Dylan Waco

I think HHH would have made a decent Ralphus to Michaels' Jericho.

Another guy who was a lot better than Takada. Simmons is interesting to me because he was someone who I liked a lot as a kid, but other people I knew absolutely loved him. His push to the top was awkward and probably occurred at the worst possible time and I don't know that he ever really recovered from it. At the end of the day his ceiling as a star was probably upper mid-card, so that may have been doomed (pun intended) no matter what. That said he is a guy who I have become progressively higher and higher on as a worker over the years. I think the Fantastics v. Eddie/Simmons match was really, really good considering how much time it got. I really liked the 2/3 Falls match with Luger a lot. The Vader title change is a great match. I recently watched the Cage Match with Butch Reed and it is a great match too and Simmons is right there with Reed in that match. Going further I love Doom as a team, to the point where I'd rate them among the most underrated teams of the late 80's and early 90's. I'd personally put them above many of the vaunted teams of the era (Hart Foundation, Demolition, British Bulldogs, et.). I really enjoyed them both as heel roughhouses working control segments, guys reacting to babyface offense, wild brawlers, and guys trading bombs with people like The Steiners. I was a mark for the APA/Acolytes too, though I'm not sure they added many matches to Ron's resume. At the end of the day he's one of about fifty guys I am considering for my last spot, largely because I think we underrated him for years.

I'm toying with idea of Simmons as my number 100.

If there is one thing my research into guys like Sting, Patera, Blackwell, et. has taught me it's that you have to look at things holistically. Looking at what match goes on last tells you little because in many promotions the main event wasn't last on the card by design and/or the match that was hottest was second or even third (and occasionally even fourth!) from the top. Talking to fans from the era and watching footage if it is available is a good way to try and balance this stuff out because it gives you a feel for what was hot at the time/what got more of the emphasis on television, but even then it involves some guesswork. Ideally you need to understand a promotions history, the way they structured cards and the promotion, the perceptions of the fans at the time, the way the players were presented on television, the way the show was marketed in other mediums, the way the live crowd reacted (which can be incredibly be deceptive, but is not without value either), and certain other external factors that may have effected certain trends in business. I analyzed the AWA so heavily I think I was able to arrive at certain tentative conclusions (Salt Lake City was their last hot town, Blackwell was a drawing card based on dips and rises associated with his departures and returns, the narrative of AWA collapse coming right after Hogan's absence is nonsense, the High Flyers were one of the top drawing tag teams of the 70s and 80s, et.), but even then I can't say I would feel confident calling them absolute facts. If you are looking at territory era guys, I think the "in demand" nature of talent is often telling. Where guys got main events (both the locations themselves and the diversity of the locations) can give you some good ideas about the perceived value of individual talents or feuds if nothing else. I think you can even see that now on the indie scene where a guy like AJ can come in to a bunch of indies and sell places out/set record houses. Is 370 paid, with a hundreds of people turned away at the door for a promotion in the middle of nowhere with no television and no other stars more impressive than 4000 paid for a WWE show that is very well promoted, filled with t.v. stars, and has the huge advantage of national brand identity? I can't answer that but it's an interesting question if nothing else. A couple of years back a Timbo and myself toyed with the idea of trying to come up with sabermetricish models for wrestling and it went nowhere I think partially because of time/life, but also because it seemed futile. I'm not saying it would be impossible but there are a lot of factors at play, and many of them are not numerically quantifiable.

I think in order for Parv's point to make sense he needs to name specific places and instances where he thinks being are being inconsistent or unfair. It's all well and good to make an argument based on particulars, but I'd rather see what the particular argument is.

Alan told me I needed to watch that ASAP and I promptly forgot. Guess I will be watching it today

This is a thread asking a normative question. Parka was over, had a very unique look, was in no way a light heavyweight (really an embarrassingly ignorant claim), and could work. He couldn't talk, but neither could Muta who had been over huge in 89 in the same promotion. Hell the top guy in the company couldn't talk at the time. I'm not saying Parka would have been a top star given the political landscape, but should he have been treated better, and given a better chance and is it possible that he could have been a guy in the mix near the top of the cards? I don't see why not. I also think you are being pretty silly on DDP. Regardless of what you think of him, he was as over a face as WCW ever had in the history of the promotion. I'm not saying he should have been the face of the promotion, but I also don't think it's out of the question that he could have been.

I don't think it looks very good, but it doesn't kill a match for me either. One thing I've thought about today is whether or not it is even fair to categorize Bret as an ace. As a character I think that's how he presented himself, but I'm not sure the company ever quite saw him that way, or if they did it was for a brief period of time and only out of necessity. In that sense I wonder if the way he carried himself was really in line with how the company saw him. To me he sort of worked like a t.v. champion with a bigger push/longer matches. That's not a knock in and of itself but it just feels weird given Bret's verbal schtick and the way the announcers talked about him. In terms of working like an ace/"World Champion"/true top dog, I don't think's even in the same league as someone like current AJ Styles, but maybe that's not really a fair criticism to levy against him.

If superman had a defective finisher that people have to kick out of at least twice before being put away. I couldn't believe people were actually complaining that Rusev only took one AA. Imagine that! Only ONE finisher! I prefer this to the Bret trope of being unable to win with his finish against a slew of people so he has to resort to "clever" roll ups. I agree with your general point, but I'll take an ace with escalating finishers over a guy who is allegedly an ace/superior talent, who doesn't have a big stage way of finishing people off in a convincing fashion.

I think Bret v. Owen is a very good match, but it's one of those matches that is enhanced because of what happens later. I'm not saying it doesn't work on it's own, but I honestly don't see it as this other wordly, all time classic. It's as good as it is because of the sibling rivalry dynamic, but what makes it all time level is Owen coming out later in the show when Bret wins the belt, and that's way to far removed to be called part of the match.

I can't go to the wall for Bob Sapp, but I will nominate Ron Simmons. It's kind of an off the wall, almost "experimental" nomination, and I can feel El-P rolling his eyes, but he's someone who has jumped off the page to me in the last few weeks of watching I've done.

If you are a peak matches type of guy, Colon had four singles matches this year I would rank at an exceptionally high level - two v. Hansen and two v. Ayala. The two Hansen matches are two of the better matches I've seen from anywhere in the 80's (the bullrope and cage match), and the Ayala matches are so much better than they have any right to be it's hard not to marvel at Colon's performance in them. There may have been a third great Hansen match from the year too, I can't remember my timeline offhand. Either way you could make a strong case for Colon as the top worker in this hemisphere at minimum.

I think Bockwinkel had a pretty great year. On top of the Hennig and Larry Z stuff, you also had two great carry jobs of Boris Zhukov from t.v., a really awesome match with Debeers from t.v., the Flair dream match from Winnipeg, and the Hansen match from Wrestlerock which I love and sees Bock in a totally different light than normal). Not sure I can really see him over Flair or Stan, but he's there. Colon had a really strong year too as mentioned before, but I actually think Invader was the best guy in PR that year. Honestly my first instinct is to say he was no worse than top five in the World that year, and not out of the question for number one, but I'd want to go back and watch NJPW stuff to be sure of it. He had good-to-great matches v. Brody, Chicky Starr, Ron Starr, Al Perez (probably the best Perez match ever), Kamala, Embry and team with Invader 3 v. The Starrs and The Sheepherders. There is more variance to his performances here than you might think, and he is at his peak as a fiery babyface, and seller. The Embry and Starr match (there are actually two I think, but the better of the two is the in doors match) are tremendous matches, among the best matches in Puerto Rico from the 80's - and the Herders tags aren't far behind. The Flair match is clipped by I like what is shown. He was really good working both on top and underneath, in tags and in singles, in the studio setting and on the big shows. It's probably not fair to rate him above Hansen or Flair, but I'm he shouldn't be overlooked either.

I am going to go back and read comments written by others after I post this because i don't want to be influenced. As a star I think the answer is Cena. As a mic worker I think the answer is Cena, though Cena at his worst is more offensive than Bret at his worst. At the absolute peak of his act Bret was better (the Canada v. U.S./bitter Bret run), but it was short and some of his best work their was sitting in wheel chair. As a worker - which is really what I voted on - I picked Cena without much hesitation. Bret is a really weird wrestler to me in that I tend to shift back and fourth on him. At times I have thought his peak period (probably 92-97 subtracting for the time missed for injury and contract stuff of course) was very strong, with a solid amount of good and even great matches, against a wide variety of opponents, especially for the period. At other times I've thought of this run as artificially inflated because of the shift in and nature of the business at the time. At the end of the day I think the answer with him probably lies somewhere in the middle. I do appreciate what he was able to do with guys like Diesel, Hakushi, drugged Davey Boy, and a roided Piper. That said I think Bret was way more likely to coast as an ace than Cena was, and this despite the fact that Cena's era was arguably better suited to coasting than Bret's was. Bret was a tighter and more mechanically sound wrestler but to me that carries plusses and minuses. At best his work had a precision to it that really did make him look like the excellence of execution. At worst he came across as almost too calculated, lacking any personality, and coming across as way to inorganic for my tastes. By contrast Cena at his worst is a mess, but I think his lack of polish is often a net advantage as it fits his gimmick, and often comes across as a guy trying anything he can because he's so obsessed with being the top dog. As an ace I think Cena is better than Bret. To me Bret always came across as a guy who was holding the torch, instead of the guy carrying it. This is one of reasons I criticize his cute roll up finish spots - in theory they are great, and in isolation I like almost all of them, but on the broader scale I think they make for a weak way to work as an ace/top guy. People criticize "Super Cena," but I prefer my top guys to feel like top guys, and not guys who were merely just crafty enough to survive. In terms of volume of good matches I think Cena stomps Bret pretty badly but he has an advantage there working in an era saturated with big events and weekly t.v. that airs main event matches between top talents as a rule. That said I don't think Bret has the advantage in great matches or great performances either. Hell I'm not even sure I believe Bret's absolute best matches are better than Cena's, and I think Cena has more matches I'd identify as true classics. I'm not even sure Bret's best series is better than Cena's, as I really like Cena/Punk pairing at a level near that of Bret/Austin. It's an aside, but I also find it amusing that Cena had better matches with Michaels, though I suppose there are some who will disagree with that. I suppose if I thought better of the Hart Foundation, Bret might be able to gain some ground, but they aren't a team I'm super impressed with. I don't hate them, but even if we are restricting to U.S./Canada tag teams, I'm not sure they are one of the twenty best teams from the 80's, they were never the best team in the States (never close in my view), and they have as many dry matches as any allegedly "good" act I can think of from the period. Bret's early forays into singles work in the WWF against guys like Savage could be damn good, and I don't ever think he got bad (he was still having good matches with guys like Benoit and Luger of all people in "the" WCW). I don't think you could pinpoint any point from 85 or so through his forced retirement in 99 when he was less than a good worker, and there were certainly stretches where he was great. But I don't think he had a run like 06-07 Cena where the character, booking and in ring work all seemed to fuse together to form a bigger picture, where it felt like you were literally watching a guy become a legendary figure before your very eyes. More than that I think Cena has been good-to-great for just as long as Bret was, with higher highs, and more performances that jump off the page to me. I don't mean to sound dismissive of Bret, and there is a sense in which he strikes me as the "right pick," but I don't honestly think he's better than Cena. I'm not even sure I'll have him above Arn Anderson who I actually think is comparable to him in a lot of ways, just a tier or two lower on the cards.

I actually think there are as many Dustin singles matches I really love as Austin ones, with the caveat that I really should rewatch 2001 Austin.

Not all styles are created equal

This is a show that desperately needs a homerun main event. Beyond that it needed the companies best main event worker Roman Reigns and/or their best utility worker in Luke Harper.

I am happy Ryback won because I think he needed the title more than anyone else, but that match was shit. This show has massively under performed. Rollins and Ambrose have had tremendous t.v. matches the last two years, but never hit a home run on ppv. Now is the time for it.

How is it protecting a finisher by kicking out of it on a "debut" match? Because Owens went for it too soon. That's not protecting the finish, even though I get your point.

Putting Neville out there with Bo in that kind of match after Owens and Cena was fucking stupid beyond belief.

Cena/Owens was great in part because of it's flaws. I'll rant on it at length on the reaction show, but he got beat clean by Owens in Owens kind of match. Cena is the most selfless top star in history. No one else is close.

Both of the first two matches were spotty, clusterfucks, hurt by the involvement of more people than the match needed. The second match was still better

Whoever booked the order of eliminations in that match should be killed. Complete clusterfuck and not in a good way. It wasn't unwatchably bad or anything like that, but not a good match despite some individual performances that I enjoyed (Cesaro, Big E to a lesser extent Titus and Sin Cara)

Before the Rusev and Zayn injuries I would have thought Owens would have no shot against Cena. Now I'd say he has a small chance of winning. That said, I think the smartest finish is a non-finish.

Even with the Rusev injury I have exceptionally high hopes for this card. Both chamber matches, the title match and Cena v. Owens all have potential to be legitimately great matches. I'm not really looking forward to Neville v. Bo, but I actually think it could be better than expected. Women's match will probably stink but whatever. I also think there is decent potential for some sort of hot angle on the show given what the purpose of the show is (to retain Network subs). Aside from Mania there is no WWE card I have looked forward to more in the last six months.