MoS

Gotta say, I have enjoyed strobogo's dive into 1995 and 1996 WCW Babyface Hulk Hogan. I remembered it being dull and boring, but I had forgotten just how self-indulgent and insecure that run was. If Steve Austin had cut the Austin 3:16 promo in WCW in that environment, Hogan would have been on TV the very next day, saying 'ass' 50 times in 5 minutes and making zingers about every Bible phrase he could think of

The Hart family is genuinely one of the most fucked-up families the world has ever seen, and anyone who tries to justify or explain away Stu's actions as just a rough but kind man looking out for his kids needs to fuck all the way off. It is an absolute wonder that Owen was such a sweetheart, and that he found a really sweet girl who put up with his family for as long as she did

The consensus best WWF wrestler of the 90s against the consensus best WWE wrestler of the 2010s. Both known for being a purist's delight, while also being top stars who were never fully embraced by the WWF/WWE machine. Who was better? I think it's Bryan. If anyone is interested, I actually ran this poll in the main forum a few months ago, and laid down my arguments for why I think Bryan is better. It would be nice if a lot of extremely knowledgeable posters posting in the GWE thread would weigh in on this. I laid down my arguments in this thread - I think it remains a fair comparison and it would be interesting to listen to you guys weigh in on this

People keep claiming that Bret added "little touches" to all his matches that made them so much more realistic or whatever, and the only example they ever give is that Hakushi moonsault. Which would be great if that was the only dive Bret ever took, or if it played any role in the finish, but that's the extent to which this claim is actually substantiated. There were plenty of little cool moments sprinkled throughout Flair's matches too, but because they usually also include really epic big moments, no one really talks about them.

My point was to defend working on "good instincts" without "putting too much thought" into matches. Even if that makes you look "stupid" somehow. Also let's not act like Bret did not have stock bumps and spots which he shoehorned in every match. Anything cool he did would become a regular feature of all his matches going forward

I don't remember if he bled or not, but there are a couple of excellent brawls with Chavo Guerrero in 2010 apart from the JBL brawls of 2006, where he is excellent at showing hatred and just wants to hurt the opponent.

Agreed with Grimmas. Vader is amazing. He had excellent matches in so many different promotions. But Rey did not just have excellent matches in many different promotions; he had such great matches, and got over so great, he basically changed their booking philosophy on how to book small guys, even if they had to be dragged kicking and screaming into doing it. It is 2021 and 30 years after he debuted, the man is going to headline a PPV again. I think Rey's transitions are better than Vader, and it is a particularly strong point of his. His selling is tremendous, and his offence is really nifty. The 619 would have been a terrible spot for any other wrestler, but Rey makes it work. He is great at tags and trios, amazing at incorporating storylines into his matches, and while Vader is extremely versatile himself, Rey's versatility is truly staggering. He can do spotfests, he can do serious world title matches, he can do hate-filled bloody brawls. Just a wrestling genius.

Who cares how much thought Flair put into his matches, if the end result was great? Artistic intention is always a slippery slope. I see no reason why an instinctive performer is superior to a cerebral performer. Hell, some of my biggest gripes with modern wrestling is precisely because they put too much thought into their matches. It loses its sense of organic nature. Like Meltzer the other day was making a bullshit point about the number of nearfalls in Flair-Steamboat matches and how there were way more nearfalls there than in the Okada-Omega matches. It completely ignored the fact that only only is every pinfall attempt most certainly not a nearfall, the Okada-Omega matches probably had a lot more thought into the nature and kind of nearfalls, while Flair and Steamboat just..wrestled, tried to win in kayfabe, and let the product speak for itself. One of the biggest reasons I have fallen in love with Flair again in the last 5 years is precisely that feeling of organic spontaneity present in most Flair matches. I also have no idea how to respond to an argument about how Flair did not make you care about his matches, which was apparently just for show. Or the point about Bret having less boring 60-minute draws, when the most high-profile 60-min match Bret ever had was a boring snoozefest. Ironically, the best 60-min match Bret has is with....Ric Flair. Just amazing how Flair is the common denominator for SO MUCH of wrestling greatness, eh?

I actually find it interesting that there are basically no WWE biopics or features on Vince Sr. I get that he ran things a long time ago and most current fans were not even born then, but still. Surely they can do that instead of like the 50th DVD about Montreal or Austin v. McMahon?

PWO IS BACK, BAY BAY! Flair for me. Much longer career, so many more moments of greatness in basically every context, in multiple promotions, against so many different wrestlers

I think the last time an "era" really ended was what, Cena winning the US title? It signalled the end of Cena's run as the ace and shifted him to the midcard. Since then, it's basically been the same era. Hell, even the "PG Era" and "Reality Era" were basically the same. I totally understand the frustration about naming every 5-year period an era. It's basically working backwards: we decide that a certain time period will be a new era, and then find reasons to justify it, as well as to name the actual era. For me, eras should be called such only if it represents a complete break from the past. "Rock and Wrestling Era", "Attitude Era" and "Uber-corporate PG Era" are the only three proper WWF/WWE eras I can think of using that definition

Seriously though, this was an excellent Dynamite episode. Much better than the last two weeks, even the last 3-4 weeks. It helped that all the stupid stuff was done with in the first 30 minutes

They showed us HOOK's back but they did not show us HOOK's face. Unforgivable. Coach Tony K will burn in hell

As massive as Cage is, I think Hobbs is even bigger. He is not as built, but I think he is naturally bigger and even stronger than Cage.

I love Dr. Baker's promos, and I love how Rebel is the perfect sidekick for her

Kenny Omega does talk way too much. Here for this realistic storytelling

That Darby-Sting segment was intriguing. I think Sting has increased Darby's drawing power, but the partnership has run its course and it's time for Darby to go back to being a loner

This Pinnacle segment is the first truly great segment from AEW post Double or Nothing. Ofc it is interrupted by Jericho playing out his Attitude Era fantasies. At least I get to see Santana in his element

The FTR boys cutting some fiery promos here

The Good Brothers are absolute goofs. Every time they show up, Dynamite feels like a minor-league show. OTOH, that dive by Eddie Kingston hahahahahaha. That ruled

Sorry, but QT is the face here. He is not saying anything wrong

Starting the show with Matt Hardy's stupid face, great way to not make me care

I don't watch, so can someone explain to me why Rollins has started dressing like a pimp

Not going to lie, I am getting really tired by these Friday night episodes

Staggering level of deluded "Both sides bad, I, an intellectual, am the only one good" energy here. Does he also talk about how Black History Month is racist cuz if he proposed a White History Month, he would be criticised?