fishbaugh

The dark side of wrestling is embodied by Abby and his nasty forehead -- he's one guy I never want to be watching when my wife walks in the room. Like I want to explain blading to her, or see the look on her face as she wonders why she married someone with such a sick hobby. We get the very rare ear-based offense by Colon in the early going, but it s a little slow the first 5-7 minutes. Double juice picks things up, as does the surging crowd, and Hugo starts calling the ref a "damn idiot"! Also love that this match was in T&T, and that they keep bringing it up on commentary. T&T is one of those places I heard about as a kid, and have always wanted to visit as I went through a real big Creole fascination phase. This never approached great, but it was compelling and violent and bloody and tense. Terrible timing on the stoppage hurt it a bit -- Abby was bleeding hard long before Colon was ever busted open, so it felt kind of silly. After match was really great with the T&T wrestlers scraping around ringside and causing the crowd to scatter. Rating: 6

I work with someone whose partner did some training and indy wrestling in Southern California in the mid-2000s. When she found out I was a fan, we started chatting and she told me her partner said the secret to a good match was "lots of nearfalls". This guy never did anything or went anywhere, but that way of thinking does seem to be widespread with those that did. Not that nearfalls can't add drama and excitement and unpredictability to a match, but the idea that their very existence will increase the "quality" of the match is a major disconnect for me. If you need 3 nearfalls to make a good match today, you'll need 4 tomorrow and 5 next year -- where does it stop?

You have every right to not enjoy lucha -- I'm far closer in my views of it to you and Parv than to the hardcores. But I'm also willing to admit that race is a real issue in the world, and that it may play a role in why lucha isn't viewed as accessible while puro is, at least from an American point of view. But I'm also willing to admit that race may -- JUST MAY -- sneak into my thought process. This doesn't feel like a radical position.

The simple racism argument doesn't have much explanatory power because it doesn't predict the things about Mexican culture that are enjoyed by wider American society. I'm a foreigner who's been living in California for about 10 years now. I find that the white people I know love Mexican food (and go out of their way to find 'authentic' Mexican food) but have no love for Mexican music at all. There might be an explanation for both of these things in terms of racism, but the same boilerplate argument of "racism, therefore…" clearly can't explain both opposite opinions about Mexican culture. Of course it isn't that simple -- and I'm guilty of it myself. I'll wait in line with any other waxed bearded, rolled denim and chambray shirted white guy to have a carnitas plate from a food truck in front of the Broad, but if I hear horns and an accordion blaring from a 96 Mazda B-Series, I'll roll my eyes along with everyone else in line. I don't think race is the ONLY issue, but we are all guilty of racial discrimination and to hide from it gets us nowhere. I have Mexican family members and grew up in a community that was at least half Hispanic, and I struggle with the foreign-ness of the culture contstantly. My point is that this is a nuanced and difficult to parse issue, but to those who think they can dismiss the racial element because they are too enlightened to be racist -- check yourself.

I can already see how the above reads like "white guy is pissed that people don't let him get away with saying whatever he wants in every situation", but I really didn't mean it to read that way! It is more than it is exhausting trying to keep up with what the current definition of words are, and where the bleeding edge of topics are at. I am not dismissing the concept of a pansexual -- I'm just asking for a few minutes to process a concept that is entirely foreign to me. And when I don't immediately embrace something, maybe it isn't because I'm full of hate, but more because it is new and I need to fit it into the hundreds of other frameworks I process information through. All that said, get the fuck out of here acting like lucha being from Mexico isn't a factor in why it gets less coverage and discussion. I don't think it is a primary factor, or a conscious factor very often, but it is there. I go to lucha shows in L.A. and I'm normally the only white guy in the audience. Part of that is certainly that lucha is a niche fandom for white guys in the U.S., but part of it is that the show is in Cudahy and that's not a place white guys hang at. This seems self-evident.

It is certainly relevant, and a discussion I'd enjoy following. But it seems doomed to failure, as the average wrestling fan isn't equipped to participate in any meaningful way. Take me for example -- I have some strong feelings on many of the things brought up in posts in this thread and the Military Industrial Suplex threads, but I almost never engage. Why? I lack the knowledge, language, frameworks, etc. to add anything of value to a discussion on cultural imperialism, as long as that discussion is going on between people who have a serious interest (if not an education) in the topic. What benefit is there in adding my half-baked and ignorant of the subject matter opinions to the discussion? Would anyone be blamed for either ignoring me out of hand, or talking down to me that I didn't know what the fuck I was talking about? There is an obvious solution -- inform myself, study up on the subject, seek out conflicting viewpoints, etc. But social justice thought leadership isn't something I have a desire to jump into, so I just keep out and glean what I can from what I do read.

Some indy ran a show in Missoula, MT last year and booked Bret, and the local paper held an interview with him. I was excited to read about his time working Montana in the 70s and early 80s, then they ask him one question about where he worked in Montana and moved on. It is such a pointless question too, as there are only 7 towns in Montana that you'd even consider running a show in. Of course he worked Billings, Butte, and Great Falls, but not Two Dot or Judith Gap or Big Timber! I doubt they ran shows in Claresholm or Cardston in Alberta, but probably ran shows in Lethbridge and Medicine Hat, what with those being the ONLY PLACES ANYONE LIVES! I know that the average reader of the Missoulian.com doesn't care about the history of the Stampede territory in Montana, but it's not like the average reader of the Missoulian.com gives a shit about Bret Hart in the first place, so maybe something interesting could have come of it.

I've been meaning to post about how much I've enjoyed these shows -- I really like the connection to the area you guys have and how that comes through. I didn't even mind the tangent on Canadian football or stories about trampoline wrestling with your buddies, as that is how I remember the wrestling of my youth. Tito Santana is one of my all time favorites, and sure he has amazing matches and all that, but a big part of it was that my best buddy and I would team up as Strike Force and take on other neighborhood kids at the park. One thing I wish I had the time to look into is all these shows you talk about from Montana. I was born in Montana, and lived there again from my early teens until around 30, so I can provide some insight into some of the things you brought up. For example, Butte is famous as being an Irish town (big mining town dating back to the early 1920s or so), and also known back in the 70s as a shit-kicking rough-and-tumble place. An old co-worker of mine played high school football in Great Falls (Air Force town in Montana) and he said that everyone was scared shitless of playing at Butte as the field was all rocky and the kids were brutal -- not above eye gouging, trying to take out your knees, and straight up fist-fighting during games. Another thing that you may find interesting is that a lot of older people I know from Montana still call pro wrestling "stampede wrestling", the same way people like my mom use "WWF" to describe ALL pro wrestling. Keep going with these shows, and more like them under the Titans banner.

I rarely agree with Parv's takes on things, but what is up with the deliberately obtuse opposition to clearly made points?? Are we really arguing that because other people exist in the world with opinions on wrestling, that Dave's influence (the single most influential voice in wrestling criticism) is irrelevant? Jeff Sullivan is an influential baseball analyst, but nobody would be as foolish as to dismiss the influence Bill James has on his writing, right? James didn't invent advanced statistical analysis, but you can't deny that he's the guy who popularized it. I like to think that I come to my opinions on my own, but I'm not so full of myself as to think that I'm beyond influencing. Dave didn't create the language we use to discuss wrestling, but he certainly helped to popularize it and he has influenced us all in one way or another. To deny that he has an impact on the very way we discuss wrestling is to be a ridiculous person.

JDownloader - you can grab entire channels, too. The install doesn't work for me for some reason. Thanks anyway. 4k Video Downloader is what I use -- I think it is free for playlists up to 25 videos or something, but I've been using the paid version for a while as I like the option to subscribe to a channel and have it auto-download for me and such.

I had just started to pull some of these down myself -- thanks!

I'm being purposely flippant (and not insinuating anything about you personally), but isn't the corollary to this that naming your child a gender specific name is damaging in and of itself? And if it is damaging, then shouldn't be take steps to restrict it? Also, how do we deal with unisex names that have gender-specific spellings? Do we choose one spelling and dump the other? Which one do we choose (and for my name, let's choose the masculine spelling as it is on all of my official documents and I don't want to deal with that headache)? Who curates the listing of acceptable names? Honestly, I don't disagree with the idea that we should choose our children's names with extreme care, as I am a firm believer that your name has a real and measurable impact on your life, but I don't see the value in choosing from a small subset of names over just talking to your child about how their identity is their own and letting them know they can always choose a different name if they feel like it.

We can agree on that, and with it, wrap up a discussion that only 2-3 people would even care about!

High on peak but low on output -- sounds a lot like Bret Hart... Honestly though, 'Liquid Swords' is the Magnum vs. Tully of rap albums.

Also, Rick is so obviously Cappadonna.

I just watched the gauntlet this weekend, and it was the inspiration for my post! He at times seemed like such a natural, and at other times seemed lost within the structure of what was being built for him -- it is exactly like Cuban Linx!

We will have to disagree on flow -- I'm partial to U-God or Ghost before Rae on pure flow. Though I do agree with you on lyrics and output! I can only imagine how interesting this discussion is to everyone else in the GWE forum.

Calling Rae an idiot savant isn't really harsh -- you've heard him in interviews, so you know he's kind of Scott Steiner! When he drops something classic it isn't because he has this amazing mind for things, but more because he instinctively gets it, even if he doesn't intellectually get it. Rae has a hell of collection of great tracks, and so does Scott, but I wouldn't put either at the top of their genres. Being a top 100 anything is pretty high praise!

To me, Scott Steiner is the Raekwon of wrestling. He thinks that what he is doing is the greatest shit ever, but I'm not sure that what WE think is great about him is what HE thinks is great about him. Steiner has pulled off some amazing matches, but it is obvious he's just throwing shit out there -- sometimes it lands (Incarcerated Scarfaces), sometimes it doesn't (Wu-Gambinos). He's a dude who rocks chain main headdresses and does crazy athletic spots, but also holds fort in the ring with a gang of ladies talking about his "freaks and peaks". I had him bottom 20, but I think he's Raekwon -- if you think he's Ghost Face, then the #1 ranking makes sense to me.

I was at an indy show at an LAX airport hotel ballroom in 2011, and as the Steiner Brothers were coming to the ring, a fan threw a drink at Scott Steiner, immediately realized what he had done, and tried to run away through the crowd. Steiner pushed into the crowd after him for a second, but then stopped and went to the ring. If he would have caught the guy, I think there'd be two #1 votes for Scott Steiner this time around!

My guys are dropping left and right this afternoon! Dutch Mantell (54) Michael Hayes (58) Ivan Koloff (60) Austin Idol (66) Adrian Adonis (72) Masked Superstar (80) Yoshiaki Yatsu (81) Buddy Landell (85) Mocho Cota (88) Marty Jannetty (89) Bob Armstrong (90) Jeff Hardy (98) Batista (100)

Bob Armstrong is the first from my ballot to show up -- I have to agree with Loss that his role in SMW was a perfect fit, and ultimately is what got him a spot. There is something sublime about a clip-on tie being the line of demarcation between 'I have a job to do, and I'm going to give it my all, even if I don't agree with what I have to do' and 'OH HELL NO, THIS WILL NOT STAND' that is what always brings me back to wrestling.

He made mine too!

The thing that will always stand in my way of being a more active participant in discussions on wrestling analysis is that I've yet to figure out how to fairly adjust my ratings/rankings across places/times/etc. My other love in life is baseball, and long before I was even aware of people like Bill James or Pete Palmer, I was making my own rudimentary and pathetic attempts at "normalizing" baseball players across eras so that I could reasonably compare them independent of when or where they played. Without some framework for normalization, the argument that Honus Wagner is a better player than Barry Larkin is total nonsense -- Honus Wager played against SOME of the best baseball players of his era who happened to be white and based in the middle or eastern portions of the US in a game that was barely formalized when he was a child within portions of the United States, while Barry Larkin was an elite player at the highest levels of a sport with international organizational structures designed to identify and develop the best possible baseball players from around the world from childhood on. Normalization allows me to adjust for this, while still coming the conclusion that Honus is the better player, DESPITE his environment and era. I'm able to do this because baseball isn't an art form, so I have things like statistics based on the millions of plate appearances across dozens of parks and thousands of players seasons to support abstractions such as "wins above replacement" that are context neutral. In wrestling, I'm stuck with my FEELINGS based heavily on little beyond context, and I'll never be fully comfortable with that as the fundamental basis for my analysis. I can't divorce what I LIKE from what is the most EFFECTIVE like I can do in sports, and for some reason that eats at me. On my ballot I had Kawada at #2, and if that was a ranking of all time great shortstops I could back it up with something more concrete than "he has lots of great matches and also I like his toothless facial expressions and also he staggers around when selling and I think that is how I would sell if I was a wrestler". Any attempt, however sincere, to try and remove CONTEXT and PREFERENCE from wrestling analysis will always be critically flawed in my eyes, and why I ultimately had to throw my hands up and put Randy Savage in my top 10 despite not being able to back up that vote with anything more substantial than "dude had sick robes and makes me care about what I'm watching". I've put in the hours over the years to watch a lot of eras/promotions/workers, but I don't feel like I am capable of really going any deeper than "it worked for me" or "that was kind of boring" when it comes to my wrestling analysis. I'm aware of the capacity in others to divorce themselves of their preferences when making critical judgments of an art form, but I feel like it is something that will always be beyond me. What bugs me even more is that I'm not sure that TRYING to divorce my preferences from my analysis is worth anything to me, beyond feeling proud of myself that I can appreciate something I find boring, but still wishing I had the capability to do so! On the list of things I should feel ashamed about in my life, a flippant discounting of 2003 RoH really shouldn't be causing me this level of consternation!