JerryvonKramer

I watched all of Game of Thrones recently, and I think that show proves that even in 2015, you can really put heat on heels.

I'm going to review the entire Slaughter Sheik feud soon, same as I did with Colon vs. Hansen.

I'm convinced he doesn't get more cheers because they don't make the heels evil enough. If he's out there doing charity work, you need the heel to be kicking orphans in the face, or whatever. It's Jim Ross's tired point, but heels need heat.

I'm totally fine with Rollins being booked as Honky Tonk Man. But he actually has to be a heel too, not an outrageous blow job babyface like he was at Summerslam.

I have.

The point is only this: - Fans, whether rights or wrongly, see the last match as being the "true main event", regardless of whether or not another match is also labelled "co-main event". - Therefore, in the knowledge of this, the NXT bookers copped out of giving Sasha and Bayley the "true" main event because they didn't go on last. - If they had faith in Sasha vs. Bayley as THE main event, it should have gone on last. - Steph's promo beforehand saying it was the true main event rang out as hollow as a result of the above. - If NXT want to show they mean business about the women, they needed to put the match in the main event slot. Because as long as it is not on last, there will be fans who think "oh it's not the true main event then". I found an article that puts all of this forward very well: http://www.cagesideseats.com/2015/8/23/9193819/wwe-nxt-takeover-main-event-sasha-banks-vs-bayley --------------------- That was my point all along. It has been lost because Will got caught up with thinking I was trolling for some God-forsaken reason.

Further reading on main event vs. co-main event stuff here: http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?/topic/21294-hoganundertaker-question/?p=5570789

Yes, but he specifically took time out earlier in the show to take a shot and insist that Cena-Rollins was a co-main event. I will not let this go until Will admits that going on last holds real significance for fans. http://www.cagesideseats.com/2015/8/23/9193819/wwe-nxt-takeover-main-event-sasha-banks-vs-bayley '"Co-main eventing" isn't something revolutionary. Main eventing is' - well said that man!

1:24:23 - Will clearly calls Taker vs. Brock "the main event".

I don't think that's true. A lot of Cena's big wins are 100% Vince, a lot of the Taker matches, he is expert at creating post card moments. Benoit winning the title. Eddie. Even Bryan. I think there are lots of hallmarks of his style you can see across the 00s. But the finishes to the main events of WM and SS this year are not recognisably Vince.

Doesn't that go against the idea that he's stuck in his ways? There is no aspect of last night's show -- apart from Jon Stewart being on -- that made me think "this is a Vince show". Vince has never gone in for cutesy booking. I'm wondering if this is some form of "punishment" for the rejection of Cena? Just seems weird for him to start doing this stuff in his old age.

Is Vince really still booking? The finishes of WM and this show both strike me as being very un-Vince-like.

Okay, I see where you are coming from. What I'd say though, is the context for this thread is someone on this site reviewing a match. Almost everyone on this site knows more about wrestling and its tropes than 95%+ of the population of the world. That's not an exaggeration I don't think. Everyone here has seen literally hundreds if not thousands of matches. We know how to break down matches, we know what we are looking for in a good match most of the time, we know what we like, we know the sorts of workers who we dig, etc. Do you really need the 20 minute history lesson to get 6/3/94 as a great match? Yes, it gains from the knowledge. Sure, you can have a richer understanding of it by knowing twenty years of All Japan history. I get all that. But I'm arguing that ultimately the match itself stands on its own merits, bell to bell. And it does so because wrestling is not so irreducibly complex that we can't gain an understanding of what's going on in twenty or thirty minutes. I mean, I haven't really been watching NXT, by the end of the match I was kind of rooting for Bayley. There was a hype package, but the match itself told the story. This thread came out of people saying you can only "get" the match if you were invested in the storyline, I disagree with that. I think El-P said the same thing. I dunno, I'm still working out where I stand on this, but I think ultimately I'm arguing for bell to bell being one category of analysis and out of ring stuff being another. Like Jake vs DiBiase was a fantastic out of ring feud, but a really disappointing in ring one. There's an obvious difference in my mind. Sometimes the two things coalesce and sometimes they don't.

Fun fact: I'm currently writing my fourth book on Shakespeare. Three out of those four books are specifically about the emphasis on historical context in criticism of the past thirty years, its strengths, weaknesses and ways of possibly moving beyond that approach. The other one is about way Sh's plays might speak across cultural specifics because of certain aspects of human cognitive thinking being universal, and so partly explaining why those plays continue to resonate with people. But I do not believe any of this has anything at all to do with the issue of whether build, storylines and angles should affect our ratings of wrestling matches. I listed a lot of examples of great storylines with disappointing matches, and all-time great matches with disappointing storylines. I don't see the relevance of the Shakespeare example, to be honest.

Hilarious.

Doesn't it also suggest that the match and the context, while intertwined, are not the same thing and can be judged serparately? As a critic I am fond of once said: "the root is not the flower".

Just don't hug me.

Okay, for the people coming down heavily on the context side of this, I'd like you to consider the following and tell me if they are "great matches" or not ... - Bruno Sammartino vs. Larry Zbyszko, Shea Stadium 80. This is one of the greatest feuds you'll ever see, featuing SUPERB all-time great promos from both guys, a money angle with Larry Z betraying Bruno after being his protege for YEARS. The storyline was so big that Zbyszko would live off it for practically the rest of his career. And ALL of these things feed directly into the match. So five-star classic? - Ric Flair vs. Harley Race, Starrcade 83. Blow off match to a feud that had built into the very first Starrcade, with the bounty hunter stuff, some money promos from Race and Flair. Tremendous backing for Flair in Greensboro. Just an all-round tremendously booked and executed storyline. Is the match in which Flair cements himself as THE NWA champion in the Grandaddy of them all, an all-time classic? - Ric Flair vs. Dusty Rhodes. Slick Rick, the 80s yuppie vs. the son of a plumber whose heinie just a little too big. HARD TIMES on Dusty Rhodes, daddy. All-time great promos by Ric. All-time great promos by Dusty. All-time great match then? - Hogan vs. Andre, Wrestlemania 3, which featuring arguably one of the biggest heel-turns of ALL time, Andre ripping the cross, Heenan, Hogan feeling betrayed, the contract signing, the biggest live gate in WWF history, possibly the best booking in the history of the Vince / Pat Patterson team etc. etc. Is it an 5-star classic? - DiBiase vs. Savage, Wrestlemania 4, a match that had been building for months, with DiBiase debuting with a series of superb skits, buying the swimming pool, basketball, etc. etc., culiminating in his deal with Bobby Heenan to use Andre to beat Hogan and buy the belt, all-time great angle with the twin refs, the whole deal resulting in the tournament at Wrestlemania 4, at which Randy Savage came from seemingly nowhere to win THREE straight matches to face Ted in the final and get his big moment in the sun. The context for that match is absolutely off-the-charts in terms of months of booking coming to a final pay-off. The image of Liz on Savage's shoulder is burned into the mind of every fan. All-time great match? I could keep going, but I hope you are getting my idea here. - Now, Garvin vs. Flair, Starrcade 87, Ron Garvin is already getting a rep possibly being the WOAT NWA champion, the fans had turned on him, he'd been booked atrociously and not had many title defenses and even fewer TV appearances. Terrible match then? - Steamboat vs. Flair, Clash 6. The show is in a near-empty stadium in New Orleans. George Scott has completely botched the local promotion. Ricky Steamboat is being BOOed by the fans as an out-of-date family-guy babyface who is just isn't cool, and Flair is being cheered. Did the match stink then? I could go on. What would the people who are telling me so much about the importance of context say about all of these examples?

"Oh vey"

Listening to this now. All is totally forgiven Will, loving this rant about the pussy gayness hugging shit, totally with you there brother. The Boss shouldn't have been hugging.

I thought this show was comparable in quality -- in terms of matches -- to the NXT show. The only real difference was the crowd. It makes a difference when people seem over. A lot of the NXT workers are still green, but they are over. World of difference. Sasha vs. Bayley was the best match of the weekend, but I'd probably take Brock vs. Taker over anything else on NXT show, even allowing for finish. And Cesaro vs. Owens, and even Sheamus vs. Orton, as well as the tag title match, were all probably on average better than the average level of the undercard of the NXT show. But the crowd sucked. So that makes everything seem worse.

1. Since when is a tap on the opponent's arm a tap out? Have to tap the mat. 2. Since when does a ref call a match the second a guy fades? Arm has to drop for three for a guy to be considered out cold. Brock didn't tap either, so how was it a submission? There's some Earl Hebner 88 shit going on here.

I didn't understand why Taker won, ref didn't check the arm or check. Since when? Brock didn't tap. Makes no sense.

I have a good feeling about this.

You're just now catching on? I only watch PPVs dude. Re: Taker, I wonder if we get a lot of run ins a la Royal Ruble 94 vs. Yoko. Only the runs ins are on Taker's side. Brock suplexing fifteen guys.