Jimmy Redman

"Negative Space: A Play in Sixteen Acts" by Matthew D.

As would I.

One of the hardest decisions I'm going to face list-wise is deciding who to place higher - Hunter or Angle. They're both about the same to me: high highs but shockingly low lows and a tendency to annoy the fucking shit out of me with their bullshit ideas on how to work. Is Hunter's selfish egotism and bloat worse than Angle's selfless but equally stupid spot fetish? At this point I have no idea. But Hunter's current bullshit, coupled with the fact that I haven't had to deal with Angle in a long time, makes me want to put Angle higher. On the other hand, there are Hunter matches I would put in my Top Whatever of all time, while I can't necessarily say the same for Angle, and that is a big tiebreaker for me as well.

A few points in reply to Loss. Firstly, it's half that he just is that entertaining at kicking the shit out of people, but the other half is that Brock taking all of the match is...a good idea. I'm not sure how to phrase that better, but it is. When people complain about, I don't know, Brody or Mascaras or someone taking all of a match, part of it is the inherent selfishness, but mainly the problem is that selfishness kills the match, because someone so shitty is taking the whole match and the match suffers. People complain less about Hansen guzzling people, because he's awesome and him taking so much of the match makes for awesome matches, as well as being a fit for Hansen's character. Same deal with Brock. I mean, be honest, has anyone watched one of these recent Brock matches and thought "Man I wish Brock would stop beating the shit out of Cena" or "Man I wish Brock would give Roman some more offense" ? Fair play to you if so, but I know I certainly haven't. Brock killing folk is fucking awesome, and makes for awesome matches. It makes perfect sense for the character and how he's positioned that he does so, and he backs it up by performing the way he does. Nobody has yet suffered or looked bad from getting their ass kicked by Brock, nor has he killed matches by taking too much of them. He takes just the right amount. As far as one-dimensional goes, I think that's nonsense. Brock is an amazing seller. Seriously just great at it. Watch him, there is always a moment in every recent match where he has to sell, and he nails it. He's fucking Brock Lesnar who eats dudes for lunch, and yet in every match at some point he'll eat a nearfall or be put in a sub and I actually buy for a split second that he's going to tap or lose, because of how well he's selling it. He might be the best guy I've ever seen at the "wave my hand above the mat trying not to tap" thing. He takes offense like a fucking champ, and is great at selling pain, and also frustration at killing a guy who refuses to die. If you're looking for more traditional pro wrestling talents just have a look at his first run. He worked in a much more recognisable way, and he was still awesome. He bumps his fucking ass off in the most ridiculous ways, ways that should be physically impossible for a guy his size. He's an awesome bumper. He sells his ass off in things like the Undertaker HIAC, Big Show matches, whenever he's called upon to sell big, and he'll also sell for guys like Rey or Tajiri, making them look like a million bucks just by taking their shit before killing them. He's an awesome dick heel in the Eddie feud and match, screaming at Eddie to die and shit. He is able to work a guy like Rey Mysterio, and have a long, believable main event where Rey gets completely credible near falls. That doesn't happen unless Brock is willing and able to sell just enough for Rey's stuff, knowing exactly how much to give him and when to give it. In short I disagree completely that he's one dimensional, can't sell or doesn't show psychology.

Why wouldn't you? I'm voting for Show.

No Brock?

Cena, AJ, Joe, Henry, Show, Sami, Itami, Orton, Jericho, Sheamus, Undertaker, Hunter, Brock, Cesaro, Dustin. I think that's everybody.

I will say as a random thing, I was goaded into watching Taker vs Giant Gonzalez for some argument years ago, and I was kind of astonished at how good Taker's performance was in it. It's still a shitty match, but Taker clearly had his working boots on and was trying his best to play his part. I mean, we talk about Taker being a stiff in the early years, but when you stand him next to an actual stiff, you can see that Taker was clearly capable of more and his was a conscious choice to work down to the gimmick. He didn't drag Gonzalez to a ***1/2 match, because he was never supposed to do that (and who knows if he could have), but he put in the best possible monster performance in a freakshow match, which was the parameters he was given. Years later, after numerous character changes and the nature of WWE wrestling changing dramatically, he eventually was in a position to do that, and you have him having ***1/2 matches with Festus and Khali and whoever. That's not to say he was as good in 1994 as he was in 2008, like I said I think he's been a better worker in the last decade than he ever was before that. But I think he showed signs of life in the early years, and I certainly don't hold them against him.

Yeah co-signed. 2/3 Falls is so great because it's a special gimmick and a genuine feud ender, but it's not overtly violent in any way, because NXT as a promotion isn't violent in any way. It makes the occasional ladder match come off as incredibly violent in comparison, and it also puts even more focus on the action going on in the ring. In NXT the level of violence and danger is demonstrated by how stiff or light the guys work in the ring. The most violent NXT stuff I can think of - things like Regal/Ohno - were done without gimmicks, just really gritty, nasty wrestling work. Something like Bayley/Sasha didn't escalate the violence by picking up weapons, they did it by having Sasha stomp Bayley's fingers off. It's not just that less is more, but that wrestling is more.

No! What should I watch?

As far as luchadors go I am big on Atlantis. He is just sooooo pretty. It's one of those occasions when pure mechanical talent matters a great deal to me, because his high flying and smoothness in the ring is amazing, I could watch him fly through the air for days. He's everything I want out of a masked tecnico. There are a lot of singles matches I like already - vs Panther, vs Villano III, vs Emilio, vs Fiera, vs Satanico, vs Perrito. I like the goofier higher flying 80s Atlantis, I like the more rounded early 90s Atlantis, and I like old man Atlantis. I should really check out the recent singles matches people are talking about. And I love seeing his name on basically any trios match, because again, there's always a point where he flies majestically through the air and runs rings around the rudos, and he's just so God damn pretty. He'll surely rank and will be one of my highest ranked luchadors.

Reigns has been booked like crap since. Rusev has been booked even worse. They may know how to handle the initial build, but they sure as hell can't sustain it. Even Brock was fucked around with his first year. I don't even mean the Cena loss, which I absolutely praised back then because it was right decision at the time (Brock walked away from his previous run and Cena was the ace, so they weren't about to put their eggs in the Brock basket again right away because that would've been a bad business decision if he had bailed a second time) - I'm referring more to the baffling Triple H series and WM loss. They know how to sustain it. They don't want to sustain it. They were done with Rusev. They decided to make something out of Brock finally and then followed through with it. I don't believe anything in WWE happens by accident other than fan responses. By that logic, WWE hasn't wanted to sustain anything in the last, what, 10 years? They've sustained Cena, Undertaker, HHH and Orton during that time. I do think some of it is incompetence, and I don't think it's a bunch of WWE management sitting around a table plotting about how to ruin careers. I think it's more that HHH has always been hypercritical of other wrestlers and he's made Vince that way over time as well. So now, they see glaring flaws in just about everyone they have on their roster, and they use that to justify not pushing them. I don't buy into the idea that they don't want new stars like some people do. But I do think that they don't want someone like Cesaro or Dolph Ziggler getting over at a main event level because they've convinced themselves that they are undeserving. Pretty much this, and the incompetence comes in when they book someone like say Cesaro or Dolph into a shitty position, or treat them as a total afterthought, or screw up any momentum that they ever do get, or they just get stuck in the midcard abyss like everyone does, which makes Vince point to them and say "see, they aren't over". Like yeah, during the five seconds you booked them competently they were super over, and they lost all their momentum when you screwed it all up, but surely it's just because kids these days can't get themselves over. It's self fulfilling.

A lot of the trios that I watch all blend together, so I can't really point to any specific Panther performances off the top of my head. I just know that after my watching the impression of Panther that I got is that I like him both as a tecnico mat wizard, and as a rudo. As a rudo I find that in singles matches his role is less out-and-out rudo and more a guy who can hang with the tecnico on the mat and then be a base for him as it opens up. More base than rudo, if you will. He's more of a stooge in trios matches, but at the same time his role in them often seems to be a guy who works the mat with a secondary tecnico, as opposed to out-and-out dicking it up or being featured prominently. I don't find his trios work to be a major selling point, but I do enjoy him when I see him in one. In any case, his rudo work (or "work on the rudo side" I guess) sticks out to me a little more. Maybe because I have a hard time getting into matwork, so that side of him appeals to me less than it does to others. I don't know. This is all just my first impression, which is why I posed the question to the class in the first place. It's lucha, I don't know what the hell I'm talking about. To me his major selling point is his big singles matches. Atlantis in 1991 and 1997, Super Astro in 1992, Villano V in 2008...he delivers.

Smackdown during most of the brand split was a better show than any main roster show now, yes.

I'm sorry, but quibbling about his exact state of zombie-ness aside, there's no way Undertaker the character is ANYONE's stooge, let alone a stooge of the heel Authority McMahons. He's a badass and his own man. The only exception from this run has been when someone steals the urn and controls Taker with it. It will take some explaining as to why Undertaker would be fighting for Vince and Steph, if that's what he's really going to do. That's all I'm saying. There is, at this moment, no earthly reason why Taker's character would be a. on the heel side, b. on the side of Vince/Steph, or c. care about the politics of the Authority at all.

You really would.

Yeah as it turns out it might not have been the best idea to do tag teams at the same time. The teams ballot has been largely an afterthought, there are heaps of nominations that don't even have any replies. But hindsight and all that.

Cool thanks for that. I watched it really late at night and couldn't exactly figure out how they got from the three-way to the singles match and how many falls there were. It was also awesome, by the way. I might need to give Dandy another look now that I'm a lot more comfortable with lucha.

American Badass Taker was a normal guy who did politically minded things. Undead Zombie Taker is not. They're two separate characters. There is absolutely nothing about Taker's current character that would make him want to be a pawn for Vince or get involved in the Authority storyline. Especially not on the side of Vince and the heels. It makes no sense.

I was surprised they hadn't already been nominated. I love these guys, they're such a great babyface tag team. They tick all the boxes in that they're good looking blokes who draw a female audience, they have super cool flippydo offense and double teams, they bump their asses off and eat offense and work a hot tag, and they know how to ramp up a finishing stretch. Their match on Impact with Speed Muscle in June 2008 is one of my favourite TV matches ever, just 8 or so minutes of crazy, sprinty balls out fun. I hope everyone has wrestling matches that make them feel like that match makes me feel. They had a similar match with the Bucks to put them over on their TNA debut, and multiple gimmick matches that were basically everything you'd expect them to be, but are no less fun for that. They also confounded expectations when they had an Empty Arena match in November 2010 which is just amazing for showing how brutal and violent two cutesy flippydo teams can be. That match is...unsettling, in a good way. There's also the long feud with Beer Money in 2010, starting at Victory Road, then having a Best of 5 gimmick series ending in that awesome 2/3 Falls match, and a postscript match at Genesis 2011. They're all great tag matches, and they are so good at playing off moves in subsequent matches. There are a lot of good matches over the years besides that - vs Joe/Magnus in 2012, vs Duds in 2008, vs LAX vs Rock N Rave in 2008...I even remember random TV matches with Christian and whoever that were always really good. On top of that, great matches in ROH with the Briscoes, Kings...I'm sure there are more I'm forgetting.

I haven't been thinking much about a tag team list, but I may as well do one. As a first glance I'd vote for these teams off the top of my head, no order yet: Rock N Rolls Rockers Midnight Express (both) Hardyz MNM Kawada & Taue Misawa & Kobashi Demolition Brainbusters The Shield MCMG AMW Toyota & Yamada PG-13 Londrick Young Bucks How many's that? 17? I'll have to think about how to flesh out my ballot if I'm going to put one in I guess.

Can someone explain how the falls worked in this match?

Mark Calloway the human owes his entire career to Vince. The Undertaker the wrestler is a fucking zombie who controls lightning and buries people alive, he owes his career to his God damn self and shouldn't give a single fuck about Vince's parenting problems.

I think you're wsy too fixated on John Stewart, to be honest.

Well I think the explanation is that he simply got better and put out years of good work. He was better in the last decade of his career than he was before, particularly in regards to having a lot of great matches.