BillThompson

I'll echo this sentiment. I'm not thinking people are pretending when they say they like a Davey Richards match. They like him, and I don't, and I'm okay with that. The people who are saying they liked Henry/Show from Raw liked that match, and you didn't. Assigning the label of pretender to their opinion of the match only does you a disservice.

I can only speak for myself, but I think the matches they've picked represent the time in the promotion very well. It's not giving a complete picture, but the matches present their feuds in a digestible way that us easy to follow and get into.

1) Tito Santana Fiery babyface extraordinaire! 2) Greg Valentine Grinds down said babyface and lays in his shots. 3) Mascarita Dorada Best mini of all time, and maybe one of the greatest wrestlers ever! Also, Grimmas is right, he's very much like Rey in 1996, only he's probably better on the mat. 4) Bull Power Young Vader don't give a damn where he is, he just wants to punch Otto Wanz in the face! 5) Kurt Angle 2001 Kurt is awesome, telling great stories in the ring and doing his darnedest to overcome truly shitty booking.

I like Lynch, but Banks is by far the best woman WWE has right now, character wise and skill wise. As far as Dave goes, I like him in doses as a historian and a news source. As an analyst I find we're so far apart that I have very little use for what he has to say about matches, wrestlers, and events.

I wasn't around for the period when people started appreciating Henry. I left wrestling in 2003ish, and came back earlier this year. One of the first matches I watched was Henry versus Ambrose on Main Event. I loved Henry in that match, but I fully expected to be bashed for thinking as such, and was pleasantly surprised when I found out people had started to appreciate the work of Henry.

I don't agree with your take Joe, but it has been consistent.

He approached me, and I said, "Yes, TJ, I will be your asshole in arms." Thus our unholy union was born and I figured what better way to start than by pissing off everyone by not liking Puma versus Mundo. (Seriously though, I really wanted to like this match and was upset when I didn't.)

It's perfect is what it is, it's what I've been saying the Network should contain from the start, exclusive matches only for the Network. If you're not truly going to go all in on the Network and make it the home for everything WWE then something like this is what needs to be done. And they better not show a lick of this, outside of maybe still pictures, on free TV.

I've started writing for Free Pro Wrestling, in addition to still writing for my personal blog Blue Thunder Driver and The Tag Rope magazine. Those who are unaware, Free Pro Wrestling is a website that provides reviews of and links to free legal pro wrestling on the internet. My first review is for the main event from the first Lucha Underground show, featuring Johnny Mundo (John Morrison) versus Prince Puma (Ricochet). Check out my review of the match right here, Johnny Mundo vs. Prince Puma.

Again, where am I talking about women workers who are terrible? I'm talking about the good ones, which does include Natalya. She's a very good worker, probably only behind Emma and Sasha Banks in terms of being the best WWE has to offer. I wouldn't say she's a great worker, and she's capable of having bad matches, but more often than not she's good and it's become quite clear just how good she is in how she's able to have good matches because of her ability to call the match.

They may, or they may actually think it's awesome, I'm not them so I can't say. I do know that I have been posting in this thread about not grading on a curve, and then people still keep talking about "Clearly people are grading them on a curve" so apparently I grade on a curve even if I say I don't.

They've done this, multiple times in NXT and in the indies before coming to the WWE. Again, no curve on my part, but hey I guess you are me and know how I grade better than even I do. Ugh...

I respond to analogy with similar analogy, it's how I roll.

The late 2001 Hardy Boyz break-up stuff has to be some of the oddest booked wrestling I've seen lately. Jeff and Lita keep taking stupid risks that cost the team matches, titles, title shots, and endanger themselves. Matt justifiably gets upset over this, and yet he's portrayed as being the heel for actually wanting his teammates to think of the team first and their personal glory second. I just don't get how a writer (or group of writers) sat down and thought this booking made a lick of sense.

This is me as well, although I think we are part of a smallish group who thinks that way.

I don't think sports ever translates well to pro wrestling, because it's very much not a sport. It's a performance art, and that entails subjectivity and a completely different skillset (wherein athleticism is not much of a factor) than if it were an actual sporting endeavor.

I can't agree with either of those points. Someone does deserve praise if they go from being utterly terrible in the ring to capable of putting on decent to good matches. On the second point, that's just not the case when you have workers like Natalya, Alicia Fox, Emma, Paige, AJ Lee, Becky Lynch, Charlotte, Bayley, Alexa Bliss, and Sasha Banks on the rosters of WWE/NXT. If Eva Marie and Rosa Mendes make it though a match without screwing something up that is close to a miracle. However if Emma and Alicia make it through a match without screwing something up that's just par for the course for their talent level and ability in the ring.

Well, I would never have said Lita was good, always thought she was a terrible worker. Trish worked hard to become passable in the ring. I give her credit for that, and she was capable of being good from time to time, but not on a consistent basis. Right now there are some bad female workers in the company, but there are also some talented workers who aren't being given much of a chance to show that, outside of NXT that is. I do really think Nikki Bella is a great example of how people refuse to give women on the WWE roster a chance. Is she a great worker, no she's not. Is she consistently a good worker, no she's not. But, she has managed to turn herself into a passable worker who is capable of putting together a decent match and maybe even a good one depending on the opponent. There's no curve involved, just the natural progression of a wrestler learning her craft. Nikki has a low ceiling, but she has risen towards that ceiling, but because of the way she's presented and the stigma that comes with being a WWE women's worker her improvement in the ring is largely ignored.

I've read very few things in my life that made less sense. So, if the 76ers went and played the Phoenix Mercury of the WNBA, the 76ers would beat them by at least 50. But since the Mercury won the WNBA championship, they are better at basketball than the Sixers? That makes absolutely no sense. It all comes down to the application of skill. Athleticism is great, it can mask and make up for a lot of flaws. In the case of someone like a Sue Bird, she is a great basketball player. Of course she would be smoked by the men, but that's because she lacks their level of athleticism. However, being great at one's sport should not be denied, and she is great at her sport. Athleticism is given too much weight in pretty much everything, because skill is skill, regardless of gender.

I think the women I mentioned are good period. In the WWE, NXT, and indie feds, I have seen all of them put in quality work throughout their entire careers. I don't grade on any curve when it comes to the women, and I truly believe if they would let that crop of women go out and wrestle they'd have a nice women's division on their hands.

So you agree on Bagwell ? Oh yeah, never saw much value in the guy in any capacity. Pretty terrible in the ring, and annoying as all get out in terms of gimmick.

I disagree on Christopher and Disco. I always found Disco to be decent in the ring, moments of good and sometimes awfulness, but for the most part decent. Christopher, assuming you are talking about Jerry's son, had periods where he was great and I generally found him to be pretty good.

Well no, she's not. She's more dominant in her sport than he was in his. It's not the same sport and isn't treated as such by the competitors or the people who cover it. Not going to turn this into an all out tennis discussion, but I disagree with you. In every way possible I view Serena as a better tennis player than Roddick, and I really liked Roddick and disliked Serena. Oh, and I never bought the different sport argument, it's a way of compartmentalizing the differences that sprouted up between the two genders, but it's still the same sport.