Dylan Waco

Without forcing myself to watch it again, I remember Michaels badly telegraphing several spots, screwing up the big table spot badly, working reckless, and having typically terrible strikes (though those were far worse in the armageddon match to be fair). I thought Jericho was remarkable in it as he was basically working with Sabu circa 99.

I thought the GAB match was pretty good. Thought Armgeddon was a terrible match that went on way too long. Thought the Ladder Match was an abysmal match. In particular I thought Michaels performance in that was one of the worst performances in by a supposedly good wrestler in a big match that I've ever seen.

If the casual fans I know are any indication Santino already is a draw.

On Mayweather v. Show it's important to remember that their really weren't a lot of high end WWE main events last year. It wasn't my WWE match of the year, but for main events, I can't think of anything better off hand.

What is really being discussed here is the trend in smark circles toward a hardcore wrestling revisionism. To some degree Phil and tom are at the forefront of this, although jdw and others who have very different views on wrestling in general have been major contributors to the mindset. I think sometimes smarks forget that this whole network of tape trading, message boards, mass downloading, et. was basically started by a very small group of wrestling geeks who ran the newsletters and traded tapes with each other. Consensus wasn't formed in mass. It was formed on the words of those who had access to the footage and a means of propagandizing a broader readership into accepting whatever they were touting as "the best ever" that week. This started to change with the internet, but it has changed dramatically in the age of mass downloads, youtube, WWE 24/7, et. When you've got guys putting out multiple disc sets on various companies and wrestlers, it becomes increasingly hard for the priestly caste of "consensus" superfans to declare that certain "truisims" are in fact beyond question. Suddenly it became possible for people to say that Bob Backlund really didn't suck (John), Butch Reed really was better than Kurt Angle (Will) and Lucha wasn't a bunch of flippy midgets practicing gymnastics in a ring (tom, Phil, et.) while being able to point to tons of easy to get footage to back up their claims. On the surface this is good, but there is a bad side to this. I do think you get people desperate to carve out a niche who will advocate for things that aren't terribly good just for the sake of being "different." But this is a fairly small number of people and getting into discussions of motivations really is a dead end (especially because the point Loss makes is one I share). Last year I wrote this article http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/dec/01/00023/ for The American Conservative magazine about the revisionist historians Gabriel Kolko and William Appleman Williams. These were men who dedicated their professional careers to tearing down established myths about American history. Though Kolko and Williams were second wave revisionist, they helped to establish a canon of historical thought that is very important and widely respected today. On the other hand there are so called "revisionists" historians who claim the holocaust didn't happen or believe "the Jews" were behind 9/11. The point is that first group is bigger, more interesting, and more important. Associating them with the 2nd group isn't fair and isn't a fair representation of the views and attitudes that motivate the them. The same can be said with the wrestling revisionist as well.

No but there are a lot of smarts who take their cues from tom, Phil and to a lesser extent SLL.

It's a zero sum game. Do I like some 80s WWF more than some of the 00s WWE? Sure. Do I think Rock vs Hogan > Taker vs Flair & Flair vs Shawn? Yes. Do I like the 2001 Austin vs Rock more than pretty much anything in the 80s WWF? Yes. I think I only had one WWF 80s match ahead of it, my #1 match. And possibly only one other match in the poll, since I'm pretty sure I had Austin-Rock in my Top 3. Go across decades or stay within decades, people are going to find things that they disagree with me on. Come back to me in a decade to have me take a look at the WWE in the first half of the 00's or relook at the WWF in the 90s, and it's possible I'd rate more of it into higher slots. Or I may look at Austin-Rock and Bret-Owen and wonder what I was smoking. John How many post 02 matches made your top fifty list? How many did you even consider?

I've enjoyed following the thread and I think you have unlocked some pretty good stuff to be fair. Also my point wasn't so much "John loves 80's WWF!" which I don't think anyone who has followed your reviews at tOA could possibly conclude. My point is that their is an awful lot of stuff from the 80's that you do like more than matches from this decade that I personally believe are pretty clearly better. I chalk this up to stylistic preferences, but I do think it's a real point and not an imagined one. A brief glance at the reviews you've written and your WWE ballot from SC are what I'm working from here.

Yeah, and it was great. If one wants to say it was a nostalgia match, so was Taker-Shawn at Mania this year. I don't think either Taker or Shawn looked as good in that match as Panther and Atlantis did in their match... and I actually liked Taker-Shawn as a watchable "spectacle". Know it was a big stip match - it was the main event of the freaking 75th Anniversary Show. But the first two falls, other than the tope by Panther, were short with shit mask pulling finishes and then the heel wandering off to the back. The three topes in the third were "cool". The three superplexes really weren't much. But overall, the third fall wasn't exactly off the charts in drama like a great stip match, and the match felt about five minutes early in the drama cycle - one wanted *more* for such a major show's main event, especially with that match going bye-bye. Post match cool, largely because of Panther and how respected he is. But overall, pretty crappy. I can't give it much credit for V taking the header into the arm rest. It basically screwed up the first two falls rather than add drama. 4th or 5th. Must have been a lot of shitty matches if that could finish Top 5. Then again, I thought the Flair-Shawn that finished ahead of it was laughable, and Angle-Joe in the cage finished ahead of it and I seem to recall groaning through that clusterfuck. John 08 was the worst year for match quality this decade. Very little from ROH worth watching. TNA was awful as its ever been. Japan has been down all decade, but seemed really down last year. WWE which had been very good for a few years prior really only had a few really high end bouts and they were tv matches that no one outside the biggest smarks remembers (Bourne v. Chavo, Bourne v. Rey). So really last year was a pretty weak year for match quality overall. Having said that, you aren't the biggest fan of a lot of the matches that I have really enjoyed from this decade - a large number of which smoke a lot of things I've seen you give favorable reviews in the hundred nights of WWE thread at tOA - so it could be a "different strokes" sort of thing more than anything else.

Was watching the Flair HoF induction speech again and he says Jamie Noble is(was?) an agent. Is that true?

Yes, though I would be worried about the effect taping the show would have on ratings. One of the few advantages Raw has over other shows at this point is the fact that it isn't taped. Face it, Vince is totally in the right. These things happen once or twice a decade.

It's not that it can't be done, but it shouldn't have to be done when the original plan was a much, much, much shorter trip.

It's a smart decision. Running LA back-to-back is far more cost effective than running LA than CSprings.

Was looking at this today and I noticed you don't have the Matt Hardy v. Edge Unforgiven 05 Cage Match on the list. If you haven't seen it you ought to track it down. Though I've only seen a handful of lucha from this decade, it's my MOTD at this point (probably best if you watch it alongside the "injury angle" match that occurred the ppv before hand and the awesome street fight they had on Raw).

The Nuggets owner claiming home court as a defense would make him a moron, as the Lakers had a lock on that for a while.

Ten count spots are awesome. I call moves like that "pop spots" and most of the really polished acts have them. The People's Elbow is a pop spot. So is the five knuckle shuffle. So is the worm. No ten count spot is more ridiculous than any of those.

The fuck? Has this thread really reached the point where we are debating who "respects the bizness!" more?

Without the Carter's TNA would be DOA. Forget two years, it would have two months tops and that's being generous. Having said that, there is absolutely no reason to believe that this is going to happen now or any time in the near future for that matter. TNA is terrible and outside of a few months in 06 it pretty much always has been. That said the ratings have gone up pretty consistently over the last year or so. People can point to the star power, that may or may not be leaving/retiring soon enough, but as I recall the TNA Knockouts were a huge part of the original ratings uptick. SPIKE likes TNA for a variety of reasons, but the fact that the show fits perfectly within the "ADD entertainment for adolescent acting adult males" programming model is a big part of why.

Context is the issue more than anything. I love Kid v. Bret from 94, but Waltman's use of a powerbomb is an absurd move in the context of the times. We're talking about a period where the only guys using that move were people like Sid, Vader and Diesel and then Kid breaks it out on a guy bigger than him no the less, despite having a gimmick that was basically "fast, skinny dude, that wins with crazy flippy offense." Certain moves are going to become more common with time, varying place to place, et. Sometimes they are going to be overused to the point of absurdity and others times they will come across as legit killers (piledriver or top rope frankensteiner is a good example of a move that has seen the full rotation here). There is no way to stop it that I know of

My fault.

Known. I was responding to kjh who made the point that where a person drew money was also a factor.

During watching for the SC poll I saw at least one really good Bret v. Skinner and Bret v. IRS match. I don't think I ever saw Bret v. Adam Bomb or Bret v. Kwang, though I'd actually be fairly surprised if Bret v. Kwang wasn't at least interesting.

Rey not being in is pretty ridiculous, when you consider the fact that he's brought in more money to the company than Eddy or Benoit - possibly both combined. There are exceptions to the rule kjh (Fargo, Lawler, DK) but as a general rule I think you are right.

How does Backlund/Race hold up next to the best of both guys John?

I remember thinking Shawn was awful in that 6/92 match, but the others I have no recollection of at all. I may try and track them down.