Migs

Cringe at how well it holds up because probably not well at all. I would assume that's a pretty bad offender in terms of the flippy offense with no-selling. But this was a famous, must-see match in 2001. Different times.

Some northeast indy stuff that sticks out in my memory: ICW Low Ki v. Jerry Lynn - 8/29/02 USA Pro Low Ki v. Homicide - 1/11/02 Balls Mahoney v. Xavier - 1/11/02

Working through a lot of 2001 WWF recently. Austin-HHH 3 Stages of Hell is an obvious one, but wanted to note that it totally holds up on re-watch. The Shane-Angle match from King of the Ring was mentioned, but not Austin-Benoit-Jericho, which was also really good. The whole Jericho/Benoit team run from May-June is great, including the TLC match and their title defenses. Austin-Angle from Summerslam is off the charts fantastic. I'm not sure how much of the RVD stuff needs to be on there, but the way the pops for him build rapidly is something to behold. The style forced him to work a better pace than in ECW with less stalling and it really helps the matches. Possibly both of his PPV matches with Jeff Hardy should be on there (Invasion and Summerslam). They're definitely interesting time capsules for a style that was really prevalent on the indies at the time.

I still have on VHS comps that a guy on DVDVR (Wes, I believe) did of the northeast indy scene. There's like 8 of them, 8 hours each, covering up to... maybe 2003? The one I'd add for sure to that list is Low Ki v. Christopher Daniels, ECWA, 11/3/01. Terrific match. Red and Low Ki also had a good one for UCW on 8/25/01. That CZW six-man is a must, if only because it was one of the most pimped matches at the time and really made the reps of all six guys. I sort of cringe as to how well that one probably holds up.

This. There was a real great energy to those initial Piper-Hogan confrontations, but as usual WCW pissed it away with their promotion. The main event of Starrcade suddenly being a non-title match for unclear reasons, then dragging out the feud when there was nowhere for the matches to go... just a poor use of resources. But there's no fun in rehashing why WCW shot itself in the foot for years. Just worth remembering that Piper was a hot act at least as late as '96.

As an addendum to having watched a ton of Midnight Express lately, I checked out the RF Condrey/Eaton shoot. Bobby barely but talks, but Dennis comes across as an interesting dude. Typical RF overly facile shoot, though. Dennis really needed to be pushed to get out some more stories... felt like there were some good ones lurking.

Stumbled on some of this recently and it was great. Really great at getting over the psychology of the match and the internal logic. An extended run with him and Gorilla could have been fun.

The issue with those Hart split ups was that the Neidhart singles matches were usually terrible. There's a good Bret-Brunzell match from Maple Leaf Gardens in '86.

He's an average stylist at best. The idea he's writing essays "worthy of New York Magazine" is only true of the version of New York Magazine that includes the likes of Will Leitch. I suspect he's the beneficiary of the typical incestuous New York literary arrangement. Works for a publisher; given freelance work by editors who want to write for that publisher. Wrestling needs more writers like him, who at least attempt to break down what they're seeing and interpret it, as opposed to people simply recapping shows. It's the direction of television criticism as well. And good TV critics write for New York Magazine (specifically Matt Zoller Seitz). I think it's fair to criticize when you think he's overreaching for deeper meaning, but he's certainly writing in the style of our important TV critics.

This reminds me of the days I spent writing rule sets for alternate universes played out on TNM, with the cards written up and distributed via an e-mail list. Great times. Apparently TNM still exists... could be super entertaining to plug the cards in and see what ratings they get (recognizing that ratings on TNM were very late 90s smark-y).

I have pre ordered the book and will gladly offer thoughts when I get to it. Much like Simmons, some of what he writes is pure bullshit but its usually readable and entertaining. And there's nothing wrong with that. Style can get you far. Heck, lots of people love Malcolm Gladwell and he basically fakes analysis with a bunch of examples... but he does it so well you can still enjoy reading it.

Relevant new post from Scott: http://www.rspwfaq.net/2013/10/the-only-be...at-matters.html Question: the only Benoit question that matters Scott, I've been reading your work for more than 15 years - frightening. I wanted to ask you something that might be a little touchy feely for your tastes, but I'm hoping you'll give it a thought. Though I'm a fan of your work and I wouldn't ask you to change your style for anything, I can say that you will hide behind your intellect and sarcasm when a question has the chance to hit a nerve. I'm asking you to just be honest. One of the reasons I gravitated toward your work back in the late 90s was your admiration for my favorite wrestler, Chris Benoit. There were a lot of guys on the internet who championed his ringwork, but you were a better writer, and a lot of the times your rants would seem to crystalize bits of thoughts from my head into something coherent in print about Benoit. You saw him for what he was in his strengths and weaknesses - a guy who, in my opinion, is the greatest ring worker to wrestle in North America (Shawn is an amazing entertainer, but you believed Benoit was kicking the crap out of people and getting the crap kicked out of him) but also rather out of his element in the modern era of angles, mic work, and being an accessible personality to put on t-shirts and the like. No, I'm not a delusional fan ala "Stan" of Eminem's song, but as he went along his career, I oddly felt like I'd experience his journey along with you, from all of the brilliance amidst the shit in WCW through surreal highs (the IC title win at Wrestlemania 2000, for example) through unbelievable matches (Rumble 2003 vs Angle) through periods where he was just kind of there (most of 2003 after the Rumble) through the pinnacle at WM 20 (which I consider a perfect match, even from an objective standpoint) and the reasonable success he had from 2005 on. So now we're six years removed from the tragedy, and I'll still watch Benoit matches, enjoying them more than most any other match I'll watch and wondering the whole time if I was always watching a monster in plain sight. Whatever the horrible chain of events that led to Benoit becoming a man who murdered his family, I'm still left just haunted by the thing. It goes beyond the "rational" stance that you shouldn't have heroes because they can only let you down. Fuck heroes, I just want to be able to look at a guy whose work I like and know he isn't the devil incarnate. I think about how when I'm hanging out with my 10 year old nephew and we watch some wrestling on YouTube, the one wrestler I'd want to show him to show him how awesome wrestling can be is Benoit - and yet I haven't, for several reasons. I don't need you to solve my dilemma over it, because I am (basically) an adult and can deal. But I want to know, aside from humor skirting bad taste (not a judgment, I'd think you'd agree), you deal with that - the guy you admired as a worker coming to an end like that. How DID you feel when you heard the news? I'd be grateful to hear your take. Jesse Answer: I don't particularly seek out Benoit matches anymore, but I'm fine watching them now. I think there's a disconnect where I don't really associate the person who did the horrible things with the person in the ring, mostly because everything suggests that he really did become a different person in those last days. That being said, I don't really enjoy watching his matches anymore either, and I couldn't recommend using him as an example of in-ring greatness at this point. Frankly I don't know if anyone ever came to terms 100% with what he did, because it was just so hugely monstrous.

New one, although there's not much to breakdown here. http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/969340...d-gratification

In 1999? Just six weeks? Presumed it was longer for some reason.

What time period was Jimmy Hart booking Saturday Night? People seem to dig that and I'd like to check it out.

There needs to be a wrestling mockumentary with this kind of thing as the central storyline. There's something so deliciously absurd about changing all your friends, changing the way you wrestle, and even changing where you dress out, all because your manager turned on you or your tag team partner accidentally hit you with a foreign object. This was something I always liked about ECW. They tended to be very good about respecting the history of the characters. If two people who used to be enemies found themselves on the same side, there was always discussion of whether they could get along, trust each other, etc. It added depth to the storytelling and a sense of realism.

This could be interesting. Really enjoyed Justin on Art of Wrestling, and obviously this was an interesting year.

Oh geez, wait until you get to 1999 or so. The RVD TV title defenses against random dudes are long and unbearable.

Some people seem to like the matches with Steamboat, but I haven't seen them in a while. Are they just all Steamboat? Not that that would be surprising.

This is one where the reactions are so overwhelming that its hard not to enjoy it, because a gigantic crowd is enjoying it so much.

I had Edge-HHH around ***1/2 - a bit disappointing, actually. Felt like that match should have gone off a bit better. I was actually there for that one, and it just... it didn't have the big match feel when it seemed like it needed to. Maybe that's a strike against Edge. I think those Undertaker matches are actually a bit underrated because of how many they did - that they were able to keep that feud fresh for that long was amazing, honestly. The payoff with the jilted Vickie bringing back Undertaker for a Hell in a Cell match was hot and a really satisfying payoff to a long angle. Felt like a very WWE version of a Memphis payoff.

I will say that I have watched that Rockers-Rougeaus match multiple times... it just doesn't do it for me. In trying to self analyze, I think two things really hinder my enjoyment: 1) The Length The thing lasts, what, 20-25 minutes? And it never really pushes the pace, or uses the slow build to get to a more fun finish. If you're going that long, I think it needs to build into a higher level of excitement at the end than this match gets to. It's all prelude, and it's A LOT of prelude. I know someone's going to come back and tell me that they love the length, and that it gives it time to develop. I just don't see what it develops into. 2) The Rockers' other matches I might have gotten a chuckle out of this match if the Rougeaus were doing a version of it with the Bushwackers. But what I want from the Rockers are those high spots, the athleticism. I know they are capable of something more exciting, so when they deliver me that match... I'm not feeling it. There are certainly times when wrestlers confound your expectations for them and it works in a positive way, but this isn't one of them.