dawho5

I understand not wanting to rip the guy off, but Rocky Raymond is absolutely glorious. Only real problem is that his act would be hard to top.

This match actually sets up the 8/92 TC match well. I know the 92 match is about a real Misawa injury at the time, but it's also sweet revenge for Misawa in getting a win with an elbow after having that arm worked. As far as this match in full, I can't say a whole lot positive about it. It's not that it's a bad match. Just that you expect more from the pairing. I have this feeling as I go through the 90s again that's going to be the case with these two.

This is a match where context makes all the difference between really good/almost great and classic. The opening was great at establishing the nature of the rivalry. The ending was incredible for how it cemented Misawa as THE new star in AJPW. The middle had a few botches and didn't really go anywhere. The test of strength mentioned above was far more glaring than the Jumbo top rope mistake. Either it was some kind of miscommunication or Misawa was out of position, but Jumbo did a sort of short knee off the top to a very close Misawa. Then Jumbo tries going for a tigerdriver only to get backdropped out and works his way back to the top where Misawa cuts him off, Jumbo elbows him off the top and then hits the jump knee off the top spot the way he usually does. It was something you had to really pay attention to catch because they covered so well for it, but it is there. This is an incredible match for how much Jumbo was willing to give and how Misawa really came through in a tough spot. And smiled...I'm guessing you could count the times you saw that on one hand with some fingers left.

That much I can understand. I just don't care for the idea of trying to put numbers to a bunch of categories, no matter how much thought is put into it, to sum up how a wrestler performs. It seems just as reductive as "great matches" while covering different ground for guys like DiBiase or Masanobu Fuchi. They are both clearly great ring generals who any promotion would be happy to have around, but were only involved in a handful of great matches with the majority of their career spent doing unimportant things. Having some way of qualifying their credentials seems like a worthwhile idea, but I look at wrestling as something better felt than analyzed and put in order. So the idea of finding a scientific way to fit the less mainstream candidates into the top 100 just doesn't appeal to me.

Again, it seems like an overly elaborate way of approaching a simple problem, Parv. DiBiase in the WWF wasn't supposed to come across as a great wrestler. I'd guess that most who have seen any of his pre-WWF work would agree he's very good at least and worthy of a top 100 pick. But once he gets the "Million Dollar Man" gimmick, essentially a spoiled brat rich kid but all grown up, DiBiase had to wrestle his matches a little differently. If he goes out and has great matches consistently and drags rookies and stiffs to career heights how does that play into his gimmick? There are times when it made for great vignettes and character work, but it put a lot of limitations on what DiBiase was going to be able to do in the ring. Otherwise he'd have been doing a long-term J.J. Dillon or Scotty Flamingo.

Wow, that's a busy year of updates for you. First was a fun read and the promos were sweet. Now I suppose I have to dive into the second.

I have to question whether or not the homogenization of styles has had the effect of possibly making matches seem less memorable than they used to. You look at 10-15 years ago and there was a huge difference between a match in Japan, a match in WCW, a match in WWF and a match in Mexico. Now you see a lot of the same tropes as far as in-ring action at the very least in the WWE and New Japan (which are the two big promotions now). Yes there are differences, but less than there were in the past as guys watch a bunch of footage and add moves/aspects they like from somewhere else into their style. I'm not saying it lowers the quality of matches, but it might make individual matches seem less memorable due to their similarity to a lot of other matches you see during the year. I would agree that it is much easier to find great matches in the past. You get to skip all the stuff that doesn't appeal to you or doesn't matter or just plain doesn't work.

I'm in the same camp as Loss and goc, I really love that match. I don't agree that it should have been number 1 ahead of Magnum/Tully on the Starrcade set, but I would have had it at 2 for sure.

I've seen either highly positive or highly negative reactions to that match. It seems like now it's about 50/50 between the 2. Could be initial reaction was more positive?

I just have to remark about how awful that Tubes song is. It was one of the banes of my existence when I had to rely on a 60s-80s radio station to get me through the work day.

If there was a place to start a good one-click resource like that, it's here.

In the interest of discussion, I have a few questions. In matches with juniors/cruiserweights it becomes essential for somebody to be a base, even if that responsibility switches off at times. And there are big men who are great bases for smaller guys to fly around as well as big men who just don't get how. Where do the numbers account for this? And something that factors into every match I've ever seen is adaptability. How do the wrestlers react to botches or unexpected crowd reactions? Can they get the crowd into the match when their usual tricks don't work? These are very important questions and don't seem to be covered in the numbers.

Okay, time out. Did nobody else notice the bit about the intent of the thread partially being to start arguments about the numbers given? Because to me that was one of those "red flags" that might serve as a warning.

Because you think he's a better wrestler based on the footage you have seen? I've read some of your stuff on Brisco and you seem to present reasons enough without trying to boil everything down to numbers in categories. One of the reasons I struggle with wrestling video games like EWR/TEW is that they lose all feeling and end up becoming incredibly empty because it boils everything down to numbers or letter grades. So many factors go into every wrestling match that it's impossible to come up with enough numbers to cover all of it.

That Rocky Raymond stuff is really glorious. It's so much more epic than the nonsense I filled my younger years with. First, it's ballsy as all Hell. Secondly, I can only wish I had been that passionate about anything rather than bounce between hobbies. As goofy as that stuff is, and as funny as your discussions of it are, it is some of the more awesome nerd stuff floating around the internet for how committed Rocky is to his commentary.

When I decorate a Christmas tree, I'm doing it in a Santo mask.

Incredible stuff. At some point I'm gonna have to watch this feud in chronological order because if the ringwork is anywhere near as good as the promos it's definitely going to be worth my time.

Already did. Watching 300+ 2000s matches from Japan was a little bit of a slog. Took me out of the wrestling mood for a few months actually.

I think more people should do this kind of thing for guys who are now in a bigger role somewhere. To me the interesting part about reading this is seeing how Thatcher performs in different match types against different opponents. It really points out the strengths and weaknesses to a degree that just looking at the highly thought of matches would not allow. This could be something of a resource if, say in 5-10 years, Thatcher has found a home a la Danielson in RoH 2002-2006 where he really shines. A running tab of how he performed at different stages of his career would show where he hit big improvements in his game, how he handles the things he struggled with early different, the how of carrying a no-talent guy to a decent or even good match as compared with the early struggles with that process. With a lot of the really highly regarded guys, we don't have access to much early footage of them struggling to find ways to put their imprint on a match in a positive way. We usually end up with their matches against the guys they end up replacing as top dogs, not so much the more gritty parts of their journey. If I ever do get into indies, that's probably the reason I will do it, to track the progress of personal favorites and see how wrestling careers develop.

I don't know if Hash is overlooked as much as you think. My guess is he has a lot of support around here and will do very well. He may be under-talked-about though.

One thing I'm noticing is there is a huge variance in how people are looking at this thread. It seems like most are assuming it is Parv trying to make a point in a way that offends them. Joe, SW, Loss and I see his point and seem to agree that it is valid. So maybe it would clear things up if Parv gave a clear and concise version of the purpose of the thread. Unless it is another of those Parv stirring the pot deals, which seems to be immensely successful. If that's the case, cheers.

Look, I think the problem here is less about the issue being argued and more about people rejecting the attempt to put a control on how they vote. I doubt you'd find many people who would say that a guy who was opening shows/jobbing regularly to midcarders while not being involved in featured stories was greatly important to his/her promotion while this was going on. And if that happened to be the majority of their career, odds are they didn't do much of note within the business, which is probably an agreeable statement. That won't stop some people from really enjoying the work they did and possibly thrwing them a sentimental vote somewhere down their lists. I can tell you this for sure. Trying to tell people that they shouldn't do that and it's wrong won't get you anywhere. Nor will telling them they can't. And for statistical reasons I think that it's just silly in the first place. Let's say somebody or a few people do vote for Johnny Rodz. Is that somehow going to skew the voting and throw the whole poll off? Because out of all the people voting, the odds are pretty slim that you're going to get a vast majority voting for the exact same career lower midcarder and putting them ahead of someone more deserving. In fact, the few votes they do garner for being a favorite will very likely not put them on the final list anyway. Are you telling me you think that there aren't 100 main event/upper midcard/midcard guys who will get more votes than a Brad Armstrong or Johnny Rodz or Koko B. Ware will? That seems like a really low probability. I get that you want to avoid the poll being skewed by bad voting Parv. And I do think that this kind of thing has the best intentions behind it. But the truth is, it comes off as heavy handed at it's very best and I really don't think it's all that necessary.

I think the biggest thing working against him is that by the time he was comfortable with the role he had been given, it was time to pass the torch to Tanahashi and start to fade into the background. Not necessarily right away, but he only got a year or two to be top dog after settling into the character of Yuji Nagata that NJPW wanted. Who knows, if Inoki isn't such a mark for shooters Nagata may have had a way better peak with a gimmick/character he was comfortable with at the time.