BillThompson

Some people just don't like to face facts and work around their limitations. Hunter, from all accounts, isn't able to come to grips with not being as big as Rock or Austin. He's not able to deal with his long run on top being pretty much stagnant as far as ratings, merch sales, house show sales, and PPV numbers go. He can't handle the idea that others had to put him over from him to become a main eventer. Sadly, from all accounts he's actually decent as an executive, but he's letting his insecurities about his past affect him as an executive and that won't end well.

The combination of Byron Saxton and Tom Phillips has been really great on Main Event/Superstars/NXT. Pair them with Regal and they are instantly the best announce team the WWE has ever had, and approaching the level of some of the WWF great teams. Problem is that you can tell that Vince/Dunn are concerned with stripping away everything that makes them a great, and uniquely different, duo. Phillips has been great at recalling history and relaying it to the audience. Whenever he announces something where Vince/Dunn are involved word is they tell him to tone down that stuff because no one cares. Basically, it doesn't matter about the announcers anymore, as long as Vince/Dunn are micromanaging it will be paltry.

Because Melzter loves Edge and doesn't like Henry.

I've enjoyed it mainly for how fresh it is. I appreciate that it looks different, feels new, and is trying for something not in the current North American pro wrestling on TV mold. I haven't been as high on the wrestling as others have, but I've still enjoyed it, and if the show stays at this level or gets better it will be an enjoyable alternative to the status quo.

Steph hasn't been as great in the second half of the year as she was in the first. I agree that she needs to be on less, but not off completely. When she is used in spots she's by far the best non-wrestler in any promotion going today. Henry and Show are still very, very good. I haven't seen anything from them this year where I thought they were actively bad, or that they weren't helping the match. I'd still take the two of them over the majority of the roster, and where they have been placed on the card is the right spot and they continue to succeed at that spot.

Why would you want the best non-wrestler, Steph, and two of the better wrestlers on the roster, Show & Henry, off of TV?

When I first started dating, I have no idea, honestly. Probably Attitude Era, so I really wasn't paying attention to much wrestling at the time. When I met my wife I wasn't watching wrestling at all. It's only this year that I've picked it back up again, and the wife is not happy. She absolutely loathes wrestling, so it's pretty much only a me thing.

I think you're kidding yourself if you think shootstyle has little or no importance/influence on the rest of wrestling. So much of that style has found its way into every type of wrestling, even as high up as the WWF/E. Sure, the argument could be made that a lot of that is due to MMA, but I don't buy that as shootsyle in pro wrestling has always been its own thing within the medium.

For me importance carries very little value. I'm all about looking for high quality, whether that be in music, film, or wrestling. Something is great if it's great, not because it was important.

The hive mind idea is disconcerting, but I don't put much stock in it. If people are making that argument then they are taking the lazy way out and not bothering to truly engage with the many facets and opinions of this board. Look, mine is far from an unbiased opinion, and this is true for most everyone posting in this board. I love this place, posting here, and interacting with the type of posters we attract. I can to other message boards to discuss wrestling because I enjoy discussing wrestling. PWO is my home though and I go out of my way to be involved here because I get a lot more out of PWO than I do out of any other place. It's also very rare at PWO for an opinion of mine to be dismissed off hand. On other boards if I have the audacity to state that Erick Rowan is a pretty good worker I'm met with some sort of gif or video that off handedly dismisses my claim as crazy. The majority at PWO discuss, they don't dismiss, and I wouldn't have it any other way. That being said, it's far from a perfect place. But, every place to discuss wrestling online is flawed, this place happens to be the least flawed I find. In the end I just want to enjoy myself discussing wrestling, and I find I can do that more at PWO than anywhere else.

Have a shot at my list simply because I do really think they are a far better version of the Road Warriors.

Stan Hansen, Ric Flair, Jumbo Tsuruta, Vader, El Hijo del Santo, Jerry Lawler, Nick Bockwinkel, Mitsuharu Misawa, Terry Funk, Bret Hart, El Satanico, Eddie Guerrero, Ricky Morton, Dustin Rhodes, William Regal, Manami Toyota, Bull Nakano, and Aja Kong are all contenders off the top of my head.

Greg Valentine versus Tito Santana from mid-80s WWF. It's a long one, a little over a year, and it escalates, The feud starts off not s a feud, but just as two guys wrestling one another. It slowly gets more hate filled until by the end of the feud both guys are more concerned with hurting the other than winning the match. Has a lot of great finishes, Tito is the perfect fiery babyface, and Valentine works in spades as the stoic asskicker willing to kick the fiery babyface's teeth in. Near the end the feud gets bloody, and it progresses to include gimmick matches like a lumberjack match and a cage match. Every match in the feud is great, and at least three are MOTYC level.

Charlotte/Natalya is a really good match, with a promising Charlotte being aided to a really good match by the really good Natalya. Sure, if a women's match was to be on there I think it should have been Paige/Emma from Arrival, but there's no way Emma is making that list. All in all, an okay list. Nothing to really get upset about. There are a lot of matches I don't think are great, but it's not my list and these things are entirely subjective. Most of all the list is a good representative of WWE's version of history, the weird almost smark place that is WWE.com, and the great matches from "everywhere" that can be found on the Network.

Decent match. Nothing special at all. It's Blackwell, a ladder and a tool. Granted, that tool took one nice bump at the end, but he really doesn't bring shit in term of anything else, really. DeBeers is like Jimmy Golden with an offensive gimmick. He's a really good worker then?

Hey now, no need to call me an asshole. As for Interstellar, I'm sure I will have plenty of problems with it and pick it apart because it's made by a director who I don't think is all that talented. In regards to your broader point, I think that someone can both cheer because they love something and be analytical. I can watch F.W. Murnau's Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans and be moved to near tears by its simple beauty. I can also be wowed by his technical mastery and break down that element of the film. Wrestling is no different, nor is any work of art actually. I can watch Savage versus Warrior from WrestleMania VII and be enveloped in the story while still dissecting the match from different perspectives. Doesn't make me an asshole, just someone who loves something and is okay analyzing that same thing,

Wrote about Thatcher versus Masters at my blog, Thatcher/Masters. Short version, great match where both men provide exactly what I want from my pro wrestlers, but the ending is terrible.

His work against Rey in 1996-1997 holds up well, same for the Jericho feud. In the WWF his initial Light Heavyweight run, especially the Scotty match from Backlash '00, is pretty great overall.

Yeah, I'd say super talented. Not just for that match though, but for the way she's worked in pretty much every match I've seen her in, even the two minute nothing matches.

It all depends on the wrestlers. Seek out Chris Masters versus Timothy Thatcher on YouTube. It's a 12 minute match, but in that small time frame they manage to have a great match structured around character/heat building, limb work, and selling. Now, I'll grant you that the finish is not good, but everything up until it is great wrestling, and only in 12 minutes.

As I said, his work in 1998 was still great, easily on par with his mid-nineties output. His opponents weren't as great, so the matches weren't as great, but what Owen was doing in the ring was just as great if not better since he was doing it with lesser opponents.

Eh, you had me until the "virtually every great match in history has been at least 20 minutes." Can't agree with that, as there are plenty of great matches that are in the 10-20 minute range. I agree with the rest of your points though, although I would say I tend to fall more on the limitations argument, which means that the wrestlers should go the amount they can go to deliver their best match possible, whether that be 5, 10, 20, or 60 minutes.

The company still trusted him to be in programs with new people that they wanted to be heavily featured in the company. He wasn't main event level anymore, but he was kept relevant and the fact that these guys were hanging with or beating Owen was always played up as a big deal. The Shamrock feud was played up as a big deal altogether.