Dylan Waco

I think given your tastes, and strong dislike for Rey's offense, there is almost no way you would ever like him. Funny enough this is a bit like the criticism of Flair - if you hate the 619, or Rey's "fireworks" offense, you can probably appreciate him to a point, but you will never be a super fan of his. Those things are just too central to his act. By the same token, if you object to the idea of staple comedic bumps in every match, you can appreciate Flair up to a point, but you will probably never be a super fan of his. I actually think Liger v. Rey is very tough. I had Liger top 5 in 2006, but he's a guy who almost slip through the cracks when I think of top level guys nowadays. In all honestly he's probably in my top three or four Japanese guys ever, which puts him in top ten discussion. Instinctively I think of Rey as more of a number one contender than I do Liger, in part because I think Rey is the most consistent and capable television worker in history by a healthy margin. That said I do agree that Liger's best work is superior to Rey's, and he has a longer run of being a better than average worker (Not sure I'd argue he has a longer run of being a great wrestler, but it's possible). This is something I'll have to think about more.

On the subject of recency bias, Parv recently suggested that Jumbo has jumped ahead of Flair. This after years of slandering people and questioning the motivations of anyone who dared challenge the idea of Flair as number one. The big change it seems is that Parv has watched a lot of Jumbo. Recency bias?

Hart v Lawler did not sell out every Monday for years. I'm a Hart advocate, and think he's at least as deserving as Cornette, but that just isn't true. I am at work on my phone but will respond to Parties later. *Spoiler* it's fair to question anyone's drawing record, but no clue why Bastien of all people was pointed to as a draw in first post if that is the approach you are taking.

The way guys are categorized has been problematic for a while. Up until two years ago I wasn't even aware that non-wrestlers who counted as part of the region where they worked. I doubt many voters were. That's a problem. People like Masa Saito and Steve Williams have got in via being placed in categories that were much more favorable to their chances. Meanwhile you could argue that someone like Hamada or Murdoch were either in the wrong category or defied categorization all together. They are now off the ballot, possibly forever depending on how the reintegration theory actually works. Candidates that would qualify as "Historical candidates" via the metric Dave uses for U.S. and Canada - The Sharpes, Starr, Gordienko, most of the "Islands" region, et. are judged against modern candidates from within their regions which seems unfair. Even worse, some of these figures like The Sharpes are probably better suited in different categories anyhow, and others like Gordienko are puzzling in that no one can figure out how the hell they are even in the category they are in (or why). I understand the idea behind the categories, but I am starting to think it is causing more problems than it has solved. At the very least if categories stay in place I would like to see a hard move where historical candidates are all shifted into one bucket so that people like The Sharpes aren't competing with the likes of Minoru Suzuki and Shinsuke Nakamura for votes.

Probably my least favorite team ever that features two guys I like (at least to a degree) on their own. I think Adonis brought out the worst in Murdoch. Or maybe it was the other way around. Not really sure. They absolutely have matches I like, but also matches I loathe that are built almost entirely around them trying to outdo themselves with comedic stooging spots that seem to undermine the focus of the match. Waiting to get buried by Will and Childs for this one.

Speaking for myself, I nominated them because I think they are probably the second best WWE tag team of all time. I actually don't think there is a single thing overrated teams like Hart Foundation do better than them. They had better double teams, better psychology, worked heat segments better, paced matches better, were more consistent, et. I tend to think 80s WWF tag teams are comically overrated. I could possibly be convinced a team like The Islanders were better, but I'd take a team with a complete act, who could work compelling heat-centric matches with interesting spots against teams like Haas and Holly, over the much flatter British Bulldogs 100 out of 100 times.

I actually think Matt's list will reflect this pretty well. You could easily argue that Bock and Buddy Rose are the two best fits for that sort of wrestler, and I think there is a strong chance both will be in Matt's top five. He is likely to have Bret pretty damn high too if the infamous BRet v. Flair thread is any indicator.

I understand Matt's point, but I actually don't think it's as consistent a staple of Hansen's work as he implies. Some of the Colon matches would pose a contrast for example. I also think the match with Leon White from the AWA does at least in a sense, and I could probably find several others with minimal effort. Funny enough one match that I think absolutely fits with the narrative he presents is that Hennig match, which he oddly sees as deviating from that script. That I don't get at all.

Mike Johnson gets a ballot. I haven't had a sub in months and I got a ballot this year.

The mystery partner should be Cesaro

Unfortunately a lot of the really fun and interesting Rave on the indies stuff was during his stint in Rampage, the majority of which was lost when that promotion closed up. That said he's still got some matches available for free on YouTube that I like a lot. Here are a few. v. Kyle Matthews from 2013 v. Drew Adler from early this year w/Kyle Matthews v. Caprice Coleman and Cedric Alexander from 2012 Elimination tag Jimmy Rave Approved v. Team DSCW (one of my favorite indie matches ever)

I just finished part 1 yesterday as well too, and loved it. Pumped to listen to this, hopefully spoiler free

In the context of wrestling - and probably other things - being "lazy" is relative. For my money if you have a shit ton of ability and choose to coast on the bare minimum, you are lazier than a guy who had a gimmick based around morbid obesity, and actually worked that gimmick to its logical conclusion.

I think we are at the point where no modern/new candidates will be slam dunkers for a long time, but it also depends on what you mean by a slam dunk pick. For some the standard of slam dunk is "absolute top tier ever" in which case I would argue there are no slam dunkers on the ballot and probably haven't been since The Rock was inducted. For others a slam dunk pick is someone where there is no particularly strong argument against them and they check off every box in some way, shape, and form. I would think Cena is sort of in between that category and the first one I mentioned, but most will get the point. The other standard I have seen some use is "would this person have fit in with the first class of inductees." This is where I suspect a lot of people would put someone like Rey Mysterio. I would argue that Carlos Colon and Cien Caras at minimum fit into category two, and as such I would call them "slam dunks." But they aren't "modern" candidates in the sense of being active and products of the modern wrestling landscape. I will say if New Japan stays at it's current level or grows, and Okada remains a top player for seven or eight more years he would probably be at that level regardless of what you think of him in the ring. But I still wouldn't vote for him at that point because of rule changes designed to benefit "new" candidates.

I will give a lot more thoughts on this show in podcast form soon, and in this thread as well, but one thing I think is interesting is the wide divergence of views on what the top match was. Usually you see people coalesce around one match as the clear best of, maybe two. But so far I have seen at least six matches cited on the boards, Twitter, or review sites as the best of the two shows (Rockwell v. Gunner, Kong v. Moose, Henry v. Lynch, Rave v. Henry, Collins v. Coleman and the Finals). That really sticks out to me not only as an indication that the shows are really strong, but also about the variety of the shows. I think it says a lot for this sort of model of a tournament, as there pretty clearly was something for everyone, and every reviewer seems to have liked the shows a good deal, even if only a handful have touted an individual match at MOTY level.

Pete, rewatch Gunner v Rockwell, love that match

Rave's injury was a shoot/work synthesis. The wreck was legit, I saw the car. As far as the crowd, there were 125 more people in the building on night 2.

Front row. Left of hardcam.

Coleman is close to forty but you wouldn't know it looking at him. Given his age he is probably at the peak of where he is going to go in the business now. As a regular with ROH who isn't a complete jobber, he's really not in a bad spot given his age, especially because he usually has his run of Southeast indies to fill dates with. That said a guy with his look, charisma, and dynamism in the ring really deserved to get more chances. I just watched the Collins match on VOD, and he deserves a lot of credit for busting his ass when he was only in for one night, and losing to a relative unknown in the wrestling business. A lot of guys would have pouted, brought their C game, or coasted, but Caprice worked as hard as you'll ever see him work. Makes you wish ROH would give him a bit more of a push even if it's obvious that he's never going to be a main event player. Collins has improved so much it's hard to believe it's the same guy. He used to be the absolute shits just a few years back, and now I'd argue he's one of the 10-15 best guys in that North Georgia/East TN scene, which is a way bigger compliment than it sounds like it is, as the area is talent rich. Loved the suplex variations, the stiffness of his strikes, and the way the match built and was paced. In the building this match was probably the surprise of the first night - if not the entire tournament - and it holds up well on tape.

Shoe you are the second person to say they had Coleman v. Collins as the MOTN on night one. Live I don't think anyone would have picked anything other than Rave v. Henry, which makes me really interested to see both of those matches on the VOD.

Obviously I was there live and I loved the shows. I published my immediate, live experience, takeaway from the shows at Voices of Wrestling here: http://www.voicesofwrestling.com/2015/08/10/the-scenic-city-invitational-an-appreciation/ That said, I also bought the VOD and will be watching the show again over the course of the next few days. I am really interested to see how the production is. I have full faith in the commentary as Dan Wilson and Al Getz did great with the Styles v. Rave match that Whoo put out earlier this year, and Dan is in my view the best in business period. Quick notes on Hollis and Lynch. Hollis is a guy who has been on the cusp of breaking out for years. He has worked a lot of the "name" indies, including ROH many times as an opening match and/or enhancement type. At the last two ROH shows in Atlanta he's put in performances that got rave reviews from those who attended live, he was a finalist in this years Super Eight, a star of note in PWX which is the South's answer to a "super indie" (so is AWE arguably), and seems willing to travel. I think two things hurt him, his size which he can't help, and the fact that his size and look make him seem like a face, when I think he's much better as a heel. In Empire where the SCI is hosted Hollis, Ryan Vega and Chip Day make up the White Rose heel faction, and he is hated there. He plays it up and I think it adds a ton of depth to him. I think all of his best work (including as a "Jimmy Rave Approved" team member during the era where that unit was huge all over the region) has been as a heel and I hope his work in this tournament will push him over the edge into "indie star" territory. Lynch on the other hand is an Empire guy primarily, and is still green. He and his brothers area all pretty good prospects (Matt Fortune and Bane are his siblings), but I think Joey is probably the most complete package of the three if you count look. He got some bookings in AWE recently, and it wouldn't shock me if it was partially due to his work on these shows as he was being raved about by a lot of people as one of the two big surprises of the tournament (the other being Jason Collins). I can see how Hollis would stand out more, but this was arguably the biggest match of Lynch's career and I think he acquitted himself well in it. I'll comment more on rewatch, but wanted to note that I think he is a guy I could see being a really big deal in a few years if he continues on his current path.

I think it's a very good reason for someone to reject the writings of Dave wholesale even if I don't. People reject the totality of other careers and career output for things like this all the time. As for second point, if I made the argument that within my subculture calling Dave Meltzer's wife a whore wasn't really sexist, but was merely a reflection of common use language within said group, my guess is no one would rush to defend it because it's transparently absurd.

I nominated him, but he's more a guy worth exploring, than a guy I could see myself voting for at the moment. I do think it is very fair to say that the guy has incredibly high highs - there aren't too many people who have matches like the Park and Fenix bouts on their resume who aren't considered at the very least "good" workers. Still I would not have nominated him if not for the relatively large amount of his IWA Puerto Rico run that is now available via YouTube. He had a good rep working there as a guy who got the most out of turds, always worked hard, and delivered on big angles/feuds. I can't say for certain whether or not that is true, but the rep is there from people I respect. I agree that when he is bad, he is bad, but I have actually enjoyed a lot of his run in AAA even though it's nothing to build a resume for something like this on. I'm going to mine through some of that IWA stuff if I can, but I strongly believe in including territory/regional stars with reps from those who watched the footage and/or lived through their respective runs, so he felt like someone who needed a thread

The only WWF/WWE team I'm confident I would have above them is The Rockers, and that is largely based on stuff outside the WWF. That said , in all time list, not sure second best WWF team ever makes a top 25.

Admittedly I don't know as a lot about Hamada. What makes him standout over CIMA? CIMA, at least as of now, would be a slamdunk vote for me. Checks off boxes for influence, drawing power, and in-ring ability. Created the style/promotional basis for what CIMA has done, as good or better in the ring for longer, while I don't consider him an HoF Draw (or CIMA either), he was in money drawing feuds/well presented on cards against top stars in Mexico.