Dylan Waco

I'm not saying I buy the argument that Rose is a strong number one contender, but I can't say that I think there is anything in elliot's argument that I think is off. In fact it's dead on. As for point about being the best in a time/geography I'll be honest - I think there is very little video evidence that can support the argument that Ric Flair was better than Rose in the last 70s, or even 80 or 81. 82 is a bit different. 83 is an all time great year for Flair and Buddy. But while Flair may have been better from 77-81, I simply have never seen the footage to prove it. I have seen the footage from Buddy during that period and it's great. We have some big time stuff from Lawler during that perid (mainly 77 IIRC), but of course he was hurt in 80, and 80 is arguably Buddy's peak year. Based on footage and not what people say, I'm not sure anyone can compete with Buddy from late period of the 70's through 81 other than Fujinami. Some might argue for Jumbo I guess, but I'm not nearly the fan of him that others are. In any event that's elite company. I've said this before and i'll say it again from the cumulative period starting in 77 when we start getting Buddy footage (at least I think it's 77)-83, I don't know that there is anyone with the footage resume that matches Rose. I'm not saying for sure that there isn't, and a few guys have cases (namely Fujinami and Lawler for my tastes), but Buddy would be my top guy from that cumulative period for the reasons elliot outlines. On top of that, if I were voting purely on who I thought was the best wrestler I've ever seen in terms of absolute peak, I think Buddy would be my top pick. That's not a knock on Flair, Funk, Hansen, Lawler, Fujinami, et. but to me Buddy was the best I've ever seen at combining the athletic and psychological aspects of the game, while working diversified matches, against a huge range of opponents, in a wide variety of match types. To be honest I wouldn't even put any of those guys at his level in that regard, as I think his stiffest competition for "absolute peak" is El Dandy.

I haven't watched enough 90's Fujinami to really be fair about it (watched a bunch of matches some time back and thought he was inoffensive, but clearly not a standout anymore), but I don't agree that Fujinami never updated his game. I think he absolutely did update his game when he moved from junior to heavy. I will grant that he still did a lot of the stuff he did as a junior, but the focus and layout of the matches was really different. Watching him work the Choshu feud, or as a Inoki tag partner, or opposite Maeda, feels a lot different than watching him work ace v. DK in juniors division.

In real time I wasn't a huge fan of NOAH-era Misawa. I want to test that, but don't want to waste my time on marginal performances. Someone give me a list of 5-10 strong Misawa matches from NOAH that I can watch over the next month or so

Watched the Inoki and Baba matches and enjoyed both a good deal. I've seen the Baba match before. Can't remember if I've seen the Inoki draw or not, but I find it hard to believe I haven't. In any even both felt fresh to me. The Inoki match was obviously more ambitious, but I think it was also obviously the better showcase for Billy. We got to see a lot of things he is good, including his great escalating style of bumping which I think is an underrated form that guys like him and Wiskowski were excellent at, and the nuanced grappling escapes and body positioning. Little things like him checking from one side, and going to another to try and evade Inoki when his back was exposed are huge to me. I also really liked the build to the Boston Crab, the way Billy kept finding ways to sharply hook toward the leg every chance he got, and the timing and choice of big spots. The falls were great, especially the urgency of the Octopus from Inoki. I didn't leave it thinking I'd seen one of the best matches ever, and I wouldn't call it five stars, but it is excellent for a match of that length. The Baba match I thought was very good, but it didn't kick me in the teeth the way I want a truly high end match to. It may have suffered because I had to pause it a few times and I had the sound off for most of it, but to me it came across as a well worked, believable, 2/3 falls match with two guys representing different styles, but not anything that even approached all time classic level. I will say that I did love the finish as I am a huge fan of bouts where one guy unloads his clip in furious desperation, only to be put down with a definitive killshot when he goes to the well once to often. Very much an easily digestible match, that I may need to watch again, but a notch below what I was expecting based on the review. One thing I will say is that I am a bit surprised Parv was so high on the Inoki match only because some of the grappling he seemed to like in it, struck me as something he would dislike coming out of shootstyle (not that it was really shootstyle grappling per se, but some of the escapes, position, strategic approach, et. felt more akin to that than traditional pro-style grappling). Not making a charge of inconsistency, I just find it a bit curious that someone could go full five on one match, and be largely dismissive of the other style if I remember correctly.

Sweet. I'll start watching them in chronological order shortly.

Parv, I will watch all four of those tonight/tomorrow if you have links to them

Yes I saw that talking point floating around Twitter too. Didn't look like an intentional "arm rana" to me. At all.

Reposted from VOW board. Haven't looked at others thoughts yet, but I finished the show this morning. I stayed up through STyles v. Shibata last night, but was half awake at the finish so I rewatched it and the main event. And...well...it was a show. I guess if you are all in on New Japan as the hottest shit on Earth, and you think Tanahashi is an all time great worker, you probably liked this more than I did, but to me it felt like an almost perfect follow up to the middling-ness of Battleground in the sense that there was nothing that I thought approached home run levels, some stuff that I really hated (on Battleground this was largely booking, here it was the first three G1 matches), and then a bunch of stuff that merely existed. In some ways my favorite match of the night was the opener because it delivered exactly what I expected and wanted it to deliver. Not a great match, but I actually enjoyed Nagata for once, and six of my favorite guys in the promotion were in it, so it's a plus. The other big takeaway from the undercard stuff is that I'd probably like the promotion a whole lot more if guys like Tonga and Gedo were pushed/treated as bigger parts of the show. I hated the first three G1 matches. Tenzan v. Doc was filled with embarrasing looking offense, botched/mucked up simple spots, and nearfalls just because "hey it's a G1 match, we need nearfalls!" It also went WAY too long. Terrible start to the tourney. Makabe v. Yano was blah. I like Yano more than most, but other than the last minute or two, this lacked the charm of his usual stuff and Makabe has "jump into an open flame" heat with me at this point. Fale v. Naito was comical. I was amazed to see people on Twitter calling it a very good match. I honestly have no clue what people were watching. I actually really like Naito's new character as a change of pace, but there was nothing in this that felt well worked, dynamic, story driven, et. I can't imagine any person alive would have raved about a match of this quality if had taken place a few hours earlier on the WWE show. Shibata v. Styles was good but disappointing. Lots of little stuff I liked, like the left arm forearms of Shibata, his kicking the post, the calf killer spot, and him continuing to use his mouth as an escape valve when he gets in sticky situations (someone run with that please), but it really needed more time. I think it went 13 minutes or so, and it seemed like they were building to a second half that never came. I have no problem with avoiding nearfalls craziness at the end, but this had the feel of two solid to very good individual performances, rather than a very good match. Doesn't bode well for me either as I had this pegged as the potential best match in the whole thing. Tanahashi v. Ibushi was okay. The match was really helped by the fact that Tanahashi's work on the leg was nowhere near as violent looking as Omega's on Kushida, so it was easier to buy Ibushi using the leg as a weapon down the stretch. I also thought he used it in a smarter fashion than Kushida did which pains me to say but there it is. I did laugh at the top rope rana spot, which in setup, execution and timing would be PANNED relentlessly if it was in another place and time. I honestly don't give a shit about minor-ish flubs like that, but if you do you should be screaming from the rooftops about it, especially based on when it happened in the match. The first quarter of this was really boring - as in far more boring than the slow part of Reigns v. Wyatt - and I think it would have been better if Shibata v. Styles got about three to four minutes of what these two got. As a whole I preferred the wrestling on Battleground, but the booking was bad enough where I wouldn't fault anyone who thought this show was better. That said, it really left me empty, and almost dreading the rest of the tournament going forward.

Tajiri, Scorpio, Guido, Mikey and Spike are all above Crazy at minimum.

Oh I one hundred percent believe in confirmation bias. I also have a passing interest in pop psych books, and have read most of the ones that are highly regarded (would note that "The Paradox of Choice" would be an interesting book to read in the context of wrestling fans formula v. innovation debate among other things). I don't for one minute believe that people don't tend to cut their favorites slack. I also think people go in with different agendas some that are explicit and some that are implicit and I think that we see that at least as much as we seeing playing favorites for preferred individuals (i.e. "looking for the good instead of the bad," "just enjoying it," et.). That said I don't think someone like Will or myself or you Parv pick their favorites based on confirmation bias. We pick our favorites based on things guys do that catch or eye, make us gravitate to them, et. They become our favorites, and then we become biased toward them, not vice versa.

I love Sheamus as a worker, and Orton can certainly be good, but that match is really risky even in St. Louis. Those two have died so many times in front of live crowds I'm shocked they are doing it again. Even if it works this time they need to kill the feud here. I'm dreading Reigns v. Wyatt, and I'm as high on Reigns as it gets. Wyatt has no value to me at all at this point. I'm resentful that he's even on the card. If Owens wasn't rematching Balor I would have assumed Owens had a shot at winning against Cena. Now I think he has no shot. To me the real question is if they use the match to set up something big for Cena next. With Ryback off the show due to injury we might be spared Miz and Show or they might have a match. I wish their time would be given to Cesaro v. Rusev or something of that ilk but that seems unlikely. I expect something with the Divas, possibly a tag match. There are all sorts of rumors about people coming back, being reunited, et. I think it's telling that more focus has been on that then the matches. So much for Brock having value as a special attraction.

I have no problem with Super Crazy, but I'm not sure he's a top ten ECW guy of all time for me, and definitely not top 5. I'd argue that was almost certainly his peak. If you aren't a top 5 ECW guy, and that was your peak, you aren't making my top 100.

I think the truth is almost the opposite of what Parv said. I think what happens is people gravitate towards certain guys for certain micro traits and/or presentation reasons. Those reasons to one degree or another tend to define how many people work, and as a result they show up in the majority of a persons matches. Since these micro traits are often the things that help shape our views of a wrestler it's not so much that we are cutting slack to guys based on preconceived bias, so much as it is that the tropes, staples and identity of these guys continues to manifest themselves visually and we continue to like it. At times this will seem puzzling to outside viewers, especially when these micro traits aren't well defined. But I generally think that is what happens more often than not. As for Dory v. Terry, I watched it some time back and thought it was decent, maybe even pretty good, but my own view is that if you are going to go that long being decent or pretty good doesn't cut it.

Everett v. Case Sonjay Dutt v. AJ Styles https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhISB0_3qFo Matthews v. Fry Daddy Rave v. Rinauro Last two have no audio due to copyright claims and are not pro-shot.

A bunch of cool indie finds this week on YouTube including a great Andrew Everett v Ethan Case match from CWF MidAtlantic built all around Everett selling the leg like the anti-Kushida, a great Fry Daddy v Kyle Matthews match from NWA Atlanta, the complete AJ Styles v Sonjay Dutt match from AML which is AJ adapting to yet another kind of opponent brilliantly, and a very good Jimmy Rave v Sal Rinauro match from NWA Atlanta. I'll post links if people express interest.

Better than Takada.

Lucha brawls come across as choreographed? I actually think Lucha brawls are hands down the most organic looking things in wrestling. I actually don't think any other style is close. I can't imagine watching something like Patera v. Backlund or Valentine v. Backlund and concluding that they were less choreographed in look and feel than a LA Park brawl. Does not compute.

This will blow peoples minds, and I feel the eyes rolling now, but in terms of consistency I think Tajiri is actually one of the strongest candidates. I'm not saying he didn't have bad matches, but during his peak years he didn't, and I can't recall any Tajiri match where I thought his performance was less than decent. Perhaps even more controversially the only other wrestler I could say that about off the top of my head is Kyle Matthews.

I will say this for Owen - I would rather watch Blue Blazer matches v. Red Rooster, Barry Horowitz, Tim Horner, or even Greg Valentine, than just about any Hart Foundation tag. In fact I'd rather watch the LA match against Barry and the Greg match from 89 above EVERY Hart Foundation tag. I'm not sure I can really argue that Owen should be above Bret, but I find something charming about Owen's performances that I don't always feel for Bret. I would't call Bret a BAD role player, but I think Owen was uniquely tooled to be really good as a utility guy who could play various roles well and deliver in the ring more often than not.

Completely agree. This stuff is awesome.

KONGO KONG! Best big guy in wrestling. Best gimmick in wrestling. Amazing worker who is really smart about adapting to circumstance. Sometimes he knows he's there to be a monster who works BIG. Other times he tones that angle down a bit and works in some bigger spots because the opponent or setting calls for it. I think he's one of the best 30 workers on Earth.

What makes it tough for me is that I DO think Jumbo is a great wrestler, but my reaction to seeing his name pop up on a matchlist, or on a DVD, or on a YouTube listing is to say "ugh fuck now, bring on some Hack Myers." I am not sure there are ten wrestlers on Earth I would rather watch less than Jumbo. Objectively I think he's a top 100 guy, but I also can't be fair rating him at all.

I will be honest. The rejection of lucha by Parv and others makes it increasingly likely that Jumbo will not appear on my list. If people aren't going to include guys who I consider to be all time greats, who I would rather watch bad performances from than Jumbo's best, it seems silly for me to include Jumbo even if I think he's been in a lot of great matches.

I wouldn't say I give any credence to historical rep, other than I am probably more likely to check out someone with a historical rep than I am to check out someone who doesn't have one...and even that is increasingly less true over time. What I would say is that I don't think favorites and best are synonyms. J.T. Smith is one of my favorites, I liked watching him far more than I like watching say Akira Maeda. But Maeda is better.

Whoo! Wrestling will officially be recording and distributing the Scenic City Invitational with commentary from Dan Wilson and Al Getz. The event will be available as both a DVD and for download.