Steenalized

I'd give that a shot before a "Wrestling is" show, in fairness.

According to wiki, ZERO1 also opened a branch in Belarus, which fascinates me. This is a weird M.O. to follow.

Loved the show, especially Parv equating one way of analyzing managers to a Football Manager-type stat break down. As a long time FM player, I know I've flirted with the idea of ranking guys that way. Not likely as a serious measure but more of a way to consider someone's overall skill set, versatility, specific strengths and weaknesses, etc.

Hansen has a great shot at being my #1, though I don't have much to add that hasn't already been said. When push comes to shove, Hansen's ability in intense brawls, my favorite type of match by far, might just give him the edge when it comes down to splitting hairs and sorting out the very top.

That's my prayer. Have him snap and start destroying everyone.

Blake and Adam were sitting behind the announcing table at a Raw in LA earlier this year. They're definitely fans.

So I fell a little out of the loop in the past few weeks. What happened to Rowan?

You've made a big leap in the first paragraph going from "workrate is an important component of a match" (which it can be) to "workrate is how matches become aesthetically pleasing." Some people hold that view but not all. Work rate is not what defines the aesthetics of wrestling, this isn't a one-to-one correlation. It is a part of it, sure, but so are facials, selling, crowd interaction, etc. Work smart, not hard, it's true in just about every walk of life. Sure, if you're unable to work smart at some point, working hard is a great alternative. But working hard in and of itself isn't enough to make a good wrestling match. But you're right, being lazy in the ring tends to make for bad, dull matches. What you've done though is equivocated high workrate with "good workrate". You're right, good workrate, i.e., workrate that fits the psychology and flow of the match, that's always a good thing. It's inherent in the name. Good tasting food tastes good. What you're arguing is salty food is good food because almost every dish has salt to some degree or another.

Wasn't Barrios the lead negotiator for their new TV contract? If so, I can't imagine his internal stock being too hot.

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.

I recently rewatched all the NWA/WCW PPVs and Clashes from 1988 and 1989. Both years have tons of great matches in just that one company. Even if you prefer current wrestling, and I generally do, to say it "blows away" all that the NWA/WCW had to offer 25 years ago is disingenuous. I'd also take Japan from that era over most of today in a heart beat. A lucha expert can attest to the differences between then and now, but most of what I pick up on is that today might not stack up so well to then. What part of Battleground (either one, take a pick) deserves mentioning as brilliant displays of athleticism that makes wrestling great? It's not so hard to pick and choose poor showing even in strong periods. There's also almost no chance that there is more "great, exceptional worldwide talent" than there was in the past. The territorial era dying off removed the possibility for a bigger number of people to hone their craft either exclusively or primarily as a wrestler. Outside of the WWE, New Japan, and a few indy guys, who can make a living off wrestling to the point where getting better at it is their sole career? How many NCAA wrestling champions and NFL players are leaving their sports to come into wrestling today? You're right, the "raw workrate" is higher. And? It's pretty clear that a lot of people don't put much stock in workrate as a determining factor of what good wrestling is. Movies are paced much more quickly than they were 20, 30, 40 years ago. That Sergio Leone sure is a stiff, his movies would never stand up to modern audiences.

Memphis was running angles constantly. Memphis also had through-the-roof levels of heat. As far as dismissing modern wrestling, I'd agree with Will in that for one, no one is dismissing modern wrestling. Myself, for example: I was born in 1989. This Lawler and Memphis wrestling that I'm going through right now and loving happened 8-10 years before I was born. I haven't seen it until now. I'd rate guys like Lawler well above almost anyone active today, but I'd also put guys like Misawa and Kobashi significantly lower than a lot of people here. Time isn't the issue. Lawler's plenty athletic and had excellent psychology. Unlike Loss, I love his hide-the-chain heel work. He doesn't need to hit a springboard kick when a diving fistdrop off the top rope looks plenty hard.

Dunn has a lot of influence but I wouldn't call it a positive influence, especially at this point.

This isn't in the powerlifting/oly lifting/strong man way that the thread originally mentioned, but Andre and Big Show both are probably up there in their own ways. Lots of the stories with Andre hit on that, plus when you're just that damn big you're not going to be good at lifting but are still going to be strong as an ox.

When dudes are exposed as complete non athletes, I can usually no longer take them very seriously or suspend my disbelief enough to enjoy them. That doesn't necessarily relate to Lawler or why I don't think much of him, but I will say he's very much a late 70's, early 80's type of wrestler, which for me was a pretty dry era loaded with guys who in my opinion would be badly exposed today due to a lack of athleticism. Not so much Lawler, who would probably get over in any era due to his charisma. With that said, I do think Lawler was very fortunate to be in the territory he happened to be in though. Even by the standards of the time, he wouldn't have been as accepted in some other places where the workrate demands were different. I would also argue that from a match quality standpoint, worldwide pro wrestling has never been better than 2013 & 2014. Of course, that's obviously a matter of opinion. I think All Japan glory days would fit right in today, as would vintage ROH (which is sort of cheating, because we're talking stuff only a few years old). Pretty much everything else is being blown to bits by what today's wrestlers are doing in the ring athletically & creatively. As a whole, high level pro wrestlers have never been smoother or as refined as they are right now, and that's because as a whole we're dealing with far superior athletes, and the training is far superior too. There is no more nonsensical & useless stretching taking place, or silly nonsense like not smartening guys up until they hit the ring for their first match. At least not in America. Look at the last two G1's, or something like Cavernario vs Rey Cometa from last night, or Bryan/Cena from last year's SummerSlam. You put this stuff on in 1987 and it obliterates all of it. And Bryan/Cena wasn't even good enough to crack my ten best matches of the year, and a guy like Cometa is hardly considered a world beater (although Cometa would be a legendary flyer with the things he can do had he been around in the 80's. Today he's just another guy.). Dolph Ziggler has TV matches practically every week that would be considered classics if they happened in the 80's. Today, he's an underachiever. The standards are higher now. Much of that is due to athleticism. I'm 100% certain the 50th best match of the year these days would win MOTY most years in the 70's & 80's. But that doesn't matter. It's only fair to compare things in the context of their own time. And it doesn't also mean that sometimes things can't transcend an era and hold up. I'm rambling way off topic now, which is supposed to be Lawler. The rest of this belongs in the dreaded "Do standards change?" thread, I guess. When dudes are 5’5 (and against much bigger opponents) and yet refuse to sell, I can no longer take them seriously or suspend my disbelief enough to enjoy them. First off, define what you mean by “athletic.” Wrestling has a long history of ex-NFL players, college football players, and amateur wrestlers. I’d say those guys are likely to be much more athletic than a lot of today’s darlings. I care about wrestling as an extension of the sport, not as a show of who has the best cardio for doing as much as possible with as few breaks as possible. Was Lex Luger unathletic because he’s not considered a work rate guy? We’ll agree to disagree on 2013/4 being the best period ever for wrestling, though I am extremely high on 2013/4. The WWE, for example, has never been better than now in-ring. But “pretty much everything else is being blown to bits by what today’s wrestlers are doing in the ring athletically & creatively?” Why, because guys have learned to do more flips and tumble better to the point that it routinely looks choreographed and so that they can ignore that getting in a fight hurts? The training is certainly more humane or ethical, but it’s probably not pumping out the high caliber wrestlers that it once did. Insane, rigorous training is brutal and makes people quit. It also tends to make those who survive do very good very fast. You’re living off the assumption, especially on high flying/work rate stuff, that newer is better. Or at least more impressive. Being able to jump high and move quickly aren’t the only athletic attributes to matches that can make wrestling great. Coordination is probably the #1 attribute on the athletic side that someone in wrestling needs. Lawler had excellent coordination, so too did a guy like Jerry Blackwell to move like he did and bump like he did at that size. You don’t have to show off a six pack of abs and fly across the ring to be athletic. To tie it back to Lawler, he’s an all-time great because of both his ring smarts, which is likely the most important aspect of wrestling, and his athletic ability. Like Loss hinted at, knowing how to put together a great match isn’t enough, you have to be able to physically do it. Lawler knew how and had all the athleticism he needed to do so.

Henry's combined numbers between powerlifting lifts and Olympic lifts also give credence to him being legitimately the world's strongest man. He's done extremely well at both. Cena and Bruno Sammartino are legitimately strong. Bruno once had the bench press record, if memory serves.

Lesnar winning by DQ is something I never guessed. It also wasn't a good call.

If the divas matches are at least that quality then I'm happy.

Ambrose really is the company's best performer all around.

Match was okay, I have no complaints though I don't think it was particularly good. But damnit, having non-wrestlers show up wrestlers physically is a huge peeve of mine.

They crushed it in there, what an awesome finishing stretch.

Loved the write up, Alan, will listen to the audio later. Akiyama is undoubtedly my 2000s MVP as I watch for that Japan project. No one is really even sniffing him for breadth and depth of quality IMO.

Liger's been a real bright spot for me when watching the Japan matches from NOAH's start to '05. His dickish heel work is great there and that isn't even close to his 90s stuff.

KENTA won't touch my list, though I think he's enjoyable in a few spots here and there. Mostly when someone like Takayama is making him sell his ass off. His presence (well, him and others, Marufuji is worse) is what ground my Best of Japan 2000s watching to a halt for quite a while.

Funk, probably. Tenryu or Hansen make strong arguments. But I've got a lot of watching to do