Loss

If we do comments, I'm thinking something worthwhile and heavily moderated. Think Green Greenwald when he worked for Salon, if any of you read him then.

Does this apply to when you're praising matches or when you're criticising them? I mean, if I praised Flair/Kerry would he tell me my praise means nothing because I wasn't there? If I praised it without understanding the context would he tell me I don't know what I'm talking about? Or is it only when people criticise a match for being dated or not holding up that he plays the context card? Is it okay for us to praise French catch, or should we not do so because no-one's ever done so in the past? Or can we praise French catch so long as he don't use hyperbole like "French catch was the best wrestling in the world in the 60s"? Dave has said it works both ways, yes. I also don't think saying Dave's focus is on moves and spots is entirely correct. He likes matches with hot crowds unless they involve Hulk Hogan.

They had more matches in '91 that were good, but didn't really break any new ground. We also couldn't figure out dates for them individually.

What exactly is a modern crowd supposed to boo during a match when the tactics that would normally elicit that response aren't allowed? The only thing that gets cheered/booed in a lot of modern wrestling is the momentum shift from Guy We Don't Like to Guy We Like. Eye poking, rope holding, using a chair after a ref distraction -- not so much. To me, working is about creating a change in crowd reaction through actions in the ring that manipulate emotions of the viewers. If people are just cheering or booing their predisposed favorites regardless of what is happening in the ring, there isn't as much skill being demonstrated in the artform.

There is no such thing as an objective opinion on a wrestling match, but why should I listen to someone who is so consumed by their biases that they can't acknowledge or give credit to something that throws all of their fixed ideas of what wrestling is supposed to be on their collective head? There is an exception to every rule in wrestling. I will never write off all Raven matches just because they are Raven matches, and he's probably my least favorite wrestler. A match can be a balls out bombfest, which is my least preferred way to work a match, and still be great. A match can make sense from beginning to end, but if they can't create any emotion or excitement to go with it, so what?

I will post way, way more about this when I return from my family vacation next week. Right now, I'll just say that Tim and stomper's post probably come closest to articulating my point of view on this stuff. Of course standards change, but a lot of that is based on who is setting the standards. Most of the changes that I could cite between a match now and a match 10 or 20 or 30 years ago are going to be related more to styles than standards, and I'm not really sure yet how to make the argument about standard. I've tried a few times and keep backspacing because I then realize I'm not talking about standards, I'm talking about styles. Like, I keep wanting to vent about matches not starting with a standard collar-and-elbow tie-up anymore, and when they do, it's not particularly well-worked. Compare it to something like Tully/Garvin from the 5/3/86 Worldwide where just the lock-up was amazing. But I'm not sure that really fits the original point of this thread. Or does it? If it does, it will be easier to go into this when I can do my real response later. I will say that I don't see athleticism and moves as being in competition with psychology and logic. I don't feel the need to take a side, because I don't see a competition. The best matches have elements of both. I also think on the subject of standards that anyone who doesn't at least take into partial consideration how effective a match is when evaluating how good it is has a solipsistic point of view on wrestling that is hard for me to support. Matches aren't worked for an audience of one. The reviewers to whom I pay the most attention are the ones who strive for objectivity. Objectivity can never be fully achieved, but I need to feel like the reviewer is aiming for it at least, trying to be fair instead of going on an ideological crusade. There are only a couple of people here that I think do that sometimes, and I'll name names (in a friendly way) when I have time to make a longer post. There are plenty of matches I don't really like all that much or to which I feel little connection that I can't deny are good or even great. There are plenty of matches I love that I would never argue as great. Sometimes it's hard for me to tell when I'm reading thoughts from someone if they're saying "I enjoyed this" or if they're saying "I think this is really great". I don't think those things are the same thing all the time. Dylan often mentions that Jumbo has so many great matches that he either doesn't enjoy or has little to no interest in ever watching again, which is a key distinction that I really respect.

I'm going to close this because I think we're past the point of being able to fit on any new matches.

I think it would be even better for Vince to somehow blame the stock drop on Daniel Bryan -- saying that him being champion has caused a mutiny among investors.

I modeled this after other "500 songs" type books for sure, but wow, I Googled this list and I am having fun discovering all kinds of great music. Thanks for that!

In both cases, it came down to not wanting to put more than half of a single card on a set and making a couple of tough choices.

Talk about it here.

Talk about it here.

Talk about it here.

Talk about it here.

Talk about it here.

Talk about it here.

Talk about it here.

Talk about it here.

Talk about it here.

Talk about it here.

Talk about it here.

Talk about it here.

Talk about it here.

Talk about it here.

Talk about it here.