DR Ackermann

Thanks a lot, guys. I've checked out that post before and it was really helpful. Are there other distinct styles of tag matches? I know you have tornado tags like in ECW and I guess the southern tag doesn't really happen in lucha.

With the internet anyone who is more than a casual wrestling fan knows and understands a number of basic terms (heel, face, workrate, heat, etc.) The more advanced your understanding, the more terms you know. I've learned a lot about wrestling from this message board, and I'm at a point where I'm encountering a lot of terms that I'm not sure I completely understand. So, I thought I would just go ahead and ask what they mean here. Sprint: My understanding is that this is a fast-paced, shorter match. Southern Tag: What exactly makes a tag match a southern-style tag? Is it the basic face gets worked over, is in peril and finally makes the hot tag? Is that it? Heat: I know what it means in the context of "getting heat" and having "heat" and all that, but I saw "double-heat" a lot when people are talking about AWA and maybe I don't understand the term entirely. Base: I read (and/or heard on a podcast) about Cesaro being a good base. Does that mean he's a good opponent for a variety of wrestlers to work their spots on? I've got a lot more questions, but that's all I can think of right now.

Good podcast. Scott raised a great point about why HHH beating Booker might have been the right move, but I don't think it justifies the way it was done. Dylan brings up how people usually come out of a HHH feud worse off than they were going in. That alludes to a great point I think someone (Loss?) made in the Flair/Funk/Lawler Wrestling Culture podcast about people trying to live out their own Ric Flair fantasy, but completely missing the aspects that made Flair great.

From the looks of things, I don't think the WWE ever planned to give the Bryan story line a payoff. They had no intention of riding it through its logical progression. I think they took something that was hot and saw it as a way to buy time until Cena returned and then they were moving on, instead of trying to capitalize on it. Its like the opposite of the NWO angle, where WCW got a hold of something and tried to keep going with it way past its expiration date. Instead the WWE was steering clear of something that was hot until they were forced to acknowledge it in spite of itself.

Wow. Losing that quick and clean to a washed up team like the Outlaws not only makes the Rhodes look bad, but everyone else in the tag division who couldn't get the job done in the last few months.

Great podcast! It was a lot of fun listening to it. It was great to see the Regal/Ohno get so much love. It was my number one for the year, but I hadn't seen it on anyone's list yet so I vthought maybe I was really overrating it. Not seeing the overrated Undertaker/Punk match on your lists was refreshing too.

Terrific match. Both guys worked the tension of the face vs face dynamic perfectly. Bret's selling was really well done and subtle. Piper shined here and held up his end of the match very well. They could have easily weakened Hart's push with this match by making it seem like he could only beat Piper if Piper played fair, but Piper's heel teases were great and he broke the rules just enough to show that Hart was probably the better man, while at the same time having both men save face with the finish. This came off as a very natural passing-of-the-torch. Better storytelling and better action than Savage vs Flair. They messed up the smoothness of a couple of spots, but worked through them just fine. After going back and watching the whole show, this was definitely match of the night. I'm not a big fan of Hart but I loved this match.

Yeah, there are only 15 Misawa matches on that list and I think he has given like 24 Misawa matches 5 stars.

I think this is a full list. Plus it has the matches that almost got 5 Stars, and you can go in and look at each year individually as well. http://www.profightdb.com/top-rated-matches.html There is also a list of the worst ratings he gave out. http://www.profightdb.com/worst-rated-matches.html

Oh yeah, you're right there. Didn't think about that. Also, the 2008 King of the Ring final against Regal was as good as you could hope to get from a 4 minute match. Punk's sloppy looking strikes even make sense in the context of the match since he's selling his back.

Actually, from bell to bell its less than 10:30.

You didn't ask me, but the RAW CM Punk vs Mark Henry match from 4/2/12 is right around 10 minutes and its one of my favorite TV matches ever.

This match was good, but I think it would have been a lot better if it had ended 5 minutes earlier. It climaxed shortly after the superplex spots and then burnt out. The finish was really cool though. Loss is right, Rude was really tremendous here. Awesome selling. Watching this yearbook has really changed my opinion of him.

Is that Dusty Rhodes and Bill Watts in the audience a few rows back?

This is beside the point but the date is wrong. The 22 was a Monday. The Royal Rumble was on the 21st.

Thanks for the heads up! I swung by Walmart today and got Austin, Mysterio, Steamboat, Best of the Clash & the Falls Count Anywhere.

Have you checked out any of the TEW games by the same guy that did EWR? They're way more intricate, and different wrestler's strengths work better with different products so that guys like Undertaker and Hogan will get over properly in a company like WWE. Here's the link http://www.greydogsoftware.com/tew2013/

I meant as far as in-ring work goes. Who would you rate as the better worker. And I agree, Foley was a great storyteller. It is something that gets overlooked somewhat.

How would you rate Mick Foley in comparison with his contemporaries when he was at or near the top? Foley or Austin? Foley or the Rock? Foley or the Undertaker? Foley or Shawn Michaels?

Who were the rest of the foreigners they listed?

Nick Bockwinkel said that Lawler was good and Jack Briscoe said he was really underrated.

That's pretty impressive, jdw. I think what also needs to be taken into account when considering where these movies are ranked, is that each vote for a movie means that the voter considered it one of the 10 best or one of their 10 favorite movies. So not only did they like the movie, they really liked it, so my original argument gets weaker and weaker.

Maybe John Huston, but the other way around? Critics like him enough, although there's also a backlash towards him because of the auteur theory, but you don't hear director's praising him. I think the problem with the point I've been trying to get across is that I've been focusing on specific schools of thought and ways of thinking that certain critics and directors have or had at one time and applying them like they're universal, when they only represent certain portions. I think you could make a separate analogy for Alfred Hitchcock before the 60s or so and Jerry Lawler. Hitchcock was liked enough by some critics, but he was also largely dismissed as "populist" and wasn't appreciated the way he is now before the new wave critics-turned-directors put him on a pedestal and then all the critics who derided him changed their minds or died out.

From Terry Funks' book