WingedEagle

I'm a fan of ratings for that reason but absolutely get why some folks aren't. What are your thoughts on Taue after watching all of those matches? Sounds like you were a big fan of his as well, as I can't imagine someone really being down on him from that era, but where does he fit in big picture?

Its up to each individual and what's right or wrong for them. We won't all agree in each case and that's fine. Hopefully we can agree that someone is not wrong in making a personal decision on whether to consider a Benoit or Invader.

If you're able to watch someone wrestle without being distracted by anything particularly heinous they did outside the ring that's fine. If you're not, I think that's also okay. El-P touched on a distinction with Benoit/Invader that also makes sense for me -- I saw most of Benoit's career and highlights before June 2007, not after. I'm rewatching PPVs on the Network and depending on the match and how I'm feeling may watch a Benoit match, or I may skip it. Lately its kind of empty for me watching it, but I think at the end of the day I'm going to leave him off of my list for the simple reason that I really do not want to go back and watch him wrestle. Whether its because of what he did in the ring or otherwise, I don't want to spend my wrestling time with him. There are others I'm dying to watch more of and those who were always favorites that still are. But if I really don't want to watch your matches I can't say you're one of the 100 greatest ever. I haven't seen any Invader and I'm not sure I want to. I may look to check out some depending on what certain people may recommend, but perhaps I'll allocate that time to someone else instead and won't regret that either.

For a second there I forgot we couldn't like posts here. Anyways, great.

Wow. Babyface monster Vader. That is something. Great find.

I just got started on '94 after abandoning '93 for much of the summer before putting in some OT there to finish it last week. I'm through the first disc but doing my best to avoid recaps of the whole year or individual matches/segments until I've gone through them. Still the best way to pack in some diverse wrestling at any time.

I thought Sumo Hall capacity was about 75% of Budokan rather than 50%. Didn't NJPW commonly run Budokan a few times per year before things went to hell with shooters?

Agreed. And if you wanted to be great more often than not, or at least when it counted, that's fine in my book. Separately, as far as off nights go, are we talking about someone's rep for taking it easy on non-taped house shows, or a substantial record of going easy on non-TV/PPV? If its about rep, that seems to fall in with the reasons we can't really rate Jim Londos, Strangler Lewis or anyone else lacking footage.

They're not the same, but both can be done to death and rendered a complete joke, or effective if used sparingly. "No selling" is very important and pretty much necessary in many great matches because otherwise they'd all follow the same pattern and become pretty predictable if every finisher or big move was the end. As an example, Okada's Rainmaker has been built up for a couple years now as *the* finish. If he hits it, the match is over. We're getting to the point where you know it'll be teased and countered a few times and those spots are basically the equivalent of someone else's finisher being kicked out of b/c until it happens you know there's no risk of the match ending. But I imagine (hope) they'll eventually build to someone kicking out of it, which will add a whole other layer to his matches thereafter. I realize that's a bit of a tangent, but the point is that what works is to keep things diverse and the audience guessing -- if you go too far with no selling whereby nothing matters or eventually the other extreme where nothing but a finisher matters, you make it pretty hard to build heat for anything and it just becomes a waiting game.

Weren't they hyping it that someone from Team WWF would turn rather than any surprise new faces showing up? That was Survivor Series later in the year when Angle defected to The Alliance. Got it, thanks. Were they pushing potential debuts at the Invasion show?

Weren't they hyping it that someone from Team WWF would turn rather than any surprise new faces showing up?

AH. Then disregard

They signed Bruno to a lucrative contract before inducting him into the HOF. They are going to try and get their money's worth out of that contract by promoting him as a larger than life legend, as they should.

This. More buys than any non-Mania PPV ever (and more than many Manias for that matter). More than Sting/Hogan or anything else WCW did. More than any established WWE PPV brand such as Rumble or Summerslam. I also agree 100% that there was almost no way Vince was going to allow a WCW team, or any outsider supposedly representing WCW to look strong against WWE. Hell, Austin got the strongest heel push of anyone associated with the Invasion and he certainly wasn't viewed as WCW guy. A team of Goldberg, Flair, Sting & co. may have done more business on this show, but certainly wasn't necessary and given what they would've cost I imagine you maximize the show's profitability by putting over DDP, Booker T & co. as equals to Team WWE heading into that event.

It's stupid. Show that gif to any non-wrestling fan and I'll guarantee you it'll be met with laughter. That's the thing, though. People who share similar tastes to you look at posters on PWO/WKO etc. and assume that they're being over-analytical but it's really just using common sense. That's a stupid, business exposing spot that makes no sense, especially when you consider they were a half hour into their match. A non-wrestling fan will find that match and every other ridiculous and likely laugh at it. I know non-wrestling fans who respect the fact that I watch wrestling, but I've yet to find those who are not fans but open to wrestling in general. You're either in or out. That spot in the GIF is absolutely business-exposing. If I saw a show full of that I'd probably be yawning and looking at my watch by the end of the night. But once? I don't want all my wrestling to be true to logic, realistic and believable. That's UFC and I'm burned out on it. I want wrestling to be realistic, feature mat-wrestling, brawling, flying, hot finishes, selling, no-selling, sprints, spots, comedy, blood and storytelling. I just don't want all of that at once or non-stop, whether it be on a 3 hour Raw, a 4 hour comp or a house show. Keep it diverse and throw different elements so the audience is on their heels and constantly seeing different things as effective. Once it all fits the same homogenized profile you've dug yourself a pretty deep hole.

No idea where Shawn will end up ranking on my list, but I can't imagine lower than to 10-15 among American workers. I love bumpy Shawn, DX Shawn and especially post-comeback. Big fan of the Angle, Jericho, Cena, Batista and Taker matches along with lots of his TV stuff in the early-comeback era when he was a regular TV worker. Not much love for the HHH epics other than Summerslam '02. I'm about to start the '94 yearbook, so between that and making my way through PPVs on the Network (up to Survivor Series '03) I'll have plenty of opportunities to narrow where he fits on the list.

That's wild. I always think of that as about 10-12 minutes, but apparently not. Always LOVED this one. Just a blazing brawl and great enough that I'm comfortable calling it my favorite sub 10. Almost great enough that it'd force me to rethink just how long a great match must be. I always ballparked 12-15 as a prereq for great, on the idea that anything less and you're basically a sprint without the ability to build much drama or tension to a finish, which I generally think of as necessary for great. But damn was this brawl GREAT.

Do they have even a single great match?

Just wanted to provide another rec for the director's cut podcast of Austin/Rock at Mania 17, or whatever you may call it. Insightful, fun and a completely refreshing take on a match that I imagine most folks here have already seen, if not multiple times. I listened to it on the elliptical and tried to also read the paper as I normally do. The paper had to wait until I got back upstairs. Definitely worth checking out.

I don't have a problem with criticizing his lack of effort or the decision to go easy at a house show. Though I think we can agree there's a difference between Tanahashi taking it easy on an ROH show or a show in Europe as opposed to a NJPW show at Korakuen, much as the same is true for Hart or Michaels crapping the bed on a small show in Europe or Mexico as opposed to a big house domestically. I just don't see the basis for extrapolating from what's clearly a strategic decision to prioritize one's base or big performances at the expense of something small or insignificant in the picture. if he and Okada put on one of their long matches at a smaller show and it didn't get over at all and they failed to adapt, that'd be one thing. That distinction seems important to me.

How is it a failure to actively choose and put expend less effort in front of a smaller audience that bears no relation to your core/base? if you have a job and claim to put forth the exact same effort in every single task you do relating to it, you are likely lying. We all need to save ourselves and put forth a little more on some occasions as opposed to others. Its called prioritizing and allows someone to deliver when it counts. Not all situations / tasks / clients / matters / wrestling matches are equals.

The biggest problem I'd see with this is that it would explicitly tell people which shows and parts of the year they can freely ignore until the playoffs start.

Wrestlemania always feels like the climax of a season followed by a reboot. You can debate whether a new season begins the next night, in the fall or some other time as that part of the "schedule" is obviously very fluid, but at some point everything builds to the one big finale.

Its better to promote Rollins/Ambrose as headliners in a featured match standing on their own. If they're going to be established as headliners they need to be pushed as stars rather than pieces in an episodic storyline that for better or worse would revolve around Cena.

I don't know that AJ is booked in what you'd call dominant fashion where she's mowing people down, but she never looks inept. She stands up to any adversary rather than backing down, she's never shown up on the mic and comes out on top in feuds. Its pretty simple and would be more effective on a champion/division that's meant to draw, but she's not portrayed as a joke at any point. Its a refreshing contrast to the way most champions are presented.