Coffey

It just seemed like a standard-fare RAW match to me, no different than a lot of weeks when they trot out Daniel Bryan, Dolph Ziggler or Jack Swagger. I mean, it barely made me pay attention as I was distracted by a couple of things and if a match is great, it would draw me in. But to have it as the third best match of the entire year so far? There's no way...

You missed your calling as a politician.

Brisco, Patterson, who else? I see what you did there... But seriously, I don't care how big a part of the show they are, I'm not watching solely based off of knowing those dudes are going to be there. I don't care if Will Sasso is a fan or not, I don't want to see them or them shill their shitty movie.

I don't either. It wasn't some insider stuff. It was just a kayfabe storyline to use against a guy whose entire gimmick is being Straight Edge.

I can't find anything on Jim Ross' Twitter saying anything about Strongbow dying. And all sources I can find via Google credit Jim Ross for the news. Did he delete the post or something?

That show last night & reading the internet afterward proved to me that there will always be some individuals that are not happy or that want to ruin the fun of others. I thought that crowd was a ton of fun and they really helped to make the show for me but inevitably there were people on-line that thought the crowd was annoying or only cared about "getting themselves over" and that it was "reaching WHAT? territory already." I am one of the most negative, bitter & jaded people to ever live and even I thought that was one of the best episodes of RAW in the history of the show. The crowd was a big reason why. Then you factor in The Rock promo, Punk Vs. Henry & Brock returning? It made me realize that for a long time I think that I was the guy ruining the fun of others and that's pretty shitty. I don't want to be that dude. I can never tell anymore when someone is just playing Devil's Advocate for the fuck of it, or trolling or what...but it always gets a rise out of me. I am seemingly incapable of just ignoring things. I'm such a jobber. I sort of agree with Matt D though, I'm curious if it was just because they were still in Miami and it was a mostly leftover Wrestlemania smark-heavy crowd or if it will catch on now because of them.

I'm not sure how successful this will be as an individual thread, I just thought maybe I was alone in those thoughts, which I am obviously not. To stay on target though, I do want to address this: This isn't really what I meant by buzz words. I certainly won't act like I'm on the level as a lot of other people around these parts as it pertains to pro-wrestling knowledge but I know that psychology goes beyond just doing legwork to set-up a Figure-Four. If I am trying to explain what matches I liked to a casual fan, as an example, I can't very well just throw out words like psychology or pacing and expect them to know what I'm talking about though. I want to explain why I like "Match A" more than "Match B" when both matches are great, from a rational and logical standpoint. When one match is the pits and the other is great, it is not a problem, but I do struggle when they're both good, especially if they're from different regions and I'm talking to someone only familiar with one style of wrestling. As stated in my initial post though, it is also a struggle that I deal with personally in my critical thinking, when trying to explain it to myself. Why did I like this more than that without just resorting to phrases like "I just do." An example: Let's say that you have two matches that you really like. One is from Mexico and one is from Japan. You rate them both equal. Let's say, for argument's sake, that they're both, in your opinion, **** matches. You have a couple 5-star matches, you have a couple 3 1/2 star matches. But when you go to make a list, how do you determine which match is better between your two identical rated matches? And the better the matches the harder it is to me. What I have seemingly done in the past is start looking for flaws. Well, they didn't do this right so the other match is better...but they didn't do that so it isn't better. Then I'm re-watching a match a few times and have a completely different outlook on it. Then I change the rating altogether because "well, if it's not as good as this other match, then it can't be rated the same." See what I mean? And the match is never the same the second time around. Because the surprise element is gone.

I think it says a lot about the year when a free TV match, with no build-up, unannounced, that has commercial breaks and a count-out finish is being considered for Match of the Year. That is not to say that the match wasn't enjoyable, mind you, but how was this better than, as an example, Kazuchika Okada Vs. Tetsuya Naito from IWGP (which Dylan doesn't list, which surprised me). I understand that tastes vary and pro-wrestling as an art form is a pretty subjective thing but I think instances like this are why it is impossible for me to establish a definitive list, especially come December. I don't even know what I am looking for from a match that makes it stand out for me. Other than just using a cop-out, stock answer like "it makes me mark-out" or throwing around buzzwords like "psychology," "pacing," & "heat." It makes me feel bad. I don't want to say "I liked this match more" I want to be able to explain why, ya know? It's really hard for me to compare wrestling from different regions, for some reason. Maybe that is just a problem for me, but when comparing matches, how do I compare a WWE main event style match (like HHH/Taker), to a Lucha match (Panther/Casas) to a NJPW main event style match (Okada/Naito) to a U.S. Indy match (Richards/Elgin)? This isn't a knock against Dylan or anyone else, mind you. I just really struggle to place the matches I enjoy in an actual pecking order. A big part of the appeal for American matches to me is the build-up and story going into the match. It helps create the atmosphere. But when I go into a match cold from another country, where I do not even speak their language to get help from the commentators, it feels unfair to put them on the same scale, so to speak. I don't know if it is unfair to the American matches or the foreign matches mind you, but it seems odd. I guess a lot of it comes down to my mindset when I'm going into a match as well. Am I just speaking gibberish?

During an old Royal Rumble, I can't remember exactly which one it is, but Jesse Ventura on color commentary makes a statement that an individual has ten seconds to return back to the ring or risk disqualification. They should just actually enforce that, so it stops a lot of the "he wasn't really eliminated!" shit and all the nonsense like what Vince McMahon did.

EDIT: N/M

Davey Richards Vs. Michael Elgin at Day 2 of the ROH Showdown in the Sun iPPV was G-R-O-S-S and I'm a pretty big Davey detractor. Wasn't flawless, mind you, still a ton of no-selling, but I think it made Elgin look like a superstar. I have been pretty high on Elgin for awhile and he really got to shine. Some people are calling it the Match-of-the-Year which I think is ludicrous and I sort of just chalk it up to ROH fanboyism, but I still would say check out, at the very least, the home stretch of the match. It is some Indy fun, but easy to pick apart if you're looking for flaws or "smart" work. But as a spotfest? Enjoyable run for the last ten or so.

And what happens if they just.. don't mention them? Flair will already be there and will have already did whatever he is going to do.

I'm not sure. It seems people on Twitter are blaming GFL and ROH themselves released a statement blaming the building being old and not having internet or some shit. Their "solution" was to tell people they could get the episode tomorrow with working video and synced up audio.

ROH iPPV is unwatchable due to production errors & the audio being out of sync by about 20 seconds... for the entire show. A lot of people are already asking for refunds. Not good!

Ring of Honor's next Internet Pay-Per-View starts tomorrow. It's a 2-day show, called "Showdown in the Sun." Factor both of those shows in with Impact Wrestling tonight, WWE Smackdown tomorrow & Wrestlemania on Sunday with RAW on Monday it feels like 1998 all over again. At least in the sheer amount of wrestling available department.

I think the hot-shotting the Royal Rumble win onto Sheamus over Jericho really messed things up. Had Jericho been the Rumble winner, things certainly would have made more sense.

It wouldn't be justified, I think people are just curious who said it is all. And now we're trying to breakdown the semantics of what Meltz classifies as "ones of the biggest stars ever".

Shall we have at it? It's kind of hard to tell what Meltzer means when he says that, though. Like, is he talking about money drawn? Or is he talking simply about recognizable people that are probably in the Hall of Fame? Are we just talking about tippy-top guys like Steve Austin & the Rock, or are we going down and including people like Roddy Piper? Ya know?

If I notice the referee, he is probably doing too much. I want a solid, consistent pinfall count. Not super slow like a lot of the Lucha refs. I also don't want the ref to have some sort of quirk that gives away near-falls like Earl Hebner. Takes me right out of a match. Nick Patrick used to be terrible at over-selling ref bumps but ref bumps should happen so rarely that that shouldn't ever really be a problem. I basically want a ref that stays out of the way, doesn't fuck up and is consistent throughout.

Other than a few rare examples, like James Storm, Bobby Roode & Eric Young, there's not a lot of people that are stars because of TNA. Bully Ray has done a good job of rejuvenating his career. AJ Styles I reckon is more successful and famous because of TNA. But then you have guys like Samoa Joe that went to TNA and just fell completely off and in 2005, he was in the conversation with a lot of people for the best active wrestler. I think Gail Kim has improved too, but she was decent the first-go-round in TNA and after how bad her last WWE stint was, it might just be because it's a refreshing change of pace. I think the talent is there, roster wise, but if people don't want to see the match, it doesn't really matter how good (or bad) it turns out to be. A MOTYC only matters if people actually see it. Austin Aries, Bobby Roode, Magnus.. there's people there that I want to see. But they're mixed in with the D-Von's & Zema Ion's of the roster so I just sort of become apathetic.

Which therefore means you would take the stance that both Sheamus & Wade Barrett are made, right? Because I can't get on board with that. Even with Sheamus winning the Royal Rumble this year and having a World Heavyweight Championship match at Wrestlemania, he seems like an afterthought. Wade Barrett, it's tough to say because he got hurt, really. I guess he might have been on his way, but he certainly, in my opinion, wasn't on the cusp. It just feels like Cena is leaps and bounds above pretty much everyone, sans maybe C.M. Punk. Everyone else is just sort of there. I can't really buy that at least some of that doesn't fall onto Cena himself.

It doesn't. I actually think he's really good. But the "you can't wrestle" chants came from somewhere. And regardless of if wrestling is fake or not, you're still trying to sell the illusion. People don't buy tickets to be reminded 24/7 that it's "fake."

I think the problem is that he doesn't pull, actually, but whatever it doesn't matter. He also takes a Rock Bottom on his ass, which physically I don't even see how that's possible but it seems like it would definitely make it hurt more. Cena is definitely not the most crisp in his execution of stuff, which is where I think the "you can't wrestle" stuff comes from.

Well maybe they should when they don't have any guys. You can't bring back Triple H, The Undertaker, Shawn Michaels & The Rock forever to sell your shows.

OK, I don't think you understand what I'm asking, not when the first names listed are Chris Jericho and Kurt Angle, whom were obviously already stars well before John Cena showed up. I could actually argue that they made him, really. Has John Cena ever made anyone? Wade Barrett is still a nobody. RVD was big before Cena. The Miz is in a hole. C.M. Punk I can see an argument being made for. Umaga is a good one, actually. Shawn Michaels was one of the best EVER before Cena was even in WWE... The only person that really comes to mind that Cena has even partially tried with is Zack Ryder and he's a fuckin' jobber going nowhere. As far as The Miz is concerned, Cena KILLED him. That dude is done. The PPV where it was basically a 2-vs-1 Handicap hardcore match where Cena was beatdown for 20 minutes by both Alex Riley AND The Miz only for him to no-sell it all, slap on his lazy STF and have The Miz tap out instantly? The Miz, from going to winning in the Main Event of Wrestlemania last year to barely making the card this year? That's pretty much the exact opposite of what I'm looking for. Cena has killed that dude. And no one took him seriously going into his 'Mania match either because Cena just dismisses anything anyone ever says and smiles, the same shit he's been doing to The Rock the whole time. Cena's idea of being "serious" is reverting back into white rapper mode and throwing out gay jokes...