WingedEagle

Not sure if it makes any sense but Jake's psychology and work translates better on the character front than it does in the ring. Undeniably has a unique presence, delivery and way of carrying himself but it doesn't seem to yield great matches.

Very curious what, if anything, signing the NJ crew says about Cena's future prospects. Perhaps they're looking to truly develop NXT into a second touring brand and run bigger venues than ROH. Or maybe they have a heads up about a huge hole opening up at the top of the card and got panicked about talent there. Seems unlikely that they'd slot Styles & Nak at that level on the big show from day one, but will be interesting to see the year develop.

Pretty awesome and some absolute old school classics there. Those boxes are just spectacular as its a real shame what became of event posters and boxes over the last 15 years. I rented those Supertapes as often as I could.

Reports are that both Nak & Styles gave notice, so if true, someone had to take the win. They both have bookings through February and perhaps a bit further out. Doesn't mean anything is happening in the next couple weeks, but business in the Orlando territory may get a big shot in the arm.

I actually rewatched the top 2 matches from last year's show this weekend as well. All year long I had Nak-Ibushi as a top 3 MOTYC and absolutely nothing about it this time around was on that level. Similarly, and much moreso to my surprise, is that I found the same thing about the G1 Finals with Tanahashi vs. Nakamura. At the time I didn't think I'd seen a better match since maybe Bryan-Cena but at least far as 2015 goes it is now comfortably below Brock vs. Reigns, Bryan vs. Reigns annnnnnnnnd Tanahashi vs. Okada from Wrestle Kingdom 9. For the first 15 minutes or so you're watching them go through the motions, which is fine when they do it because of their history, the event and what they bring to the table, but when Tanahashi hits the High Fly Flow from the Dome across the road to Korakuen and going forward, between Tanahashi's leg work, the first-ever Rainmaker kickout, Okada's perfectly timed counters and an ultimately satisfying conclusion (which along with the post-match very clearly set the stage for this year, much like Mania's 4-5), it was my favorite outing of theirs as well as my #2 MOTY. Hope to watch the top 2 matches tomorrow and the rest of the show throughout the week.

Solid match with a nice babyface performance from Arn, but some odd decisions here. Muta wasn't at all interested in selling the arm that Arn was working on. Rising babyface Keiji Muto would've made a better dance partner here as he could've played the underdog role that the Great Muta just wasn't designed for. Given that, this should've been about 5-7 minutes shorter and at a quicker pace. Solid outing from Arn and the J-Tex crew along with a nice pop on the title change, but more what could've been than what was. 3 days into 2015 and I'm only a day behind on this wrestling 365 business. Raw & WK10 count in real time right? **3/4

It really something the see the main event of Sam Muchnick's retirement show. Loss hit the big points here as this was not your typical Flair vs. Dusty. The matwork and struggle over a gutwrench suplex really stood out, as did Dusty's punching and the clean simplicity of the booking in each fall. I don't recall if Dusty is remembered as an all time puncher but he looked like one here. The work in each set up the finish that followed very nicely as well as the match's overall progression with the knee work finally paying off as the deciding factor. This doesn't rival Starrcade '85 which remains my favorite Flair-Dusty encounter and a legit classic, but its not far off and for all we know may have reached that level without clipping. ****1/4

1. Watch 80s Ric Flair. I haven't done this seriously in years. Its time to reconnect. This is a bit of a cheat as I confirmed the request with Jewish Santa and have quite a bit of it on the way. 2. Convince my friend in Dallas to go to Mania if I feel like spending travel money, or convince another friend to come watch it here. Its our Super Bowl and none of my friends are into wrestling. Someone will have to suck it up and join me. 3. Write my GWE ballot in pencil, on carbon paper and revisit it at least once later in the year after ticking through some older material. 4. Get to the Garden or Barclays for a show this year. Its a few minutes on the train so no excuse. Will owe the wife a musical or something. Glad I didn't go to the Christmas show though. 5. Post more about what I watch. Made great headway in the '92 MDA and stopped midway through '93 even though I'm now near the end of '94. Must correct this. 6. Not be overwhelmed by what's on the to-watch list. Will get there eventually and nothing wrong with having things to look forward to. Happy New Year, mf'ers.

I watched all of the Memphis 80s material a few years ago. Enjoyed a lot of it and thought it was a very easy set to get through. At the same time, nothing I saw felt like all-time material. Fast forward to the last couple weeks when I decided to rewatch some choice matches from the period. Lo and behold I'm all of sudden seeing the light on Jerry Lawler and rating Funk even higher than before. Also feeling a whole lot of Ted Dibiase love, even if I can't block out most of his work in Japan. Point is I can only imagine how off base my rankings will look like come Mania as opposed to 6 or 12 months later. Will definitely submit my list but if I can muster the effort will be just as eager to revisit it a little bit down the road after giving fresh eyes to some pros.

Hey, if the Spurs take the title away from the Warriors this year, I can love with being called the Kevin Nash of basketball. Multiple time champion, low ratings. Whoa whoa whoa. NO! The Spurs have played beautiful basketball for years and years. Theyve done it with guys in their prime, super young uproven guys, older washed up players, etc. They've done it offensively. They've done it defensively. Theyve done it by playing down low in the paint. They've decimated teams with small ball 3 ball lineups. If you wanted to say they're like Buddy Rose with each Ring representing one of the year's Buddy was the best in the world I could get down with that. The low ratings could even be compared to Buddy working in a smaller territory or people just not paying attention because they were distracted by shinier lesser objects elsewhere. I mean, how are the Spurs ratings in San Antonio? I bet people there are watching just not the rest of the country. The run in New Japan is the loss to the Heat and the run in WWWF the win against the heat (higher profile situations, NJ run not a big success, WWWF run a big success relative = 26million viewers in the finals). So that's a wrestling comp I'd be happy with. Fuck all this Kevin Nash shit. Yeah apologies to the world. Key is that Spurs would be a worthy Starrcade opponent. Not a damn thing about them resembles Nash, though Boban just might be Big Sexy v2.0.

Bucks are most certainly not the Brock Lesnar in their 29-1 nor Kevin Nash, but it definitely works. At least in the Spurs we've got a worthy opponent for them to headline Starrcade/WCF with.

Mom is still cool.

Can probably put Bret Hart's entire WCW run on the table.

Nice, looking forward to another review of Capital Revolution. May have to check that one out. From what I've heard there are some (maybe more than some) issues of accuracy in Fall Guys, but given when it was written and the subject matter, that's to be expected. The entire period is shrouded in a lot of tales that we're now generations removed from without many resources to turn to for verification. At a minimum it should provide an interesting look at figure from the time even if it requires keeping an eyebrow raised throughout.

I was pretty disappointed by Shooters. You'd be better off picking up some back issues of the WON that cover that era. Book didn't go much beyond the surface and was poorly edited. JMTC.

#97 is absolutely an all-time great. But folks naturally get caught up in "best" before worrying about the "betters" and "goods." Not sure what the magic number is beyond 100, as hopefully everyone takes inclusion on the list seriously, but I'd imagine we all end up viewing our lists as comprised of certain tiers and after the upper echelon may be more comfortable making sure the names included are representative of their thoughts than the ranking. Hell, you may have a tier that ends after 96 where you believe everyone south of that is clearly inferior to those above it. Maybe that's just me, but I'd expect the process to go somewhat like that for many.

I'm over the New Day. When they start talking like my cousin in middle school texts its time for the next act.

Vince remains one of the best performers in this business. Just the best. Love Roman holding the mic up for the cop, as well as most likely forgetting to use WWE UniverseTM and instead referring to his supporters.

Glad Rock will be part of the show. If it turns out he's wrestling and part of a match I don't look forward to, or one that takes an appealing match off the table, I suppose I may feel differently about it but on a 4 hour show 15 minutes of him is good fun in my book.

I'm not sure I love the idea that a single good match with a given opponent merits inclusion here, but if that's the standard then the Yoko cage match should definitely put him on the list.

Where is Kerry/Flair from Hawaii available? Heard it praised in every circle imaginable but never come across it. Please PM if necessary. Matt, perhaps there's a Bock or Buddy Rose match that holds particular appeal? Something out there that just stands out to you as more than just a great match?

On the Fujiwara question, it's not just the performances. His greatest matches--Sayama, Yamazaki, Choshu, Inoki, Takada, Maeda--were classics. He also delivered a bunch of entertaining, elevating performances against lesser opponents. But for those who love him, I'm pretty sure the consensus is he was both a great match and great performance guy. I need the best of the best to be both. Exactly. That makes sense and is what I would want to hear from someone who has Fujiwara that high. I haven't seen the UWF stuff but the NJ I've seen has some great performances and very good singles affairs, but none of them rank as any kind of classics for me. That's what keeps him outside of the upper echelon of my list. Just can't imagine how one would have him near the top but not regard his best singles output as classics. Need the great performances and great matches.

While I can see that take, the slow burning build leading to it had me wanting something other than what we got. Anything but a fatal flaw, just something that keeps it from taking up shop in my classics section as it does for others.

It's not grading a curve, it's just not the focus. Not all great wrestlers have the same opportunities to have great matches. Nobody had the chance Flair had to travel everywhere in main events with as much time as he wanted it and for it all to be taped. The AJ guys got chances for huge matches against each other over and over. Bret had way lesser opponents and when he did get a good opponent he had a great match. Heck he had great matches with shitty opponents too. It's really a balancing act for me. In essence though, I value the performance over the end result. Bret gets value for smart in the ring and finishes, because look at the others in the WWF at the same time who both had Vince, Patterson and the WWF office. None of them are anywhere near his level or even stand out as particularly good at it. Isn't this second as much a function of the same opportunities you're downplaying in the first comment? How many of Bret's finishes before his rise to the top are at this level? As Parv noted above, and I found upon rewatching his big matches on the Network over the last couple years, the bodies of his matches were very formulaic depending on whether he was heel or face. As with anyone there are exceptions (Flair title change, Austin series, DBS at In Your House, Taker sometimes, Michaels at Survivor Series), but he had a a style and stuck to it. That's not at all a bad thing. Just don't see the case that this was someone always thinking outside the box throwing new looks at us. Hell, my big beef with the Owen Mania match is that it doesn't feel enough like a blood feud encounter given the stakes, the fact that it was in fact an actual blood feud and everything that led up to it. That's leaving aside the cage match with Owen at Summerslam. Can only imagine the vitriol that would be thrown at that match if you swapped the name Hart with Helmsley on that one. But that's neither here nor there. On the first point, I can only get so far with the performance if the result isn't there. It feels like quite the extrapolation to say that Bret Hart (or anyone) pulled a few rabbits out of his hat against less than stellar opposition and that trumps classics of let's say a Kobashi or Misawa solely because they had each other. Bret didn't work against Kawada. But how are we supposed to say he's better based on dragging Rusher Kimura up to the Mendoza line on a number of occasions? Is the bar greatness or consistent goodness? Again, I get that its all subjective but that kind of case feels like its rewarding a singles hitter in large part due to a lack of opportunity.

A few questions I'm legitimately interested in hearing folks address so I can understand their process and what they're seeing that I may be missing: 1) Great matches may not be the be all and end all -- not a fan of trying to make this process an entirely objective one because it is inherently subjective to each fan -- but shouldn't a great performer produce a ton of great matches? How does one reconcile a great performer who's lacking the great matches department? Is it at simple as grading on a curve and looking at what they did with limited opposition? As an example, I don't have Yoshiaki Fujiwara ranked anywhere near as high as his biggest supporters here seem to. Think he's tremendous at times and an integral part of some classic multi-man matches. But it seems that those who have him super high find his best matches (and thus his performances as well) to rank much higher than I do. Or are people finding he wasn't necessarily a part of so many great / classic matches but somehow put on great / classic performances in these matches? Help me resolve this. 2) Why does Bret get credit for being a great finish man or particularly smart in the ring? How many of his matches do we know are put together by him without input from Vince, Patterson, or others in the locker room or office, much less handed to him from them? Perhaps certain cases may be documented and supported towards that conclusion over the years, but as a general rule? I find it a stretch to give that kind of credit or blame for ideas to the wrestlers. Execution, pacing, facials, selling, storytelling in. the. ring. Sure. But the ideas that were then translated? Those waters seem muddy in almost every case.