stomperspc

I thought Night #1 was really good. I struggle to sit through any full show these days without a break or getting distracted for a couple of matches, nonetheless a show that starts in the middle of the night. The fact that this three hour show flew by and kept me engaged the entire time is as big of a compliment as I can give. I thought it was paced very well, had a lot of variety, and there was very good action throughout. Styles/Okada was the only match I thought was "great" but I didn't think anything was bad and the second half was a ton of fun. Average or bad New Japan shows can be a bit monotonous but this show didn't have that problem, particularly the second half. Nakamura/Shibata had a lot I liked and some parts that I didn't, but there was definitely more good than bad. Styles was really great in the main event versus Okada, which on first view I liked as much as any New Japan match this year. Just finished watching Night #2 on demand. Great crowd and a fun, easy to watch show. Nakamura/Davey Boy Smith Jr. was my favorite match (second best match of the tournament so far) and the best Davey Boy New Japan performance this year. He's not a top level guy by any means, but I am continually baffled why Smith doesn't get more work in the US. He has some name value, a good look, and can work a few different styles well. Yano/Styles was fun but I am not sure I get the comparison to 2000-era Styles indy matches. I watched a lot of 2000 and 2001 Styles indie matches in the past year when re-watching the 2000 decade in US indies. 2000 A.J. Styles would have tried to force all of his stuff in even if Yano couldn't take it or if it just didn't fit into the match. In this match, he dropped a lot of his usual stuff and worked the match in the way to get the most out of Yano. He's done a good job of that since leaving TNA. 2014 Styles is a lot more mature of a wrestler in terms of knowing how to work the right match with the right opponent than he has been any other time in his career. As for the staleness/weakness of the roster comments, like others have said in general I am not too high on a lot of guys on the roster. Before the tournament started I would have said I had little interest in any Tenzan, Kojima, Yano, Benjamin, Yujio, Archer or Karl Anderson singles matches but at least two days in, I have enjoyed pretty much everyone. Naito got a good little match out of Archer today. Tenzan and Kojima have had really smart, veteran matches. Benjamin still isn't any good, but I haven't hated his matches. Yujiro/Naito was fine on Day #1. I agree that it is not the most exciting G1 roster in history, but so far I think everyone has delivered rather well. Very excited for the rest of the tournament.

Right. We are talking about six months of work. Not many have as many high quality matches in a short period of time as Bray does. I don't think Bray is a top flight worker at this stage in his career but he has been very good at times this year, with several well (or very well) received matches to show for it. On a half-year list, that is more than enough to at least be considered. I agree that if Bray were booked differently this year, his bad moments might have far outweighed the good but they didn't. These list exercises would be rather pointless if we just ranked guys based on perceived talent rather than actual output.

From this week's Observer. God, let this get off the ground. Seriously. When I read that blurb in the Observer on Wednesday I hurried over to their website hoping they had some match footage or maybe even full matches, but nothing. Definitely a style that needs to make a comeback and could use a good "home" like this (Santino and Ishikawa are two pretty great guys to help cultivate that style given their respective backgrounds).

Yea, I agree with Dylan about Hechicero as a rudo in CMLL. Especially early on his CMLL run (before En Busca) I thought he really stood out in trios in terms of having this strong presence as a rudo. He jawed with the crowd, cheated, toyed around a bit with his opponents, ect. I do think there were times during the tournament where he sort of downplayed the rudo act in favor of wrestling straight up, but I never through the matches suffered from a structural standpoint as a result. Well, for starters I am not sure that I look for anything all that particular or really even delineate to that level. In discussing which wrestlers have had the best year (or six months in this case), I think about the wrestlers who have had the most matches (in total and percentage wise) that I have really enjoyed. Not that is necessarily relevant to any of the guys we are currently discussing, but I likely would not consider someone a top tier wrestler for the year if he had only one or two great matches surrounded by a lot of mediocrity (or worse). Likewise, a wrestler with only a few available matches on the year (even if they are all generally good) would not be likely to stick out to me as a top tier wrestler. In terms of stylistic preferences, in general I tend to prefer matches that lay some sort of foundation at the beginning through mat work, holds, or feel-out spots. That can be anything from five minutes of mat work with little to no separation between the wrestlers to a few minutes of holds, arm drags, headlocks, ect. that set a ton before moving onto the body of the match. I like matches (and therefore wrestlers that do this) that build in a very structured, step by step manner. I place a big emphasis (maybe too big) on the action escalating and building in a very linear and logical way. Wrestlers that don't know when to end a match irritate me a lot. It is frustrating watching a match that builds well (or at least okay), hits a relative high point, and then goes on for five more minutes completely killing the flow that the match had going. Overkill at the end of matches is my biggest pet peeve. While I wouldn't consider myself a "moves guy" at all, a wrestler or a match is a lot more likely to stick out for me if there is something moves wise (be it a cool submission, an exciting sequence, a real executed spot, or whatever) that stands out. I'm probably missing stuff but that's in general what makes a wrestler/match stick out to me as something good. Like I think I have conveyed, there is not l one thing or even a few things I look for. Here are four guys that have had a strong enough half-year for me that I could see them being amongst my favorite come year-end (assuming they keep the same pace or pick it up). I don't think any one of these guys sticks out to me for the exact same reasons: Virus - I don't think I have seen a bad Virus performance this year in either lightning matches, three fall singles matches, or trios. His smoothness in the ring, excellent mat work, and ability to rarely (if ever) fall into any sort of discernible pattern make him stand out. He has had two of my favorite singles matches of the year, carrying lesser workers due to those previously listed qualities. He has both quantity and quality on his match resume. Daniel Bryan - Bryan will likely fall due to inactivity, but even more so than Virus he is a wrestler I am rarely disappointed with. He has my two favorite US matches of the year (versus Triple at Mania and versus Bray Wyatt at the Rumble). Great selling and bumping, perfect timing on comebacks, great underdog baby face offense, and the ability to structure matches around his opponents limitations are all strong qualities of Bryan's in 2014. Shinsuke Nakamura - Nakamura hasn't had the highs in 2014 of Bryan (or Virus) but he has been incredibly consistent. I am not a huge Tanahashi fan (although I think he tends to get underrated as much as he gets overrated) but I thought his three match series with Nakamura was overall enjoyable in large part to what Nakamura brought to those matches. I thought there 4/6 match was pretty close to reaching that "match of the year candidate" level. His Fale matches were totally different because they had to be and both worked well. I haven't always thought this about him, but he has been rather adaptive in 2014 with good matches against guys of all different styles like Tanahashi, Fale, Rush, Davey Boy Smith Jr., ect. Again, he's just another guy whose matches I have looked forward to the entire six months because they rarely disappoint. Not the great fundamental wrestler that Virus and Bryan are, but in 2014 he has done a great job in (far more often than not) having good matches versus different types of opponents. Negro Casas - Casas has lost a step or two but he is so much fun to watch in the ring. He can do truly entertaining comedy when needed (I'll never tire of watching him gleefully skip in the ring) but at the same time can work a totally convincing and hate-filled brawl with someone like Rush when necessary. Like Nakamura, precision and crispness aren't exactly positive attributes of his in 2014 (though those things are not detriments either) but overall he has done a very good job working a variety of roles with a variety of opponents and almost always being entertaining. He has several singles matches I really enjoyed and while I haven't seen all of his 2014 trios work, he has rarely looked less than "good" in what I have seen. He has a 2014 resume built off of "good" quantity. So there you go. Not sure if that helps. FWIW, I would rate Hechicero pretty highly (in general, I am not a big list guy). Also to be fair, I should mention I have not watched the En Busca finals yet because I have a couple of tournament matches left to watch before I get to that. He just hasn't (yet at least) had a real standout match or two nor does his body of work stick out to me as strong enough to overcome that. If pressed, I would have him around #10 give or take, so I don't think we are totally far apart on Hechicero.

Good topic. I've made it a point to watch as much 2014 wrestling as possible so this right up my alley. The Rey de Reyes four way that Chessman was involved in (versus La Parka, Blue Demon Jr. & La Parka Negra) was the best of the four ways this year although admittedly that is probably not saying a ton. He did the spear through the ropes spot (that Big E. does now) which I love regardless of who does it. I thought he has been fun in much of his trios work this year but nothing that really sticks out. I liked the Villano IV match (although not as much as something). Chessman would fall outside of my top 50 but I can see how he could sneak in to the Top 50 particularly if you are looking for a AAA guy to add (though Penatgon Jr. has had a better year I think). Rollins would be much higher for me (top 10). I think he was the key to making the babyface version of The Shield work and has made a smooth transition to singles heel. Akebono was having a very good year before hitting the disabled list and I’d probably have him higher. He is definitely top 50 now although I imagine he’ll fall by the end of the year due to inactivity. Zack Sabre Jr. has been so hit or miss for me in 2014. I really liked the Prince Devitt match from Progress. It was a rare match that felt like a huge deal to its target audience (which I am not really part of) and not only delivered for them but came across in general as a big deal. However, I was disappointed in Sabre's matches versus Tommy End & Big Van Walter from wXw in January considering I like all of those guys. He and Ogawa’s title defense versus Asahi and Toni (K-DOJO) was a very fun junior tag match. #46 feels like an okay spot for him although I might have him a bit out of my top 50. I don’t see the matches for Ziggler this year that make him a top 50 guy. Not to speak for Bill, but my case for Adam Cole being a top 50 wrestler thus far centers on the fact that (although not perfect in this regard) he was able to put together a very good ROH title reign while resisting the temptation to go into the "overkill mode" in his matches that plagues so many indie matches. Here’s a guy who has been cast as champion in the promotion that has historically been the “workrate promotion” (don’t like that term but couldn’t think of a better description) and rather than feel the need to go all out for every main event, he has actually toned down his work effectively. He still has some late match issues with doing too much, but the openings and bodies of his matches have generally been well executed. Really liked the Hero Anniversary show match (at least until the ending), the tag against the Briscoes from March (w/ Bennett), and thought the Liger match (at least live) was the best match on the NYC ROH/NJPW show. Agreed that Hechicero is a bit lower here than I would have him, but I am not sure he has done enough in 2014 to consider him as the best worker in the world. There is nothing wrong with a bunch of good lightning matches and some fine performances in multi-man matches but I am not sure that is really #1 or even top 10 resume stuff. That's largely nitpicking though since what he has done has been overall excellent. I agree with Dylan on Henry. He just hasn’t done much at all this year. Escorpion versus Atlantis from Puebla last month was one of favorite non-Virus singles matches from CMLL this year. It isn’t great, but it is a very even match (in terms of both guys contributing) and the first fall has a lot of great mat work. Steen would be outside my top 50. I get why people like him and the more I hear him talk about wrestling, the more I want to like him but his matches are still too much for me. Homna has had a strong year. Hashimoto does nothing for me. His tag team with Daichi is okay but they aren’t a team I seek out. I thought he was completely unmemorable in his wXw matches from January. Volador would probably be in my top 50. When he wants to be, he is still one of the more spectacular spot-for-spot high flyers in the world. His matches against Mascara Dorada (January in NJPW) and La Sombra (from June) are examples of that. His singles matches versus Averno and Casas from January were also worth watching. I wish Tyson Kidd had more exposure because he has been great in NXT lately although probably not enough of a resume to be a “top 50 guy”. Agree with Styles and Cena being included (though both would probably be a bitter higher for me). I don’t think I would include the other guys on there on my list. Christian hasn’t done much at all this year. Averno works well with Mistico but he didn’t do a lot in CMLL this year before making the jump (really just the previously mentioned “okay” match versus Volador) and has largely been in trios in AAA. Fuego is a bunch of fun (love watching the Japanese fans get into his ring entrance) and the Virus title match from this year is one of my favorite matches of the year, but I agree with Dylan that I have trouble seeing his case for being the 25th best wrestler in the world this year. Nakamura I would have higher. I think he has been the most consistent of the top NJPW guys this year even though he hasn’t always had a ton to work with. Jay Briscoe is in the ballpark, but agreed that Mark has looked slightly better in both singles and tags than Jay this year. Biff Busick does very little for me. I don’t even think he really fits in the same group (stylistically) as Gulak & Thatcher and I am not overly high on those guys either. Busick comes off as a wrestler who has some tools but is still trying to figure out what he wants to be and how to get there. 911 had an interesting match against Golden Magic back in February, but that was more due to Golden Magic emptying his bag of high flying moves than anything 911 did. I don’t see it with Sheamus. What skills does he poses that are true “plus” skills? His best aspect to me is his brawling, but even then I don’t see him as one of the better brawlers today and certainly not when judged on a historical basis. What are the great matches from him in 2014? Titan I’d have a tad lower (but in my Top 50) but I can see the case given that he had one very good singles match (Virus), a good singles versus Casas, and a lot of solid trios work. Looking forward to his title match against Cavernario. Lucero is a bit higher than I’d have him. I did like both Silver Star matches. Ishii feels about right. I am still not a big fan of his style in general, but I think his matches this year have gotten progressively better as the year as gone on. I’d have Rush in the top 10 on my list probably but wouldn’t argue with where Bill has him ranked. Harper is the opposite in that #11 is a fair ranking, but he would be outside my personal top 20 or so (probably). Agreed with Dylan that the Tajiri I’ve seen this year has been fine, but nothing noteworthy. All of these wrestlers except Cesaro feel a bit high to me. Hardy has had a very good year but when I think “top ten” I am thinking about guys that either have a huge volume of quality work and/or some really elite matches. I don’t think Hardy has either. Casas and Bryan are in a similar boat in some respects given that they both had great starts to the year, but have not done as much since. Casas had a tremendous January. He had above average singles matches versus Titan and Volador, good matches versus Atlantis and Blue Panther, and a lot of good trios work (particularly when teaming with Puma & Tiger). Since then he hasn’t done a ton but he and Virus were the best two guys in the disappointing En Busca cibernetico, plus the En Busca trios match and a solid tag title win versus Rush & La Mascara (w/ Shocker). I’d have him in my top 5 with a chance to move up if this hair match comes close on my (admittedly high) expectations. Bryan has my top 2 US singles match of the year so far (Wyatt at the Rumble and Triple H at Mania) which is good enough to consider him top 5 for now, although he will obviously fall due to inactivity. My recollection is Dustin had some good tags in January but nothing blow away to carry him through the rest of the 1st half. Thatcher – like Busick – I think is okay but far away from elite. He has a strong grasp of opening mat work and exchanging holds (two elements that I really like in any match), but it doesn’t progress well from there all the time. When he is out of his element – even something basic like strike exchanges – I think he tends to look lost. He does what he does well, but I am not sure he does anything “great”. I am almost not sure what he does well is enough. I’d like to hear from Dylan and/or Bill on what has made Thatcher’s 2014 reach “elite” (top 5 status)? Maybe I am missing something? Wrestlers not on Bill’s list that I would likely have in my top 50 (and some of them pretty high up): Okada, KUSHIDA, Ricochet, Cavernario, Bray Wyatt, Mascara Dorada, Tanahashi, Pentagon Jr., Tommy End, CIMA, Super Shisa, Dean Allmark, Drew Gulak, Rampage Brown, Naito and Akiyama. Guys that would be close include Dragon Lee, Omori, T-Hawk, and Davey Boy Smith Jr.

I don't think UWF 1.0, 2.0 or PWFG had championships. Here is a link to a title history for UWF-I World Heavyweight Championship: http://www.cagematch.net/?id=5&nr=893 Here's RINGS: http://www.prowrestlinghistory.com/shoot/rings/ringsindex.html

The blurb on Scott Keith's site is taken from PWInsider.com and is just badly paraphrased. The actual report from PWI is that they did the injury angle to get Rollins out of the ring for the end of the RAW main event & post-match. They wanted the end of the show to focus on the four wrestlers in the Battleground main event so that was there way of getting Rollins out of the ring for that. It has nothing to do with anything happening at Battleground, unless there is some other update I am missing.

Flair vs. Steamboat : Clash 6 Hennig vs. Bockwinkle : From AWA This are the two easiest ones for me to throw out because they have a multitude of other matches against each other on tape and the two above are my favorite matches of their respective series. That's a difficult question to answer because we don't know how the wrestlers would have adjusted to less time. It is nice to think they would have just cut out any filler and kept all of the best parts, but that might not be the case. There are too many variables. Maybe if Flair and Steamboat spend a little less time working and establishing the headlock at the start of the Clash 6 match, the rest of the match doesn't flow as well as it actually did. Maybe the ending lacks the drama it had if they aren't pushing up against a 60-minute time limit (even if the 60-minute time limit was replaced with a 45-minute one). Or maybe they would have adjusted just fine and ended up with an equally strong match that carried the added benefit of being compact. I just don't think we can say with any sort of certainty that any match would be better or worse if it lasted longer or shorter than it did.

I think matches can be too long at 12 minutes, 15 minutes, 20 minutes, or 25 minutes. It isn’t necessarily about going over a certain time mark for me, although I do agree that there aren’t many circumstances where a match needs to go 30+ minutes to reach its full potential. A 12 minute match can overstay its welcome if the wrestlers work a solid match that builds to a climax at 8 the minute mark only to go on for several additional minutes. A lot of current US indie matches suffer from this problem. The match will build nicely to a peak move/sequence/near fall and then continue on for 5+ minutes after that point. Matches should get out on a high note and a lot of matches suffer from their inability to do that. In addition to matches that go past their peak, there are matches that reach the “too long” mark when they are well underway but never got into any sort of flow. I wouldn’t necessarily say that a 5-minute television match that never quite gets out of the blocks went too long, but a 10-minute “nothing” match probably would fall in the too long category. The same goes for too short matches. They can be all sorts of different lengths. It is all about filling the time you use appropriately.

That he was the better overall worker at their respective peaks? I don't see how that is a crazy claim to make at all. The thing is, a lot of Vader's positive attributes are things that Andre didn't do simply because he didn't need to do them. I think Vader was far more versatile, was a better bumper (which enabled him to help get over babyface opponents), and was a better offensive wrestler. To be fair, Andre wasn't asked to do that stuff and didn't need to but it is still a point in Vader's favor that he demonstrated he could do all of that effectively. Along those same lines, Vader showed he could remain over even when not booked like an invincible monster and he didn't have the benefit of being a special attraction wrestler going territory to territory like Andre was for a good portion of his career. Again, those are less knocks on Andre and more just positives that Vader has on his resume. I am not going to fault Andre for not needing to do some of the things Vader did but I don't think you can ignore them on Vader's resume just because Andre wrestled his career under different circumstances.

I think WWE could do a cruiserweight division but I agree that the label “cruiserweight” would be a hindrance at this point. I am not sure what the right label would be but it should not contain the word “weight”. TNA certainly had the right idea in branding the X-Division around a stylistic difference than a weight difference even if they would up losing focus on the what the initial concept was supposed to be. It is all about how the division is marketed. I thought WCW marketed the cruiserweights very well initially in two ways: (1) They got over the fact that the cruiserweights did things that nobody else was doing. They demonstrated that the cruiserweight wrestlers were different from the other wrestlers on the roster but in a positive way. That’s where past WWE cruiserweight divisions failed. The wrestlers they had in the division were not all that spectacular to begin with and then they frequently lost to the bigger wrestlers. WWE cruiserweights were promoted as (and for the most part were) regular wrestlers that happened to be smaller. WCW – at least initially – had guys came off as truly unique and special. WCW did a solid job initially in reminding viewers that the cruiserweights offered things their heavyweight counterparts could not. (2) The international vibe made it feel special. I think it is the Psicosis/Rey BATB ’96 match where Tony says something along the lines of “wrestlers from all over the world are coming to WCW now that we have a the World’s Cruiserweight Champion here in Dean Malenko.” When you had luchadores, Japanese wrestlers and European wrestlers all showing up and vying for the title it made the title feel special – like something that was valued. It also helped set it apart from the more homogeneous heavyweight division. The second point is something WWE could definitely do. Already under contract they have Justin Gabriel (South Africa), Tyson Kidd (Canada), Adrian Neville (England) and Kalisto (a fake luchador) to provide the international feel. In the next couple of months they will be adding Prince Devitt (Ireland) and KENTA (Japan). That is a good foundation that they could potentially build on. Like WCW did at the onset, market it as the most cutting edge wrestlers from all over the world coming in for a chance to compete against other state of the art wrestlers. The first part – convincing the fans that these guys are different in a completely positive way – is a bit harder. Rey was tremendously helpful in that in WCW because he was a truly revolutionary wrestler at the time. Neville has some great looking flying spots but he’s clearly not ’96 Rey. Then again nobody is. Short of signing someone like Titan or Mascara Dorada (I’d imagine WWE would be shy of signing a Mexican wrestler to build around after the Sin Cara debacle), I think Ricochet would be the guy to get over the idea that these guys have unique value. He can match anyone in the world for big time flying moves and has a ton of crowd pleasing agility spots that he hits smoothly nearly every time out. According to the WON, he is on WWE’s radar but was passed over at a recent camp for the usual political reasons. If they ever got serious about doing a cruiserweight division, he would be the guy to go after since he can hammer home the positive attributes of the division better than anyone else. You then push the guys around him as being cutting edge for different reasons. KENTA "invented" CM Punk and Daniel Bryan's finishers. That should be an easy way to get him over. Like anything with WWE, it comes down to them not losing interest and giving it a sincere try but I think it could be done. Just give it a non-weight specific name and accentuate the positive differences (international appeal and cutting edge style) while totally downplaying the negative (that these guys are generally smaller). Also, they need to leave guys that are already viewed as jobbers out of the division which means no Kofi Kingston.

I have always had a soft spot for the Flair vs. Steamboat Wrestle War "Final Countdown" music video. It is not a technically well produced video by 1989 standards or any other standards, but I thought the video was effective hype nonetheless. Whoever put it together at least hit on the big spots of their feud/matches to that point. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQkbNawgiw4

I think this is a really good point. Commerce and creativity are not antithetical in wrestling or anywhere else. At the same time, they don’t always work in unison either. Which I think is the point of this whole debate. If the wrestlers that are considered the best at their craft from an artistic standpoint were always the ones that drew the most money there would be no debate. Drawing would then be an important metric because it would represent the objective quantification of a wrestler’s ability. The two would go hand-in-hand. That is not the case though. A wrestler’s inputs – their wrestling ability, promo ability, ect. – do not determine whether they are going to be a draw. Not to keep coming back to the same point, but that is the reason that drawing power is (in many cases) a flawed metric. Any metric where a wrestler can do almost anything in his power to position himself for success but still not succeed is not a fair metric to evaluate him on. This is not a perfect analogy, but it is sort of like an RBI in baseball. An RBI is not an individual player metric. To get an RBI a player needs cooperation from his surrounding teammates so we shouldn’t use that metric to evaluate individuals. A player that bats leadoff in the National League with an OPS of .950 but only drives in 65 runs because he bats in front of the #8 hitter and pitcher should not have his RBI total held against him. Similarly, a solid main eventer that adds value to the promotion but is never put in the position to draw (for one reason or another) that another wrestler is put in should not have his lack of clear cut drawing ability held against him.

No what draws is not subjective, either it does or it does not. Now there are different levels of draws and different ways about determining the level, but at the end of the day something either is or it's not. You can argue what brings in revenue, is it the brand or the attractions or the event or even how it is presented yes. But you can easily determine if something is or is not successful. The best professional wrestler in the world is John Cena, and he has been for the last decade almost. That is a fact, it's not subjective because the role of a professional wrestler is to generate the most amount of revenue so that person can be paid the highest income. The business we watch was designed soley for the purpose of seperating the marks (us the fans) from their money and putting it into their own pockets. We can attempt to muddy the waters and proclaim it to be art, yet in it's similist form that is what the industry is all about. A wrestler either drew or didn't draw. I agree with that. However, the ability to draw is not all up to the wrestler. The promotion needs to place him in a position to draw. He has to be in the right promotion at the right time. Sometimes (although not always) the wrestler also needs the right cast around him to draw or at least maximize his drawing ability. These are all external factors that the wrestler cannot control. How can you blame a wrestler for not drawing if he doesn't get the necessary push to draw? We could only do that if we made the assumption that promotors/bookers always push the guys that will help them draw the most money which is definitely not true. John Cena is WWE's biggest draw and generates the most revenue. That is indisputable and not subjective. Promotors and bookers look for different things in wrestlers. The wrestler with the best potential drawing ability does not always rise to the top. Promotors and bookers often don't push the right guys for various reasons. Other external factors can also play a role in keeping a wrestling with drawing potential from actually drawing. Like I said, pro wrestling does not operate under perfect market conditions so it wouldn't be right to state outright that the best wrestler is the one who draws the most because of the other factors that can and do influence the ability to draw. I think that is what Loss meant by it being subjective. Promotions all have different ideas on what draws. So they will take the guys that fit that mold and put them in the position to draw (at least sometimes). It doesn't mean that the guy working the mid-card couldn't draw if put in a similar drawing position. Also, determining who is or isn't a draw is not always straightforward. Sticking with Sting as an example, would have WCW been worse without him on top from 1990 - 1992? I don't think we can answer that because we don't have a benchmark case of what a Sting-less WCW would have done from a drawing standpoint during that time. Sometimes a guy might not move business but if business would have been worse without him there, isn't he a draw on some level?

There is not a "perfect market" in pro wrestling. That is, ability does not necessarily equal drawing power. I think that is pretty obvious. Wrestling history is littered with examples of guys who had the in-ring ability, promo ability, ect. but never really made it to the level they could have because of external factors. Promotions don't always push the most talented guys, some guys get lost in the shuffle for various reasons, some end up in the wrong place or wrong time, ect. For that reason, I don't believe it is fair to dismiss certain guys because they never drew since there is not a perfect correlation between ability and drawing. There are other factors that influence a wrestler's ability to draw. Having said that, it is always a disservice to dismiss any available information. That includes drawing ability. If a wrestler is being discussed and he was a great draw (but perhaps is considered only mediocre in the ring and/or as a promo), we should certainly take his drawing power into consideration. If a wrestler wasn't a draw over a long time it should definitely be examined to try and find out why. Sting is the perfect example of that. He was clearly never a guy that moved business with the exception of his involvement in the NWO angle. Was that due to circumstances (spending the prime of his career during what was WCW's worst period) or was there something inherently about him that made him a non-draw? Drawing power is a good metric to use for discussion and should never be ignored. Like any metric, however, it is only a part of the equation and cannot be used as a strict barometer across the board.

Dustin Rhodes. He was so good in WCW from 1992 through his firing in 1995 and was still really young (just 26) when he left WCW. In an alternate universe where Hogan doesn't come to WCW and Dustin doesn't get fired, he almost certainly ends up with a title run at some point in 1995 or 1996 at the latest. At some point I think they would have went to him as the top guy because he was as over as anyone on the roster and could work. Hogan and later the Uncensored 1995 incident derailed that, but he had all the tools to get a run as a top guy in WCW in the mid-90's. Even if everything went down like it did, I still think he had a shot to be a star in WWF as himself. Perhaps if he wasn't fired by WCW until a little later in the year and the Goldust character wasn't so far along in development, the WWF would have used him as payback for the Luger jump and left him as Dustin Rhodes. I think he could have gotten over as a baby face in the 1995 & 1996 WWF environment. By that point he would have been established enough that he would have at least had a chance of adapting to the Attitude Era. EDIT: Was posting at the same time as El-P but I echo everything he said.

I think there are ways the turn can work out fine. In terms of why Rollins would leave the winning team to go the losing team, the Shield won the matches against Evolution but what were they really gaining? More to the point, Seth Rollins was killing himself and at best he was still just one of three in the Shield. They can spin it that Triple H sold Rollins on the idea that he can give him opportunities and a chance to shine on his own that he couldn't get with the Shield. They don't need to convince anyone that Rollins made the right decision, only that there was some logic for his decision. Working wise I think it will be an adjustment for Rollins, but I think he will be okay. While he was better as a face, he worked fine as a heel both in tags and singles matches for the first year of The Shield's run. It was earlier than I would have broken them up for sure. In the end, it can be a good thing if they present Rollins as a big deal thereby making his betrayal a big deal. If The Shield gets immediate revenge and/or Rollins is presented as the third member of Evolution (clearly a step below Orton and Triple H) than that's no good. I would like to see Triple H give Rollins a spot in MITB as his first reward for joining Evolution. Whether that match ends up being for the title or just for a title shot, Rollins should win. That would completely justify the turn (Rollins got more in a month in personal gain than he did in a year and a half with the Shield). Ideally, the match is just for the briefcase so he can win that and defend it against Ambrose and Reigns. Reigns could even win the briefcase at SummerSlam or after that if they wanted to go in that direction. I don't think they should add a third member to the Shield because that would be a hard sell. Just go with the idea that Evolution now has the number's advantage. If Rollins starts to flounder, they can always turn Ambrose in a few months as well to kick off Reigns singles push.

There is a difference between context and standards. Will a 16 year old living in New York City in 2014 having grown up entirely on the WWE have the same reaction to 1980 Memphis match that a kid who was 16 years old in 1980 and born and raised in Memphis would have to that match? Of course not. That’s not a shift in standards though, that is a change in context. At the same time, if I have taken the time and effort to educate myself on the context of that promotion and that time period I don’t see why I can’t formulate an opinion on a match 35 years after it occurred. As long as I am taking the context of the match into consideration and evaluating with in that context, than what is the issue? Like Tim said, I am sure Meltzer’s issue is that he hears all the time from people who make blanket statements like “this style or period of wrestling sucks” because it is something they are not used to. They are viewing the wrestling out of context. I agree with Meltzer 100% that you cannot do that. What I don’t agree with is the idea that nobody can evaluate older wrestling through modern eyes. You can if you make the effort to understand the context in which the match occurred. I have zero doubts that I can watch wrestling from a promotion and time period that I didn’t experience as it happened, understand the context, and evaluate whether a match is good or bad. That sort of retrospective analysis is done all the time with various forms of sports and entertainment. The key to the discussion is always that both sides have to properly educate and inform themselves so they can have an intelligent discussion. Here is my baseball analogy. Say I pull out a tape of a game from 1968. In the first inning, the first two batters reach base. The third batter – who with few exceptions always has and continues to be one of the team’s better hitters – is asked to lay down a sacrifice bunt. I immediately tab this as a poor strategy. Statistical data tells us that you are actually more likely to score with runners on first and second and zero outs than runners on 2nd and 3rd and one out. In general, we now know that consciously giving up one of your 27 outs is a poor decision. It is particularly poor when one of your better hitters is the one giving himself up. It was a bad play in 1968 and it was a bad play in 2014. However, I observe that the crowd and the announcers on the tape react favorably to the successful sac bunt. The 1968 baseball fans view it differently than the 2014 baseball fans. Part of the reason for the differing views is that those in 1968 don’t have access to the data I have. To them, it is logical that runners on 2nd and 3rd are better than runners on 1st and 2nd even when giving up an out to get there because you stay out of a groundball double play, two runs can now score on a single, and the runner on third can score on a passed ball, sac fly, or ground ball out. It makes sense why they’d see the play as a good one so I’d probably be wise not to refer to all 1968 baseball fans as a bunch of morons for having the “wrong” opinion. Furthermore, I should probably recognize that 1968 was the “year of the pitcher” with run scoring at historical lows. The run scoring environment in 1968 was far different than it is in 2014 so perhaps that makes the decision to bunt there less of an obvious mistake (or maybe not but that should at least be mentioned as a possibility). That’s taking the context into account. A baseball fan watching that play and stating outright that “the fans and announcers were dumb for thinking that was a good play” are wrong to do so. A baseball fan who watches that play and lays out the reasons why that was a bad play while acknowledging the context in which the 1968 fans viewed it (ie. lack of available statistics and a low run scoring environment) is justified in my opinion. A wrestling fan who watches an old wrestling match and says “wrestling from this promotion and time period sucks” without educating himself to why the fans of that time/place might have enjoyed it is wrong to do so. A wrestling fan who watches a bunch of matches from that time & place, educates himself as to the context of the time/place, and forms educated opinions on individual matches (despite not experiencing them as they occurred) is justified in doing so.

Titan vs. Virus is still my favorite match from the first four months of the year. There have been a boatload of matches (more so than I can remember in recent years) that I have liked quite a bit but probably fall in the bucket or two just below surefire match of the year contenders. Bray Wyatt vs. Daniel Bryan (Royal Rumble), Tanahashi vs. Nakamura (4/6), Triple H vs. Bryan (WrestleMania), Rush vs. Shocker hair match (3/21), and Okada vs. Goto (2/11) are some matches off the top of my head that I'd put in the mix even though I am not sure any of them is a real slam dunk contender. I didn't get into the Elimination Chamber six man as much as others. I thought the Evolution vs. Shield match from this past weekend was a better match (and is probably a contender for me, but it falls just outside of the 4-month period). Bryan is probably Wrestler of the Year so far. I am not sure any one individual is drawing well enough to make that factor significant difference maker thus far. Bryan has as good of a match resume as anyone, is one of the most over wrestlers in his home promotion of anyone in the world, and at the very least as kept business steady while being put in a top position. I would probably have Bryan as the best worker of the first four months but Cesaro is up there as well. I imagine Ishii will get a lot of consideration from some people too because of the Naito matches. Hechicero and Cavernario - if they continued to get pushed post-En Busca de un Idolo - could be guys to keep an eye on later in the year for workers of the year. WWE is promotion of the first four months but largely by default more than anything else. I think predictions of New Japan's demise are greatly exaggerated (just as the heights they reached over the past two years were probably exaggerated some as well) but they haven't had a blow away four months of anything. CMLL has been its usual up and down self. Dragon Gate will probably get some consideration with even more after their show last weekend. I will say that there are more promotions putting out watchable stuff on a regular basis than last year at this time, I think, even if there isn't really one or two transcendent promotions so far. Dave should add a "Best non-PPV Specials" award or something like that which could encompass things like the Daniel Bryan documentary, Warrior documentary, UFC Countdown shows, Hall of Fame special, ect. With the WWE Network leading to more content in that area, it seems to make sense.

I agree that with near falls, it is all about the timing both in the sense of where the near fall is placed within the match and the actual timing of the kick out. The second part builds off the first, I think. I have seen matches where guys do a really nice job kicking out late but the crowd doesn't buy it as a close near fall. That is usually because what came before it didn't do an adequate enough job of making people think that could be the finish. There needs to be a logical progression to the near fall(s). One counts turn into two counts, the moves get a little bit bigger, and the wrestlers get the match to a point where those watching believe that the right move delivered at that time could actually end the match. If they get it to that point, the final part is timing the shoulder lift or kick out just right and holding on just long enough to get that split second "maybe this really is the finish!" reaction. It is all about understanding where to take to the match to get to a point where the crowd will anticipate a certain move being the finish, then flipping the script on them. I also think some of it as to do with how the near fall kick out is sold by both guys, although particularly the guy kicking out. I also love Flair's side headlock near falls. Part of what made them great was how he would physically and verbally sell the near fall. Not only did he get his shoulder up late, but he would shoot it up quick, roll over, and let out a loud, drawn out "Nooooo!" All of that together made a strong near fall in the sense that when it was over, you thought about how close the match just came to ending even if you didn't necessarily buy that Flair's shoulders were going to be kept down for the 3-count as it was happening.

It will be interesting to see what the cards look like come August. Bray Wyatt is going over everyone right now. Reigns is going to get the big push sooner rather than later. Bryan is the most over guy on the roster. Cesaro looks to be in line for some sort of post-WrestleMania push. On the other side, they have Cena, Batista, Brock, Triple H, ect. all of whom (theoretically) have at least something to offer in terms of putting guys over and elevating them. Overall, WWE is in a far better position to create new stars than they have been in some time. Whether they follow through and execute correctly remains to be seen, but the potential is there.