WingedEagle

I'd easily subscribe if 2-3 smaller companies partnered up. There is zero reason to expect it, but consolidation would force me to come up with reasons not to subscribe whereas now I'd need a really incredible reason to commit to any of them. I wonder if there might be more opportunity for cross-marketing between an American & Japanese company, as that might reduce concerns about stepping on toes in each's local market while offering a way to reach out to a niche in each country. But it might also be a lot more work than the resulting sales would justify.

YES -- Another terrific iteration in the second best tag team feud in recent years. While I haven't been the biggest Sekimoto fan at times because he seems to completely disregard selling, that is absolutely not the case here. Just a tremendous job putting over Ishikawa & Sato's power offense for an extended stretch before the hot tag to Okabayashi, who comes in as fired up as ever. These four pound each other the whole way with brutal chops and strikes that build meaningful near falls. What puts this match -- and, really, all of their counters -- over the top is the terrific pacing that gives everything meaning and impact rather than rushing to the next spot. Add in some opportune blood and select no selling during the finishing run to pop the crowd and you have the early frontrunner for tag team match of the year. **** 1/4 YES -- Tanahashi vs. Naito and Okada vs. Omega. See WK11 thread. NO - Ultimo Guerrero vs Valiente (1/6) and Barbaro Cavernario vs Rey Cometa (1/6) Both matches had shining moments and spots, and the former had strong characters, but after rushing through the first two falls neither match did enough to capitalize on the time afforded them in the third. Barbaro works when he goes the Hiromu Takahashi route and tries to kill himself. There was some of that, but the comedy didn't work for me. The finishes in both matches very much felt out of nowhere rather than a logical followup to anything we saw preceding them.

The name isn't at all familiar. Not sure what a rhythm game is but am pretty confident I've never played one.

Perhaps its a reflection of the radio I listen to, but I've never heard of Lemmy outside of WWE programming.

Seconding Strong BJ vs. Twin Towers from 1/2.

Its not exactly PWO2K, but Shuji Ishikawa & Koehi Sato vs. Takayuki Ueki & Masaya Takahashi tables match from BJW on 12/30/2016 is great for exactly this reason. They tease & pace the table spots so well throughout the match until it builds and builds to a great and anticipated finish. Had forgotten this as a gimmick that could actually be smartly and effectively incorporated into a match beyond a simple spot, but these are both examples of it nearly 17 years apart.

I feel like these examples are exceptions to the current rule where the first two falls are split fairly quickly before getting to the third where the real match can begin. Does that trend start much later or did this match / feud stand out for it at the time as well?

This is exactly why you share star ratings, to encourage people. Why else do we say anything on here. This is my point about the grammar of a star rating having this weird undercurrent of objectivity that just falls apart the moment you recognize there are lots of ways to have great matches and there are lots of valid perspectives on wrestling (NOT that EVERY perspective is created equal, but that there is more than one way to skin a cat). How is telling people its the greatest thing you have ever seen and giving it five to implicitly encourage someone to check it out substantially different. The only real difference is if we treat star ratings as something more objective than they even are in practice or debate. Meltzer's rating of Okada/Omega is indeed a perfect example. People take Meltzer's ratings way too seriously and him giving that match 6 ruined the watching experience for a lot of people and has sparked a disproportionate amount of conversation. It is precisely because people treat the star rating as something it isn't and can't be. I simply vouch for ratings as a way of quantifying ones own standards and analysis. My point isn't that standards should be thrown out the window, but rather that standards should be carefully considered, outlined, and subsequently considered when reading ratings. My point has always been that people should rate matches responsibly, but they shouldn't hold back on giving something 5 or 4 or whatever because it isn't conventional wisdom. At the same time they shouldn't ape everyone who throws five at something just because they throw five. Your ratings should mean something first and foremost to you if you do them. Not something sentimental, but they should have some purpose if you are going to bother doing them. The most important thing remains the relationship between your justification and your rating; you should be able to analyze why you think something is 5 and then let someone else decide. I agree with what you're saying here, but let's pretend there's match that is generally considered five stars -- like Ms-1 vs. Sangre Chicana, for argument's sake. And I come along and I want to say that Tony Salazar vs. Herodes is also five stars. It doesn't matter what I write about Salazar.Herodes or how true it is; people are going to watch that match and think: "well, that wasn't five stars. What was he thinking?" I'd gain much more traction if I said, "here's a four star lucha match" or "here's a great match from the 80s." For starters it's more realistic, and if people really like it they're going to boost the star rating up anyway. As soon as you say it's five stars, people have MS-1/Chicana in the back of their minds. It's extremely difficult to escape the baggage of star ratings. They've been around for nearly four decades now, and if you're from my generation, you were raised to believe that a five star match was the pinnacle of wrestling. That's why I don't think **** is substantially the same as saying something is great. Saying something is the greatest thing you've ever seen can be more readily taken as a personal statement, but as soon as you affix those star ratings you create something that is meant to be as good, or better, than the best matches the viewer has seen. It would have to be a pretty tight knit community for folks to think, "oh, that's one of Jimmy Redman's five star matches or that's one of those matches Parv rated five stars" as though star ratings are merely personal reflections of each person's viewing habits. As for taking Meltzer's star ratings seriously, I don't have a problem with people taking them seriously as I don't have a problem with people taking Ebert seriously or Robert Christgau. I don't see what's wrong with taking star ratings seriously. I don't RYM ratings seriously, as well as All Movie Guide; why should wrestling be any different just because it's wrestling? I get this and to some extent I agree. I think wherever we differ we probably just differ and perhaps it is a generational thing, perhaps not. Perhaps it is as simple as where we place the emphasis of the conversation, perhaps not. However, I want to flesh out a potential distinction and in turn my point just a touch more through the example you used. I can only speak for myself and my ratings through this example, so I don't mean to harp so much on personal example, but here we go. So I agree Sangre Chicana vs MS1 is an absolute ***** match. If I made a top match list it would be at least top 3 and maybe #1. I also have Eddie Guerrero vs JBL (Judgement Day) at ***** and I don't know a lot of people who do, but I stand by it. Now people may watch that match and say "that isn't five stars", but I still maintain that that match is special. Without launching into a full review, it is one of the absolute best instances of wrestling as theater/drama. It accomplishes something that I have seen so few matches really accomplish. It blurs the lines in a way you just can't fake or buy. It was a gutsy performance and provided incredible visuals. Art imitated life in a powerful way that could not have been planned. It plays out race and class politics through violence in a way that is is moving and visceral. It is - for my money - one of the most impressive, careful, detailed, and then ultimately passionate individual performances I have ever seen when I watch Eddie curtain to curtain. It is the best example of a face DQ lose creating a meaningful distinction between moral victory and "official" victory. I actually just watched it again right before Christmas and felt justified in my rating. I believe it is a truly elite match and will defend that. Now, I have seen that match get as low as *** I think (at least in the 3s) and I assume it gets lower elsewhere. Would I rate it above Sangre Chicana vs MS-1? no. Do I think it is as good a match? no. Do I expect people to like it as well? no. Am I wrong to give that match *****? I am not being facetious with that question. I am curious if you think I am too liberal with the stars in that example? If its objectively better than every ****1/2 or ****3/4 match in your eyes, then that's a legit 5 star affair for you, regardless of what anyone else thinks. If you said it was a *** match but still among your all time favorites, that's cool too. There are always a ton of those kinds of matches that I absolutely love that are beyond rewatchable, even in comparison with what I may think is a 5 star affair. But at least for me that doesn't mean its one of the very best matches I've ever seen. But its your list -- as long as you can personally understand and appreciate the distinction, that's great.

That was very much one line in the promo, but it was only a piece of the picture.

It can be, but it plays differently when delivered against someone established at Cena's level. Had they used that tact against Styles early in his run it would've been exactly that.

I think squashes would reintroduce a valuable element to the shows and may even allow them to work around some of the 50/50 booking issues people often complain about. There's a lot to be said for the value of them both as matches and as a booking device.

Its been a very good show for a number of months now. I think it stands in stark contrast to Raw which has felt like an incredibly long show since growing to 3 hours and especially since losing Bryan & perhaps Punk. For a while, Smackdown felt like hours 4 & 5 after a lengthy intermission. The split this summer has definitely given each show their own distinct vibe and feeling, and they've maximized the 2 hour window and the roster rather than coming off as a an extension of Raw. But any best ever talk seems a bit premature and dismissive of the comparative environment its occurring in.

5/28/1510/29/15 Can also add: 6/26/16 -- 6-man that sees Okabayashi team with the Twin Toweres against Sekimoto, Hama & Kamitani 10/31/16 -- BJW tag league match between the 2 teams

I have no doubt it is all the same to you. Enjoy your life.

This was fucking criminal and disgusting. I don't understand how Yoshiko and the ref didn't face criminal charges for this, but it was a fucking travesty. Not sure I've ever seen anything worse than this in wrestling. If you really do enjoy this, best of luck to your shrink and family.

Based on what I've read from you here, don't listen to these guys. When Shibata & Sakuraba first came back in 2012, they were pretty dull. Shibata adjusted and became the uber masculine, more-guts-than-brains, dick measuring asshole that you seem to be enjoying in these reviews. Sakuraba stayed dull, didn't get over, never got out of the midcard, and is now out of the company. I don't think the style gets redundant like others are saying, either. I though the Dome match was fucking awesome, just like the Ishii Dome match, just like all of the 2015, 2014, 2013 G1 stuff... You should watch the Ishii/Goto matches, too. More pure, unadulterated, stupid men doping stupid things and defiantly no selling until one guy dies. How that can ever wear thin is a mystery to me, but to each his own. Cosign all of this. Caveat that it doesn't wear thin, but the impact and innovative aspect of it that's there the first couple times does wear off eventually. Its always good but that shock to the system can't last forever.

CMLL really needs to cut down on the crowd shots. They make WWE look moderate by comparison in that department.

I think there's always more to take away from a crowd down the stretch and for a finish than the beginning.

I'm happy to rave about the last 3 matches, but very much on board with you with respect to the undercard. Nothing there was bad, but like you said there are routinely better WWE TV matches. The fact that Satoshi Kojima' sschtick popped the crowd more than anything else on the undercard says it all. Plenty of other things to enjoy there, especially Roppong Vice, Ishii and even the return of Toru Yano, who I personally dig and never overstays his welcome in any match. But nothing at all approached a blow away match.

Agree with all of this, particularly the first point, as it gets to my note above about how a number can do a better job, over time and across matches, of clarifying a given reviewer's taste & standards. I'd hope the second point about ***** matches is true as well. Personal favorites are great, but everyone should have some perspective that allows for easily distinguishing them from those matches that are true classics.

I like star ratings because as much as a well written and considered review may be, short of saying something was atrocious or an all-timer, those snowflakes provide some context for comparative purposes that a qualitative evaluation simply doesn't. Whether we have different scales or I agree or disagree, that number helps distinguish preferences which I think are very important.

For those who do so, how do you watch New Japan World on the TV? Any options other than Chromecast?

To Dylan's point about the crowd being a bit down during the open of the match, I don't disagree but also think there's something to be said for coming right after the Tanahashi/Naito finish as well knowing a long match was ahead. Not sure its unreasonable to think everyone in the Dome was pacing themselves to an extent.

I don't know. My point is simply that if they are regularly adjusting their game to him, I hold them responsible rather than him. That's shortsighted and silly, and coming from someone who's read the Observer for over 20 years now (Jesus Christ) and credit him with exposing me to more new & different wrestling any other source. But I'm a fan on my couch, not doing this for a living. Hopefully wrestlers have more and broader influences & perspectives.