Dylan Waco

I am not completely opposed to the idea of dropping guys after a certain length of time but I have real concerns with it and it presents some real problems. How would it apply to guys already on the ballot? It's easy to say guys would be grandfathered in for a few years, but which guys and where is the cut off? How would this effect the ability for people to come back on the ballot? For example Hans Schmidt fell off, came back on and eventually got voted in. Other guys have come off and on more than once. Will this be disallowed now? If not when is this a case where we count the cumulative total number of years on the ballot against them or the total number of years from the first appearance to the last appearance, even if they were off the ballot for several years in between? There is already the "death bump" where guys croak and get in or their numbers go through the roof. The idea of a "time is up" bump could be a real problem. Another thing that concerns me.... It should be hard to get into a Hall of Fame. A lot of the guys in danger of falling off under such a system would be guys like Murdoch who have had consistent support, just not enough to get in, whereas more recent additions would be added and have a great deal of time on the ballot. In and of itself that isn't the worst thing in the world, but I know for a fact that there are voters who will use there ten votes to the max every single year. If you start eliminating some of these guys like Murdoch, I fear that far less worthy "new" guys will get votes they never would have otherwise solely because people want to use all ten slots. I also think it's probable it would stop or discourage new research on guys who had already "failed," which would shift the focus to debates about who is more deserving Randy Orton or Shinsuke Nakamura. That is not a good thing.

NJPW Power Struggle 2013 Manabu Nakanishi, Captain New Japan, KUSHIDA & BUSHI vs. Yujiro Takahashi, YOSHI-HASHI, Rocky Romero & Alex Koslov I tend to like these mindless opener type of matches more than most because they don't pretend to be something they aren't. That is to say this is just a way for guys to get a paycheck, get their shit in and get the crowd amped. To that end these matches are almost always inoffensive at worst, and often times some of my favorite stuff on shows, where they are largely afterthoughts. This didn't have anything as fun as Akebono tends to be when he gets thrown into something like this, but I actually did enjoy this a good deal. You had some showcase rope running spots, for your fans of that, some strong man Nakanishi spots for your fans of that, your Santinoesque Hooligan spot, your quasi-lucha exchange, et. Fuck, even Captain New Japan being the FIP for a couple of minutes was fun and really a good use for a guy in a costume that looks like something a three year old would wear on a chilly Halloween night. Solid little sprint, that got just enough time to serve it's purpose, without going over the edge into too much. "Suzuki-gun" TAKA Michinoku & Taichi vs. "The Young Bucks" Matt & Nick Jackson I generally enjoy the Young Bucks as heels, so on paper this had me optimistic coming in. I thought the first few minutes of this were okay, but not terribly engaging, and the Bucks weren't heeling it up enough for my liking. Having said that, everything from the big baseball slide forward was really fun highspot wrestling, with some decent teases mixed in and that really hooked me. The big dives both looked nuts (Taka's almost looked like a combo dropkick/splash because of the angle) and they did a good job with the false finishes. Like the last match this also benefited a great deal from being long enough to establish some drama, but not long enough to get into the sort of nearfalls for the sake of nearfalls overkill that makes so many of these matches tedious affairs to me. A real pleasant surprise over all. Tomoaki Honma vs. Katsuyori Shibata This was actually really good considering who was involved. I think Shibata has been wildly overrated during his NJPW, though he's had his moments. Honma is a guy who is not ever going to jump off the page as someone you want to watch, though I generally have no problem with him. Anyway this was worked the way an ass beater v. underdog with stupid bleached hair should be worked. By that I mean to say that Shibata beat the fuck out of Honma, who was given just enough hope to look like he belonged in the same ring as him, but not enough hope to turn the thing into a farce. I absolutely loved the way he crumpled after one particular attempt to take control earned him a shot to the face, and they did a great job making him look like he had more heart than brains. Really the build to him getting a real combo in was excellent stuff, made even better when he airballed on his timber headbutt off the top, leading to a string of exceedingly vicious looking spots, before he was finally put away. Honestly after the corner dropkick could be argued as gratuitous, considering how nasty that looked, but Honma's selling was outstanding, even as he was just doing enough not to die. Also the post-match with Shibata walking off immediately as if he was sickened by the whole affair was great. I loved this to the point where it's probably one of my ten favorite NJPW matches all year. Yuji Nagata & Kazushi Sakuraba vs. Toru Yano & Takashi Iizuka One day I want an explanation as to why Iizuka sexually assaults the announcer before every match as it makes me almost as uncomfortable as post-match of the Chiggy v. Dump hair match that is disturbingly snuffish. This time the guy gets painted up like a blue cat for some reason, which actually evolves into Sakuraba getting jumped in the aisle on the way to the ring and four way brawl with all the matches participants. I actually was sort of mystified by this as the whole purpose of the Nagata/Sak team is to work the Gracies at the Dome show, and yet a ton of this is them getting beaten up by a pair of middling comedic guys. Sak in particular was made to look really weak on the front end and Nagata's comeback was not terribly impressive. I did like Sak's corner flurry, but watching him bust out the mist of all things to set up the double armbar finish was just...I don't even know. Imagine if they had set up CM Punk v. Brock Lesnar with Punk working a warm up ppv match against Tommy Dreamer, that won after desperately spitting soda in his eyes to set up his submission, then try and picture how much outrage that would have garnered. I really didn't dislike this match, I just didn't understand it. At all. Hiroyoshi Tenzan & Satoshi Kojima vs. Lance Archer & Davey Boy Smith Jr. vs. Rob Conway & Jax Dane I like some of these guys a good bit, but this is as uninteresting a match on paper as I can think of. Honestly I couldn't follow this at all. I get that they were breaking up the tag title issues or something, but I didn't realize what the fuck was going on with the multiple falls and I thought this match was filled with bad transitions and awkward moments. The best part of this was Bruce Tharpe getting up on the apron and fucking with Kojima, that guy really should be a full time heel manager. Other than that, this was nothing worth watching. Togi Makabe & Kota Ibushi vs. Prince Devitt & Bad Luck Fale This really exceeded my expectations, mainly because this was very well put together. Coming into this my favorite guy of the bunch was probably Makabe, and I'm hardly a big fan of his, so I had just figured this was going to fall into the "not my cup of tea" category. But at the end of the day, this is why I watch the matches, as this was a match with a real story. More than that this was a match that was the exact opposite of the Sak/Nak match in that it set up for a Dome match in the most effective way possible. As a whole I do not understand the hype behind Devitt's gimmick and still don't, but he was very effective as the chicken shit turd, hiding behind Fale, and trying to pick the bones that presented themselves with cheap shots and quick strikes. Fale for his part his limited, but fits fine in his role. I know Gallows is coming over, but in a way it' s a shame he's not in that role, because he'd be ten thousand times better. Still there is probably something to Fale being the guy as he looks like a monster, but does nothing to overshadow his stablemates. Anyway, he was what he needed to be here and the faces were way better than I would have expected. Both guys sold well in this and there were some transitions and moments where I was certain that would go out the window and it never did. The whole match seemed to be building to one of two conclusions, Devitt stealing the fall or Ibushi finally shutting him up. I'm no Ibushi fan, but his spots were well timed in this, his selling good, his fire strong. And when he did get the fall in this - especially coming off some of the teases prior to it - it was a very effective moment, that even made me mildly interested in a Dome match between the two, even if I cannot imagine it being as smartly worked as this match was. This isn't anything special really, but it was a good, effective match and they deserve credit for it. Hiroshi Tanahashi vs. Tomohiro Ishii Tanahashi v. Suazuki was the better match, but this is probably the best Tanahashi performance I can recall seeing. I often hear Tanahashi fans rave about his pacing, even while acknowledging some of the things I see as his flaws, but I have never seen that as being a real strength of his. Well in this match it was a real and clear strength to the point where I can't imagine anyone denying it. The pacing and timing in general on the spots was really excellent, and not particularly easy because Ishii (as much as I like him) is nowhere near the star of Tanahashi so there is a bit of nuance in how you have to put a match like this together to make it work. I especially liked stuff like the back of the head lariat early in the match from Ishii, or the cut off spot on the skin the cat, both of which were done in a way to maximize their effect. This also was a really tremendous performance from Ishii. Not only did his offense look extra sharp, but I thought he was marvelous at selling Tanahashi's stuff. As most people know I generally hate Tanahashi's offense, but here it actually ranged from okay to pretty good and a lot of that was because of the way Ishii was grimacing and/or gripping his wounds. Even the way he took stuff like the body press off the top where he sold the back of head like he was hit by a canon really added to the match a ton. I could have lived without some of Tanahashi's strikes (though they weren't anywhere near as bad here as they were in the G1 match these two had) and I didn't care for the pop up suplex routine, but at least both guys sold on the back end, it was worked as a reset spot and built to the big superplex near fall (which was excellent). I also have to say that I hope Tanahashi starts working the cloverleaf as a staple spot, as I felt it added to the drama of the match and was a credible way to take Ishii down a peg, even if he didn't sell the leg after the fact. This is another match that also had a very good finish, as you need your co-ace to look strong and decisive in putting the guy a few pegs below him down, while also showing that the tough underneath guy can fight. This match succeeded in that regard. Not a MOTYC, but one of the better matches in Japan this year. Tetsuya Naito vs. Masato Tanaka It's not uncommon for me to watch NJPW shows with no volume, but given the hype surrounding the Osaka crowd shitting on Naito, I figured I would put the earpiece in for at least part of this. Honestly I think the harping on the crowd reaction was kind of overblown, though I do see the point that Naito isn't as over as he should be given the degree of his push. On the other hand this is the best Naito match I've seen. Ever. That's not to say this was a great match, or even really worth going out of your way to see, unless you are a big fan of Tanaka. But man if you like Tanaka this was fun. I don't know if the intent of this was really "Tanaka's last stand," but this had the feel of a match where a guy knows his time is up and he's just fighting to stay relevant with all of his might. I thought his offense was really solid and on point (if somewhat predictable as it has been for years) and I was amazed at how well he was able to reign in the excess of Naito. Naito is a guy who has not shown me multiple speeds ever. He's either laid out on his ass or running through spots. Well here he was selling a good bit, and while I still think some of his flurries were a bit too peppy, it was a good effort by him for the most part. The transitions in this weren't all that great, but it was a match with a real heat section - even if the crowd reacted "wrong" to it - and at the big moments really felt like big moments. Shinsuke Nakamura vs. Minoru Suzuki I have taken to comparing Nakamura to a .235 hitter, who strikes out a ton, but several times a year will hit walk off home runs to win games. Well if Sakaruba and Ibushi matches were grandslams, this was striking out on three pitches. On paper there is absolutely no reason for this to be less than very good, and yet this was anything but, entirely because of Nakamura's terrible selling and "I've gotta get my shit in!" approach to the match. It would be lie to say I totally hated this, because I enjoy watching Suzuki work from the top too much to hate any match where he is in control for a big portion of it. Still, when you miss wild running knees into the post and then into the turnbuckle, the spots should have some meaning. Here they came across as just a way to kill time. This was probably the single most disappointing match of the year. Kazuchika Okada vs. "The Machine Gun" Karl Anderson This was hurt some in my eyes by the fact that I find Karl Anderson to me among the least interesting acts in pro wrestling today. There is just something about the guy that immediately makes me not care about everything he is involved in. He's not even that bad, it's just that I don't think he is engaging on any level. As a result of this I never really got into this match, though I never really checked out either. As a match they tried to segment this into distinct sections, but there were still a ton of moments where I thought there were reversals just for reversals sake, and I hated a lot of the offense from both guys. The sequence that set up the first rainmaker was one of the best examples I can think of when I think of what I hate about modern "tit for tat" wrestling, though as a whole this match was not dominated by that sort of thing. I guess this was an okay match, but when the highlight for me is the Bullet Club and Gedo running around that's not exactly a good thing, and it felt like a really flat way to end the show. Overall Thoughts: Kind of hard to bitch a ton about a show where a lot of the matches were better than I expected, there was nothing that I outright loathed and six of the ten bouts were matches I thought were pretty good or better. To me the worst thing about this was the match placement as the show sort of petered out with the hugely underwhelming semi-main, and a main featuring a guy that puts me to sleep against a guy I am not terribly high on. On the other hand those matches absolutely should have been in the spots they were in from a booking perspective. This show didn't feel as big as Day Four of the G1, but I could see a case for this being the better show from top to bottom, though the best two matches here don't really rate with the best two matches of that show. Still, this was probably my second favorite NJPW show of the year at worst, and a show I liked a lot better than some of the previous efforts that were more highly touted.

I'm mean. Did he read anything other than Fall Guys when working on the early chapter(s) in the book? If so what? It is clear from the book that he is a big fan of WWF. To what degree did that shape the way he framed the book, and does he think the historical narratives promoted by the WWE were a major influence on him? Also, to what degree did his own status as a fan, effect the way he wrote about certain people (I'm thinking of someone like Pillman here in particular)? The sidebar on the Ultimate Warrior seems out of place and inconsistent with the rest of the book (obviously you aren't going to ask this unless you preface it with "critics say..."), why did he feel it needed to be included? Given that this was the rare book on wrestling published by a major publisher, with a huge media blitz, what was the fact checking process like? Did he consult others with knowledge on the history of wrestling? Wrestling journalists? Does he feel any responsibility for the fact that his book is likely to be a "go to history" for certain sorts of fans? There are many things about the book that could be debated, but some facts are wrong. As wrestling culture and geek culture tend to overlap a ton, does he view his critics as nitpickers missing the bigger point, or when someone points out an error or flaw does it bother him and make him think "I wish I would have caught that?"

Taue just now got back on this year too which is really shocking if you think about it. I wouldn't vote for Luger, but I honestly think he's a better candidate than Sting.

Fuck, TNT came back? Someone send me the link to that show

I'll be honest. I worry FAR less about historians and reporters - including the ones I strongly disagree with - than I do with most of the wrestlers who vote. I am more than certain that there are some wrestlers who vote, take it seriously and try and do real research on the candidates, but I wouldn't bank on the % of wrestler voters who are doing this being high. Or even close to a majority for that matter.

Excellent post as always from Boricua. I am curious, because after I mentioned Chicky, I started to mention Hugo, so I want to ask - who was more important or viewed as more significant? I ahve seen very little of Hugo as a manager, but I know he was a key heel act and similar to Starr in some ways. My argument for Chicky - and I'm not at all sure he should be in - is that he was sort of a hybrid between Bobby Heenan and Jimmy Hart. He was the guy asked to carry the heel side in terms of promos, setting up angles, delivering the payoff on angles, and in many cases working matches. One thing I would like to know is how many Puerto Ricans have a good command of English? I have no earthly idea and feel like an idiot for even asking, but that would matter to me in some respects, because Starr being a mouthpiece for guys with a language barrier adds to his value and effectiveness.

That's probably what the stat was, but it's not in rovert's post. I would actually not be stunned if Cesaro had done the same thing previously, though perhaps not

Punk and Bryan are in the Jericho role elevating a new talent/act. That will likely be the role both guys have for the rest of their career. There are positives and negatives to that depending on your perception. The feud I think could end up being okay, but in practice so far I've found it boring and lacking in energy. Also that stat is wrong, Cesaro has worked on all four shows (five if you count Superstars)

I understand what you are saying, but historical research involves watching tapes. They aren't mutually exclusive and if you are talking about the over all stardom and relevance of a star, it is nice to have more tools, not fewer. Perception should be the starting point for historical research, not the unquestioned deity all research much bow too.

Pretty amusing side point, but Alvarez admitted on the radio show today that he didn't even vote this year.

Give me an example of someone you think merits being on the ballot. I can see an argument for prioritizing what fans of the era think, but can't think of a single reason why tape traders then should have more value then viewers now.

I can't believe people are treating Suzuki as a lock, including people who in theory should know better. I am a mark for Akiyama, but it's hard for me to imagine actually voting for him. On other hand when I look at the last several guys to get in under the Japan category, he is comparable or better. Taue I like as a candidate, maybe more than I should. JYD gets dismissed because it's easy to dismiss a guy who's act you never "got" or "liked." That shouldn't happen with a historic HoF, but it does.

I have a lot of problems with Dave's argument, but I'm not sure it's worth engaging him super deeply on it. Maybe the biggest problem I have is that he appears to be arguing two things that contradict each other 1. You need to vote for modern candidates when they are near their peak so we have an accurate accounting of how they were seen in their era and 2. It's implied that older candidates may not get a fair shake because of this and/or the context of their candidacy is "off" but any attempts to try and research and/or piece together history from the scraps we have is somehow dangerous because it might challenge a consensus that doesn't even really exist in many cases. The solution is apparently to defer to the wisdom of wrestlers, i.e. professional serial liars, who assuredly will give us more accurate ideas on who the great talents of any given era actually were without the "bias" of perspective ("Bob Orton is the greatest worker of all time" - Buddy Rose). To OJ's point I understand the argument that revisionism doesn't have a place in HoF discussion, but the problem is that much of wrestling history is in fact "revisionist" because we are trying to make sense of a world run by carnies, con men and criminals. When we read a book like Shoemaker's we are pissed off because the book relies heavily on Fall Guys for it's early history - a work that was considered "definitive" by many before "revisionists" like Steve Yohe took an interest in things called facts. Of course in the case of Brody and Sayama it's a different situation in many ways, but here is the thing - for all the anti-Brody and to a lesser degree anti-Sayama people that have come to that perspective through "revisionism," I don't know if any of them would oppose either for an HoF. If I were a voter and I had a ballot I would vote for both. I'm not sure there are very many candidates that have actually emerged through revisionism. It's probable that Buddy Rose got on the ballot because of it to one degree or another, but he didn't last. Fujiwara and Dandy haven't gotten on the ballot yet, and a part of the case of one, if not both, extends beyond work. Patera got on the ballot, but it wasn't because of detailed analysis of his in ring career. Which brings me to another point. This talk of how wrestlers were perceived in their era often strikes me as a cover for "how I perceived this wrestler, when I watched him." All too often legit questions, or interesting research is brushed aside with "you weren't there, you didn't know." A few examples that are notable: Meltzer saying that The High Flyers really weren't that over and/or weren't all that big of a deal in the AWA because "he saw them live" and they got boos and ridicule all the time. This is compounded by the fact that Dave saw them in the worst market the AWA had, a point he disputed recently, but my follow up post with details was ignored. The old argument touted by myself for years - and more importantly, others who were fans during his peak - that Backlund wasn't really that big a deal/he wasn't over and it was the titles that drew. Or the promotion. Or the heels. Except when you watch the footage, look at the history and talk to casual fans it's hard to defend this argument. At all. People who were fans during the 80's, insisting that Jerry Blackwell couldn't have possibly been a drawing card, or even all that important of a star, because they didn't perceive him that way at the time. Except the footage, history, results and those who were AWA fans from the Midwest/Canada all point in another direction. My point is that the goal should be to look at all the available evidence - including perspectives from the era of course - when trying to make serious conclusions.

If you take Dave's argument seriously, it's hard to imagine why he would bother running pieces like Pat's Henri Deglane bio. On a different subject Dave mentioned in passing Puerto Rico in the HoF issue and the issues with trying to categorize Colon. He noted that he couldn't include Invader I on the ballot without people wanting to "lynch" him. That seemed to me to be a tacit admission that Invader I would be a decent candidate, even though that' is clearly never going to happen. My question is, is there anyone else from PR who could arguably merit inclusion on the ballot? I was thinking about it last night and I have to say I think you can make a case for Chicky Starr at least being on the ballot. I was curious what Boricua thinks about that (or anyone else for that matter).

Closest thing for me was a strange nine month period from the beginning of 2001 to September of the same year. My now wife, then girlfriend moved down here, and we were living with my friends in a house that was half Electric Koolaid Acid Test, half Suburbia the movie. We had no cable, because everyone preferred to spend their money on drugs/booze, or in my case books/music/wildly unnecessary trips on no notice often times for reasons best left unsaid. I was still watching some at friends houses, and caught almost every ppv during the period, but it was the one period in my life where I was not a week-to-week viewer.

For someone who I disagree with almost all the time, our lists here are remarkably similar, including Jumbo. The only one I completely disagree with is Sano, though I tend to like more post-IC title Valentine (while admitting some of it is boring) and Del Rio I think is good in the ring, just often cringeworthy as a character.

WWE has had tons of strong tv matches every year for years now. I think this year gets talked about more because acts like The Shield and Bryan are net darlings and because the three hour RAW format and Main Event allowing long matches, has given us very good matches that have gotten time.

If the argument is that Tanahashi has succeeded in growing a company where Akiyama hasn't, I think to a degree that is true (though I remain skeptical about the notion that Tanahashi deserves most of the credit for that, or even more than Okada). If the argument is that career v. career Tanahashi has been a better draw than Akiyama? I don't see it. Akiyama drew a supposedly legit 50k to the Dome in 02, for a match with a guy who was not exactly a dynamite draw in Nagata. Look at this page of Budokan shows from 06-present. http://www.prowrestlinghistory.com/superca...noah/bud10.html If these numbers are even close to right they indicate that Akiyama was actually one of - if not THE single - strongest draws in that building over the last seven years. And not just in "well those number are decent for a promotion in peril." A lot of the numbers there are actually very impressive numbers. Against a wide variety of opponents. And the shows without him (or Misawa) on top do noticeably worse - unlike say the shows where Okada wrestled someone other than Tanahashi. Or you could look at this, which John noted earlier today on Classics in passing. Akiyama comes into a struggling NJPW in 2003 for the G1 and they do a very strong run, with him as the key featured "other" getting the push into the finals. http://www.cagematch.net/?id=1&nr=9688 Or this October 2001 Tokyo Dome show with a young guns v. old vets main event, with Akiyama being the notable outsider/attraction on his team: Indicate of Next October 8, 2001 in Tokyo, Japan Tokyo Dome drawing 47,000 El Samurai, Jushin Liger, & Minoru Tanaka beat Gedo, Jado, & Akira Nogami (11:18) when Tanaka beat Nogami. Giant Singh & Giant Silva beat Hiroshi Tanahashi, Kenzo Suzuki, Yutaka Yoshie, & Wataru Inoue (9:06) in a "handicap" match when Silva pinned Inoue & Tanahashi. Gary Goodridge TKO Michiyoshi Ohara (3:36). Tokimitsu Ishizawa beat Masayuki Naruse (0:26) via submission to win the IWGP Junior Heavyweight Title. Bob Backlund & Tatsumi Fujinami beat Terry & Dory Funk, Jr. (10:40) when Fujinami pinned Dory. Riki Choshu & Osamu Nishimura beat Satoshi Kojima & Hiroyoshi Tenzan (10:40) when Choshu pinned Tenzan. Manabu Nakanishi beat Tadao Yasuda (6:02) via sleeperhold in a "vale tudo" match. Kazuyuki Fujita TKO Kensuke Sasaki (6:36) in a "vale tudo" match. Yuji Nagata & Jun Akiyama beat Hiroshi Hase & Keiji Mutoh (28:04) when Nagata pinned Hase. Of course this is incomplete, but Akiyama's highlights as a draw are far more impressive to my eyes than Tanahashi's. There are clear negatives and this is incomplete data (I'd like to see more complete NOAH results), but it's not like Tanahashi wasn't falling on his ass as an ace for years.

I think the reason Buddy wasn't treated seriously as a candidate is because Portland is viewed as a small time promotion and being a "big star" there is seen as a minimal accomplishment at best.

This is literally better than the argument advanced for him in the thread at Classics

Meltzer from The Board, talking about the age requirement for the HoF An age limit is a red herring with Benoit. If he killed his wife and son five years later, he'd have been 45. The NFL enshrined O.J. because he waited five years after retiring to kill his ex-wife. Same thing could happen here. Plenty of sports where you don't have teams forcing retirements put people in Halls of Fame when active and with limited age restrictions. Team sports are different because you can't hang on based on your name for very long. Argument makes no sense that an age limit would have prevented another Benoit from going in because a man can commit a crime at any age. This is a business that changes way too fast and style and trends change way too fast. If you don't evaluate people close to their time it's going on, you get too much of the goofiness we have where people who understand nothing of a time frame try to evaluate a time frame from other people who understand nothing of a time frame and trying to find limited old matches while not understanding either the style or substance of what they're watching. I probably should have let it go, but I read the last part as a thinly veiled shot at people who actually try and learn new things by watching old footage, so I responded. I have a feeling this could get heated...or maybe he'll just ignore it like he did my post about AWA markets, after he claimed the Bay Area really wasn't there worst market.

I like Suzuki more than nearly any active wrestler in Japan right now, but that "argument" is unreal.

I have said this before but Brody fetishism is a sort of weird thing among Shoemaker and types like him. They present him as some archetype or symbol for something and I'm not at all sure they know what that something is. It's funny because guys like Shoemaker see themselves as cultural critics, staking out a position that has more than surface level value, but the way they look at the particulars of Brody, his death and the aftermath is remarkably stodgy and arguably racist.

Rotunda v. Sting for the tv title is better than every match on there except for the Somers match