Dylan Waco

I fundamentally disagree with the argument that either is unpolished or green. I haven't watched the match in months and didn't review it at the time, but don't remember being bothered by the execution (which admittedly probably matters much less to me than it does to you). This probably wouldn't have been the match I'd have pointed you to as a first look at CWF, but if you didn't like Lee here, it's hard to imagine you liking him at all. His match with Everett is right near the top of my MOTY list for whatever that is worth. As a point of comparison relevant to this thread, I think Lee is vastly better than Shibata in basically every way and I like Shibata. So take that however you will

Misawa v Hase is the worst Misawa singles match of the post-TM period. Too bad Parv didn't like Trevor v Skyler. Love it myself, but I've long ago accepted that Parv and I have less in common than Joe Lanza and I do when it comes to wrestling. At least he gave it a shot.

That does explain why my takes on PWG are right and yours are wrong

Gotcha. All the people watching in real time were wrong, but post-narrative creation viewers wree watching with untainted eyes.

Fun show as always. One quick nitpick is that Tim said he thought some people were misremembering some of the early details of Okada and Omega. I just want to point out that many people making the critiques he's talking about were making those critiques in real time as the match occurred.

I got a message from someone earlier saying that posts in this thread sum up the reasons why they prefer ranking wrestlers to matches and while I wasn't thinking that way when I wrote what I did I have to agree. Would possibly be interested in some of the discussion surrounding a matches poll, but whereas a year ago I probably would have felt compelled to participate in it, I can't imagine doing it now. Doing my Voices of Wrestling MOTY poll ballot is brutal enough.

The execution has been good at this point. Very hard to see what the long term payoff is, but it's another thing that seems Memphis-y to me.

I think the idea with FIP is to straddle the fence between edgy and troll, that way the company can claim either is the intent if it fails on either end. The first hour of the show was a disaster that seriously undermined what ended up being a show full of fun - if not someone dated - wild wrestling. The big takeaway from me is that Fred Yehi can wrestle just about anyone in any style and have a good match, and that the ring announcer is super ineffective even as a troll

Snowman/Lawler is built around the implicit understanding that a large segment of the crowd knows the USWA is controlled by a good ole boys network that has not produced or maintained black stars regardless of their talent. There is a truth in the Snowman complaint, and it's a truth that a large portion of the audience can relate to on a level that goes beyond just pro wrestling. With Styles promo it is true that Cena too months off, did nothing to earn another title shot, lost decisively to Styles, and the person giving him the title shot is his virtual brother-in-law. Cena is the entitled elite who benefits from nepotism BUT he is also really great, an all time legend, and almost never loses a fight when the stakes are high. Lawler is the beneficiary of institutional racism and structural biases BUT he is also the king, an all time legend, and almost never loses a fight when the stakes are high. It may not be a completely fair comparison thought both because I don't remember tons of specifics from the Snowman/Lawler promos, and Lawler's penchant for running down the strengths of his opponents is far worse than Cena's.

That actually isn't true but ok

I can see how you would think that from what I just described, but if you saw the segment and that was your takeaway I'd be surprised. What Styles was saying WAS TRUE, just as it was true what Snowman was saying to Lawler. I can get disliking both of those things for various reasons, but I struggle seeing how someone could love one and think the other is bad.

It's the most disturbing thing I've ever heard

The most Russoesque thing about Smackdown is the fact that pretty much everyone I can think of has a story. Sure I think you can argue that there is a thin line between integrating the real and the wrestling in an effective way and it going down the path of full blown disaster, but I cant think of a single instance where Smackdown has crossed that line at this point. AJ doesn't tell Cena he's an overpushed prick who can't wrestle - he says his virtual brother-in-law gifted him a world title shot he didn't deserve after being off for months and Styles had already beaten him three times. There is a big difference between those two things.

I am curious, what is the harm or issue with giving that match 4.5 or even 5 if you thought that is what it deserves and then outlining the reasons you just presented? Is it an issue that that diverges from the general conceptualization of "great" matches or is it an issue of not knowing how to sort it all for yourself? I think there are lots of ways to have a great match and context always changes my ratings. When I find out more about a match I will sometimes go back and re-rate it. There are plenty of matches I have at 4 -4.5, maybe even some 4.75s that I think probably don't get that in a vacuum or by popular opinion, but I think they deserve it for whatever reason. It is just my own take on the quality of the match, no more and no less; the stakes are relatively low and there is always space to explain if need be. I am always interested when someone has a match rated highly that I never thought of as great. I wanted to think about this some before I answered it, but I've only confused myself even more. The truth is that I don't know if there is an issue with it or not. Part of the problem I have is that to me it is effectively a perfect match for what it set out to accomplish. I suppose you could say "but what it set out to accomplish wasn't that impressive or important," but in the context of that show it's just not true. If that match doesn't happen that way the main event likely fails. Joey Lynch doesn't start getting booked in bigger places without that match either, though I'm not sure it's fair to judge a match based on something like that. A couple of other matches that illustrate my struggle with this would be the Dirty Daddy v. Cain Justice opener from CWF's BattleCade which was pretty much a perfect showing in that spot from two rookies and Anthony Henry v. Fred Yehi from last nights Style Battle debut. In the case of Daddy v. Justice the goal was not to outshine what happened on the rest of the card, but to introduce Justice's new character, warm up the crowd, and do an effective title switch for their rookie belt. The work was pretty much perfect as you had a nice mix of crazy spots, good selling, body part work that paid off, and an effective finish. I'm not sure the match went 6 minutes, but I also can't think of a single thing that could have been done to improve on it. There are 25 minute ppv matches have more cool spots, are in bigger buildings, have a more dramatic string of near falls, et. but also have portions of them that I think don't quite work or don't have the sort of consistent quality exhibited here. That said I would personally feel weird given Justice v. Daddy five stars, or even four stars, where the hypothetical ppv main event would have a shot I might cut more slack. Length, scope, card positioning might be the factors at play here, but not exclusively so because I can think of other scenarios where I might pull the trigger on something higher in a similar situation. Should a matches ambition factor matter? If so I think I could make a case that Anthony Henry v. Fred Yehi should be five stars. I admit that I'm biased for personal reasons, and I also admit that there were things about the match that weren't to my tastes. But in the bigger sense I thought the match was kind of a genius piece of work by Yehi, and as physically demanding and impressive a match as we are likely to see in 2017. A very hard hitting and strong temp'ed match that wasn't excessive for the most part, worked outside in 40 degree weather, where you get over that draws can happen in the promotion, and sort of make your opponent in the process, is really more than anyone should reasonably expect on a show worked in front of maybe 60 paying fans. And yet while this one got lots of praise in real time, and I think the context clearly makes it something exemplary, I can't see going five stars. I'm not sure what the point is really other than to say that in all three of those cases the context makes me feel like those matches were pretty much perfect or damn close to it. And yet none of them are 5 stars in my eyes, and the one that I'd probably give the highest star rating to (Henry v. Yehi) is also the one that I think has the most visible flaws divorced from context. I'm not sure I really agree with OJ's point exactly, but I do think that there is definitely great rhetorical weight if nothing else to that designation and it makes me wary of trotting it out for things, and contributes to all sorts of inconsistency with how I apply the star concept in my head and what I actually think is strong/ideal wrestling in practice.

I get why you are taking this jab, but you could say the exact same thing about the Lawler v. Snowman feud. There is a way to do these sort of angles that meshes reality and the world of fictional wrestling without fully submitting to the "this is a shoot!" style stuff that made Russoism so destructive.

If you can't see the point I don't know what to tell you. Perhaps it's because you aren't following the fault lines surrounding the match elsewhere. I am a fan of BattlArts a promotion that often had no noise, that's not the issue for me personally. The issue is when we start talking about investment and whether the first quarter of the match succeeded in being engaging and gripping. It doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things, but I've yet to see a compelling explanation for why the previous three matches didn't struggle to get reactions for 15 to 20 minutes and the main event did.

Possibly, though Naito v. Tanahashi had no trouble going on after Goto v. Shibata which was a dramatic bombfest.

What's most interesting to me about this show in terms of critical discussion is the way the undercard is viewed. I think that's where the investment question really rears its head. Watching in real time with Exposer our take was that the undercard was easy enough to watch, but nothing on it was as good as the top couple of matches from WWE tv over the week, and some of the stuff was pretty clusterfuckish. It just felt like a bunch of decent matches back-to-back, most of which were thrown together to give guys a pay day. There is nothing wrong with that, and the WWE does it too, but I was mystified to see people raving about virtually every match on the undercard as 3 1/2 star level match. To me that was a bigger disconnect than the main events, all of which I enjoyed, and all of which I assumed would be widely praised by NJPW fans even before the show started.

Also NJPW fans are conditioned to know when to react in main events. To me that is to their credit in this match, because the rhythm of this main event was completely flipped on it's head, which is why the crowd was going so mental for what turned out to be an incredibly long closing stretch. I think it's a weird talking point too, because they actually did a great job manipulating the crowd. It feels like a nit pick to me. It's only worth mentioning in the context of people calling it maybe the best match ever and in the context of the show. As an isolated point it's kind of a shoulder shrugger, but when you compare it to the reactions in the opening moments of the match that immediately proceeded it (which had similar pacing) there is a noticeable difference. I'll grant that there could be a variety of reasons for that, and to me it's not really a serous criticism of the match. I would deduct exactly zero stars or whatever for it. But when people talk about the opening minutes and how invested they were - and in many cases act confused or annoyed that others say they weren't - it's worth noting that the live crowd was pretty clearly "down" as well. I think your other post is a relatively good breakdown, and is in line with some of the things I've been saying the last few days myself. I do cringe a bit at being categorized as primarily a 1 in this case, but that might have to do with my comments on Twitter in real time v my comments here, and the fact that I don't know if I like the idea of 1 as the bastion of "intellectual" critique. There is a sense in which 2 feels like it could be labeled "narrative building/narrative reading" which is as post-modern intellectual as you get.

Very cool podcast idea and episode. Would listen to more of these for sure. Both Johnny and JB were great guests.

Curious what people think of the Caristico v. Histeria mask match from Christmas night. I found myself really liking the third fall which shocked me, but was largely indifferent to the first two

Impact last night was garbage. That said, on a whim I watched their completely unpromoted and irrelevant PPV tonight and it was actually good. Not great, but good. Only one really bad match on the show, everything else was decent or better, with a couple of very good matches. Some of the talking segments were not good, but nothing overstayed it's welcome. The booking feels aimless, and they clearly have no clue how to use most of the roster they have, but the even itself was well worth watching. My own view is that they badly need new blood in to mix with the guys they have who are actually good, but I don't expect that to happen until March.

Now let me talk about why I don't use star ratings even though I admit that I find them useful. For starters It is my experience as a reader that I am far less likely to read a full review with a star rating than I am to read one without a star rating. I admit I may be in the minority here. That said if I know a star is there I will almost always scroll down and look at that and often times won't bother reading the review itself. Of course that speaks more to my failings than the star rating system,but it's not really my biggest issue with them. My bigger issue with them is that I feel that they aren't really a suitable way for judging matches on the terms that matches are usually presented. A good example of this is the Joey Lynch v. Gunner Miller from the SCI. The match was a show opener, and featured a local babyface who had gotten over huge with the live crowd the night before v. another local babyface who was set to win the tournament, but had bombed badly in his first round match. The guys went out and had an extremely exciting sprint, that gave Gunner Miller an edge and the credibility he needed as a killer after the performance the night before. Lynch's performance was especially impressive as he took a couple of insanely dangerous bumps early to set the table for his working under neath without hurting his value, while also getting over Gunner as a beast. It was a match with very high stakes for the booking of the tournament, with almost no room for error. It worked both as an incredibly hot opener, but also as a match that put Miller back on the right path without hurting Lynch who was the champion of the top local group running in the area at the time. It's hard to imagine what they could have done better given the time, card placement, needs of the show, et. But I'd be willing to be that even if people agreed with all of that, almost no one would even think to rank it 4 1/2 stars, let alone 5. This is the dilemma I have - what do I do with matches like under a star rating system? I don't know, so I essentially don't use it.

I haven't used star ratings in god knows how long. On twitter I'll often affix them to things for the purposes of distinguishing things or discussion, but never in a concrete way. That said in my mind I've always viewed them this way: 5 stars - all time classic, flawless or near flawless, one of the best matches I've ever seen and/or of the style it was wrestled in. 4 3/4 stars - Tremendous match, likely to be in the upper echelon of MOTY discussion at worst. Perhaps not the absolute best of a style or type, but in the discussion and something where criticisms of it feel minor or incidental. 4 1/2 stars - Excellent match, in most years at least a fringe MOTYC. Criticisms might be more substantial than above, but nothing in the match that meaningfully undermines the story being told. 4 1/4 stars - Great match, maybe a hair below MOTYC level. I often feel that matches which go a bit too long or too short fall in this range fwiw. 4 stars - Great match, but a match where at no point during it did I feel I was watching one of the top matches of the year. Kind of a generic rating for a demonstrably very strong showing that lacks the meaning, impact, drama, or precision of the above. 3 3/4 stars - Very good match, bordering on great, that perhaps suffers from some ill timed spots, awkward execution in bad moments, lazy selling at a critical moment, et. 3 1/2 stars - Very good match, more than just "well worked," but lacking a single or collective performance that reaches the next level. 3 1/4 stars - Good match, brushes up against being more than that but never gets fully over the hump. 3 stars - Good match. I see thousands of these every year. Well worked, strong effort, things click pretty well, simple/effective story told but nothing that will last with you on its own. 2 3/4 stars - Sold match, slightly above average, but doesn't have the cohesive elements I would ideally want to call something good. 2 1/2 stars - Average match. Two professionals doing what they do, filling a slight on the card effectively enough, but doing nothing to stand out and nothing exemplary. 2 1/4 stars - Slightly below average. Often times a decent match that goes off the rails at a few points or has a terrible finish. 2 stars - Mediocre match. Usually nothing really terrible, but an uninspired performance, lazy performance. 1 3/4 stars - Poor match. Weak effort, bad storytelling, and now we are getting into the territory of performers who look like they aren't on the same page for chunks of the match. 1 1/2 stars - A safely bad match. Perhaps some competency is shown in moments, but that's the best you can say about it, and the worst moments are utter trash. 1 1/4 stars - Very bad match. At this level we are looking at matches where all parties in the match sucked pretty consistently from beginning to end. 1 star match - Awful match. Little to nothing goes right or what they are doing is so bad in design that it can't be redeemed by good execution alone. 3/4 star match - Trash. At this level we are talking about something so bad that it shouldn't have been booked and you finish it literally feeling like you have wasted your time. 1/2 star match - All of what I said about the previous entry, but now you are also reconsidering your wrestling fandom. Usually reserve this tier in my head for things that make me legit embarrassed to be a fan. Can be distinguished from the previous entry in part based on length or the degree to which something is actually morally offensive (rape spots for example). 1/4 star match - Absolute disaster, shit show. Almost certainly the worst wrestling related thing you see in a given year. Tons of blown spots, poor communication, et. combined with being horrifying and/or embarrassing on some level. DUD - I don't really think in these terms but this would be something I would consider one of the worst things I've ever seen in life, let alone pro wrestling.

I prefer a lot of WWECW to modern SD but not because of the storytelling really. I myself have said it's been overrated in some quarters, and it has been, but it's been very good for a lot of people who were otherwise doomed to fail and/or in dire situations. People may have been high on SD before the draft but the initial aftermath the overwhelming consensus was that SD got fucked and would be a disaster of a show due to star power. Oops.