dawho5

To my knowledge a closed fist has always been illegal, as has choking. I don't know that the first has ever been anything other than a not-interesting-at-all thing for the commentators to whine about in Western wrestling. Choking has always been used as a heel tactic (or an adopted retaliatory face tactic) that I've seen.

Now that is a goofy rule right there.

Also on that rope thing, I remember a lot of times in All japan where a guy would grab the rope, but the opponent would somehow get their hand off the rope and just drag them back to the center of the ring in the same submission with no break. That always seemed a little shady to me.

From what I've watched, many wrestlers still take backdrop bumps that make me think of the "7/10" thing that some wrestler said about Misawa's last bump. I realize it was probably due to the amount of stress he had taken on his spine over the years, but you would think somebody would learn.

Watched a Finlay/Regal match from WCWSN and it was a great little brawl. Shiryu/Delfin was underwhelming, but the two tags that followed were absolutely phenomenal. Otsuka and some skinny kid with a lot of fire vs. Ikeda/Ono and a MPro 10-man, both looked to be from the same dome show on 12-1-96. That Mpro 10-man was off the charts amazing. If you're going to do spotty juniors wrestling, THAT is how you fucking do it. No disrespect to Toryumon/DG, but I'll take 90's MPro Sekigun vs. Kaientai over that any day of the week ending in Y.

Battlarts from the 90s would probably be a good start. Ikeda, Ishikawa, Otsuka and Ono are the guys to look for from that promotion. It's a mix of pro wrestling and MMA. Early 90s All Japan say 92/93-1996 (the Akiyama vs. Kawada stuff is gold, Taue vs. Misawa is fantastic, but most of 96 is at most average). But 92-95 were the years before the head dropping and adding length to matches just to add length came into play. Lots of realistic striking, good teasing of finishers early, great storytelling, and a very no-frills approach to things were the hallmarks of that for me. By 95 you start to se some of the invincible Misawa who people had to kill to even hope to compete, which is one downside.

I would guess Tanahashi's injuries are more from other people's offense. His style is pretty low impact, so I doubt many people get injured by something like a sling blade or high fly flow.

It's happened in Japan more than the WWE though. Not exactly in the same fashion, but all the head drops and uber-stiff shots to the head are going to take their toll on a generation of wrestlers a lot earlier even than it did the main All Japan guys. 5-10 years from now, a lot of the big names now will be retired for all the stupid things they do now. Could be that Tanahashi fellow has the right ideas about how to work a match after all.

Anyone want to take bets as to how long this argument over things that nobody is changing their mind on goes on? As long as we're talking definitions, let's define the word "troll". Does one have to intentionally be engaging in "trolling" to actually be doing just that? Or at a certain point does an argument over something that comes down to how you personally feel about something (something like, say, who was right in the Bret vs. Vince situation), is there mutual egging on going on by both sides because they refuse to quit? Also, I question whether a certain poster is, in fact, unintentionally trolling. And i'm not talking about jvk.

Is it just me, or has Shining Wiz been excessively contradictory in every thread he has posted in?

Seems like Vince is the bad guy legally. If Bret hadn't been such a douche about things I'd say he was 100% in the right morally. As it is, I'd side with Bret, but not have any sympathy at all for what happened to him given his behavior.

Job him out to Kane on the next RAW?

So the way that standards change is in judging the "language" the wrestlers are using in telling the story, not in the storytelling itself is, I believe, the argument presented. I'm not 100% behind that as I think there are folks out there who judge wrestling by the standards they did in a time period they particularly enjoyed rather than a more modern viewpoint. Like I wrote earlier, I think that there are certainly more ways of looking at a wrestling match now due to the accessibility of many, many different styles with the use of youtube, tape trading, DVD trading, bit torrents, etc. With this access to multiple wrestling styles from around the globe, people will develop different ways of judging the storytelling methods based on what they have watched. Where before, you had limited availability of wrestling that wasn't on TV in your area or actually taking place in your area. So your standards were limited by what you had access to. I think that it just adds more variety to the standards people use, not as much a wholesale change. People will take pieces from different styles that they enjoy and add them to what they already had in place, probably changing some things along the way but staying very similar at the core of it. I also think that you have different levels this question works on. If you look at the most basic level of things, standards are exactly the same as they always were. Does the story the match tells appeal to you emotionally? Then there is the question of what kind of wrestling hits the right notes to do that for you. That is the one that changes over time. And I think that has changed for every one of us as we've watched, rewatched, found new wrestling, whatever it may be. That's why I love PWO, because there are a lot of folks who post here that can eloquently sum up their feelings on wrestling in text form. It's not always something I agree with, but I like seeing how other people view wrestling. I also like reading when people write about matches that really affect them, because you can sometimes see shades of how they view that match in how they write about other matches. So yes, standards change all the time in that respect. They are also very much individual standards also. But without that, places like PWO would be unnecessary. We'd all like the same stuff because "this is the good wrestling."

Yeah, the variation where a guy puts his feet on your side and pulls straight towards himself like a madman is the one that would attack the shoulder. An armbar would be attacking the elbow.

I'd guess that you'll find more varied "standards" as to what moves/styles make a good match now than you would before. But I would agree that the things people are looking for at the most basic level has not.

Well yeah. That's why I like reading yours and Graham Crackers' reviews of matches I have seen. I know what I thought about them. What's interesting to me are the differences more than the matches we both praise.

That Tajiri vs. Nishimura MUGA match is great. I thought the Fujinami match from 2006 was better, but I'm surprised that the Tajiri match didn't make the 2007 voting. Nishimura is fucking amazing.

After watching a few DBS Jr. matches, he seems to need a Honma or Tanahashi around to put on his better matches. He's a passable power wrestler, but unless he's got somebody playing a good victim he's average at best. Shibata's tendency to sprint from corner to corner until he hits his corner dropkick is really annoying. The counters all seem the same from whoever he wrestles and it's at least one, sometimes two teases with no real change to the setup. Not a fan of Nakamura's mannerisms, and he seems to have lost some of the offense I liked with the gimmick change from the mid to late 2000s.

I've seen a few times where Kyohei Wada Wada will refuse to count until the wrestler's shoulders are down. I always think it's a good thing due to him actually seeing what he's supposed to be seeing as the referee in the match.

If you're looking for Japanese guys who do that, Marufuji's early years have some good examples of that kind of bumping. He's doing flips off of lariats and flying around like a madman for bigger guys. Also, I always loved how Daisuke Ikeda would kick the shit out of Otsuka or Ishikawa only to take every suplex they ever did on his head and neck just to give something back to the de-facto faces. Ikeda was always a really good heel.

On rewatch this actually climbed a bit on my ballot. It helped that I had watched the 2002 match the day before. They play off of the fact that they had just beat each other up last time and both take a strategy of wearing the other guy down with holds and basic wrestling rather than subject themselves to the same beating they got last time. Then things escalate and they get right back to it. And they do a nice callback to the match from 2 years earlier with a NLB nearfall complete with late Takayama kickout. Great, great match done in a smart, efficient way.

Watched the 14 G1 Honma vs. Shibata and it's a better match with a better finish. Honma is really getting a lot of support in the two matches I've seen. And yes, that finisher from the other match I watched was the Matt Morgan goofy suplex variation. Looked like Honma just forgot to let go of Shibata's head.

Did I find the wrong match?

Wouldn't know to be honest.

Shibata/Honma was all kinds of fun, right until the finishing move. Number one, why is Shibata using a suplex lift into a spinebuster as a finisher? His style is about as basic as you get in modern wrestling and he's using something that overwrought as a finisher? Secondly, it looks like he spike DDTs himself in the process of doing it. Don't know whose fault that was, but it doesn't look right. Shibata/Nagata was 40% filler (at least). It may have been more, but I'm not watching it again to figure it out.