Jump to content
Pro Wrestling Only

Dylan Waco

Moderators
  • Posts

    10174
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dylan Waco

  1. I don't like Perez at all either
  2. Invader 1 v. Hercules Ayala. This is one of, if not my favorite, studio matches of the 80s. It is better if you know the context of what is going on which was explained to me by El Boricua. I can pull that over here if necessary. v. Muto. I like this not only because it's a great Invader 1 brawl, but because it's a great Invader 1 brawl v. a guy who is sort of a known comedy to American hardcore fans. v. Ron Starr. Even with the clipping this is excellent, and one of the best matches from PR in the 80's. An all time great sell job/slow fire up job from Invader in this one. I would also strongly argue strongly for watching the Eric Embry match if you haven't which is a great brawl, and the Al Perez Street Fight which is a real miracle match. To me the Kamala match is a brief match that illustrates how excellent Invader was working underneath, though it's more of an angle than a match. Him with anyone v. The Sheepherders or Hangmen is well worth watching too. I could go on, but I'll stop there.
  3. No clue if it's on YouTube, but there is a Brad Armstrong v. Vader match from either Worldwide or Pro in 94 that I absolutely love, and I doubt it goes longer than six minutes
  4. Dylan Waco

    Sami Zayn

    Being cast as a heel and working heel are different things. Important to keep in mind when thinking about a lot of modern wrestlers.
  5. I'm almost hesitant to post this now because I don't want it to be read as a troll of El-P, but I watched the acclaimed Fujiwara v. Takada match last night and my god was Takada bad in it. In order for shootstyle of any sort to work for me you either need a brilliant stylist (Han for example), or a real sense of urgency. I can't say the match had neither, but Takada brought absolutely zero to both categories. He did nothing interesting, different or "expert" like on the mat, nor did his strikes offset that to any meaningful degree. Worse, he showed no real urgency at all. Late in the match there is a moment where he sells getting up from a knockdown in exactly the fashion I would expect Shawn Michaels to sell it if Shawn was hopped up on 'ludes. That's not a compliment. I thought it was a very good match because of Fujiwara, but it should have been a great match and didn't hit that level because the performance was so distractingly one-sided. In one sense I suppose this is a match to point to to illustrate how the myth of Takada the shooter was really impressive since there was no real foundation to it at all, but I left this match thinking he was one of the least interesting wrestlers of all time. At this point I would feel more comfortable labeling him the Japanese Don Muraco than anything else.
  6. Toyota isn't Darby Crash
  7. Excellent post Loss. I have a couple of follow up questions. 1. I am one of the bigger critics of innovation you will find, in the sense that I think it is wildly overrated by certain segments of hardcore fandom. More importantly, I also think innovation is at least as likely to hurt a match as it is to help it. I mention this because I'm curious if you agree with that sentiment, but also to see if you would call Toyota an innovative worker or something else. I notice you come close to that verbiage above, but you never really take the dive and I'm not sure if that was a conscious choice or not. With someone like Otsuka I have started using the term "progressive" which I see as being something different than innovation, though I haven't fully developed what I mean by that (I also see someone like Nishimura, or even modern Jimmy Rave as a "retro-progressive" worker but that is probably beyond the scope of this thread even if I do want to write about it at some point). Do you think the progressive label fits Toyota as well, or would you stay away from a label like that? 2. Your paragraph talking about the issue of wrestling for the moment/circumstance interests me because I tend to be of the camp that great wrestling is great wrestling. I do agree that context will enhance the great matches, but generally speaking I think a great match in 1993 should still be a great match in 2015. If it isn't I'm not sure I can really call it a great match. From this perspective the idea of someone being "dated" really hurts them in my eyes because it means they aren't timeless. What you have done is suggest that this was a conscious choice by Toyota. I'm not at all sure that is true, and typically I would argue that I'm not sure it really matters, but it does speak to the discussion of intent/thinking in the ring that Matt D often raises. My question is why do you believe this was a conscious choice by Toyota, rather than her just doing what she knew how/liked to do? How would you make that argument to someone? I am someone who will include at least some Joshi workers on their list, but Toyota isn't even on my radar. I'm not sure your answer to this would put her there, but it might make me willing to go back and watch a few more matches if nothing else. 3. You haven't really answered this before that I recall, but I am curious how you feel about my general "all styles aren't created equal" position? In the context of this thread what I am really asking is EVEN IF you believe Toyota created and mastered a style, how much should that matter if you see it as a grossly inferior style? I'm not even making that judgment myself (though early on I tried to watch a fair amount of 90's Joshi and was shocked by how "eh" I found a lot of it to be on rewatch), I'm just curious about how this applies in your thinking when trying to rank a wrestler. Is the success of the style germane? If not why not?
  8. Not all styles are created equal. Outside of Necro, how many indie death match workers will make ballots? I'll have more to say later, a lot of which won't go over well.
  9. What irks me the most about this is the announcement of non-participation. If Parv or anyone else doesn't want to participate than don't. But to announce it this way after making a wholesale condemnation of the process reeks of "I don't like that I don't have control of this." The spirit of the project is for it to be both individual and communal. If people aren't into that fine, why announce it? I have kept my mouth shut about issues that have occurred within the more closely knit community that exists at PWO-PTBN in the interest of protecting the integrity of the bigger project at hand. I did this against my better judgment because I did not want to hurt or undermine what we do there as a team. I could have (and most people I talked to about the matter privately thought I SHOULD have) walked away, but I didn't. Still that's not the point. The point is that if you don't want to participate, but you care about the project or the community that is behind it, why make a grand announcement about the allegedly terribly flawed nature of it, and then announce that you are bolting?
  10. Will you be practicing what you preach and staying out of the GWE forum entirely?
  11. Seconding Childs here, but the NJPW set is easily my favorite of the 80s sets.
  12. Stock Up: Kiyoshi Tamura - Went from being a guy I barely remembered watching, to being a guy who I absolutely love to the point of him being on the cusp of a top twenty ranking. I'll add more comments to his thread soon, but I think he was a brilliant performer. Samoa Joe - Kind of a strange one, but I went back and watched some of his ROH and TNA work from his prime period recently, and it holds up very well. Sometimes when you go back and watch guys like this the aura/vibe is gone, but that's not the case with Joe which tells you it wasn't just a booking trick. Seemed like a marginal pick for my list when this started, now I'm fairly confident he'll make my bottom ten. Invader 1 - This is kind of old news at this point, but he's an all time great brawler. His sympathy selling, timing, and build to comebacks are among the best I've ever seen. Will do well on my ballot. Alexander Otsuka - One of the most progressive and interesting wrestlers of the last twenty years. I doubt there are ten people I get more excited to watch a new match from when they pop up. One of the most naturally talented wrestlers I've ever seen. Osamu Nishimura - Amazing wrestler, who is crazily underrated. I would rate him considerably above some of the darlings of Japanese wrestling (Hase, Muto, Kikuchi, et.). He climbs up my list with every match of his I see. Would love to hear Parv's thoughts on him. Atsushi Onita - All time great spectacle wrestler who I was on the fence about rating, and now I'm pretty sure I'll rate him reasonably high. Stock Down: Terry Gordy - Simply doesn't have the resume. Steve Williams - Should probably rewatch more AJPW, but watched a couple of random tags of his from there a few weeks ago and he just didn't stand out from the pack at all. Maybe unfair, but he's someone where I would need some strong recommendations to convince me at this point. Kevin Steen - I wanted to give him a chance so I rewatched some of his indie stuff and just no. Comically overrated wrestler. Was certainly capable, and had some fun matches, but constantly dragged down by his own bullshit. Nowhere near as good as a lot of indie wrestlers who are much less likely to get attention in the voting (Necro, Rave, Red, Matthews, et.)
  13. Has Ken Shamrock been nominated? If not I'm nominating him via the Yearbook forum.
  14. In what way was David better than Kerry? I can't imagine anyone citing the awkwardness of Von Erich movements, and dinging Hayes for execution, and being high on David. I actually think David is the most awkward full time wrestler I've ever seen.
  15. Dylan Waco

    Pancrase

    This is just a thought but if people are considering voting for Suzuki or Funaki are they taking Pancrase into consideration?
  16. For sub 5 Fujiwara v Mochizuki is amazing. There is a sub-10 Rude v Pillman match I absolutely love
  17. Absolutely not. But when looking for things to create some separation in a very close field, having that one year where you stand above the pack matters to me, even if it is probably something that is easy overvalue. To me it's something of a tiebreaker that may help no more than 2 or 3 guys get over the hump (offhand the only guys who I wouldn't definitely include that might benefit would be Strong, Rave and possibly Samoa Joe).
  18. I don't disagree with that point. I also think there is something to say for someone who totally masters a style or approach or role to the point where it would be absurd for them to do anything else. Here the best example is probably Rey Mysterio.
  19. Does that mean Sasha or Roman gets on for this year? Neither of them are in my top three at the moment, though it is very possible I will vote Banks for Thesz/Flair Award in the Observer Awards. This year I see the top contenders for in ring performer as AJ Styles, Roderick Strong, and Jimmy Rave. I could maybe be convinced on someone like Virus or Timothy Thatcher if they had a few huge matches before years end.
  20. I am someone who probably puts versatility near the center of my criteria for the GWE, but in looking back at the most divisive thread in PWO history, I ran across Loss arguing that to him versatility means the ability to have a variety of good matches, across a bunch of different promotions, with a bunch of different people and not necessarily the ability to work several different styles. This is very similar to the sentiment expressed by Parv in the Fair to Flair podcast series. To me versatility encompasses both things, but I also include the ability to play a variety of different roles effectively when called on to do so. In many respects I think the tension between the camp that sees versatility as primarily a reflection of output and the camp that sees versatility as primarily a reflection of a persons input lays at the heart of the criteria debate. In general I am interested in how people here use the term versatility, and how important of a factor that is when they are assessing candidates.
  21. I might post more in here later but one self imposed guideline I think I am going to follow is that if I thought you were the best wrestler in the world for a particular year you are making my list. Because of the nature of footage availability I'm not sure how far back I can push that mandate, but I can press it to 1980 for sure, and possibly as far back as 76. In any case that's something I have decided to do, for reasons that might be hard to explain, but part of it is that I'm just uncomfortable with the idea of leaving off someone who I thought was the best in the World for a 12 month period (and yes I understand the artificiality of the calendar year in that context, but still).
  22. This interests me because I think Misawa embodies the ace role more than anyone else, but it is a different sort of ace than what you see out of post-Dory Funk Jr. NWA touring champions. I would also note that your second paragraph here tracks very closely to how I feel about Jumbo.
  23. I feel like this was discussed before recently. I think at absolute peak the answer might be Windham, but could see arguments for Rose, Kawada, Eaton and Morton. I also really think Yatsu excelled in tag matches and deserves to be held in high esteem. Dustin is an obvious pick who has already been mentioned, the only thing that hurts him slightly in my eyes is that I never thought he looked right working as a heel in tags, but he was brilliant as a face to the point where I'm not sure how much that matters. Tracy Smothers hasn't been mentioned, but he would rate very highly for me in this category. Smothers was involved in four tag teams that I would consider no worse than very good w/Steve Armstrong, w/Tony Anthony, w/Little Guido, and w/Chris Hamrick. All four teams were drastically different both in terms of how they worked, who they were presented, and where they were working. He was an excellent heel tag worker, and an excellent face tag worker. You could argue that maybe those teams don't have a ton of classic matches, but they have some, and they are different kinds of matches at that. Being able to work as a blowjob baby face, bad ass babyface, sneaky turncoat heel, sneaky comedic heel, hard nosed tweener, and crazy old mean spirited veteran in a tag context is pretty impressive range.
  24. Listened to the show with Will today, and I'm about a third of the way through the show with Pete. A couple of more thoughts: One thing Parv keeps going back to is the idea that you can't punish Flair because of the opportunities that he got. Put another way there is an argument presented here that while it may be possible to envision others being successful in the Flair role, Flair was in the role, was in it for a reason, and should be judged on what he did. That all other people didn't get those chances doesn't mean that it was unfair for him to get them, and more importantly we can only fix our opinions on the realities of what happened, not the fantasies of what might have. I agree with all of that, but I see a major inconsistency in this line of thought from Parv where it pertains to the 90's All Japan workers. Kawada, Kobashi and Misawa were booked against each other and excellent matches. These matches happened. Because of the nature of All Japan these men did not get shipped around from place to place and have a bunch of chances to wrestle others. We can only judge them on what occurred, which is all time classic match after all time classic match. Yet for Parv it seems as though the fact that these men did not get shipped around to work a variety of places is held against them. There great matches are almost presented as if they have an asterisk next to them. While I think there is something to the point that they had these matches against each other, at the end of the day if you aren't interested in adjusting for the advantages conferred upon people by when, where, and how they were booked or presented, I don't see how you can possibly diminish the value of what they did by saying "well there great matches were primarily against each other." Flair had an advantage that he earned. They had an advantage that they earned. What's the difference? Going farther still, I think it is a serious mistake to say "well these guys had their great matches, but they were against all time greats" because it ignores the fact that the reason these guys are considered all time greats is the matches against each other. Put another way, the case for their greatness is to a large degree those matches. It's not as if these were all time greats specifically paired against each other for that purpose. They became that together, and did it in a fashion that has never been done since. To me it would be like criticizing the strength of Flair's angles and promos in Crockett, because he was surrounded by excellent promos, and guys who could get over great angles. Obscuring the historic value of the Horseman as figures, promos, et. because they created it together strikes me as a response that would be 100 percent wrong. One other thing I want to touch on is the issue of variety. This has come up a lot on these shows with Parv, Charles, Pete, Will, et. noting that Flair had good matches against a variety of opponents in a variety of places over a relatively long period of time. I don't disagree with any of that. That said I wish we heard more about Flair's variety of performance. We definitely get some of that on the Pete show, so I'm hoping to hear more as I finish that one up, but I would have liked to hear a more detailed discussion from Parv on his Four Faces of Flair theory. To me if you are trying to get away from the "GWE as a match problem" and/or "Great Match Theory" stuff, that is the way you do it. Speaking more broadly, one of the key things I look for in an all time great performer or an all time great in ring year is the ability to play a variety of roles depending on the needs of a given place and time. For some people (I'm thinking Rey Jr. here but there are others), complete mastery of a role can be just as valuable, but generally speaking I think this sort of variety tells you more about a performer than whether or not they had good matches against a bunch of different people in a bunch of different places. This is a weird example, but one of the reasons I am so high on Jimmy Rave this year is that I have seen him work as everything from an underdog babyface, to a cocky heel, to a sneaky heel, to a badass ace heel, to a veteran face trying to make good on his last shot, et. this year, sometimes with variations of these roles in the span of two nights. I've also seen him work a more highspot heavy style, a more measured slow building style, a flashy mat based style, brawling, multi-men matches with pace, and multi-men matches built around psychology. And yes I've seen him do this against a huge variety of opponents, in a variety of places, but the real argument for him being so great this year is that he changes his approach depending on place and opponent. That is the real variety/versatility argument. Anyhow I'm not arguing Flair has none of that, and it may even be covered on the second half of the Pete show, but it's something I wanted to rant about a bit because it speaks to one of the key criteria I think about when I'm throwing together a ballot for something like this.
  25. I'll be listening to this show tomorrow.
×
×
  • Create New...