Childs
-
Posts
4986 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Everything posted by Childs
-
On point 3, he wasn't a traditionally demonstrative seller, but if you watch him enough, you develop a sense of how he sold various levels of peril. As Matt suggested, it's a style that rewards attention over many matches and many years, whether you regard that as a good thing or not. On point 4, his strategy was that he was the best. He had more weapons and more resilience in his tank, so it was the opponent's job to find a way to beat him, not vice versa. He was UCLA basketball at the height of the Wooden era.
-
I had never really watched this match in context, and I couldn't agree more that it was the apotheosis of a great period for WWF. It reminds me of the famous Duggan-Dibiase stips match from Mid-South, where it's ridiculously overbooked on paper but in its time and place, paid off all the key storylines perfectly. They managed to make an indestructible Austin seem genuinely vulnerable, with the blood and the big bumps and the sand constantly shifting beneath his feet. Kudos to middle-aged Patterson and Brisco for taking bumps through tables. A few of Austin's comebacks started abruptly, but that's a quibble. This ranks with the Savage-Warrior retirement match among the great pieces of WWF theater from the decade.
-
I had never seen that Vader promo at the end for whatever reason. He seemed genuinely dispirited, which could've made for an interesting follow-up, though we know that never happened. I feel like Vader would actually fit better in recent WWE, with the plethora of more aggressive, athletic workers.
-
Yeah, this was more hard fought, moment to moment, than the previous match. But at just seven minutes, it was bound to feel less complete. It was the type of match that works really well in a series, because it established that either guy could win in a blink. So I liked the concept, even if I likely won't remember the individual match.
-
He wasn't as versatile or as stirring as Dandy or Satanico, respectively. And speaking to Loss' point, I think Satanico's lesser body of work is more about a lack of footage from his peak years than anything else. Same might be partially true for Dandy, though I sense he was genuinely less consistent. Anyway, Santo will probably make my top 25 for the incredible weight of his career but fall short of the top 10 due to the relative lack of height. I will say though, it was fucking badass to see him hit his spots perfectly in the cramped upper room of a Queens dance club. Professionalism, they call that
-
For me, the Matt perspective and the Loss perspective needn't be two irreconcilable poles (not that you guys see them as such). I can appreciate, say, an Arn Anderson, for the countless ways he lifted 3-star matches in the midcard. I might put him in the top 50. But I can still argue he doesn't belong in the same realm as Ric Flair, who was the beating heart of memorable main events for more than a decade. I guess the question is: Can a guy be so great in a smaller box that he's better than someone who's great in a bigger box? Or in Flair's case, does he get credit for creating the bigger box? I lean more to the main event guys, but I don't discount the smaller-scale workers. I'm sure I'll rank Arn, Regal, Finlay, etc. above guys who were in more MOTYCs.
-
I always find it interesting when you refer to him as possibly the most talented wrestler ever. I actually don't think he was an elite natural talent. But he wanted to be great more than any wrestler I've ever seen. I mean, he loved it so much he literally seemed willing to work himself to death, or at least severe debilitation. Dave had some interesting material about Kobashi's work ethic in his retirement bio, which reinforced my views on this. But yeah, you watch the way he moved around the ring and it wasn't the stuff of a born phenom.
-
I would add that if there's a guy you want to nominate from the '80s, the overwhelming likelihood is that there are 3+ reviews in the hidden DVDVR nomination folders. So you could just ask one of us to dig a few of them out if need be. The 3-review rule is a little annoying, but I don't think it'll be a huge practical impediment.
-
Well, you sound like a dick in this one, so yeah, that's like Christgau without the erudition.
-
For the first couple of minutes, I wondered why this needed to be included--not because it was bad but because we already had the other match with these teams. Then the dance-off kicked in and I was happy. I didn't even mind the ref spots because the crowd seemed into them. Wonder if he was some kind of local figure? Anyhow, a fun blend of action and comedy that, unlike a lot of ECW, didn't overstay its welcome. -
Another good one, but it struck me as a bit more of a Benoit carry job than the first match. Booker did his part well enough; that part just seemed small.
-
The walk-ins and national anthems lasted about three times as long as the match. Hard to see how this was the best thing for the promotion, Overeem match or no Overeem match.
-
The rhythm was off from early in the match, with the ref constantly stopping to fix Han's knee pads and such. The wrestling was excellent, as you'd expect from these two. But the weird finish almost seemed fitting given the herky-jerky body.
-
This was weird because they clipped the middle of the match, so you could surmise how Liger and Ohtani got from opening to finish but couldn't tell how successfully they did it. The finishing run featured the usual excellent work from these two, though it felt similar to their previous go-rounds and less dramatic than their best. Ohtani still resides in that Kobashi space where he's great but it's not clear if he's grown as a wrestler or not.
-
Between the '80s projects and the year-by-year threads on this very site, there are a shit ton of references for great matches. Because of the specificity and the vast numbers, a 100 greatest matches poll would barely scratch the surface of that question and likely yield a list of stuff that's already familiar. You end up covering a lot more ground and opening up richer discussion with great workers. One thing we might want to consider Will, Loss, etc. is opening up the archived nomination folders for the past DVDVR projects. Those reviews could offer an interesting reference for people wishing to explore certain workers or periods. Just a thought.
-
I loved this when it was Tanaka vs. the heels, which mercifully, was most of the match. Kanemura and Fuyuki worked really well together and hit all kinds of vicious offense during their long control section. Tanaka made up for his so-so selling by working with great intensity. I know I'm a broken record, but Hayabusa was shitty. He came in with zero fire off the hot tag after Tanaka had suffered a long FIP stretch, and most of his offense looked weak and sloppy. Just a bad wrestler in the middle of a really good match.
-
Excellent match but not quite at the level of their very best. There were a few too many moments where one guy just seemed to wait for the other to hit him. And the finishing stretch lacked the drama of the best BattlARTS, though the knockout was sufficiently vicious. Those nitpicks aside, they beat the ever-loving shit out of each other, starting with Ishikawa's opening headbutt and climaxing with some hellish punch exchanges.
-
Yeah, this was a flashy juniors match, with some of the flash coming from matwork spots. If you think of it in terms of the whole card, it provided a nice counterpoint to the Ishikawa-Ikeda slugfest in the main event.
-
Loss mentioned in another recent thread that Benoit wasn't a guy who made matches feel big, and I agree if we're rating him on a scale with the greatest stars of all time. But he was a guy who made mid-card matches feel bigger by going so hard and making every moment feel like a battle. We've seen it all year in the wreckage of an increasingly shitty promotion. Booker, to his credit, went right there with him, bringing a different kind of athleticism to the mix. They started their series with a hell of a match, cutting a great pace and packing a bunch of momentum shifts into a relatively compact duration. I'm looking forward to more.
-
You're overthinking it. What people have said is that the guy was carrying weekly television episodes with the force of his personality and solid wrestling, fueling the hottest period in the history of the business. The notion that would somehow hurt his historical standing is absurd.
-
I hate to go to such a cliched criticism, but why build the body of a match around limb work and then act as if it never happened? I'm totally fine with early grappling as a contest of skill that slowly escalates into bomb throwing. This wasn't that. Tanaka tried to destroy Hayabusa's leg, then Hayabusa tried to destroy Tanaka's arm (after a nice transition counter). Then they abruptly went into trading big moves and kicking out for 10 minutes. I'm sorry, this sucked as bad as all the other Hayabusa singles matches I've disliked.
-
This was the first time in a while they seemed to be treading water. Why would Vince think he could keep Austin out of the arena with a single guard? Why would he bother? And once Austin hit the ring, he didn't have much to say--just the usual catchphrases and shit talk about Vince's stooges. I understand that with television every week, they had to coast on Austin's heat at times. They had just been on such a roll that the coasting was noticeable.
-
I was a little disappointed that we didn't get the Dude-Dustin match, because they actually made me want to see it. My favorite part of this was Vince briefly looking askance when Mick described his hand as strong but gentle.
-
Sting just stood on the apron looking like, "Why am I involved in this shit?" Good question, man. I empathize.
-
I wondered if I was a total idiot for loving Celebrity Death Match. At least if I was a total idiot, Loss was as well.