Childs

I'm interested by why that seems impossible to you. To me Flair vs. Garvin -- to give just one example -- is as hard hitting as anything All Japan 95 can throw up. I feel like I judge across NWA and All Japan pretty fairly and evenly and hold them to exactly the same standards. I do not believe All Japan 95 has different (as in higher) standards to 80s Crockett or even 80s All Japan. The guys tend to do more stuff and the style is towards excess, but I do not see Misawa and co as working on another plane to Jumbo, Choshu, Yatsu and co in 86, or Flair and Steamboat in 89, or Flair in general. They are all in the same sort of ball park to me. Billy Robinson in the 70s is also right there too. I don't feel like I have to adjust anything watching any of that stuff. Ditto with Mid-South. I judge WWF stuff against all of that, and mostly it is found wanting because of the limitations put on the guys. AWA on the whole is not on a par with NWA or AJ either. Each of those promotions had their own quirks, but there is enough commonality that I can compare across. I mean you get a lot of the same workers across them too at different times, which demonstrates the point. World of Sport is a weird case and I often find it strange applying star ratings to those matches, or comparing guys who worked that style to any of the above. It seems to stand alone and be its own thing. But generally, whether the date on the match is 1972, 1982, 1992, 2002, or 2012, I judge it in exactly the same way. I don't really change what I'm looking for. I mean, Pete and Johnny have accused me of being too fixed in my views of what makes good wrestling before in many arguments over Bob Backlund matches. I thought he worked too strong, was selfish and guzzled his challengers. They argued that you have to make allowances for the New York style and that I want every babyface to be Ricky Steamboat. I'm simplifying, but you get the picture. I think I've always been quite consistent on this. I don't see them as working on a higher plane either. But take your Flair-Garvin example. Their matches were exceptionally hard hitting in the context of '85-'87 Crockett. So when I watch them, I'm impressed by the way they push past the standards of their promotion. Stick those same matches in '95 AJPW or '93 WAR-NJ and they'd still be rugged, exciting affairs, but the stiffness wouldn't stand out. Take Flair as a worker in general (can of worms alert). If you compare his offense to prime Misawa's offense without any contextualizing, you almost have to conclude that Flair's attack was shit (or at least primitive). But situated in his time and place, Ric's offense was perfectly good. He hit hard, tossed in some nice suplexes, etc. I can't imagine watching wrestling without making those adjustments. Same thing with real sports. Stick LeBron James in the 1960s NBA and he would have seemed like a space alien. Does that mean he's automatically better than anyone who played then? Not to me. I'm not suggesting you're being disingenuous. Your GWE approach seemed similar--set your bar and judge everyone against it. It would just be a foreign way for me to watch wrestling, and I'd enjoy a lot of workers and matches less.

They had a G-1 match too.

I'd recommend both 51 and 52, though there was no sense of culmination to their year. I guess it's not really that kind of promotion. Also, the Florida crowds were beyond shitty. I'll even take the self-reverential enthusiasm of PWG fans over dead silence. Anyway, was curious how people feel about Gargano in general? (I see from this thread Shoe is mixed to down on him.) I had never paid him much mind but quite enjoyed his matches against Thatcher and Gulak. Maybe that's just a tribute to Thatcher and Gulak. But Gargano impressed me with the way he sold his arm over two nights. Stray observations: - Matt Riddle appears to have real potential, but it's hard to imagine him in a WWE setting right now, given all his offense is MMA stuff. - I find T.J. Perkins' soulless competence more bothersome than the incompetence of many less polished workers. - None of the heels on these shows knew how to work like heels. Not even Ethan Page, who at least makes you want to smack him whenever he talks. - I liked having a Maryland guy to root for in Lio Rush, and his match with Fred Yehi was an enjoyable newbie showcase with a bunch of cool offense.

Another question based on your statements Parv: I get that lucha hasn't punched your favorite buttons, and that's fine. But do you really watch, say, 1986 NWA and 1995 All Japan with the exact same standards and expectations? That seems impossible to me, or at least a difficult way to maximize your enjoyment of either. But maybe you really are able to maintain that. Or is it more that you know what you like and a style has to check a certain number of your boxes to work for you? I don't think that's the same as judging every match by identical standards.

You mean because we're all going to die before all the good wrestling is watched? I went back and watched Dandy-Azteca because I had to know if I was nuts. And I came away puzzled by those who see a lack of competition in the work. From early in the match, both guys (Dandy especially) were grimacing, straining against holds and steadily probing for counters. It was more of a skills match than a character match, but I saw a clear escalation of the offfense both within each fall and over the match as a whole. Dandy brought the higher-impact offense, and Azteca frustrated him by continually finding counters. The crowd certainly seemed with them and the announcers were clearly taken with the work. I guess just chalk it up as not everything is for everyone and move on.

Honestly, I tossed off the statement based on the high-end stuff that made the yearbook. All four of Kobashi's Triple Crown matches were great (I know you're not high on them but just for context, Loss had all four in his top 15 for the year, with the Carny match against Akiyama in his top 20, and Chad had all four TC matches in his top 20). The 6/5/98 and 10/11/98 tag title matches and the tag league final all struck me as solidly excellent (again, all in Loss' top 40). I'd have to hunt down some of the other stuff to make a case for the depth of his year, and I'm not sure I want to do that But he had an exceptional 1998 when judged by high-end matches.

Santo was another one I thought of. Not sure I'd call it aura with him, but there was something deeply impressive about watching a near 50-year-old nail his signature spots in a cramped dance club in Queens. Quite the display of professionalism.

Interesting to see how much WWE works with him. Might be tricky politics given their relationship with ESPN. But that might be a good thing, may make Bill (or whoever is directing this thing) look elsewhere and make it less US-centric. BTW, this was apparently just a rumor.

I've come around to thinking Kobashi takes too much shit for this. He was an emotional wrestler and the fans loved him for it. Even as he grew up, he was never going to be Misawa. And there was something charming about his transitional character of '97-'98, when he'd alternate between focused, commanding work and outbursts of "young Kobashi" emoting. Not everyone matures at the same rate, and his performances were still brilliant. I'd stack Kobashi's 1998 against any year from any wrestler in the '90s. For me, one of the unexpected byproducts of watching the yearbooks and reviewing the 2000s for Ditch's poll was a renewed appreciation for Kobashi. I feel a backlash against the backlash directed at him. If we had done GWE two years ago, he might have fallen out of my top 20. Now, I could easily stick him in the top 5. EDIT: Damn, Loss beat me to my point.

Interesting you say that about Danielson. Watching him live actually raised my opinion of him, because his work looked so tight compared to that of almost everyone else on the ROH roster. I'm not talking about aura. He just looked much better at the craft. My wife, who doesn't give a shit about wrestling, noticed it right away as well.

Dan alludes to one of the other things Nishimura did well, which was to walk big lugs like Nakanishi, Tenzan and Suwama through surprisingly good, longer matches.

Well, it was kind of sad compared to their '89 matches, but if you take the time to watch their whole series, it's worth seeing the final chapter. Also, as covered earlier in the thread, they didn't have a singles match on 12/6/89.

As someone who cares a lot more about the aesthetics of wrestling than the economics, I've often found the HOF debates tedious. Ultimately, I don't care that much about a list of the greatest draws in history--doesn't fire my imagination in the least. But it does seem fairly apparent that the voters, especially the other wrestlers, dismiss great work in "small-time" settings. That doesn't seem to be changing rapidly, even with more and more ex-indy guys in top spots. Work aside, I belive the creation of a stable, successful indy is a real business accomplishment and should be treated as such. It's why CIMA is a compelling candidate. I'd like Dave to at least push a discussion of how to weigh modern success outside WWE/NJ.

Well, they had the 1990 match right before Tenryu left.

If you want to see something really weird along those lines, check out his match with Bas Rutten.

My argument wasn't that Taue was a major star, though I believe he was the No. 4 or No. 5 guy in All Japan at times during that run. My point was you can argue that being a supporting main eventer in '90s All Japan is more impressive than being the No. 3 guy in recent New Japan. And it would be better if voters had more time to weigh this period of New Japan instead of deciding on Nakamura at the height of his acclaim.

Every five-year period is not created equal. Taue was a main-event player during a run when All-Japan sold out Budokan like clockwork. Akiyama headlined Dome shows that did far bigger numbers than New Japan has hit during its recent resurgence. I wouldn't say either has a strong case as a HOF draw. But I also wouldn't say it's at all clear that Nakamura is a bigger star than either of them.

It's even worse than that. It would be as if they had both gone in three or four years ago. It's so obviously absurd that I can't believe Dave continues to defend it.

Nakamura is puzzling. It's weird to see all those people voting in Japan for him but not Akiyama or Taue. The lucha contingent got a small victory as the numbers of Villano III are some sort of a miracle (I was expecting him to drop off forever) and him, Misioneros and Cien Caras would have all probably been in if Aguayo hadn't had such huge support from people that probably only voted for him. It's possible that some or all of them will get in next year (it all will depend of Mistico's support). It's funny, as a first reaction, I didn't even think about Nak in relation to Taue and Akiyama. But yeah, what in the hell argument would he have over either one of them? As a worker or as a key player on big shows?

He wasn't the guy on top, and the NJ resurgence is what, a three-year phenomenon? It's not that Nakamura would necessarily be a poor choice in 10 years. It's that we've had insufficient time to gain perspective on NJ's relative boom period or Nak's role in it. And I say all that as someone who believes he's the best in the world on his good nights.

I'm happy Colon got in; he had long felt like an absurd and unjust omission. Koloff too felt like a triumph of actual research over vague impressions. On the other hand, Brock and Nak were terrible choices. I love Brock as a performer but you'd have to twist yourself into pretzels to argue his second run has been good for WWE business, much less historically good. Dave calls him arguably the biggest wrestling star in the world. First off, I see little reason to put him ahead of Cena. Second, if that is the case, it's more an indictment of the era than a gold star for Brock. Nak is a great wrestler but he's primarily a work candidate and his resume as a top worker is maybe four years deep. I don't see how he's a much better candidate than Angle was, even though I like him a lot more. I also see zero, and I mean zero, argument for him over Daniel Bryan. Both Nak and Brock highlight, for the umpteenth time, the absurdity of the age and experience bars.

I also think Bill would readily acknowledge his writing went downhill in recent years, when he was spread thinner with running the web site and doing TV. And yeah, he was spotty even before that. I'd be surprised if we see him return to a heavy writing schedule. I wrote a profile of him back in '05, and even then, he was talking about ending his column. He reminds me a little of Kornheiser, who always admitted he quit doing ambitious writing because he grew weary of the difficulty.

Perhaps they were simply stating that Berbick had fought and lost to Tyson?