stomperspc

I will be surprised if lucha is not better represented in the top 100 of this list than it was in the SC poll. None of the heavy hitters have dropped so far. Honestly, none of the luchadores I expected to be fringe (in the top 175-ish) have fallen so far either. For the most part the ones that have showed up already were (rightly or wrongly) never serious candidates to sniff the top 100 of this poll. Like others have said, at this point the actual rankings are still just a lot of noise. #300 is not much different than #350. FWIW, I would expect Atlantis (#94), Satanico (#89), and Dandy (#67) all to all do better in this poll over the SC poll. Atlantis has two years of high profile anniversary show mask matches helping him which might garner a few votes from people who are not necessarily major lucha fans. Satanico’s stock was helped by the 80’s project and 90’s Yearbooks. Same with Dandy (particularly the 90’s Yearbooks). Atlantis’ improvement might be small but I think Satanico finishes 75 or higher and Dandy *should* be in the top 50 at least. I’ll be very surprised if Casas lands outside the top 20 and he is a definite top 10 candidate (he finished 38th in the SC poll). I also think Santo will improve some from his 20th place finish but at the worst I expect him to stay about the same. Virus received a single vote (from Rob Naylor) in the 2006 SC poll and I think he’s a definite top 50 candidate this time around. So right there that are six luchadores that are pretty much locks for the top 100. Not counting Rey or Eddie, there were seven in the top 100 on the 2006 list. Blue Panther and Psicosis both made the top 100 in 2006 and I think both have a chance to do it again, particularly Panther. Where Panther goes will be interesting. I could see him comfortably in the top 100, at the back end, or missing it entirely. Beyond those guys are Villano III, Sangre Chicana, LA Park, Negro Navarro, Black Terry, Solar, Fuerza, Pirata Morgan, MS-1, Emilio Charles, and Perro Aguayo who are all still out there. Several of them could crack the top 200 and I think a few (Villano III, Parka, Navarro) have an outside chance at the top 100. Maybe the poll ends up being unkind to the luchadores but I think it is too early to assume that will be the case.

see earlier post about The Barbarian being on 5.5 ballots. Someone put a tie at the number 100 spot. Ah, missed that. Thanks.

One Man Gang on 10.5 ballots?

Submitted my today. I tinkered with the back of the singles list so many times I am pretty sure I just ended up back where I was a month ago.

Traumas (Trauma I & Trauma II) http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?/topic/30247-guerrero-maya-jr-rey-hechicero-vs-trauma-1-trauma-2-cmll-sanchez-111514/ http://www.crossarmbreaker.com/barbaro-cavernario-hechicero-vs-trauma-i-trauma-ii-cara-lucha-010116/ Trauma I & Trauma II vs. Dr. Cerebro & Caifan (Chilanga Mask - 07/19/2015)

Thanks for the clarification. My main objection to the theory still stands. If Reigns is a pawn in a tug-of-war between Vince/Kevin Dunn and Triple H, then I would expect his misuse to look significantly different than the misuse of most WWE wrestlers. To me, it does not. That is what I am interested in reading. What about this Reigns’ situation leads people to believe that it must be the result of a major power struggle rather than WWE’s usual incompetence? My personal opinion is that people are looking for a colorful explanation as to how WWE so badly mismanaged the push of a wrestler we have been told they want to push. Rather than accepting that it is equals parts the usual incompetent booking combined with Triple H’s usual desire to make himself look good at all costs, this theory has been concocted to explain it. I don’t see how the evidence points to that motive. To me, all the evidence points to is that the WWE has badly mismanaged Reigns and Triple H is doing his usual routine of making another wrestler look bad at his own expense. I am struggling from tying Reigns’ mismanagement into that motive, particularly when this promotion has been known to bungle pushes in similar fashions for less nefarious reasons. I think the key difference between this and usual WWE incompetence is that we don't usually hear that they are trying to push guys and are high on them when they are using them horribly. In most cases, we find out Vince sees nothing in them and they are used in a scatterbrained way. That's the difference between what is happening with Reigns and how someone like Cesaro was used poorly. I definitely agree that Reigns' situation is different then the situations of Cesaro and other similar guys for the reason you provided. However, Vince/WWE definitely see (or at one time saw) something in Orton, Rollins, Sheamus, ect. Yet even while Vince/WWE viewed those guys favorably, they were still subject to significant bad booking. Not every wrestler may have been mishandled as poorly as Reigns currently is, but that doesn't necessarily indicate that there is some big conspiracy going on with Reigns that wasn't with the others. You could even add Cena to that group to an extent like I mentioned earlier. He is a their only star and acknowledged as such, but they have still used him in some ultra-confusing and counterproductive ways throughout the years.

Thanks for the clarification. My main objection to the theory still stands. If Reigns is a pawn in a tug-of-war between Vince/Kevin Dunn and Triple H, then I would expect his misuse to look significantly different than the misuse of most WWE wrestlers. To me, it does not. That is what I am interested in reading. What about this Reigns’ situation leads people to believe that it must be the result of a major power struggle rather than WWE’s usual incompetence? My personal opinion is that people are looking for a colorful explanation as to how WWE so badly mismanaged the push of a wrestler we have been told they want to push. Rather than accepting that it is equals parts the usual incompetent booking combined with Triple H’s usual desire to make himself look good at all costs, this theory has been concocted to explain it. I don’t see how the evidence points to that motive. To me, all the evidence points to is that the WWE has badly mismanaged Reigns and Triple H is doing his usual routine of making another wrestler look bad at his own expense. I am struggling from tying Reigns’ mismanagement into that motive, particularly when this promotion has been known to bungle pushes in similar fashions for less nefarious reasons.

Has the tools but has been is lacking the opportunities to make good on them. I think he has the potential to have some classic matches but he hasn't yet. Some that know way more than me really liked the Casas match but I personally didn't see it on that level. His list of good+ TV matches is also pretty short because of the way he has been booked (Caristico match from earlier this year was at that level). None of that is really his fault, but they do hurt his GWE ever case. At this point he is an awesome heel who lacks those easy to see results that guys on this list should have. If CMLL ever uses him as the top rudo or (perhaps more likely) he joins/makes it with WWE I wouldn't be surprised at all if he gets into the discussion but he's not there now.

The fact it is even up for debate shows just how illogically WWE (and Vince) have acted in the past, because otherwise it reads as straight up tinfoil hat stuff. There is no doubt that they are utilizing Reigns in a way where it is almost entirely certain that he will fail. I think everyone agrees with that. Is the promotion purposefully and systematically doing this to ensure that Reigns will fail? I tend to doubt it, largely because they have failed Reigns in a lot of ways they have failed other guys. They have failed him in a lot of the same ways that they have failed almost every wrestler in the promotion over the last x-number of years. Vince has outright said that Cena “feeds their families” yet (as Dylan has pointed out in the past) Cena is one of the least protected major baby faces WWE has ever had and generally has been booked poorly. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that even when WWE likes a wrestler and wants to push him hard, that more often than not they are not competent enough to do so. I think Triple H was doing Triple H things last night with the way that final segment was booked but I doubt it was part of a larger concrete plan that Vince and/or others are on to ensure that Reigns fails. It was Triple H being his usual insecure, manipulative self. I think this is a situation where WWE’s general incompetence is crossing paths with Triple H’s political maneuvering to create a perfect storm where Reigns is being used in an almost unbelievably poor fashion. I don’t think there is a larger conspiracy going on.

All of these criticisms have been around as long as Bryan has been around. They are all valid. He did hit a period in his career where he was always going too long and sometimes for no good reason. I never saw a “playing heel” issue with him as much as he did not seem comfortable/natural acting and emoting as either a face or a heel early in his career (some of his fiery face comeback stuff early on is goofy). He was stale at the end of his ROH/indie run, although I would argue almost anyone would be in a similar situation (and Danielson himself was reportedly ready to hang it up before he got the WWE job). He had his misses and his weaknesses, there is no doubt about that. I am well aware of all of those blemishes but Bryan will still be in my top 10. It is a stretch to imply that people are overlooking, ignoring or glossing over Bryan’s weaknesses in rating him highly. Speaking for myself, I am well aware of the points against Bryan as I am of anyone I am going to rank highly. I believe that those blemishes do not define his overall body of work. For every bad ill-advised 60 minute match he wrestled in ROH, there are an equal number of quality long matches (London 2/3 falls, 2006 Strong title match as two examples) with the majority falling in the “okay – good” range. It also seems overblown a bit as the time period (2006) where he was going long the most also included many quality 20-minute matches and quite a few 15-minutes or below. If Bryan spent a year+ wrestling long matches to bad results, obviously that would hurt his case but I am not sure I agree that is what happened. What actually happened was that he got caught up in the idea of going 60 minutes which led to some mixed results. In the vast majority of his matches during that period he either didn’t go overly long or wrestled matches that overstayed their welcome by 5-10 minutes which is what most indie matches then and now do. His “too long” matches were generally still good or better (obviously there were misses) so it is not a big strike for me. FWIW, that era is also one of the weaker parts of his career (along with 2008-2009) and not the years I’d make his case on anyway. As for the “playing heel” or lack of genuine acting/emoting, that was something that even in his early days his positives (intensity, believable physicality, offense, selling, ect.) overcame. It is also an area he improved on as he gained experience. By the time of the Morishima series, Danielson was excellent as a tough and fiery babyface. He only got better in WWE in that regard. He got over as an insincere heel in WWE. It was a weakness, but also something that was covered up by his strengths until he improved in that area. I am a believer that in a list like this you evaluate guys on what they do well, not what they do poorly. I think doing it the other way around (listing what a wrestler does wrong) makes it easy to miss the forest through the trees. Danielson had a period where he went too long more often than one would like and struggled to come off genuine as a face or a heel early on in his career. Both during and after he struggled with those issues, he still delivered on a regular basis and as a low of a floor as of his peers. Historically, I would say he matches up well with the highly regarded wrestlers of any era. He did so many things well. He was a great offensive wrestler, he was always evolving/adding new wrinkles, he generally sold well, he worked well in different styles/environments, he got over most everywhere he went, he ended up being a great babyface, he was a great tag worker in WWE, and so on. Every wrestler on my list is going to have significant flaws. The great ones are going to have enough positives and enough quality work to more than overcome than shortfalls.

Like Childs, I only care if it impacts the end result. Theoretically, planned out matches can come off more choreographed or robotic. If that were the case that would be a negative against the wrestler. If there are multiple examples of a wrestler being unable to adjust on the fly when needed and that negatively impacting his match quality then that is an issue. I am sure there are others. However, theoretically a wrestler could plan every last detail and that approach could have no material negative impact on his overall match quality. In that case, who cares? I would think this is something that would reveal itself over time. If a wrestler cannot or does not improvise when needed, there is a good chance their match quality will suffer. If by some chance it doesn’t, then great. It is about the output not the input for me. I don’t watch matches for the thought process behind them. I watch for what actually happens and if that is good, I am good.

What's Cabana's issue with New Japan? I think he was referring to Cabana's issues with ROH. The implication being that if Cabana were booked in New Japan it would likely lead to some necessary ROH involvement (which may or may not be the case since New Japan does book some foreigners outside of ROH) and that he'd have to put his past problems with ROH aside in order to make it work.

My review: http://www.crossarmbreaker.com/maximo-vs-kamaitachi-cmll-010116/

My review: http://www.crossarmbreaker.com/barbaro-cavernario-hechicero-vs-trauma-i-trauma-ii-cara-lucha-010116/

Might have normally skipped this match but Black Terry Jr. posted a picture to Twitter Sunday night of the rudos wearing the turtle's shells and that was enough to sell me. Without spoiling it, the ending uses that premise in a legitimately funny and creative fashion. The match itself is an easy watch and only one sort of rough spot. The new Leo is growing on me.

The Cross Arm Breaker 2015 Year End Match Guide is out now. Included in the year-end edition: New match reviews covering the final 5 months of 2015; A look at the disparity in opinions on Dragon Gate match quality in the context of Masaaki Mochizuki vs. Shingo Takagi November 1st match; A look at the match that has been called the “greatest British pro wrestling match of all time” (Mark Haskins vs. Will Ospreay). Where does Atlantis vs. La Sombra fall in regards to 21st century mask matches? Breaking down the positives and negatives of our top 15 favorite promotions of 2015; A year-end update and re-ranking of our top 15 wrestlers by region (US, Europe, Japan, Mexico) feature from the June Match Guide; Extensive 2015 match recommendation lists by region; And more! PDF or e-book formats can be downloaded here. January - July and the G-1 Climax edition are also still up the website. As an aside, I've started reviewing 2016 matches on the blog and the hope is to keep that going on a semi-consistent basis all year long this time.

The stuff that is imitated the most tends to be the stuff that involves the least amount of time/effort/precision to replicate. Guys see Benoit get over and think if they replicate his high impact offense style (or bring it to the next level) that can be their ticket. They overlook - consciously or otherwise - that Benoit's offense was so impressive at the time because it was a true hybrid style and totally different from what most other pushed guys did during the same period in the US. He also could sell and draw sympathy and had an innate intensity that is not so easily replicated. So while I think Benoit did influence a lot of wrestlers in the past 15 years, it is not necessarily his fault that some wrestlers focused on one area (cool offense) while ignoring the contextual and other elements that made Benoit "work". Benoit is not all that different in that way than Misawa/Kobashi/ect. The fact that those guys influenced a whole generation of workers in a negative way shouldn't really be held against them. It is not their fault that wrestlers felt they too could get over with head dropping and a constant escalation of offense since those guys did, while choosing to ignore all the other things that went into making that era of All Japan work.

I voted for Lesnar/Reigns. I didn't think either match was transcendent or a clear cut MOTY, but I do feel Reigns/Lesnar was a lower end MOTYC and Bailey/Banks fell just outside that realm. Both matches were dramatic. Both did a good job in getting over an underdog, but I thought Reigns/Lesnar was more effective to that end. Not only were they less heavy-handed about it but Bailey was largely over as an underdog based on the build up while work alone in the WM match moved crowd reaction towards Reigns from dislike/apathetic to a sympathetic figure. Didn't have an issue with the finish. They built the match in a manner that made me want to see a winner (ideally Reigns) and then pulled the rug out at the peak point. That's a good non-conclusive finish. The problem was Rollins was a shitty heel and they waited way too long to pay off the angle, but on that night the finish fit the match really well.

How about El Bracero? He has only been in two matches on NWA Classics but I thought both were excellent performances. His athletic spots are great on their own but in both the Tully & MX matches I also thought he used those athletic spots very well to maximize crowd reactions. With the Guerreros, Fantastics, Eaton, Poffo, ect. around there were plenty of guys with flashy (for the time) offense but Bracero has stood out above them all for the execution and timing of that offense. Really fun undercard worker. Looks like he mainly worked Detroit and WWA so this is probably the best chance to see him.

This more or less captures my thoughts. I’ve watched plenty of matches where I am not totally familiar with the buildup but have had someone point out to me the important things to know so that I can look for them. It doesn’t really matter to me if I have seen the buildup with my own eyes or not; if I have it explained to me and the payoff is good, it works. If I am told that Wrestler A submitted Wrestler B with a particular hold in a prior match, the impact of seeing Wrestler A go for that same hold and get a big near finish out of it isn’t diminished for me just because I didn’t see their first match. Sometimes it might not even be a historical thing, but rather being told “look out for this spot/move/selling”. I’ve gone through a lot of 80’s Japan, 90’s All Japan, and some parts of lucha this way (ie. having important contextual elements explained to me) and I think it works out fine. Sometimes those matches benefit from knowing the context and sometimes knowing the context does little for my enjoyment in either direction. The last couple of years I have read stuff from guys like Joe and Alan before and/or after watching a Dragon Gate match so I am at least aware of those little nuances that the hardcore fans are aware of. I’ve found with Dragon Gate that even knowing that context doesn’t help a lot. I am still left flat by a lot of the matches. Some of it is because the style itself just isn’t my favorite. Some of is the fact that the fans don’t react to these moments I am told are big in the manner I’d expect for a big moment. For example, someone will write about a spot from a DG match that apparently has historical weight behind it. I’ll see that spot in the match and the fans don’t react in a special manner so it’s hard for me to, you know? I could watch AJPW matches after the 9/91 Jumbo/Taue vs. Misawa/Kawada match without having seen the match (but knowing that Misawa subbed Jumbo with a facelock) and understand that the facelock is now a big deal just because of the way the crowd reacts when it is teased. I am not asking for something at that level necessarily but so many times I watch these moments in DG matches that I am told are big moments that play off of years’ of DG history only to see the crowd barely react any differently. Something doesn’t add up. I have a hard time believing that DG is on such another level that the way I have watched and enjoyed wrestling for years and years cannot be applied to that promotion. I struggle buying the idea that DG is somehow so ultra-special in that regard when I don’t have to watch every single to tag, trios, and singles Misawa/Kawada match to get why 6/3/94 is so good or watch every trios leading up to Santo/Casas ’97 hair match to get why that match is great. It comes off to me as a bit of an excuse and trying to shift the conversation from the DG style to lack of context. I watch undercard DG matches now and again. I have a working knowledge of the history of the promotion. I seek out thoughts before watching big matches so I know what to look for. In my opinion, that should be enough. The fact that it is not tells me that my lack of enjoyment has less to do with lack of context and more to do with not liking other elements of the matches.

I didn't mean to imply that Tamura was the bridge or the pro wrestler with the greatest influence on the Japanese MMA boom. Obviously there are other pro wrestlers who in some respect or another paved the way for MMA in Japan through the pro wrestling style they worked or their popularity. Same argument would apply to them (Sakuraba, Funaki, Suzuki, Takada, ect.). If we are talking about what they did as pro wrestlers having an influence on MMA, I think that is relevant to their candidacy. I agree with jdw that any impact they might have had on MMA (or anything else) before or after their pro wrestling careers were over doesn't mean anything. It can be a blurry line trying to separate them sometimes.

Listened to the Kris/Dylan/Alan podcast on the Japan candidates over the weekend. I think you have to consider Tamura’s influence on MMA in his candidacy. Shoot style pro wrestling was always destined to be a bridge style between traditional pro wrestling and MMA. I think with hindsight that is abundantly clear. RINGS, Tamura, and Han pushed the style as far as it could go in terms of work and crowd reaction. There was not a lasting legacy for them to make in pro wrestling through their influence because the next step in their style’s evolution had to be shoots. We can nitpick about small improvements that could have been made to the style. However, given the rise in popularity of shoots/MMA at the same time it is safe to say that RINGS was the height of that style and the next step in the evolution was going to be out of pro wrestling and into MMA. I’ve never bought Dave’s “Pride = Pro Wrestling” talking point passed a certain extent but I also don’t think it matters in this case. If it was possible for shoot style to remain in existence after the Japanese fans got a taste of quality MMA and the style chugged along as a niche but viable style until this day with a modicum of well thought of workers, I am guessing Tamura would be credited for his influence. The fact that his pro wrestling work influenced and served as a bridge for a widely popular MMA boom (far more popular than we can reasonably expect a continuation of shoot style to have been) should be considered on his pro wrestling resume. As a pro wrestler he influenced the next evolution in the style he worked, which just happened to be shoots instead of another form of pro wrestling. That influence belongs on the resume of a pro wrestling hall of fame candidate because it happened as a pro wrestler. If I had a ballot, Tamura would be on it without hesitation due to the fact that he was a great worker (the best worker at a popular style), decent-ish track record of drawing with RINGS, and he had a major influence in bridging the gap between pro wrestling and MMA. Han is a little more tricky. I don’t think he is the “all work” candidate some have labeled him as. He has a decent drawing record and was only second to Tamura in pushing a particular style to is absolute zenith. The latter is work related but “he was a really great worker” is not quite the same as being one of the two best all time at a very difficult style. He might not make my ballot but I think if you (a) believe shoot style was important and ( b ) believe Han was one of the two best at it, he certainly deserves major consideration.

Writing about some recent All Japan matches and reading Bill’s tweets last night (re: current AJPW being a promotion ready to take off) got me thinking about the current state of the promotion. In general, I don’t buy into the idea that they are in the midst of building something special. I think they have been a very watchable promotion since around the time Akiyama was named president (last June). I think the booking has been very logical and easy to follow. You can find sound logic in all the Triple Crown switches the past 16 months. The Go-Akiyama storyline was straight out of Baba’s playbook (right down to the very slow progression) and there are far worse booking philosophies to emulate. Match quality has been okay but nothing special. The roster has one possible future star (Miyahara) but nothing is a sure thing and its usually hard to make a big time star in a promotion with as little star power or popularity as current All Japan has. The roster is old and Miyahara is the only younger guy who has star potential. New Japan rightfully gets criticized for having an aging roster and only one young-ish star (Okada) but All Japan is in worse shape in both regards. Given that, I am not sure how New Japan is on the fall and All Japan is on the rise. It is incredibly difficult for a promotion to catch fire when they are starting from the position that current All Japan is starting from. All Japan has one veteran who might be able to help make a new star (Akiyama) and its not like he is 1990 Jumbo. They have one one potential future star (Miyahara). Whether it is 1990's All Japan or 2010’s New Japan, a promotion tends to get really hot when they are starting from a solid base, have several prime-aged guys get over, have a veteran(s) that can help put the younger guys over, ect. I am not sure All Japan has any of that. Its possible Miyahara catches fire and carries them but how many guys catch fire in a promotion drawing as little as AJPW is now and with only one semi-star to help make him? Not trying to rain on anyone’s parade. I was just surprised to see that some view All Japan has the best promotion in Japan currently and in a position to potentially catch fire. I like them just fine, but am not seeing it.

I agree with OJ on classifying the match as a "spotfest". I have always a considered that term to be a match where the defining characteristic is the volume of the spots/moves. Some matches are defined by selling (either good or bad). Some matches are defined by mat work or for the brawling elements. It doesn't mean those matches have no other positive characteristics or are "nothing but [defining characteristic]" it just means that we group them by their defining characteristic. Dragon Lee & Kamaitachi built their match around a high volume of spots (like usual). It was a spotfest. I do think it was a very good spotfest. The quality of the moves was definitely high caliber and the execution was really good, particularly when factoring in the degree of difficulty. I thought they sold a little bit more than in similar matches. Like mentioned before, they built off of some of their signature spots from their previous matches in an entertaining manner. There are bad spotfests (ie. matches where it is is spot-spot-sport and the offense isn't even that great) and there are good ones. For me, Kamaitachi/Dragon Lee was the latter.

Oh okay, I agree with that. The trios style definitely not changed significantly over the years.