gordi

Rashad Cro Cop is an early contender for most improved fighter of 2007. And, yes, Short Fuse doesn't stink after all, but Heath just might. Better show than I expected, over all.

I can see where you're coming from. From my point of view, though, the worst kind of mindset by far is the one that can only appreciate one kind of wrestling. I find it fully wrong-headed if someone who only enjoys highspots hates on anything and everything that isn't packed full of hugely exciting offense. It also bugs me someone who can only get into slow building old school face vs. heel matches where the heel beats the baby down, only to lose the advantage due to hubris, and then the good guy get his revenge and the reviewer in question feels the need to bitch every time a match doesn't follow that formula. There are people online who love 1990s AJPW King's Road Style so very much that they judge every match in terms of how it compares to that style. I can't get behind that, either. There are so many different kinds of great wrestling. The reviewers that I enjoy reading are almost always the ones who can see what's great about a bunch of different styles. The same is true, in my way of looking at things, of music, movie, or video game critics. To hell with film geeks who only give love to obscure foreign films with complex plots and to hell with mouth-breathing dolts who hate anything that doesn't define its conflict with a car chase. They are both wrong. Similarly, to hell with wrestling geeks who can only praise something if most of the other geeks haven't seen it yet, and to hell with people who only watch what's on free TV but think that they are pro wrestling experts. Both are idiots. It's more than just "reviewers". There are plenty of fans who think the same thing. Holds = boring, unless it's a holds based style such as UWF. That thinking *is not* an online invention. You can see it in old WONs as well. There's a reason the Flair was so popular among hardcore fans in the 80s and 90s even before the net and that his matches were "great" and "action packed". It's because Ric kept things moving along, more than most any heavyweight in the US at the time. He did it in a theatrical style. Easy connection. John I know that this will mark me as a wrestling fogey, but I think that's the worst kind of "only one style of wrestling is good wrestling" bias: the bias that it's only good if the action is non-stop. It's one of the reasons that I was damn happy with a trend that became pretty clear in 2006: what seemed to be a decline in the overall popularity of TNA combined with a rise in the overall popularity of ROH with Bryan Danielson deliberately working an old school World Champion gimmick. I love an occasional fast-moving spot-filled sprint, but I HATE the short attention span idea that every match needs to be structured that way.

My guess is that you'll come back to wrestling refreshed and end up enjoying it more than ever. That's generally what I find happens to me when I take a break. I got a little burned out on pro wrestling and pro wrestling discussion earlier this year after throwing myself into the "Greatest Wrestler Of All Time" project over on Smark's Choice... then I had the DVDVR Other Japan 1980s stuff to go through, and all of the new stuff I got turned on to during the SC discussion, plus the ROH stuff I'd picked up... it started to feel like watching wrestling was an obligation more than a hobby. I took about six weeks off of watching wrestling. That turned out to be the right thing to do. Nice come-backs to my criticism, by the way. Maybe I've been reading you incorrectly, as I really felt that you were driven mainly by ego.

Exactly! There is often a point to it. People who write reviews of pro wrestling that complain every time a hold is slapped on are missing that point. (Reviewers like that exist, too. Mostly, they are people who started out reading Scott Keith, and took his definition of 'work rate' too far, I'd assume).

I concede that your general argument is correct, John, but that is a long way from arguing that there shouldn't be a point to pro wrestling, which is where all this started.

Yeah, it's the end of Monday Night Football more than anything else, as John pointed out. And as anarchistxx points out, the RumbleMania period tends to draw lapsed fans back in. It's lately been the only time of year that I follow WWE closely at all, and I know I'm not alone in that.

This thread is getting too interesting for me to leave myself out of it. Plus, I want to argue/discuss this with Bix, wp, and John again. No you don't. You like getting praised for your opinions, but you apparently can't handle being criticized. That's not really discussion. I am under the impression that you just want people to read your reviews and enjoy getting your take on matches. If that's the case, you should get a column somewhere instead of posting reviews on discussion boards... but I'd warn you, readers will still write to disagree with you. I don't think that anyone has issue with your reviews because you don't hold the consensus opinion on many matches. I think the problem is that you have really poor reasons for holding those opinions, reasons that clearly show that you do not understand what is supposed to be happening in the match in question. This is the point where we disagree, obviously. I think that it takes a whole lot of ego to really believe that all that matters is your take on a match. Wrestling matches don't take place in a vacuum, and it simply isn't the case that they should all be judged according to a single set of criteria. I'd ask you, anarchistxx, to please really think about this and not take it as a personal attack. I'm not trying to insult you (here at least), I'm sincerely trying to discuss pro wrestling with you: Very often, there is much more to a great match than what first meets the eye. I fully agree with you that you shouldn't have to search for the meaning of a match. Furthermore, I would agree if you wanted to argue that a great match should be able to stand on its own and that you shouldn't need to know all of the stuff that led up to a great match in order to be able to appreciate it. What I would argue, though, is that many matches are much better when appreciated in context, that opening up to appreciating great matches in context will increase your enjoyment in watching them, and that reviews that are written without taking the context into account end up being nothing more than just one person's opinion. I guess you don't need anyone to tell you anything... but I am genuinely sure that if you were willing to listen to what other people had to say and take it into account, you would both deepen and broaden your ability to appreciate pro wrestling, and you'd get a great deal more out of it. The reviews don't 'miss the point'. There shouldn't be 'a point'. People should watch matches and get what they get out of them, not get something they're supposed to get. There IS supposed to be a point: Wrestlers do X at Y point in the match to get Z reaction. Not always. A lot of times X is done just because it is what you're good at. Oh, come on, wp! You of all posters have to understand that, for a good pro wrestler, 'what they are good at' has to be understood as 'what they do that gets a reaction.' Teddy Hart doing backflips to no reaction (or a negative reaction) is an example of a wrestler doing X at Y point for another reason, but coming up with examples like that doesn't make for a good argument that top pro wrestlers in classic matches are doing things for any other reason than to work the crowd. Not always. Sometimes the do Q at Y point to give opponent B and themself (Wrestler A) a breather. You know... the old resthold. Restholds aren't always poorly worked. It's one thing that comes through in watching a chunk of matches like the DVDVR WWF 80s set - there are wrestlers who can put on a resthold to give both a breather while also working it in a fashion that doesn't lose the crowd. I'd have to go back and look at some of my comments, but Dibiase comes to mind as someone who took a breather well. That's one example where things are done in the ring not exactly to get a reaction. I'm sure we can think of others. John I don't quite follow this argument, John. Sure, bad wrestlers will put on a rest hold just to catch a breather or to talk to their opponent, but what you are describing is another example of a good wrestler doing X at point Y to work the crowd. For example, Nick Bockwinkle may throw the arm bar on to grab a breath... but I'd bet that much of the time he's also doing it at a point where it makes sense to bring the crowd back down, and furthermore he's also probably working that armbar with movement, body language, and facials... and why? To get a reaction from the crowd. I think that if we modify Bix' post just a bit, to read "Good wrestlers do X at Y point in the match to get Z reaction" than it would be difficult to disagree except out of sheer argumentativeness. None of this really addresses my core argument with anarchistxx, which is now that there really is more to a given match than just his opinion of it, and that matches and wrestlers are better understood in context. I guess I could re-phrase it like this: "A good wrestler will do X at point Y to get Z reaction in match A. In match B, it may make more sense for a good wrestler to do N at point Y to get Z reaction. If N is the right thing to do, it's bad criticism to knock them for not doing X, even if that's what the reviewer has come to expect." I think you could go on for hours with variations of that argument, but I assume you get my point. So, do any of you agree with anarchistxx that the problem with Patterson vs. Slaughter Alley fight was that it was "Offensively too simplistic"?

Absolutely. If I'm in a match being judged on who gives the best performance, what is to keep me from sandbagging the guy that's in there with me, or screwing up my positioning so that it looks like he's blowing spots? It's an unworkable idea. Oh the humanity!

So, let me get this straight: You are posting your reviews on a public discussion board, but you would prefer the posters here not to discuss them. ...and I thought it was the reviews that lacked intelligence and missed the point. Anyway, if wp is getting some pleasure out of this, keep at it. I'll leave you be, as it's clear you'd prefer just to keep doing what you're doing.

You just don't get it, do you? You are looking for something in those matches that isn't there because it isn't supposed to be there. Misawa doesn't show emotion because his whole character is based on not showing emotion. That's a Japanese male archetype, and he plays it to perfection. You downgrading him for being stoic is every bit as dumb and off-target as someone knocking Jack Evans for not Hulking up or Hulk Hogan for not doing flippy planchas. Different wrestlers have different styles. You probably need to come to terms with that. Patterson vs. Slaughter doesn't have a lot of high end US Indy type offense because it's one of the last of the great 1970s style hate-filled brawls. They are supposed to brawl. They are not supposed to reel off a ton of intricate high spots. It wouldn't make sense for them to do that, given the way the match was built up and given the kind of matches that they were known for and that the crowd was expecting. What you have to say about it ("Offensively too simplistic for my tastes...") shows a complete lack of understanding about what works in that situation. It's (again) every bit as dumb as saying that Chris Benoit & Kurt Angle vs. Edge & Rey Mysterio Jr. (10/20 - Little Rock) was a let-down because they never broke out the light tubes. Good wrestling is about more than flashy offense, but it really seems that big offense is all you understand. You need to look for what's supposed to be there, anarchistxx, your reviews might start to be better received if you could start to see the other ways that wrestling can be fun to watch. Saying that Kind of Blue isn't a great album because there are no long guitar solos, or that Ghost World is a bad movie because it isn't about international detectives driving fast cars... those are opinions, but they are neither interesting nor informed. Those opinions are dumb and off-point. So is most of what you have to say about wrestling.

That's an interesting story, Dan. I hadn't heard that one before. I've heard far more of the "Bruno sent him a car and refused to work for Inoki because Baba was the only honest promoter he'd ever worked for..." kind of stories.

I can't remember whose shoot interview it was, but I do recall hearing a lot of stories about Captain Lou being a very heavy drinker, like two bottles of the hard stuff per show kind of heavy. I also remember hearing that Lou was (along with Gorilla and some others) one of the people that Vince Sr. made Vince Jr. promise to keep employed. Lou, knowing this, used to ride Jr. about it: "What are you gonna do, you stupid mick, fire me? You can't! Your old man said so!" kind of stuff.

Thanks Tim. Nice to see you here, too.

1) I'm pretty sure that Frank Caliendo didn't mean that listening to Madden made him feel like a Pro Wrestling insider. 2) It's not so much your opinions that I find endlessly amusing so much as it is your reasons behind those opinions and your stubborn refusal to learn from what others are trying to tell you. Just for example, I know that others have tried to explain that Misawa's stoicism is an important part of his character and the role that he's playing, and why... but I am not surprised to see that you are stubbornly sticking to your "Misawa just looks bored here..." guns. 3) Here are two other things that people have been telling you as long as I've been aware of your presence online, and which I also understand will never sink in: A. You need to either be consistent with your star ratings, or drop them altogether. B. Deliberately giving low star ratings to great matches doesn't show that your tastes are highly refined. 4) None of this should stop you from posting your opinions and reviews, of course. I am mildly interested in reading what you have to say about the other matches in this collection. 5) It's nice to see you engaging in actual discussion with Loss about your reviews. Reading people's discussions with others is far, far more interesting to me than just reading one person's opinions. You obviously have a passion for wrestling, but I would strongly urge you to try and learn from the other wrestling fans on these boards by engaging in friendly debate with them. If your knowledge ever catches up with your passion, you might eventually become an good wrestling writer.

I have always felt that the third fall of the Jumbo vs. Brisco match, with Jumbo fighting back from his knees after having his leg worked over mercilessly, is one of the highest expressions of the art of selling that I've ever seen. I'm glad, also, that it is one of those rare ideas that hasn't been stolen by lesser pro wrestlers and beaten to death in lousy matches. Also, this match makes perfect use of the three falls as a way to structure a match in three acts. Very few matches lend themselves so well to pretentious over-analysis, as well, which is one of the reasons I love it so dearly.

Frank Caliendo has a nice bit in his comedy routine where he says that he likes John Madden, because listening to Madden makes him feel smart. Reading your reviews always reminds me of that quote. Don't ever change, annie.

Used to be, as a young 'un, I'd be all like, "Who is this guy with his trunks all pulled up and his ribs all poking out?" and I'd think he was bad because of how he looked. Now, I know him as the greatest booker and promoter of all time, a man of his word, beloved by all, responsible for creating the style and booking the matches that I love most dearly. Now I see him in the ring with his trunks all pulled up and his ribs sticking out, and I think, "I love that guy" ans I think that he's great because of who he is. I've never really had an opinion that was based on what he's actually doing in the ring.

Probably because he was watching as, in Japan, Pro wrestling mutated into shoot style and shoot style mutated into shoot fighting and so he can't deny the very real connection between pro wrestling and MMA.

That's a damn good article. There's nothing in there (aside from your 'third reason') That I haven't seen elsewhere, but the way you've laid it out together really puts it all into perspective. I'd also say that UFC just reached a tipping point in 2006, but again you've outlined most of the reasons that they reached that tipping point.

Me too, please... both please. PM'd you. -- Loss, 01/17

I don't think it's that people think that WWE wrestling is declining in quality so much as it is that people are getting exposed to more great wrestling through DVD trading, and are subsequently discovering that WWE's stuff isn't always as interesting in comparison.

Yep, it sure seems that way. Loss, at least, has an original take on why he doesn't like it so much.