Dylan Waco

Come on Jerome everyone knows "playing your role well" only matters if you are the ace of a Japanese promotion. Ignoring the fact that I absolutely did not say "execution doesn't matter," I find it curious that the new accusation is that we are dangerously close to doing away with any and all ways to analyze and discuss matches other than the reactions they get. I literally do not know of any one who advocates that or anyone who advocates doing away with analyzing things based on stuff like selling, timing, offense, et. It strikes me that what is actually happening is some people think certain things matter in wrestling more than others. As a result certain sacred icons are losing their stature as consensus "best ever" guys. The end result is a split in opinion that leads to hyperbolic denunciations of opposing viewpoints and the mass production of strawmen to knock down.

Then watch Rey v. Henry next to Bossman v. Kobashi and make that point. Don't say "hey the same guy that thinks TM v. DK was (and is) the shiznit, thought Bossman v. Kobashi was only 2 stars and I thought it was a "watchable" [what an odd way to pimp a match even in this context]. This means that if that match was held in 2009 WWE people would be talking about how wonderful it was!" (cue the obligatory.."that's not quite what I said...") There is no reason to make the argument that way when you can make it by comparing the matches head to head yourself. In the last five years I have: Gone back and watched hundreds of WCW matches for the SC poll, including tons of tv. Gone back and watched hundreds of WWF matches for the SC poll, including tons of tv. Watched a huge chunk of Portland television. Watched hundreds of discs of AWA. Watched every available SMW match. Watched virtually every ECW match ever recorded in any format. Watched every IWRG handheld from the last two years. Watched a chunk of Canadian territories. Watched tons of "classic" Lucha. Watched the NJPW Set. Watched the Texas Set. Watched the AJPW Set. Watched several other specialty sets from beginning to end (Buddy Rose, Tracy Smothers, Terry Funk, Fantastics, et., et., et.) This doesn't include the huge chunk of random shit I have watched from U.S. indies, to random territory matches, to youtube finds that seemed like they were granted from God. My point in saying this isn't "wow look how much I've seen, I'm such a pro wres smarty pants." My point is I've seen a shitload of stuff, from all over the spectrum. And in seeing that stuff at no point have I felt watching modern WWE that the best matches it provides are exponentially worse than the best matches from ANY of these places. The argument that something like Finlay v. Benoit or Rey v. Cena or Goldust v. Regal wouldn't stand out as anything special in a different context doesn't fly with me because in the broader context of the things I've been watching all of those matches absolutely do stand out.

There are plenty, they're out there, they've been exposed time and time again. I think we probably need a spinoff thread on modern WWE with the direction this one has taken, but I think it is telling that the most common criticisms you hear from the anti-WWE people is "everything is overproduced" or "self-conscious epics!" or "they are all the same!" Last year MJH (I think, and to be fair I don't think he is wildly "anti-WWE") made the "every match is basically the same" criticism. So I took five matches from a couple month period that I thought were really high end and showcased how obviously different I thought they were. I can't remember if I got a response or not, but I know for a fact that no one has ever been able to showcase to me the inherent "sameness" of matches as diverse as Goldust v. Regal, Rey v. Tyson Kidd, Cena v. Batista, Drew Mac v. Christian, Masters v. Chavo, et. Everything is overproduced is a criticism that I think is linked to the "everything is the same!" meme, with a little bit of "the camera work is dogshit" mixed in. I'm not a fan of the camera work either, but I can't argue it makes good matches bad. "Self-conscious epic!" strikes me as being a horseshit term that is tossed around when people can't come up with a concrete reason to criticize a match. There are exceptions to this of course, but when people use the term to describe matches as different as HHH v. Taker and Punk v. Cena I it just comes across as a cheap way to cut off discussion and debate without saying anything of relevance. I would ask two things of the guys who think the in-ring product is so weak: a. How much of this stuff do you actually watch? If you think it sucks every time you watch and you watch every six months I don't expect you to stay around. I'm just curious about the sample size here. b. Pick five high end WWE matches from the pre-awful period. I'll pick five from the post-awful period. Let's compare them straight up an try and avoid terms like "self-conscious epic!" or on the flipside generalized platitudes like "great." I want to know where the disconnect is. I want to see why someone like John can think Rock v. Hogan was the last really high end WWF/E match, when stuff like Rey v. Eddy, Cena v. Umaga, Eddy v. JBL, Finlay v. Benoit, et doesn't make the grade. While I'm at it Will I'm gonna troll you into laying out the Bret/Austin v. Punk/Cena comp we made yesterday though that may fit better in the other thread. No problem with someone who thinks the overall product sucks, but I quit watching wrestling for the angles/promos years ago. I mostly watch wrestling for the matches now so I'm perfectly fine with a company that puts forth consistent quality.

"Best Era of TV Wrestling By Any US Promotion" That's one of the reasons I tossed out the Kobashi-Bossman match, which got no sold. Would that be "quality" / "good" in the current WWE standards. Hardcores love Kobashi work. Hardcores like Bossman's work. There was some slow stuff. There was some real cool stuff in it. It was rocking down the stretch. Kobashi is a master of working those matches. It was on FREE TV~! so it's cool! Or a different way: Folks love Rey's work. Folks like [let's toss in] Mark Henry's work. There was some slow stuff. There was some real cool stuff in it. It was rocking down the stretch. Rey is a master of working those matches. It was on FREE TV~! so it's cool! I'm not saying this was better than say the best Rey vs Mark Henry match... though one suspects that the Doc & Bossman vs Misawa & Kobashi / Kawada & Taue matches later in the tag league probably top anything that Rey-Henry have done together. But one gets the feeling that Kobashi and Bossman working a match on free TV that was rated ** back then and crapped on by Dave would be something that if you dropped the equiv on Raw/SD! in 2006-2010 would be considered quality /good / etc. To the point that people would be regularly knocking Dave for giving it only **, much like his Cena-Umaga stuff is about as run into the ground as "Jumbo Was Lazy" by folks like me. John Your post was no sold because I didn't understand the point of it. I'm still not terribly sure what Dave's opinion on a twenty year old match has to do with Rey Jr. A comp between Rey/Henry and Bossman/Kobashi based on Meltzer's opinion as a reference point isn't something I find relevant. Compare the matches straight up if you like, but I don't see much value in theorizing about how one match would have rated in a different context using the opinions of a guy who's views on wrestling from the past have been questioned with consistency for several years now.

You can't just separate Raw from the rest of the product. Its there and it lowers the average considerably. Honestly a lot of the 80s TBS squashes are more entertaining than some of the competitive matches on Superstars and Smackdown. It's a rare Raw nowadays that doesn't have at least one good match and usually the only really bad stuff is the divas matches. Raw is clearly weakest (excluding NXT) of the four shows over the last few years but it's hardly awful in the ring week-to-week. I've watched a lot of 80's syndication and tv over the last few years and like squash matches more than most but WTBS squash matches v. Superstars from the last few years is a total slaughter victory for Superstars in terms of match quality.

Execution may not be completely irrelevant but I think it is easy to exaggerate it's importance and/or cherry pick where it is relevant. Watching the AJPW set some of the untouchable messiah figures of internet markdown were far from crisp even in their best matches. Didn't hurt those matches much either.

Oh, and I'd write in Buddy Rose

If I had a ballot I'd abstain form Mexico and Historical Categories (though I do think Schmidt and Shibuya should be in). I'd definitely vote for the RnR's, Koloff, Colon, Big Daddy, Morales, Hamada and Han. On the fence on Murdoch, McManus and Pallo. Non-wrestlers I'd definitely vote for Owen, Walton and Apter. Could be convinced on all of them other then Jesse and probably Monsoon.

Lawler was a babyface ace which is a slightly different role than what I had in mind. Having said that Lawler is definitely an all time great babyface.

How the hell would I know your mother died?

I think this is an interesting point and it comes up a lot but I also think it is overblown to a degree. Yes it is true that the overall climate is weaker now than it was in 93. But is it worse than the over all climate in 98? 99? 00? I would say "no" with very little hesitation. If you compare the modern landscape to the very best years it doesn't hold up well. If you compare it to the very worst years it holds up better. My point is I don't think we are at an all time low for in ring stuff. I think we are in the median range and in the context of the promotion Rey works I think - at least week-to-week - we are at an all time high. Would 09 or 2010 Rey have been top five in 92, 93, 96? To be honest I think the answer is "possibly yes" but I'm probably in the minority. Would that have been a top five year in 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 91, 98, 99, 00? I would say "definitely yes" and I think it is hard to argue against (at least going from memory). Rey v. Flair is an interesting comp and I think as the years tick away the argument for Ric becomes less and less clear. I'd still put Flair above Rey now, but if you asked me who had the better formula I'd say Rey. If you asked me who was more consistent I'd say Rey. If you asked me who adapted better I'd say Rey (though I do think Flair as Poor Man's Onita was led to some really fun stuff in 05-06). Amazingly enough I think Rey is also the one guy who has a strong case for "more good matches on tape" than Flair, though that has a lot to do with the way tv has changed.

That's your argument John and you are entitled to it. I would say you are a guy who's threshold for great is quite high or at the very least much different from mine. I'm also not sure who you are referring to with the collective "We." You might accuse me of being hyperbolic or going to unnecessary extremes in my Rey pimping here, but I happen to believe what I wrote. I literally believe Rey is the best week-to-week tv wrestler in history. I literally believe modern WWE churns out more week-to-week quality than any promotion in history. This isn't me trying to make a hard sell. It's me avoiding "hedging" and going on record with what I actually think. You obviously don't agree with any of that and that is fine (this isn't an assumption on my part - form memory you didn't have a single post-02 match on your Best WWF ballot at SC and when I questioned you about whether you had seen the other stuff you insisted you had seen anything that would be relevant), but I'd rather not beat around the bush with my language. In your WWF thread you regularly talk about how things worked, or how they got reactions, or whether or not they are watchable, et. Despite years of being one of the most prominent Backlund pimps (er..) on the net, you still back away from talking about him as being "great" and when people question that the talk comes to how that is a difficult sell and you prefer to focus on what he was good at, getting him more credit, et. That is all well and good and that sort of attempt at "above the fray" analysis isn't without merit. But I would not write as much about someone as you have about Backlund if I didn't consider him great and I would have no problem saying "he's great" if the topic came up. Rey Mysterio is great and all of those things I said are a big part of the reason why.

Modern WWE style (and I put the entire production into the word "style") has basically killed my love for wrestling and has only produced an entire landscape of dullness to me. Fuck modern WWE style. Good for those you can still find something to love in it, I sure can't no matter how many chance I give it. Like I said, either it has passed me by completely, either it really sucks. It's passed you by completely, because I can't see any argument that modern in ring WWE sucks. There are tons of things wrong with modern WWE. Poor booking, repetitious main event scene/lack of depth up top, terrible writing, bad promos, shitty announcing, annoying camera work. So much wrong with it that I don't blame people for not watching it despite the fact that I'm a fan. But Week-to-week, in ring quality is pretty much the one area where I think the product easily destroys any subsequent time period. Not sure what I would point to as a milemarker for when that change hit, but I would guess if I went back and looked it would probably fall somewhere in the 04/05 corridor with Rey and Eddy being big parts of the jump start and Rey being the "ace" of that style essentially from day one. As for Rey comp to Morton and Steamboat, I would not fault anyone for taking either of those guys over Rey but I prefer Rey's offense which is sort of a tiebreaker all other things being equal. Actually I rate Rey pretty easily over Steamer in the sense that I don't think Steamboat's bumping/cut off/hope spots were as compelling as Rey's. Morton is right there with him though.

Is it that time of year again?

Or what? I'll tell your mommy

What was problematic about that match v. something like Bret v. DBS or Backlund v. Patera or Shawn v. Foley or anyone of the other matches that are often considered top level WWF matches of all time?

As a counterpoint I just want to thank god for modern WWE "style." It has given us more quality tv matches than any promotion in history, with far fewer duds than any promotion in history. Rey is the undisputed king of the most consistent week-to-week in ring product in the history of television wrestling. I also agree with MJH that he is the best U.S. babyface in history, though I could probably be convinced that Terry Funk is the greatest all around babyface. Either way Rey does not look out of place in a GOAT based on those two things alone.

Really disagree that the ECW stuff doesn't hold up. Overall it is a VERY tiny portion of his career anyhow, but from where I stand those matches hold up remarkably well when you consider what we have seen since then.

If you mean the last "holy shit this was a great match that could conceivably go into an all time wrestling canon" great Rey's last match of that sort was probably v. Punk at last years Over The Limit ppv. I don't think it was that much better a match than Rey v. Punk from a couple of ppv's back or even Rey v. Cena from a couple of Raw's back but it had a hot angle behind it and other unique qualities that make it stand out. Before that I think the Jericho match at the Bash and before that his performance in the 09 Elimination Chamber. The older I get as a fan the more those matches matter less to me though. Not because they aren't incredible, but because often times what separates those matches from something like Rey v. Ziggler form Summerslam a couple years back or even the insane Raw Triple Threat that Rey starred in a few weeks back is the angle/build up to it. Rey is the best tv wrestler I've ever seen by a huge margin and there are a probably hundreds of trivial/bit part/non-angle relevant Rey matches that I would consider at least arguably great.

Don't bring my name into this cyber bully

Ignoring the tired argument about modern WWE for the time being, Will and I did a year by year comp on Rey/Eddy recently. Will is a wee bit higher on Eddy than I am (we both love him so it's pretty much splitting hairs) but I think the conclusion we both reached is that it is really hard to make the case that Eddy is the better guy in a GOAT comparison. Head-to-head in years where they both worked? I'm pretty ignorant on pre-95 Rey (seen a smattering of stuff here and there), but I can't conceive of any argument to support the theory that he was less than Eddy's equal from the span of 95-05. When you look at it year-by-year I think that becomes really evident actually.

That's true, but if you follow the book he claims to have never done them before wrestling.

I've been thinking recently that you can make an argument at this point for Rey as the best in-ring guy ever. He's been having consistently great matches for 18 years, never has bad ones, his matches are always heated, and has a ridiculous amount of 4-star matches to his name. He's an absolute machine. In the last two months, he's had great matches with Cena, Punk, and Del Rio, the 3-way with Del Rio and Punk, and a great tag match with Riley against Miz and Swagger. We just take it for granted. I did a mock top hundred with my brother this week when he was in town and I had Rey at 6.

In his book Bob Mould talks about how he was convinced to go on the gas after a couple of weeks on the road. For those who don't know, Mould was a writer, with no on screen role.

It's a different point then what you are making and it probably doesn't belong in this thread, but at this point I think Rey is easily one of the ten best in ring wrestlers of all time. The fact that he is physically destroyed and still no worse than top five in the World is insane.