BillThompson

Has an outside shot at making the bottom of my top 100. The more I see the better he gets in my estimation.

I'd argue he is a great in-ring worker, one of the best in the WWE currently.

Don't usually do star ratings, but I had that Jones match as an easy ****3/4. Rudge will definitely be getting more of a look from me.

Oh boy, I don't know if I'm ready for these worlds colliding...

Both have been added, thanks.

It's what it can be at times, it all depends on how it's booked. I'd argue that in the case of Candice LeRae & Heidi Lovelace all the time, and Kimber Lee most of the time, it's treated as just another match for them and not a sideshow attraction.

Big E has always shown a great personality and ability to talk; but they limited that to Twitter and sideshow YouTube videos and such.

WWN working with WWE is a win-win-win all around. The only companies hurt by it would be other indies who would most likely be blocked from booking WWN talent. This also may be more of a push towards a more open talent exchange system, which Triple H seems to be in favor of. Plus, at the end of the day this brings us closer to match-ups like Cesaro/Thatcher, and that's all that matters to me. As for the RoH point, the way they find new talent is stupid to begin with. They mainly look to their training camps where talent has to try out. That's why they've never even had guys like Thatcher, Sabre, Busick, Horus, etc. on their radar. It's also why RoH is consistently struggling when it comes to pushing new talent.

Sure thing, as many requests as you want. I'll try and get to what I can when I can. And if it's not too much of a bother, links if you have them would be great.

Here's the deal, I'm a glutton for punishment. A few people at various outlets online have been asking me to review some matches for them. My idea; start a blog about it. That blog is Random Match Generator, and essentially you ask for me to review a match and I will review that match. The only caveats are that I won't review something I've already reviewed for any of the other sites I write for. Also, if you suggest something for me to review and I find it to be a great match, think **** or higher, then it will be reviewed on my other blog, Blue Thunder Driver instead. Oh yeah, other caveat, the match has to be readily available. But yeah, I think that's it. I've already reviewed a few matches, including one requested by one of the wrestlers in the actual match. So stop by sometime, or even offer a suggestion if you have any desire to read my inane words about random wrestling matches. Random Match Generator

Thanks, unless someone else chirps up that's what I'll be going with.

Any details on this match would be appreciated. My go to would usually be WrestlingData but they've been down for over a week now. Either way I know it's Giant Haystacks versus Big Daddy and it's in the UK, but that's it. Date, promotion, venue, event; any of that would be greatly appreciated.

I understand looking at individual performances, but at this point you're basically just using it to handwave away a bunch of Michaels' best stuff. Michaels had a great match against Diesel - ah, but Nash delivered a killer side slam and talked some nice trash, so Shawn didn't really do that much. He had a great match against Undertaker - but if you watch the match, it was Undertaker's methodical offense that set the tone for the whole thing. He had a great match against Jarrett - but the stalling at the start was obviously out of the Jarrett playbook and therefore he carried the match. He had a great match against Razor Ramon - hey, everything Hall did in that match looked great. He had a great match against Mankind - but Foley was clearly the one calling the shots there. Why did all of these guys have their best performances against Michaels? Some of it has to be the opportunity to work a long match, and a lot of these were no-DQ or gimmick matches, but Steve Austin wrestled some of these guys, too, and his matches had similar advantages. He had famously bad chemistry with The Undertaker, and Shawn-Foley was a much better matchup than Austin-Foley (obviously Austin has some better matchups, like with Hart). If you don't think Michaels' matches were great, that's a fair argument against him. If you think he had some great ones but that he should have had many more with the opportunities that he was given, that's a fair argument against him. If you think that he did well with the opportunity that he was given but that someone else could have done better, well, that's a little too much speculation for me. Intead, your argument seems to be that a bunch of guys had their career performance against Michaels, which sounds almost like a compliment. I feel like at some point you've got to give Michaels some credit rather than look for caveats that explain why this match wasn't his doing, either. The only real guys who never did much of anything with their careers outside of a few matches here and there would be Diesel, and Sid. Guys like Undertaker, Jarrett, Foley, and Hall had careers full of good matches, or great matches for Foley and Taker, with people not named Michaels. Nash has the Hart matches, but I'm not as high on those as most. Sid has next to nothing really, outside of his participation in War Games and some cool angles. In the case of Sid I don't think his matches with Michaels are good or even great so he's not a factor in the discussion. That just leaves Nash, and that match is his career performance because he brings a lot to that match. Michaels does too, and as I said originally I give Michaels credit for being in great matches. But, what about his matches that should have been great but weren't? That's what I'm looking at, because we know that people can have good-great matches with Foley, Taker, Jarrett, and Hall. It's what he did with the mediocre wrestlers that matters to me, and in that department I don't think Michaels was ever able to get greatness out of a number of mediocre workers like Austin was at times.

Wait... have we gotten so full of ourself that we're claiming to be the Enlightenment of Wrestling Fandom? I've long been called an arrogant condescending fan, but even I won't go there. I'm not afraid to say you about make this place not worth coming to. Such a drag, every single freaking post...

I have no problem with Great Match Theory, the terminology, or the discussion about it and that comes from it. Discussing theories, applying them, testing them, rebelling against them, etc. is all a part of art appreciation. This is no different.

I give him credit for those days sure, but having great matches with great wrestlers isn't a calling card I look for in a great wrestler when we get down to the micro level of breaking them down. What they were able to do on their bad days, with subpar workers, etc. is mainly what I'm getting at here. So, Michaels has his great days and his great matches, but what does it say about Michaels when he consistently failed to get great matches out of bad workers or has matches like the Jarrett IYH match where he's outworked by Jarrett to the point of it almost being a carry job?

As is always the case, the people who are talking about it, posting about it, and commenting on it. Move along if you don't care; or don't bother asking that pedantic question.

Something that really holds Michaels back for me is that his very best singles stuff was usually either with another great worker or a match where a decent worker had one of their better days. Maybe one could say this for Austin, but I don't think that really holds up when Austin was able to slip and slide between dance partners rather easily based on the time period of his career. I like to use Owen Hart as the example of why I don't think Michaels as a singles wrestler is any great shakes. Specifically Owen/Michaels versus Ken Shamrock. Owen worked his but off to make Shamrock look good and get the best possible match that could come from Shamrock at that point. Michaels just wanted to have his match and the result was a piss poor match where Shamrock looked weak and like a guy who could barely wrestle.

Who would you label as the ideal workers of some of the specific styles? Pick whatever number you wish (Puro, Lucha, WWF/E, Shoot, etc.) and go over the one wrestler who you think epitomizes that style the best.

Hash gets the edge with with. I like both of them, but I'v grown to love Hash. He doesn't have as many great matches as Misawa, but I'm not a big believer in great match theory. Hash made me care more about him as a performer, and he had a style I preferred. He showed his greatness against a variety of opponents and was better at getting good work out of lesser talent.

Watched the PREMIER show from Thatcher onward along with Bohs, Sam, and Dylan. Was really good stuff, and I hope PREMIER keeps doing things like this going forward. They are a hidden gem of an indie, and while they don't run much when they do run their cards are always fun.

He's in general a dickhead asshole; and him taking the childlike, "Wah, you made me mad, I'm gonna beat you up" approach is in line with said dickhead assholeness. So, no, I think he's fairly serious there.

Westside Xtreme Wrestling: 16 Carat Gold '15 - Day 1 (03-06-2015) Timothy Thatcher vs. Axel Dieter Jr. This is a first round match in the 2015 WXW 16 Carat Gold Tournament. Opens promising, stays promising throughout but never shifts into that next gear. I liked how the opening matwork was built around Dieter not being skilled enough to hang with Thatcher but being too fast for Thatcher to handle. This led to some cool exchanges and moments like Thatcher gently stopping Dieter from certain transitions because he simply had better positioning. The middle is where the match really shines, specifically a brief three minute period where Thatcher goes after Dieter's arm. Unfortunately they veer away from that quickly and the stretch run is underwhelming. I think Dieter and Thatcher could have a great match together, but this one felt far too abbreviated and never got going like it should have.

Austin, and for me it's not close. I'm not super high on Austin, but I am very low on Michaels. If you were to remove Michaels' Rockers run from the mix he wouldn't have much of anything on his resume that makes me think of him as a great wrestler. Austin had his share of misses, but I think he easily has HBK beat using Great Match Theory; Michaels is way behind Austin in his overall ability to work with anyone and get something worthwhile out of them; he has has him beat in overall skill; and he has him beat in the simple eye test.

Right now I'd say it's a 50/50 situation either way. Both men are heels in a way that WWE seems to no longer produce heels. They both can go in the ring, and they both have shown an ability to engage the crowd in ways that the majority of wrestlers presently can't. I think the rocket on either of these guy's backs would result in a potentially top of the mountain heel for the company.