Lee Casebolt

Daniel Bryan, DDP, Jack Brisco, Inoki, Thesz, Buddy Rogers, probably Andre and Arn Anderson.

Definitely a work. They didn't really put much effort into making it look like a shoot. Still, for those of us who took every opportunity to watch Karelin chuck people through the air, it's a fun watch.

I dunno, Kawada was a really a good tag worker in 1988/89. He was still a step behind Fuyuki but was still a big part of why those matches were great. '89 Kawada reminds me a little of WWE Daniel Bryan or Horsemen-era Benoit, an undersized heavyweight who takes a lot of beatings but has enough offense and works with enough pace and intensity to make himself look credible against significantly larger men. He wasn't undersized. [embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjmwI2b7oh4[/embed] Looks undersized to me.

Someone who enjoys Dory as much as you should adore the Funk/Brisco series. Some of my favorite matches, despite being pretty down on Dory myself.

I dunno, Kawada was a really a good tag worker in 1988/89. He was still a step behind Fuyuki but was still a big part of why those matches were great. '89 Kawada reminds me a little of WWE Daniel Bryan or Horsemen-era Benoit, an undersized heavyweight who takes a lot of beatings but has enough offense and works with enough pace and intensity to make himself look credible against significantly larger men.

My biggest problem with Angle is self-inflicted. I keep wanting him to be a Lou Thesz-style matworker, and aside from the Benoit match and the Samoa Joe feud, he's never been that guy. Instead he's Jeff Hardy.

I've only seen Haward in one or two original UWF matches. I like what I've seen, but need more. What should I be looking for to get an idea of his broader career?

I can't figure out how I feel about Christian. The Arn Anderson comparison is apt in some ways, though one of my favorite things about Anderson is how all of his offense feels organic and credible and Christian has a lot of 90s-esque "what was that?" to his. The Attitude Era stuff I enjoyed at the time doesn't really hold up for me now, but that's about the only serious criticism of his work I can lay. What I've seen him do since is consistently good, though I need to review his '04-'09. He's high-end "solid hand" for me at the moment. I expect whatever he's in to be good, but I don't really look forward to seeing it.

I remember him as the weak link in a lot of AJ tags in '98, then missed fifteen years of his career, and picked him up as the grizzled vet of today, who I kinda dig. Definitely someone who needs a closer look.

The earliest Bock match I've found so far: [embed] [/embed]

From an admittedly small sample size, Colon vs Ayala is worlds better (23? could be) than Colon vs Abby.

I watched that Dory/Inoki match a few months back for a project I was working on, and had precisely the opposite reaction. I felt like every ounce of excitement that came from it was generated by Inoki's emoting and selling, while Dory just sucked the life out of it with a listless performance largely devoid of any sense of energy or intensity.

Vote Arn Anderson, King of the Ten Minute Match!

Orndorff is Bossman's major competition for that title in my mind. Hogan/Race never really clicked for me, though I haven't gone back to watch it in years.

You know, if we could crowdfund this, we could make this whole thing worth it somehow. Apparently a number of the shows exist, unreleased, with English commentary by Bas Rutten and Mauro Ranallo. So, back to the subtitles...

My enduring Bossman memory is him taking a cage-top superplex from Hogan on SNME. That's an insane bump to take, let alone for men of that size, let alone in '89 WWF, let alone involving Hulk Hogan. Bossman might have been the best Hogan running mate, all things considered. I don't know how many points that gets him towards all time top 100, but it's enough to be worth a look.

I only ever caught Debeers in dying days AWA, which is not a situation where virtually anyone looks good. Is there any sort of defining Debeers match or series I should seek out?

I always liked Mero more than most did, or at least more than I perceived most to, but top 100? I can't see it.

I think if you rate Jannetty over Michaels, you have some serious explaining to do. I'm willing to grant that there may be an explanation, but I'd want to hear it.

Shocked someone who loves good punches as much as Phil didn't have more to say about Buddy's uppercuts. Those were amazing.

[embed] [/embed] A Thesz/Rogers rematch, with Rogers now looking a little more established in his "Nature Boy" flamboyant heel persona, so I'm assuming, without a listed date, this is later than the '51 match. This one opens up with a quick exchange of the "flying" moves Thesz credits Rogers with popularizing. How true that is, I couldn't say, but Buddy clearly still loves his side headlock. Lou doesn't do as much work out of it from the bottom as in the earlier match, and Buddy doesn't put as much work into making it look like something that might end a match, so it's a bit more dull than I'd expect matwork from these two to be. The work picks up to their accustomed high level thereafter. The basic structure of the match looks a lot like their other encounter, with enough details changed to make it feel fresh. It's mostly matwork, with Rogers busting out the brawling when he's getting the worst of things and Thesz retaliating, and the rare burst of "flying" activity. Rogers has an outstanding uppercut, too. I'd love to see him matched up with a Killer Kowalski or another contemporary brawler and see how he does in that environment. Rogers doesn't take the number of big bumps that people who followed in his footsteps - Bockwinkel, Flair, etc. - would, but that looks like more a result of the general style. That spill out to the floor looked pretty nasty, so he could clearly do that if he had to. Again, it's a Rogers thread, so the review is focused on him, but I need to say a couple words about Thesz. There's been some conversation about the role and importance of athleticism in wrestling, and how it favors recent wrestling over that from the past. I'm sorry, there aren't four wrestlers in WWE today who are as athletic as 1950s Lou Thesz, and you could probably count on your fingers the number of wrestlers in history who've had his reflexes and coordination, no matter how bad you were in shop class. I think it's fair to say the average level of athleticism today is higher, and matches are often conducted in a more athletically demanding style, but it's important not to lose sight of how extraordinary some of the wrestlers of the past were. Oh, and regarding rating the match based on who won... if that's Rogers dogging it, well, every wrestler should dog it like that.

I've dropped the "what if" card for Dustin and Lex, but now that I think about it, Owen is a better candidate. He doesn't fall doing a stupid stunt, and we get to see him in a regular program with Benoit or Eddie or Rey? Shit, he'd only be 49 today. Another decade, at least, of work, mostly with superior talent?

Meltzer was probably falling into the old trap of bodyweight percentage as determining what's most impressive. Steve Williams was crazy strong. That repeated press of Gordy during the GAB 89 cage match still impresses the hell out me. That is far and away my favorite power spot in wrestling. Nothing else is even close.

Workrate's just the amount of shit that gets done in the amount of time you have. It says nothing one way or the other about the quality of shit done. I like a varied tempo, myself, over pure workrate. There's such a thing (looking at you, Young Bucks) as working too fast. I think most fans need a chance to anticipate a spot before it happens, and to appreciate it after. Spot-spot-spot, no matter how well executed and sensibly put together, leads to getting jaded and making each spot less important. Is it important? Sure. No one wants to watch two guys stand and look at each other for twenty minutes. But I'm much more concerned about the quality of execution, timing, layout, and all the stuff that gets laid out under "psychology" than volume of activity. There's nothing wrong with using workrate as an element of evaluating a match, but it's not important enough to be the sole, or even the primary element.

I don't watch enough B shows to get a good grasp on Titus, but before the Shield breakup, I vividly remember a huge Shield vs locker room melee that included a Titus/Reigns standoff. People were losing their shit wanting to see those two go at it. That was the precise moment I decided there was something to Titus, even if I don't always see it.