Childs

Well fuck, that was pretty great. Who knew that Johnny Gargano would be the guy to make me feel stuff about wrestling in 2018?

These Almas title matches have been tremendous. I really have no use for Tommy End but still got into that. Hope the Almas-Vega act goes on for years.

Baszler-Moon was really good in the broad strokes, if not always in the details.

I feel like Ive lost the ability to say whether those WWE car-crash matches are good or not. I know they no longer interest or shock me, despite the danger.

Yeah, I hope that's the case. I just feel like Riddle, for all his legit bona fides, has become more and more of a generic indy superstar. So it would be cool to watch him pull out something more unique.

I was vastly more excited for Ki-Riddle. Suzuki-Riddle already happened and was merely pretty good. Don't get me wrong, it's a good match to pull out at the last second. But it's a letdown.

Meltzer gave the doc a positive review overall but poked some holes in the Shoemaker-narrated history of the territories and WWF expansion. Which feeds into a lot of my reservations. Anytime I listen to Simmons or Shoemaker discuss wrestling history, it's so obvious they don't know what the fuck they're talking about. So I'm sure the core story of the doc will work, but I suspect it will be a little more frustrating for hardcore fans than for casuals. Of course, that's pretty much always the case with something like this.

Sinclair is based in our area and is truly one of the most dreadful companies in a blighted media landscape. I stopped watching ROH a long time ago, so I don't have a dog in this fight. But a serious boycott (which won't happen) would probably hurt the wrestlers, who've done nothing to deserve it, far more than the corporate overlords.

The build for Taker-Cena has to be one of the oddest they've done for a big 'Mania match, right? I've actually found it refreshing, but if you step back, it's super weird by their standards.

The Ibushi botch certainly didn't add to the match. But there was so much stuffed into the fucking thing that I don't think it made much difference one way or another.

He also referred to Ospreay as the best wrestler in the world, day in and day out. So his wrestling criticism continues to diverge from any reality I care to acknowledge.

I had Benoit at 35 and Eddie at 41. I actually liked Eddie better when they were active, and if I had done a list off the top of my head say, 5 years ago, I would have had him higher. But in going back through a lot of their stuff, I was surprised how many gaps I found in Eddie's career, whereas Benoit exceeded my expectations in a lot of random years. It wasn't the conclusion I anticipated or wanted, but that's where I ended up. I have Bryan well ahead of both. In fact, I'd say he combined their best qualities in a lot of ways.

I came away from the '90s yearbooks feeling the opposite, that Benoit was better than Eddie, even though Eddie might have peaked higher. The idea of Benoit as some all-action robot has gone too far. He had a strong connection to the crowd in his own right, with the Wrestlemania win standing as the obvious culmination of that. He was hugely over in WWE, probably more over than Eddie for a lot of the time they were there together. The rare thing he brought was that every-night intensity which often elevated mundane match-ups. You say he couldn't have had Eddie's match with Lesnar, and that's true. But I don't know that Eddie could have cranked out the low-key classics that Benoit did with Finlay and Regal. I don't know that he could have produced a memorable series with Booker T. I know he didn't shine in New Japan as consistently as Benoit. I understand Benoit's intensity has become an uncomfortable thing in retrospect, while it's easy to remember Eddie in a golden light because of his immense charm. But week to week, Benoit delivered more good performances.

If I had to pick the geatest seller in wrestling history, Misawa would be on my short list. At his best, he had total command of pacing and his own character.

Why would you want Roman to get the upper hand on Brock in the build? In theory, you want him to be as invincible as possible when he goes down. Not that it matters hugely with such established characters. The intensity has been there on both sides, and thats what counts.

One of my all-time favorite matches (had it No. 7 for the DVDVR vote) from one of my favorite periods in wrestling history. They had great chemistry together and this was their apex. I think I'm going to watch it tonight now that it's on my mind.

It never ocurred to me while watching that other people might think they were experiencing an all-time match. I wasn't even sure it was a good match 25 minutes in. In the end, it was bloated, hammy but effective. Bad things first: I will never respond to the lack of tag structure and elaborately choreographed spots that are these guys' bread and butter. They don't build tension through the body of the match because there's very apparently nothing at stake in terms of ring positioning or moment-to-moment struggle. They just toss out a death-defying spot every few minutes and then reset. The match was at least 10 minutes too long, maybe 15. If you had tuned out the entire middle, I'm not sure you'd have missed anything important. Now the good: They certainly hit their overarching marks with the twin focus on Matt Jackson's back and the melodrama between the Bucks and Omega. Sure, some of Omegas's facial acting was cringey, as was the moment where Matt told him to go through with the One-Winged Angel. But the crowd was with them on that shit. It was like a Wrestlemania match in that sense. That last nearfall, with Nick bursting in for the save, really worked because it played on the key storypoints. I also thought Ibushi did an excellent job as the fourth guy who wasn't involved in the central drama and needed to keep his partner on point. And I give them all credit for taking a big swing at their moment. This was not a match wrestled to my taste. But it clearly was a match wrestled to the taste of those in the audience and diehard fans of the product.

In my experience, there are generally two types of wrestling fans on the internet . Those who are genuinely interested in wrestling and/or its history and enjoy finding out new information. Those kind of folks tend to fit in well here. The other type are basically WWE only fans and get irrationally defensive if anyone questions the official company line. That's where the "snobbish" stuff tends to come from, as there tends to be a big overlap between those folks and those who think education is bad. Actually, I do think there's also an über-snobbish attitude consisting on over-praising everything WWE against the "evil snobbish Meltzerian smark promotions". Don't worry, you ably counter that by slagging most things WWE. I get that if you're feeling your oats as a newly "serious" wrestling fan and you believe 2014-2018 New Japan has clearly produced the greatest wrestling ever, this place might seem a little strange. But if you drill down even a little, the snobbish hive mind shit falls apart. Especially now, when the list of most prolific posters is pretty different than it was five years ago.

I had Danielson in my top 10 for GWE, so I have no reservation putting him in the top tier, obviously. The argument between him and AJ has gotten more interesting, because Danielson has been essentially inactive for four years, a period during which Styles has been the best worker in the world. I also buy that a skill-for-skill comparison comes out pretty close, though I think some of Sleeze's criticisms apply mostly to Danielson's peak WWE work and don't account for the breadth of his indy performances. But I'm sorry, I still see AJ's TNA run as a problem, at least when we're sorting things out at the tippy top level. No question he delivered some great matches and many good performances. He had most of the skills we see now throughout the run. But I'll always prefer Danielson's next-generation Flair act, in which he cranked out good to great matches against a huge cross section of the guys from his era. And he wasn't doing the same thing every night. Sometimes he was the plucky underdog. Sometimes he was the master grappler, breaking in a younger wrestler. Sometimes he was the cocky touring ace. But he could go at a high level with anybody under any circumstances. Might AJ have been able to do the same thing? Sure. But he didn't, at least not with anywhere near the same frequency, until he got out of TNA.

I just dont get it. I applaud wXw for pulling off a long-term angle that thrilled its fans. But Dragunov is sooo shitty. Everything he does looks shitty. His facial expressions and histrionics are beyond shitty. Never watching the dude again, no matter how pimped the match. I have learned my lesson.

if hr was on for his effacot as a historian then Someone like Dr Mike Lano should have been up for nom first based pn what o know about Lano But that has nothing to do with the original comparison you made between Apter and Dave, which made no sense.

He was a candidate for the HOF as a contributor, yes, but that has nothing to do with his status as an actual journalist. Gene Okerlund did interviews on TV. Does that mean we'd compare him to Mike Wallace? Apter is a character in the extended wrestlng world, and I don't imagine he'd claim to be anything else.

I dont believe their concern flowed from the goodness of their hearts, mind you. It all comes back to maintaining a palatable public face.

If that is true then once he signs a new contract for several years WWE could just turn round and say no you cant wrestle we ve changed our mind and Bryan would be stuck. Why would they do that though? It's not in their interests. And I think he'd have a strong legal case under those circumstances. I'm with Loss on this one. I don't think there's a grand conspiracy. I believe they genuinely did not want a beloved guy to be debilitated on their watch. Though I do think business concerns might have added a little urgency to the timing of his reinstatement.

Apter's not a journalist and never really purported to be one, except in kayfabe terms. (Maybe he did in his earliest days covering boxing? Not sure about that.) So you can't judge them by the same standards.