Loss

I can't picture the pescado neckbreaker. When did he do it?

They just added the 11/28/86 episode of WCCW.

They will base that on the number of views each episode gets, which is why I have it going in another window on my laptop right now while I do other things.

I encourage everyone to watch every classic show on the Network to get some viewing stats going our way. For shows I've seen, I'm just going to let them run, but the only way to get them to post more is if they see that people are watching what's there.

Someone at some point should look back on stuff like the JBAs-Glamour Girls feud, Sherri Martel's matches, Wendi Richter, Alundra Blayze, Bambi, Debbie Combs, etc. and ponder if what we're seeing now is truly an unprecedented level of quality in the U.S. for women's wrestling, or if it's just that they are getting more promotional and booking focus now. I suspect it's a little of both, but I also suspect the women who did work in the past weren't as bad as we might think. Leilani Kai was pretty well-regarded in her day (both for her U.S. and Japan work), so I think a side-by-side comparison to Sasha Banks would be very interesting.

Also, how you would feel about considering Great Matches as Good Matches? Ultimate Warrior has had more great matches than Brad Armstrong, to use a comparison Dylan sometimes pulls out, but Brad Armstrong has had far more good matches than the Ultimate Warrior. In other words, does a wrestler get credit for producing good stuff or just great (****+) stuff? I've been thinking about that lately anyway. Maybe Great Match Theory is less divisive if it's called Good Match Theory.

With regards to the point I made earlier, what if you had 10 bonus points (or 5 bonus points) banked for every wrestler? You could allocate them as desired to any category/categories, but you wouldn't be required to use any or all of them. That would allow for guys who may be exceptionally great in one or two categories to benefit from that in a way that allows for guys to do well where the whole far exceeds the sum of the parts. I guess the reason I'm stuck on that is that there are so many workers and matches in wrestling that shouldn't be great because they don't check of all of the paper boxes, but they manage to be anyway.

Be a Star!

They managed to make me tired of the name "League of Nations" in record time. I already think it's stale, probably because they said it too many times.

I don't actually think Dave views domestic violence issues this way, but I do think when he starts viewing it in this way, it's a sign he needs to take at least an afternoon off and do something else. Not excusing it as much as I am (I think) explaining it, but I can see how being in the wrestling bubble as much as he is can crush the soul, without the crushed person even realizing it.

- Fines

I guess my point there is that there's an inherent idea that someone who is very good at many things is better than someone who is exceptionally great at one or two things and not so much at other things. Is that true? I'm sure it is just as much as it isn't.

First of all, as someone else who jumped off and then jumped back on, I'm glad you are submitting a ballot now. I look forward to seeing it. Second, I respect the idea behind this. It's not so much that you're aiming for objective ways to rate wrestlers as it is that you are looking for a standardized way to rate wrestlers, and I do think there's a difference. We're all just trying to wrap our heads around this and I have appreciation for the effort and thought that went into developing this. I'm not sure that I'd come up with categories that were different, or even if I did that they would be better. However, there is one major issue I can't shake and I'm curious your response to it. Some wrestlers are exceptional in one or two categories and barely register in one of the other categories. To rank them lower in other categories is fine, but in some cases, that penalizes them for something that wasn't really important to their run. I feel like 10 possible points in the Intangibles category is a contradiction in itself, because the intangibles carry infinite weight. I'll give you an example. I'd rate someone like Flair a 10/10 in that category. I'd also rate Hogan or Inoki a 10/10 in that category. That seems unfair to Hogan and Inoki. In the context of what we want from a wrestler on an artistic list, I can't think of anything Flair could do to add to his presence or his aura. But he didn't captivate the masses like Hogan did, or like Inoki did. Inoki is a cultural figure on the level of Muhammad Ali. If someone was going to rate Inoki on their list, almost his entire case would be made in that category. It downplays the ability of wrestlers to transcend these "lanes" that it feels like we're placing them in. No coloring outside the lines is allowed -- you can be a 10/10, but you can't be a 20 or a 30 out of 10. So maybe I should rank Flair a 9/10 there since he was a gigantic wrestling star, but not a transcendant figure. So that suggests he's only slightly behind those guys? Oh, so maybe I should take him down to a 5 or 6. Wait, that seems harsh. Does it suggest that he's weak in that category when he really isn't? Different wrestlers can be great for completely different reasons, and wrestling is a form where I think two diametric truths can exist in full conflict to each other and be equally viable. Tamura is an exceptionally talented wrestler. He has the match resume and his feud with Han produced some all-time classics, but his pure talent is by far the most important part of his case. See what I mean? I empathize because I wish it was this straightforward for me. I want it to be a math problem sometimes because it's a little easier to ponder. "Who Is the Greatest Wrestler Ever?" then becomes a problem that we can solve. I'm just not sure it works that way in this case.

I have no problem with Tatanka going in, but I anxiously await whatever revisionism they have in store for us as far as his impact.

Clique hand signs, ponytails, cool heel stables with their own merchandise, outside interference in big matches and the camera pan they do for Okada -- current New Japan that I've seen feels an awful lot like early 2000s WWE.

I guess the analogy would be having a great meal and finding out after that the chef spit in your food.

The stereotype is that men are the ones who become friends after getting in a fight.

- Baseball bat as equalizer - A bandaged forehead - Wrestler narration of arena footage - Single fan in studio laughs audibly at something not intended to be funny - Misspelled name in graphic

- Returning babyface chases heel(s) out of building with a weapon then cuts a fired up promo - "Jack" - "Baby" - Reference to someone as "bad"

- Says something racist - Says something overly wordy/illogical about a contract

For whatever it's worth, the Torch said at the time that Vince was prepared to push Big E hard and right to the top until HHH convinced him Reigns was the guy and they changed course. I've never seen that reported anywhere else and don't know if it's true, but Big E did get a strong push out of the gate that vanished quickly, and that would at least make sense.

My issue with Lesnar-Reigns is that they stuck with that match defiantly, despite bad crowd reactions and despite Reigns not getting over. So if they were so set on that match, they should have had the courage to give the match a winner -- either Roman Reigns or Brock Lesnar. They used the briefcase as a get out of jail free card because they wanted to get the belt off of Brock without him getting beaten. It's enough to put a stink on the entire viewing experience, even though it was a fantastic match. I still think Brock should have won and kept the belt at home for months at a time yet again, with the difference being that they'd actually talk about him constantly even though he wasn't around. It's not like the championship has meant more with Rollins being around all year.

Just to confirm, this is the same one on the Watts 80s set, right? I know there's one dated that with them working in street clothes, DiBiase in a green shirt.

WWE hasn't pushed a match as revolutionary or iconic after the fact in a long time, with the brief exception of HHH-Undertaker after Wrestlemania 28. For the most part, nothing post-Monday Night Wars has been deemed deserving of canonization.

Has Austin ever said anything about New Day? I know Jim Ross can't stand them, but I was curious about Austin.