Dylan Waco

I just want to read Jimmy's "Shawn as GOAT" post. Seriously interested in it.

Kicking out of a move is not no selling it.

Lawlers comebacks were prolonged and built to over the course of the match. They were momentum swimging moments. I also don't recall Lawler ever "no selling" a high impact move and going straight into another high impact spot on offense.

This is really a side note on audiences. It pains me, but I generally agree with Joe's point that to most modern fans grappling isn't something that will get over huge on average. But I think that is more because of conditioning and presentation than anything else. If you give guys the right gimmick and they are charismatic or exciting enough any style can and will get over. Similarly if you don't present things as relevant/interesting there will be limits to how much something will get over. The example I always think of here was being in high school and talking about Rey Jr. and other cruisers to classmates and friends who thought they were boring and/or sucked because they weren't pushed at the top of cards or presented as anything other than undercard fodder. The first time I hear something dismissed as flippy bullshit it didn't come from a hardcore internet fan, it came from a sixteen year old peer of mine denouncing the WCW cruiserweight division.

Over the last month or so I've rewatched the Styles/Daniels/Joe Triple Threat, Styles v. Bully Ray Last Man Standing, and Styles v. Abyss from Lockdown 05. I have to say if you are the type of voter who really emphasizes high peak performances AJ deserves a lot of credit. Those three matches are all really different and require different things and I thought AJ was pretty great in all of them. The Abyss match is the freshest on my mind, and if I'm completely honest I think it's an incredible performance by Styles, the kind of match that almost made me feel like I had to rate him after it was over. I am sure this will sound crazy to hardcore Michaels fans, but it honestly reminded me of a cross between Mindgames and HITC. I am not saying I'd rate it ahead of Mindgames (I'd definitely rate it ahead of HITC I but I have never been a huge fan of that match), and you an find flaws with it, but Styles performance, and the way he worked in his big spots in that setting was really impressive to me. You can argue that TNA kills him, but I remember a Jarrett title shot I absolutely loved, some other stuff with Joe, the tag team with Daniels having matches I was really into and a several other things of some note. On top of that his year this year is really top tier in the world stuff. I want to watch some of his older ROH/indie stuff, but at this point I'm leaning strongly toward including Styles in some capacity

Nominating Gran Hamada via 80's sets. Grimmas in a situation like this I could start the threads for Stubbs, Hamada and Sabu but I've been holding off pending your approval. Is that the way you want to keep doing this so we have a straight standard, or do you care if another moderator makes threads for these guys as they come up here?

Not even a top 200 all time team. Dont make me do it...

I love 2002 Rey, but I'm not even sure it's one of his three best years in the WWE. It's definitely not as good as 06 or 09 at minimum.

I don't begrudge Tanahashi for his choices. But he should be held to the same standard others are held to, including people like Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels who have been routinely - and at times viciously - attacked for years for sub-par house show/small show efforts. More to the point Tanahashi did not get over at the level of Liger, Okada, Nskamura or the Bullet Club. If we can criticize Thatcher for not getting over in a PWG setting where some have theorized anti-CZW sentiment fueled contempt, is it not fair to criticize someone who is praised as an all time great by many, for half assing it and not getting over nearly as much outside of NJPW? One would think the argument about failure to adapt/adjust to crowds would be universal and not just something used to take shots at niche indie guys and WWE workers.

I'm not saying your wrong. I just think you should be consistent and rightfully condemn Tanahashi for his professional failures, particularly relative to his peers.

So you are making excuses for a favorite. Got it.

The BOLA reaction was an anti-CZW thing. The past page and a bit are biased people criticising other people for being biased. Fact of the matter is Thatcher isn't the most charismatic wrestler in the World and you can't control a crowd (with reason) you are a poor professional. If the promotion and person were different people would be talking about how he was EXPOSED. Like how Tanahashi was exposed v. Mike Bennett?

PWG fans wildly cheered the worst match I"ve ever seen, so I couldn't possibly care less about what the couple hundred flip fetishists that line the walls of that facility think about anything. /off my lawn rant over

I thought I wrote it up here somewhere, but maybe not. I legitimately loved the match, maybe I'll watch it again and review it.

Curious, is Jerry Stubbs worth a nomination? He's someone I want to see more of.

Watched that match not that long ago. I'd rate it safely above just about every Tanahashi match you've praised over the last year. The gap between your taste and mine has never been bigger

http://www.voicesofwrestling.com/2014/10/16/wrestler-of-the-year-candidates-guide/

Brad Armstrong always reminded me of Bret Hart in terms of his movements in the ring, his mechanics, et. To that extent I suspect had he been given the ball the way Bret was he would have had a very Bret-like career in some respects. But he wasn't and I can't say I see him as a strong t.v. wrestler like Joe does. Where are the matches? Yes he had many solid bouts, but I watched ton of WCW t.v. for the SmarksChoice WCW poll years ago, and Brad came up short there. His best match was a bout v. Vader from Worldwide (or maybe it was Pro) in 94 that went about four minutes. After that I don't even know what it would be. I watched all the SMW that exists and he was not a standout there either. Good, solid hand, but so were Barry Horowitz and Tim Horner and neither of them are on the radar

Luger should have won the title from Flair at the end of 88, turned heel and then had Flair chase as the face. People talk about Sting getting screwed by WCW booking, but Luger drew more against Flair and never got the big payoff. Both guys would have been hotter for it in the long run and I've always believed Luger was the closest thing WCW produced to an upper tier star during that period. If someone was going to take the title off Dreamer in ECW after he beat Taz on WWE loan, it should have been Tajiri with Corino as his mouthpiece. It wouldn't have made a difference long term but it would have made the dying days of Ecw more fun to watch and would have spared us the Justin Credible title run.

I couldn't even make it through the second Shibata v. Tanahashi match, though I did think the first one was great. It could be that I was just tired when I was trying to watch it, or it could be that I just find Tanahashi laughable in the role he was asked to play in match two. Honestly not sure. Anyway I have found Shibata pretty disappointing for big chunks of this NJPW, albeit with some really high highs, including this years G1. I get why some would rate him, but ultimately what hurts him with me is that there are hundreds of guys I think are better

Just curious - would you say people who have only seen pimped Satanico matches should abstain from voting for him?

I can't tell if this is a troll post or a serious one

In no way am I advocating for him, but it's interesting that Rick Martel popped up a few times in Dave's HOF research/piece

Only a delusional psychotic would claim Dave's coverage of Tanshashi wasn't a huge facet in him getting in when he did. You can debate the merits of his candidacy, and even believe he belongs in, and still conclude that Dave strongly influenced the voting pool on Tanahashi.

The more I think about Brock, the more of a joke I think he is as a candidate. What bothers me most about him is that he comes across as a guy that people see as a great candidate because they have an idea of what he is and/or should be and they are voting on that idea and not the facts. On Bearcat Wright I generally have the same feelings as Keith. I think it's funny that Brody is often heralded by people (and at times even Dave) for not letting promoters screw him, and protecting his name and stardom, but Bearcat is presented as a piece of shit who did wrong by the business. Given the state and culture in wrestling at the time, I would actually be stunned if he wasn't discriminated against or at the very least if his attitude issues weren't inflated in ways that whites wouldn't have been. I'm not absolutely positive I would vote for him, but he has a surface level resume that is very impressive. The Chicago gates are very hard to ignore