Jimmy Redman

The Rey matches were pretty good, but probably disappointing relative to Rey Mysterio. The Rumble match had Vickie taking the 619. Rey worked NWO with the torn tricep or bicep or whatever it was (then Show/Maweather happened). The Taker matches were good. I really love the Undertaker HIAC. It had a cool little story of Taker giving everything back to Edge that he had done to him during the feud, and made for a nice blow off. The Armageddon match was good, but I don't think it was even that great compared to, say, Cena/HHH/Orton from the same year. It was all about Jeff winning anyway. He wasn't really even in the Survivor Series one, apart from running in at the end of one of the worst main events in a decade, so that one certainly shouldn't count for him. I remember literally nothing about Edge vs Hunter or Batista. He had a good year in 2008 but I wouldn't say his PPV output was all that spectacular. Tonnes of folks have had better years on PPV in recent times. He did have a great TV match with Matt Hardy in December though.

Can you not have Goldust lose the match, make it seem to Cody like he lost his one chance to get his job back, and THEN go on a vigilante rampage? Your idea isn't dead if they do this now.

I imagine Orton poking Goldust in the eye or the Shield running in because he has to cheat to beat a 78 year old man just trying to get his brother his life back will be pretty glorious. Or maybe Cody is only having a short honeymoon and this is their angle to get him back on TV. In which case score one for Daniel Bryan and the Resistance. But I'm not sure how likely Goldust pinning the WWE Champion really is. So my guess is the former.

I think it was both. It's pretty well known that a lot of dudes backstage hate Miz, or hated him at least, and for someone who hated him (and thought that he sucked) the fact that he got the WM main event spot "over me" would have made it worse. Miz was pretty hated in that period. I remember Alberto doing an out of character interview and saying he wanted to punch Miz in the face repeatedly. Even Cena threw some 'shoot' lines into his promo once about trying to carry Miz through their feud, which is pretty mind blowing from a guy as professional as Cena.

This is an excellent analogy that I'm amazed I never thought of before. It describes Angle's style of match perfectly.

In the period at large, yes. In mid to late 2005, Jericho basically replaced Christian in the Cena feud and went out after a WWE Title match, while Christian got moved to the Smackdown midcard before his release.

Sting did something kind of similar on TNA TV in 2008 or 2009. Basically they tried to turn him heel, he didn't act much different and it didn't work, and so he basically came out and cut a promo saying his heel turn didn't work (not using that word though) and went back to being a face, while remaining in the heel group he joined, which was probably the Main Event Mafia.

I originally posed this question in the "Comments that don't warrant a thread" post though it appears to have got it's own thread. But okay, this is a partial explanation of that style I can understand. But is there more to it? What I found to be confusing was the "get your whole crap in" portion of it. I'm not a regular viewer of current product so I can only speak for the WWE PPVs and few TV matches I actually watch. But I feel like I see a lot of guys trying to put all their signature spots in TV matches. Is this not be to confused with "get your whole crap in" or does the speed of the moves factor in? Help me out. It's not so much the speed in itself but the intent. If guys are popping up quickly to move to the next spot, because they are more interested in "getting their shit in" than building a match and selling the damage done to them, then that is bad. If guys move quickly but are still able to convey damage and build a meaningful match using spots, then that is good. Alberto/Christian from Summerslam is a good example of the latter. They were moving pretty quickly and packed a lot of action into 10 minutes or so, but they both sold the impact of moves and nothing felt rushed or no-sold. A WWE guy getting their signature spots in when they work a match isn't really the same thing, unless they are willfully not selling or not building a coherent match in order to do that. But I don't think that is the case for the most part.

That's one way. But Savage and Steamer were the same size, and Steamer would control Savage in some of their matches. That is one of the points. Another is to fill space. Not denying either of those. Just offering up the big face vs little heel match as another variation on the theme.

You also get babyface control when you have a size discrepancy that favours the babyface, i.e. a monster or a giant facing a small or normal sized heel. Also for babyface control in general, I think the point of it is to establish that the babyface is a better wrestler than the heel.

Before the angle began the Shield were working the Usos and shit in the midcard. If they were taken out of the angle, they'd go back to working the Usos and shit in the midcard. This IS their main event angle.

Christian was definitely good in that 2003-05 period where he was CLB Christian. The team with Jericho was good, the whole Jericho/Trish angle was great, he was pretty good at that IC Title level after that, then he had that wacky Cena feud that went nowhere in 2005, and was gone by the end of the year. But he was consistently good during that period and deserved more than he got. I've only seen bits and pieces of his TNA run, I think he was solid there in the ring at least, but without looking all that great, and of course booking was a killer. I think it is pretty inarguable that he stepped it up big time when he came back in 2009 and that this run has easily been his best.

I don't think the criticism of Ohno was about people not wanting him to be a fatty, but moreso that gaining a rep as lazy in the gym is a stupid move to make for your WWE career, and people want to see him on TV. It was about him not playing the game properly, not that we all want him to have a six pack.

I think it's fine for people to read spoilers and come to their own conclusions about how the show looks, but I also think that in the grand scale of wrestling opinions, that one isn't as valid as the one from someone who has actually watched the show. You can make an informed guess as to what the show probably looked like, and whether you would have liked it or not, but you won't know for sure until you actually watch it. There are too many times where I and other people have read spoilers and thought "that sounds awesome/awful" and then got to the show and ended up thinking "wow, that wasn't so bad/that was disappointing", or any variation therein. Some things read better than they are. Some things read worse. Sometimes spoilers are wrong or incomplete or leave out a crucial piece of information. And they certainly can't communicate things like crowd heat, facial expressions, verbal delivery, match quality, and so on. Just look at the Observer this week. At KOTR 1996 Steve Austin "cut a strong post-match promo" on Jake Roberts. If you had read the Observer report without watching the show, I mean that is a completely 100% accurate description of what happened, but if you didn't see the promo you wouldn't really understand just what that means. And that goes for everything, good, bad or indifferent. Again I have no objection to people reading spoilers and making their judgments. I do it all the time with TNA, and have my opinions about that. But I admit that it doesn't make me as informed as someone who watches every Impact. I think the only issue arises when you have such a discrepancy in opinions, where one guy says "that sounds like shit" and another one says "well I actually watched it and it was fine" and nobody being able to budge. The watcher feels it is unfair for the reader to judge something that ended up fine, and the reader doesn't want to sit through something that sounds like shit.

I don't want to derail this with Okada talk any more than I already have, but I will admit that he sold the leg pretty well in the G1 draw and I have no problem with his performance in that match.

Maybe it's just a personal preference thing, but to me selling a body part is more effective if it actually...hinders you in some way. If you're hurt but you are able to get past it and hit all your moves without issue anyway...how hurt can you actually be? Sure you may look like a badass, but why should I care about your sore leg when it clearly doesn't prevent you from going on offense or winning? I find it more effective when someone has an injured limb and it actually prevents them from hitting something that requires the use of said limb, at least the first time or at a crucial time. I want it to matter in some way. That doesn't mean I want overselling or constant agony or whatever, but just a little consistency and logic. If working the leg is the story, then make it the story and make it relevant to what happens in the match. I'm going wildly off topic now but Christian, for example, is great at being worked over, and then fighting back but continuing to sell damage for the rest of the match. At Summerslam he had his arm worked over, but when he made his comeback he was a guy making a comeback with an injured arm, and you could clearly see that. Then even as he gets his final adrenaline burst and hits the spear, he hits it with his injured arm which allows Alberto to submit him. That is the payoff, and that has a consistency to it. To bring it back to Cena, he's a guy who can also get shit on for no selling or blowing shit off or whatever, but you can almost always see the narrative play out in Cena's selling. He doesn't do a lot of body part work, but when he's facing a monster or something often he gets his ribs or back worked over. This is a vehicle for him to sell, then attempt some big power move that requires his ribs and/or back, he will fail and topple over, get worked over some more, then finally make his real comeback and HIT the big move to win the match in a moment of triumph. Superhero overcomes the odds 101. It works.

No he isn't. In the matches I've seen him in (and I'm certainly not claiming to have seen them all) he often does. He's in agony one minute. Then it's his turn for offense, so he's back up throwing the big dropkick, hitting the piledriver or some other move, walking or running around, even using his legs to put on his wacky submission hold, and his leg that he apparently couldn't stand on isn't hindering him in any way. Oh, but there's a break in the action here so I have time to stop and sell my leg now! He only sells it when the other guy is busy selling, because then he has the time and nothing else to do. If anything I would prefer it if he sold LESS. I feel a huge disconnect when a guy is in searing pain one minute, and then capable of performing his whole moveset the next. If you can do that, how hurt can you really be? And if you're not that hurt, why were you screaming and hobbling so much like you were? If he wasn't so "OMG MY LEG IS BROKEN" about it in the first place, I might not mind so much when he gets over it in the second half of the match. The inconsistency is exposing to me. He's not the only one who does it, by any means, but I do feel that way watching him.

Yes because I totally meant that I require him to spend the entire match lying on his back in agony. I'm not even talking about hitting a big move through adrenaline and selling afterwards. I have no problem with that in principle. What I mean is, again, literally only selling during the match when it suits him. When it is the period of the match during which his leg is being worked over, he's on the ground screaming, clutching his leg, can't walk on it, etc. Then when it his turn to go back on offense, he's back up and doing everything as if his leg wasn't hurt at all. And if he finds a spare moment at some point or other, he'll shake his leg or hold it or something. But his leg won't actually be hurt. That isn't selling. Selling isn't simply a visual cue, like it is enough to grab your leg or scream at various times. Selling is you being able to convince me that your leg is actually hurt, and that you are in pain, or trying to block out the pain, or pushing past the pain through adrenaline or sheer force of will or whatever. Okada doesn't convince me that his leg is hurt. All he does is show me that he knows what selling the leg is supposed to look like.

That isn't my experience. From what I've seen Okada partakes in what I guess I would call kind of "fake" selling. It's hard to explain, but he appears to go through the mechanical motions of selling without actually...selling. He's the type to get his leg worked over, and scream in pain and clutch his leg, and then get up and run around or perform a move without a problem...and then go back to clutching his leg in agony. Selling only when it is convenient, I guess, and not letting it hinder you getting your shit in.

Edge stayed over once Lita got him over as a main event heel. Yes he had Vickie after and yes I have my serious doubts that he would have ever heated up or stayed as hot without the ladies (he never seemed the same when he was on his own in terms of drawing heat and interest as a heel), but there is no question that he was a star of some note. I don't think Edge's offense was any good, but it was the ridiculous overacting that bothered me far more Oh totally. Believe me I am not someone to make apologies for Edge as I was utterly bored of him throughout his main event run and always found him overrated. And I agree that he sustained his heat through his pairings with Lita and Vickie, although to be fair he held his end up a lot better with Lita than later on with Vickie, where it seemed that she had most of the heat herself. He was also the worst fucking babyface ever during the Kane feud.

Fair enough then. I think there's still a point to be made that it didn't stop the spear from being really over as a finisher and didn't really give Edge any credibility issues broadly speaking. It's something that gets brought up on the internet all the time, and yet had no real consequence in the real world I don't think. Of course it's a perfectly valid point to bring up regarding someone's personal opinion about him as a worker. Maybe it's just me because as I've said before, I'm not someone who really cares about shitty movesets as a rule. I know I never gave a single thought to his moves looking weak until I read about it on the internet. It's not something that concerns me.

This is one of those weird ass talking points that I don't think exists outside of our little world. People like us talk about the "running hug" and Edge's "shitty moveset" all the time, when I don't think you would find a single non-smark fan who has even considered the idea that Edge has weak looking moves. If anyone can, I'd love to hear of it. The spear was crazy over as his finish and crowds always accepted it as a match-ender. I think you have it the other way around actually. They kept having to find more elaborate ways for him to win because his 'Ultimate Opportunist' character was so played out, and all they could think to do was bring him back for another surprise return/run-in/shocking title win.

This is completely irrelevant to the discussion, but I really like that Cena/Kane Rumble match.

I did think Okada sold a little better in the G1 match than in their first three matches. I don't think Tanahashi's leg working performance was any better though. It's just something he shouldn't do really, unless he's in there with a MiSu and they work a compelling body part match. As 'first 20 minutes filler' that will get blown off anyway, it leaves a lot to be desired.

I think the Undertaker one can be explained somewhat by noting that his best rated matches include a lot of Streak matches, which are matches he always wins.