Jimmy Redman

They had that cage matcb, and Foley used barbwire in all his major hardcore matches. I think in that era (early 2000s) they may have considered it since they came pretty close and weren't squeamish about using it in general. But in the PG era, no way on earth.

Sheamus vs Morrison from TLC 2010 is what you're looking for in terms of a "leg work" ladder match. It's great shit. Edit: Just read the post properly...I don't know how much leg work, if any, was done BEFORE the ladders.

Wasn't it Linda who was the CEO?

Anyone can nominate anyone as long as you can point to, link to or write three reviews of their matches (see above posts for egs). Any tag team combo can be nominated. There's a list of all nominees with links to their threads at the top of the Nominees folder.

"It sucked apart from the top star, top heel, booking, announcing and all the talented guys who worked there" is a hell of a sentence.

If you care about things like historical significance they're not going to get very far. But in other areas they score high. They were one of the best teams in modern WWE at actually being a full-time team - matching gear, the entrance, the double team moves, the style. It's a minor thing but it does make a team stand out in this day and age. They knew who they were and they wrestled like it - high energy, lots of spots, lots of getting their ass kicked by opponents. Textbook blowjobs. Basically everything from their 2006-07 run worked. The initial MNM feud when they first came in is something I just love so much: the new face team comes in, goes on a roll against the champs, and then wins the belts. Judgment Day 2006 is the match to watch. They had a few SD matches with Regal and Taylor which involve Regal and Taylor beating the shit out of them, if you're into that. There's the 4-way ladder match at Armageddon 2006, of course. If you want, check out their match with Idol Stevens (the future Damien Sandow) and KC James at No Mercy 2006. It's not a blowaway awesome match or anything, just a good, solid PPV defense. But I think it just shows how Londrick were mature enough as a tag team at that point to take two random OVW guys and get that kind of performance out of them. I also can't overstate just how effective JBL was at getting them over on commentary. First commentary run JBL was a completely different guy and he was a real asset to key SD midcard acts at that time. It's easy to say "oh they had a SD title run, who cares?", but JBL and their booking on SD made them seem like the greatest, most exciting team in the world.

That Joe/Brown/Rhyno match is like the best random TNA match ever. I remember seeing the Meltzer rating for it and thinking that it sounded so stupidly high that I had to see for myself, so I watched it and like damn, that match is like three whole bucketfuls of fun. Everyone should know about that match.

A search for variety should probably begin with the Steen feud in 2010, which was a blood feud filled with brawls and garbage matches.

In addition there's that awesome tag title match they had with WGTT at I think Vengeance 2003.

This to me is the main reason why I don't feel it's necessary to do it every year. The 2016 poll is going to look vastly different to the 2006 poll in any number of ways. Different people will be voting or not voting, and the same people will have watched more stuff and developed new opinions. It's a stark, visible "snapshot", as we've come to call it, of what we're all thinking "now", as opposed to "ten years ago". And I use those last two quotes deliberately because the 2006 poll wasn't really just a poll on how people felt in March 2006 (or whenever exactly they did the poll in 2006) but it was how people felt about their cumulative wrestling watching up until that point. And this poll isn't just what people happen to feel in March 2016, but it will be how their feelings have cumulatively changed since March 2006 (or for new voters, their cumulative wrestling watching up until that point). It's not just a date in time but a period of time that they represent. The 2006 poll reflects the feelings and biases and fashions of that mid-2000s period, the same way this poll will reflect our current mid-2010s fashions. If we do another poll in 2017 will it be fundamentally different to the 2016 one? I doubt it. Individual voters will watch more stuff and change their ballots a bit, people will drop in and out, but largely it won't change as drastically as between 2006-2016. So what, really, is this "snapshot" of 2017 going to say? Much the same thing as the 2016 one did, only the 2016 one was researched and participated in so much more intensely - and there's another point. I don't see how people are going to put THIS much effort into their ballot every year. And as has been said over and over, the journey for this thing is arguably more important than the destination. Everyone has been scrambling for what will be over 18 months to study for this poll. We can't do this over and over again every year. So yearly polls will only quicken, and thus lessen, the process of researching and watching that goes into making a ballot. And this conversation is coming off the back of people seemingly uncomfortable with people's level of commitment and research as is! This is a weird analogy, but this reminds me of that TV doco where they have a group of people they're studying, and they catch up with them every ten years - when they're 20 years old, 30, 40, 50, etc., and see what they've been doing and how their lives have changed. And it's the same kind of thing, the key is that after a period of ten years you can look back and see how wildly some things have changed in that time, and all the living that went into getting you from A to B, even if it isn't apparently on a daily, or even yearly, basis. If you examine them every year, you lose that perspective. To me it's the same kind of thing here. Doing a poll every year just lessens the impact the ten yearly polls have. You'll lose those big sweeping changes, those shifts in philosophy, those trends, because it's a lot harder to see them when you're looking in the mirror every morning. I think yearly changes would only be noticeable and relevant on a personal level. As you say it would basically be a reflection of what you've been watching in the last year. And hell if you want to sit down and write out your GOAT list every year, nobody is stopping you, and I'm sure people would be interested in seeing it, myself included. But I don't think that calls for a collective vote every year.

Treating their lists in what manner exactly? Having different opinions to yours? Jesus Christ.

When the hell did James Storm leave TNA? Him being the latest wonderfully random name to turn up in NXT got a legit double take from me, I had no idea he'd escaped the asylum. Pun intended.

Keep the short match recs coming peeps. I'm keen to watch some stuff but my attention span for wrestling has never been worse, so this thread and cheapshot's playlist has been a Godsend.

This. Plus there's a Kanemoto match from 2010. Essentially Marufuji works when someone is working overtime to reign his shit in or beat the shit out of him. Or both.

Angle vs Henry at Royal Rumble 2006 may be the only legitimate sub-10 min WWE PPV main event of the modern era. EDIT: Lied, there's also Cena vs Khali at Judgment Day 2007.

I think it means in cases where a guy's talent level is seen as less than his output (e.g. a guy like Edge who was in a bunch of great matches helped by gimmicks and what not) or more than his output (e.g. a guy like Regal who is great but hasn't always had the opportunity to show it).

My thing is that Cena is a known workaholic, to the point of obsessiveness, coming back early from injuries and working hurt to do so. It's pretty uncharacteristic for him to voluntarily take time off, so something pretty significant must be going on.

II don't remember if this is the same one, but DDT had an invisible wrestler. Knowing DDT he probably held a championship at some point. On a similar note, I'm still pretty enamoured with YOSHIHIKO. Him vs Ibushi is one of my favourite matches.

Of course, but that's also exactly the reason why "he should ditch the silly gimmick and get a better push" is the absolute last thing that needs to happen.

I'm with you there on principle, I'm just not sure that Bo Dallas is the right posterboy for that particular argument, since he was pretty rubbish pre-ridiculous gimmick and he's one of the last guys who should be moved up the card.

Did you actually watch the guy pre-Bolieve gimmick? Because frankly he was rubbish and this gimmick was an absolute miracle and saved him as a performer, although obviously it was done a million times better in NXT than on the main roster.

Have you watched the Last Man Standing match? I remember hating it on one rewatch and loving it the next. Right now I think it's a great example of an all-out, bomb throwing war that goes overboard but in a cool, believable way. Interested to see how you'd compare it to the others.

When Asuka got kicked out I was all in waiting for her to turn around and beat the shit out of them, but then she walked away and smiled back at them and that was about fifty times cooler because that was badass and creepy as fuck and now can't wait for her to not only beat the shit out of them but kill them dead and eat their insides. That was "Kharma stares at Michelle McCool" levels of making an immediate statement that you're going to be racking up a body count.

a) Men aren't the only people who play video games. And not all men would refuse to play as a woman. b. It is also interesting insofar as how they are treated behind the scenes. Video game appearances are worth a lot of money to a wrestler (especially to women who are already paid far less than the men), and this is a medium where the girls have always been shafted. Clearly this practice isn't ending any time soon.

Trish held the belt for over a year between Jan 2005 and April 2006. Probs about 450 days.