BillThompson

Of their recent run I'd definitely suggest all of these, EVOLVE Wrestling: 34 (09-13-2014) Zack Sabre Jr. vs. Timothy Thatcher EVOLVE Wrestling: 33 (08-10-2104) Biff Busick vs. Drew Gulak EVOLVE Wrestling: 31 (08-08-2014) Timothy Thatcher vs. Drew Gulak World Wrestling Network: A Wrestling Odyssey (04-04-2014) Timothy Thatcher vs. Drew Gulak World Wrestling Network: Mercury Rising ’15 (03-28-2015) Timothy Thatcher vs. Chris Hero EVOLVE Wrestling: 38 (03-08-2015) Drew Gulak vs. Chris Hero EVOLVE Wrestling: 37 (01-10-2015) Timothy Thatcher vs. Roderick Strong EVOLVE Wrestling: 40 (03-27-2015) Chris Hero vs. Biff Busick EVOLVE Wrestling: 40 (03-27-2015) Tommy End vs. Timothy Thatcher (The WWN shows aren't under the EVOLVE banner, but for all intents and purposes they could be considered EVOLVE shows).

I'm actually a big fan of bringing main guys down for short runs. It adds to the territory feel of NXT, gives guys a chance to have more ring time and work on aspects of their games. Besides, it's all about how someone is pushed, so if they push Jey Uso as someone the fans should watch out for in a singles setting and he delivers in the ring; the fans will respond to him.

Is simple really a bad thing though? I think simple is often the best approach, and that logical thinking within a match that springs forth from a simple place more often than not leads to something worth watching. That's not to say that something can't be simple and boring, or simple, logical, and boring, or logical and boring, or simple, logical, and bad. But, I find that people are too easily dismissive of things being simple.

Well, personally I wouldn't say any of the arm work in that match was lame tugging, but really good, crisp arm work.

Exactly, it's art. The people who rail against it being an art form are pretty funny to me; it's like somehow acknowledging that something like pro wrestling is an art form dirties the word art in some way. Low brow, high brow, whatever you want to call it, art is art and pro wrestling is art.

I keep a list of my star ratings for matches I've rated ****+, but I don't publish those online. When I write about a match I leave out play by play, because if people want that then they should watch the match. I break down why I liked the match, what worked, what didn't, etc. Hopefully I paint a picture of my general; feelings on a match, and I don't bother with the star rating because I feel my words should do the job instead.

Kongo Kong versus Danny Cannon from last year is a great one.

I'll have to check out the Gagne/Tsuruta and Kimura/Tsuruta matches if I can find them, never seen those.

I'm still working on getting my podcast up and off the ground. For those unaware the format is going to be to discuss the MOTYC's from various years, promotions, etc. I've decided on 1976 as the first year I will cover. And outside of one curmudgeon on Twitter who seems to enjoy trying to suck the fun out of everything I'm looking for some recommendations of the best matches from that year. I've already got a solid top 10, but I'd love to get some more recommendations so I can cover as much of the year as possible.

The death match correlation is an interesting one. A lot of the present day heavy grapplers (Thatcher, Gulak, Gacy, Claxton, Busick) either started in death matches or have significant backgrounds in them. Overall though, I'd say you're spot on about Gulak. As much as I love Thatcher as a wrestler, when it comes to making the style more prominent Gulak is head and shoulders above the rest. He's training an entire generation of wrestlers to focus heavily on and be proficient in that style.

Because it's still presented as a big deal, and it features a gimmick match that defines their booking for a large chunk of the year.

I didn't realize they have a streaming service now. I am going to hit that up. Yep, CZW Studios, so far they only have recent shows up. But, they are going to start putting up old shows this week and they asked for input. I suggested putting them up in chronological order, and it sounds like that may be the way they go. I actually like death matches too, but I like the ones where the violence is mostly implied and its the charisma of the wrestlers and spectacle of it all that fuels the match. If there are any like that in CZW, I'd definitely be interested. Gore for gore's sake doesn't do much for me. Same here. CZW can get really gory, and they do often fall prey to gore for the sake of gore. But, a decent number of their death matches are built around feuds and angles where the gore means something. I'd second that, had that match just a shade below the full monty myself.

It's a glorified In Your House. Not in the present day where every PPV/special event is pushed as important.

It's a PPV/special event. They build to it, they treat it like it matters. It's not one of the big 3, but in the context of how WWE presents their product it's an important event, not a B show. As for the "he's a repackaged indie guy," watching the product regularly would reveal that they do not present Owens as such. He's presented as a legitimate tough guy and killer heel. Your comment is more you forming your own narrative.

Early H8 Club stuff is really good to great, especially there series of matches with VD. I'll be honest, a lot of the stuff people find actively bad I like, but I am someone who likes death matches. As soon as their new streaming service starts putting up old shows I plan on going through CZW show by show from the beginning, and I'll certainly send recs your way as I take that journey. Glad you discovered Dojo Wars, it's really a neat concept. That's what led to me realizing that Joe Gacy is one heck of a worker.

Not to rain on your parade, but I see absolutely no difference between the star system and the 1-10 system.

He busted out the move on a PPV/special event, and it fits within the larger narrative they've been pushing for a while of Cena being older and having more trouble keeping up with younger talent. He's having to try new things and change up his approach somewhat, so you get things like the Code Red, the Springboard Stunner, arguing with the ref, etc.

PREMIER Wrestling: VIII (06-07-2015) Timothy Thatcher vs. Marcus Lewis Read the review at Free Pro Wrestling.

The PREMIER show was a lot of fun.

Oh, they certainly do, would never deny that. I'm not about to push Zandig or Hyde as great bookers, but I've gotten way more enjoyment out of CZW than I ever did out of ECW.

The booking drew fans but not money. I think it is foolhardy to say the money was the be all end all in this case when discussing the booking. Heyman is a terrible businessman but not sure saying he didn't turn a profit made him a poor booker is on the up and up there. If there was something else there that sprinkles that "OH BABY" on it then that'd be cool. I gave examples of the more artistic side of his booking earlier. The push to the moon for a never over Justin Credible, refusing to put RVD in the top spot, positioning the company as the star as opposed to the wrestlers, keeping Tajiri and Crazy in a never ending repeat cycle, pushing Sabu post-1997, etc.

Finisher caliber is all about context. In the context that Cena has used them, and that they have been put forth in the promotion, those moves are not finisher caliber. Something like the Bull Hammer may not be as impressive as those moves from an aesthetic viewpoint, but it has been presented in context and within the promotion as a move of a finishing caliber.

I'm usually not one to discuss the financial side of the business. But, finances are pretty easy in the sense that you are only successful if you are making money. Heyman made no money with his booking, therefore it didn't draw. Bringing in 3,000 fans didn't matter because he didn't have the model in place to make those 3,000 fans profitable. Someone like Super Dragon never gets mentioned, but he really should be in consideration for an all-time great booker. His product only ever brings in 250-300 fans, but he knows what to do to make money and PWG continually makes money and turns a profit year after year. From a pure financial perspective it's not how many asses that are in the seats that matter, or the size of the arena; it's whether or not those asses lead to you walking away with more money in your pockets than when you started the day.

CZW was, and still is, a far superior version of ECW. Except DJ Hyde is probably an even scummier human than Paul Heyman. As for the question, I'd say Heyman's booking deserves to be ripped to shreds. He never made a dime with ECW, in fact he lost money year after year and only survived because of financial assistance from outside sources. I may loathe RVD as a worker, but he was ready to be a star in ECW. The fans wanted him, there was no reason for him not to be the man. Heyman instead books RVD in secondary feuds until RVD gets hurt and then comes back at a time when the company is so far gone it no longer matters. But hey, pushing a never over Justin Credible to the very top of the promotion sure was genius booking. Let's not forget, it was Heyman who pushed hard for PPV, and brought forth the narrative of PPV being the holy grail for ECW. By all accounts it was PPV that ultimately sped along the demise of ECW. A major reason for this is because Heyman could not book for a larger scale, or realize the limitations his company needed to work within. When he was booking within a bandbox; think Pit Bulls and Raven era, Heyman could be a really good booker. However, he never found a way to turn even his best booking into money, and that's all the evidence needed to bury Heyman as a booker. Parv is right though, his influence goes beyond just his booking, and it lies mainly in the fucking awful smark crowds that make up the majority of wrestling crowds these days. Maybe the idiotic "This is awesome," or "This is wrestling" chants would have come about anyways, but I don't think anyone can deny that they helped to bring about the current terrible era in wrestling fandom. Allan is right too, Heyman did make the promotion of ECW itself into the star. I'd say that may be his most detrimental contribution of all. It's not like Heyman originated that way of thinking, but he pushed it really hard. And look at the state of wrestling today, and the complete lack of stars compared to the star that is the promotion. Damo isn't the star, it's Progress Wrestling that is the star. Drew Gulak isn't the star, it's CZW that is the star. Seth Rollins isn't the star, it's WWE that is the star. It's an absolutely sad state of affairs, and Heyman definitely helped to continue its growth.

Not sure if there's enough old man Omori for him to make my list. I haven't seen a lot of his earlier stuff, but what I have seen in no way measures up to his later output.