top guy in his very first match on the main roster. And now some people are having a fit about AJ Styles not being immediately put in the main event despite the fact that he's gotten tons of TV time and is presented as well as just about anyone on the roster. In retrospect, that feud was not at all a good thing for Owens because he had nowhere to go but down after doing such a big feud out of the gate. That he beat Cena in his first appearance has zero bearing on anything going on in the company right now. They have really lost the ability to make moments stick.

Liz fit in perfectly for those who saw Bischoff's WCW as the unauthorized WWF sequel, where all the idols of our youth had been corrupted and become old and cynical.

I just wanted to make a post about something that has bugged me for a while. I think there's something in Cesaro others see that I don't, and I'd like to be able to see it. He strikes me very much as a moves guy. He does strength spots like the suplex from the floor even in cases where I don't think it makes sense. I can't recall a great selling performance or a great heel performance, and I don't think his facial expressions are anything special either. He strikes me as a physical beast, but not really a guy who can emotionally connect with people beyond being athletically impressive. I'd like to better understand what it is about Cesaro that makes him a complete worker beyond just a guy who can pull off really impressive feats of strength and athleticism. I do believe there's more there. I'm just not seeing it for whatever reason.

Kevin Owens is a real heel in an era where real heels don't exist. He's dismissive, trash-talking and full of himself, and his personality also shines through in his ring work. If Kevin Owens turned babyface, he'd have to change up a lot of his in-ring mannerisms, and there are plenty of guys around now that I think would pretty much work the same bell-to-bell whether they turned or not. His look doesn't bug me because it's not like he's out of shape, or that he has trouble keeping up with those around him. I think fans care too much about look in general anyway. If anything, it's a plus because he doesn't look like everyone else. He's far from a perfect wrestler, and it bugs me that he seems to get these long showcases against Dolph Ziggler or Neville or whoever else regularly and none of the matches ever go into "Holy cow!" territory. But he does carry himself as a superstar, and he does have some strengths that are harder to find in 2016.

My issue with Angle isn't OMGHE'SAWFUL as much as it is that I don't see what separates him from someone like 1990 Scott Steiner, who no one passes off as a complete performer even if it was lots of fun watching him suplex guys.

Agree with this. I don't think Fujinami was bad in the 90s, but he was very much a guy who was just there. There are isolated moments where he's great, but he never really sustained it for more than the occasional one-off performance. Shiro Koshinaka is not someone I'm particularly a fan of, but he was a far more consistently good performer during those years than Fujinami in my eyes.

My goal was to make a list that was both soulless and factually correct. I hate every shred of my depleting but still present humanity that prevented my list from reaching such a moment of infallible, objective purity. I also resent the lot of you for being idealistic and alive on the inside when it comes to wrestling, for I am jaded and dead.

I thought Super Heel was pretty bad, but it also seemed like a relatively insignificant part of her career, so it didn't really factor into my ranking of her.

Do we have any archivists here with any insight on this? It sounds like something they did on purpose, maybe even to get around a system glitch or something.

BJ Whitmer is bald now and is quite possibly even sleazier, which I didn't think was possible.

Just curious if anyone would be willing to present Akiyama's best match each year from 1992 to present. I suspect after 2004 it would mostly be matches that haven't gotten much play, but maybe I'm overlooking something obvious.

That's not really it. It's more about body of work. For me, a very good worker with a long list of really great matches would rank above an even better worker without much to show for it in the way of matches. Basically, "best worker ever" is in my interpretation about things like who threw the best suplex or worked the mat best, while "greatest worker ever" seems to be something bigger than that.

I did make a new thread in the general folder explaining my use of those terms if anyone is interested. I didn't want to distract from this thread by elaborating here.

I made a comment in Shawn's thread alluding to a difference between the two words and wanted to clarify how I used them in case anyone was curious. I consider the best worker the most talented guy, in terms of physical gifts and ability to connect to an audience. I consider the greatest wrestler the guy who did a better job of transcending his toolbox to deliver matches that even people who aren't normally fans of the genre or style can appreciate. I have made the comment in the past that in order for a guy to be considered a great wrestler to me, his whole needs to exceed the sum of his parts. In other words, his intangibles are strong enough that they overcome any flaws that he may have and make them either meaningless or less glaring than they would be otherwise. So someone like Brad Armstrong never did that in a way that I'd say someone like Shawn Michaels did, even though I'd consider Brad Armstrong the much better *worker* in terms of athletic ability, execution and match layout. I don't expect anyone else to agree to that framework or use the terms the same way, but for my purposes, I thought it was important to elaborate. I didn't want to do it in the Michaels thread because I'd rather keep that thread about Shawn.

Bret, no. Owen and Kid might have been "better", but I don't think they were "greater".

I think it took a little while for Shawn to fully find his footing as a great singles worker, but he was there by 1994 anytime he wanted to be, and on just about every big show by 1995. The big strike against him has always been his offense -- he comes across as a dainty, if talented, wrestler. He did very well on my list, better than I might have expected him to do actually, so I don't say that as a major complaint. But more than his body of work or professionalism or other flaws, it's what keeps him below the very top rung for me.

I thought the idea was that in signing a top talent at 38 years old, they needed to push him to the top immediately to ensure they got some type of return on their investment.

WWE did such a bad job of presenting Angle credibly that I knew many fans who thought the gold medals were a work. Ideally, yes, he should have been peerless on the mat, and that should have been presented as the one place no one, not even other great technical wrestlers, want to take a match. But considering the way Angle was portrayed, I don't think it was as problematic.

Lovely.