Loss

Daniel Bryan returns and gets eliminated by HHH. Stephanie slaps Brock and Brock has to sell it. AJ Styles gets eliminated in ten seconds, perhaps by an also-returning Kevin Nash.

When I start thinking about ranking wrestlers, I come up with a few truths that apply to the way I watch wrestling, and whether it's these or a different set of truths, I'd be interested in hearing both responses to mine and what yours may be. (1) Flaws are only flaws if they have consequences. If a wrestler missing a spot or being too giving or not selling long enough or any other claim we make has a detrimental impact on the overall quality of what I think of the match I've just watched when it's all over, then yes, that matters. If it's something that you could say "Well, good wrestling has this thing, and this thing was poorly executed here, so while I enjoyed the match a lot, that flaw was there", then that doesn't really matter to me. I think of wrestling as a build to a feeling at the end. If when I watch something, I think "that was great" when it's all over, then it was great. There is value in working backwards to figure out why it was great or how it could have been better, of course. But it's that gut feeling when the match is over that is the deciding factor for me. A review is an attempt to capture what led to that gut feeling. (2) There is no objective criteria for what makes a wrestler or match great. I've seen matches with great work on a technical level (meaning they did everything that on paper you'd hope they would do) be disappointing. I've seen matches where the work is full of flaws that I'd still call great. It's a hard thing to pinpoint, but I suppose it again goes to that feeling you have when it's all over being the best indicator. As far as wrestlers themselves, this was my hangup with BIGLAV but really, with any attempt to come up with a list of qualities that define greatness. I remember Lance Storm saying during the infamous DVDVR debate in 2000 that he has no problem with fans ranking matches because they're ranking the finished product. But he has a real problem with ranking wrestlers because you don't know how good or bad they are and how much they are contributing specifically as a spectator. And I don't entirely agree with that, but I think I'm closer to that than the opposite. I usually don't know who is calling spots, or who contributed the most ideas to the match layout. I don't know when I see a wrestler do something impressive if he's doing it on his own accord or if he's doing it because the other wrestler signaled to him that's what he should do. I don't expect this to be a popular take and I do understand the counter-argument, but this is why my list will for the most part just be a list of guys who I think had the most good matches over the longest period of time in the most settings. I disagree with Storm in the sense that if you watch enough of what a wrestler does, it's clear what they're contributing. But I do agree with him that I'm more interested in ranking the meals than ranking the chefs. That part isn't really news to anyone who has hammered that topic out with me before, but it's something I've been wanting to flesh out more for a while. I think it's only fair that we give wrestlers latitude in how they accomplish greatness, instead of taking an approach where we decide that greatness has to be achieved in a specific way by meeting a checklist of qualities. (3) Crowd reaction matters a lot. The whole idea behind working matches is to get them over with their audience. A match that can't do that has failed to accomplish its most basic goal. That doesn't mean a match that has a hot crowd is always great, or a match that has a dull crowd is always bad. Nor does it mean that the workers with the biggest crowd reactions are the best. This is the one area where I do think taking more of a micro approach has value to me. Hogan's matches were heated as hell, but Hogan could have done anything and they would have been heated. Crowds were already predisposed to react, so the ring work could be less than good and it wouldn't matter. The same is of course true with other guys that we think of as great like Flair or Bret or Austin -- crowds are predisposed to care and react in the desired way, and often will even if the work isn't up to par. Seeing an undercard match with little build or where the heat starts off as nothing special build to something really heated is a good way to see what a wrestler can do to connect with an audience. In the ideal situation, you have both factors at play -- predisposal and manipulation taking place in the in-ring action to create the biggest possible crowd responses. Matches that have the manipulation without the predisposal are great, but most great wrestlers have some predisposal working in their favor. Matches that have the predisposal without the manipulation are nothing special. Matches that have both predisposal and manipulation working in their favor are usually the classics.

Is there anywhere we can go with that other than ranking wrestlers on what-ifs? Just asking how you think we should factor in that he had more opportunities relative to other great workers. I don't mean that with any type of agenda, but I've seen it brought up by a few people a few times, and I'm trying to understand how "Well, he had more opportunities" matters. Does it matter in the sense that we should cut guys slack who didn't have those same opportunities? Does it matter in the sense that it's less impressive that he pulled it off since he was always put in positions to pull it off? Again, just want to understand, so next time that someone brings that point up, I know how to take it.

WWE producers knew how to manipulate to get responses that would make a good story. They tricked Piper into badmouthing Bret on the originally planned and later canned "Screwed: The Bret Hart Story" by saying "Bret Hart tells everyone he's the greatest technical wrestler to ever live. Do you agree?" and then Piper said "No, Bob Orton was" and started in before stopping when he realized what they were doing.

I remember the Samoan Swat Team having some great squashes.

If you define variety as being able to make your match work against a wide variety of opponents, to me, Flair is clear number one. It's similar to how we've talked about Vader just taking the Vader show on the road instead of changing his style everywhere. If you define variety as being able to chain wrestle, fly, work suplex-heavy highspot matches, brawls, etc., then Flair probably isn't the clear number one. Someone is probably better than him at each of those things.

I think the biggest case for Fujinami over Flair is his actual wrestling ability -- his ability to mechanically work the mat and execute moves is top notch. Everything he does just looks so good. Flair and Jumbo are not slouches there by any means, but Fujinami is probably the best pure *wrestler* of the three. He also has far wider variety in his best matches than either of those guys because he excelled both as a junior heavyweight and a heavyweight, in throwaway singles matches, in blood feuds, in tag matches and multi-mans, against opponents regarded as great and against opponents not-so-regarded as great. He wouldn't be my pick for that spot but I think that's his case. He also worked in more spots on the card while Flair and Jumbo were more consistently main event, so we got to see him in multiple roles.

Something that made it harder for me to get into lucha libre initially that I think would make a difference for most people is for CMLL audio to be better. Imagine watching that stuff and being able to clearly hear what the crowd is popping for.

Ric Flair made the Ric Flair Special work in more places with a wider variety opponents than anyone else made their signature match work against multiple opponents. I can see a case for ranking others higher if you care more about the intricacies of their work than their output, and I can also see ranking others higher if you're looking more at working a lot of matches that felt different from each other. But if you care about match quality, Flair gave too many guys in too many places their best match for it to be anyone but him in my mind.

Story with Paul Roma is that Flair and Arn had nothing bad to say about him and he had nothing bad to say about them. Then they goaded one side into badmouthing the other, and then told the other side what the other one said. That's how they got those DVD soundbytes.

I don't think you were harsh on him. I think you may have watched the matches that people aren't really using to advocate for him for the most part.

I've always wanted to see a movie about cooking eggs by the back porch. I'll check it out!

To be fair, while Styles did have some great matches early in his career, he had plenty of criticism from a lot of people at the time. It's only been in recent years (really, post-TNA) that he has been more of a consensus pick as a top wrestler in the world. What I mean by that is that Bryan Danielson and Samoa Joe have been pretty revered by just about everyone forever now, but AJ Styles and Christopher Daniels had their share of supporters and detractors. In the case of Daniels, he still does, while Styles has probably peaked in his 30s.

There are ways they can get to HHH-Reigns without HHH winning, so I think it's just an assumption gone wild. It wouldn't surprise me, though.

I've been waiting for the right moment to recommend Mascara Sagrada to someone.

That's their fault. Non-wrestling fans don't hear wrestling fans talk about how Flair-Steamboat from WCW Main Event in July of '94 doesn't measure up to the rest of their series either. Perhaps soup's wife is the only exception.

Oh, there's no such thing as wrestling that's harder to watch than Really Bad Lucha, at least in my view. But I think the restraint or nuance you seek is already there. You should hear the things people say about AAA and IWRG.

There is zero reason that a well-hyped retirement match at Wrestlemania couldn't be a midcard match with some interest.

Remember when they tried to turn him by making him a Wyatt Family member? Then they had to makeshift that angle at the last minute to get him out of the Wyatt Family and back to being Daniel Bryan because of the University of Michigan chanting thing getting some publicity. That came off like a planned out angle, but wasn't.

I've always seen Bryan as a guy for whom being a genuine nice guy is so obvious that it's clear he's just playing when he's a heel. He can do it all as a heel except get people not to like him. Rollins suffered from the same thing -- just underneath the cliched heel actions, he seemed like a nice guy who was just acting. HHH and Stephanie come across as power-drunk and unbearable, probably because it's not *that* much of a stretch.

I know they've squandered most of Mark Henry's value by not using him, but why wouldn't they let him do that promo on TV?

I think Vince had a mentality at that time that the paying customer should get a happy ending.

Nitro going to three hours had an adverse effect as well, but it still seems like even at their worst, WCW never struggled in the same way to fill the time. It's a silly question to ask in so many ways, but is the difference that WCW had such a superior talent roster to today's WWE?

Curtis Axel should get not-eliminated again this year. And next year. And every year. It's not much, but it's at least a running gag for a guy who doesn't have much else going. That got Kofi through a few years of nothing until New Day caught on.