BillThompson

The idea that athleticism is one of the least important components of pro wrestling is patently and utterly absurd, but that's a discussion for another thread, and we've been down that road and it leads to nowhere. These are the statements that make it tough to have discussions with you Joe. It can't just be a difference of opinion, the other opinion has to be absurd, or some other such bit of hyperbole. I could say I find your idea that athleticism is very important to be absurd, but I'm trying to have a civil discussion so I'm not going to dismiss your opinion like that. I disagree with your opinion, but as long as you support it I'm cool with that and not about to belittle you or your opinion by tossing around hyperbole like absurd.

I don't agree with any of that really, mainly because wrestling is a performance art not an athletic event. Even if I were to go down that route your argument doesn't hold water with me. Take Serena Williams and Andy Roddick as examples. If they faced each other Roddick would wipe the floor with Serena. However, that's a shortsighted assessment of their place in their sport. Serena is a better tennis player than Roddick, doesn't matter if she doesn't match up physically. In the end I really do think you make too much of athleticism in wrestling Joe. It's a component for sure, but in a performance art athleticism is one of the least important elements. That being said, there are plenty of women wrestlers who are fantastic athletes, albeit that's not a criteria that matters all that much to me.

You're probably right on this, unconvincing works better than light. I just finished watching him win the WCW title from Rock, and the entire match I kept thinking, "There's no way that move hurt the Rock, or that one, or that one, etc."

I don't know, not sure I can really answer that. I see feint traces of Michaels, but not enough that I would say Jericho wants to be Michaels or emulated him (unless of course Jericho has said differently himself). I think in the end it's just the way Jericho wrestled, which also happens to be similar to the way Michaels wrestled. Kind of a loose breeze in the wind style where the emphasis is more on being graceful (which is odd since Jericho is often very clumsy) as opposed to hard hitting.

Michaels is the guy he keeps reminding me of during my rewatching of his career. Same lightness, same skipping of selling to get to the next move, and so on and so forth.

I've been watching a lot of 2001 Jericho lately, this is the period where i generally thought he was awesome. Boy, at this point I'm thinking Jericho may fall off of my list. I'm not enjoying anything he's doing, with a few exceptions. Everything he does is so light and it's hard to believe that he's ever hurting his opponent or controlling a match.

The Divas division is better than it ever has been. Alicia Fox, Natalya, Paige, AJ Lee, and Emma are all good to really good workers. Heck, even Nikki Bella has shown marked signs of improvement since she started elbowing other women in the face. Still, none of that matters when they are booked to be the bathroom break night in and night out.

Top 100 for singles and top 25 for tag team, I believe.

Probably Flair, as much as I love him as a worker I can see anywhere from 15-25 guys being ahead of him, and I don't think that's the case with other contributors.

Michaels won't make mine, neither will Tanahashi, and Austin I could see maybe not making my list.

As a face tag wrestler, that suits him very well.

I like to think I'm able to differentiate my selling. Heck, as much as I dislike Shawn I give him credit for being in a fair number of great matches. I don't actively root against him either, anytime I watch one of his matches I want it to be good and I hope that it will be. In the case of Shawn/Razor II I remember watching the first ten minutes and thinking, "Man, this is great stuff, totally smokes their first ladder match." Then Shawn does completely forget about the immense amount of leg work Razor had done and starts flying around as if his leg had never been touched. I can't justify ignoring 5+ minutes of concentrated and vicious leg work just because Shawn wanted to get his shit in. That's the main difference between myself and most people when it comes to that match, what you guys see as an exciting and sensical finishing run I see as Shawn saying fuck you to Razor and all the work he had done just so he could get his "exciting" offense in and pop the crowd.

Because Jarrett was never more than a capable wrestler. He had his moments, and I'd say he did have a handful of matches that were close to or on the same level as the Shawn match. However, at the end of the day Jarrett was a capable wrestler but not a great wrestler. I rate Shawn about the same, but Shawn had more physical tools, worked with better people, and had the ability to crank out great matches on a more consistent basis than someone like Jarrett.

I don't think MLB is an apt comparison, because well, MLB is an institution across many generations, cultures, etc. It taps into a core audience that WWE can only dream of and that I don't think they can ever achieve. I'd wager that if MLB did go all in they would be very successful because people feel loyalty to their specific team and MLB in general in ways that WWE fans don't.

You can turn that down if you want the Network to succeed. It was never a venture that would bring profits instantly, and all forecasts point to streaming and top box sets being the way that the majority of consumers take in their media within the next five years. Putting the TV on the Network would have paid off more long term than the short term gain from those TV deals. Bill you're idea is insane. You're putting wrestling in a complete bubble and killing it's growth. Not a bubble, simply preparing for the future. TV is on its way out, every analyst supports this. Tying your company into TV simply means that you won't be ready when the change starts. If a boom happens it will happen, but I think people are deluding themselves if they think that boom has to come from free TV. In this day and age it will come from something like YouTube or DailyMotion, not an episode of Raw on the USA Network. WWE needs to go all in on their Network, make it the place for WWE, and the home for fans who want to follow the product. They can filter out content to YouTube, DailyMotion, and their website, but they are hindering the future of their business model by still relying on free TV.

You can turn that down if you want the Network to succeed. It was never a venture that would bring profits instantly, and all forecasts point to streaming and top box sets being the way that the majority of consumers take in their media within the next five years. Putting the TV on the Network would have paid off more long term than the short term gain from those TV deals.

It was a Jarrett match, laid out in his style, worked in his fashion, and it was Jarrett who did the lion's share of the work that made the match great. His timing, move placement, selling, working of the heat segments, and so on were what made the match great with Michaels being along for the ride.

I'm not speaking for anyone but it seems to me like there's an anti-Sheamus sentiment from Irish/UK pro wrestling fans. At least that's the vibe I get when I hear them talk about Sheamus as opposed to McIntyre, Lynch, or Devitt. I have no idea why that might be, but I find it interesting nonetheless.

I've said from the beginning that signing new TV deals was a mistake. They should have made the Network the one stop shop for all of their content. That would make it a must for any WWE fan, and until they go that route the numbers will stay around where they are. The other stuff we've discussed ad nauseum. It's not that old content will drive new subscriptions, but they need a diversified content library to keep people happy and coming back. They should be churning out oodles of "new" old content to support their original programming. But they aren't and thus the Network feels like a service that is stagnant.

I always really liked the Survivor Series Sid match. I thought it was bratty Shawn at his best. I am being generous with the Vader match probably. It should have been a lot better, but it is still better than any Davey Boy match that is not against, Bret, Shawn or Owen. My hang-up with the Goldust ladder match was the camerawork when I watched it two years ago. Maybe it is not as bad of camerawork as I thought. The 1995 ladder match is a US Match of the Decade contender absolutely riveting stuff where just like Matt says for the Goldust match they use the ladder as a tool to garner a victory by destroying Shawn's knee. The '94 ladder match is really good also and just a level below the '95 ladder match. I wouldn't include any of the Bret, Sid, Vader, Undertaker, or Austin stuff for Shawn. I don't think he ever had anything above a decent match with any of those guys, usually due to him bringing the match down (not in the case of Sid though). The Jarrett match was a carry job on the part of Jarrett, the great Diesel match was a gimmick match (where even I will admit that Shawn usually excels), and so on and so forth. Davey did produce better stuff than Shawn against Bret and Owen, and I'd also contend he did a better job of working lesser opponents like Warlord (not to great matches mind you, but to stuff that I found far more watchable than what Shawn was doing around the same period).

Joint Promotions is what I've seen pop up online in most places, thanks for the info.

OJ, is there a promotion for the much ballyhooed Davies/Veidor match?

I've heard the argument made that Sheamus is a shitty worker because he can't work light. He has to work stiff, it's the only way he knows how to work apparently. I think it was rovert who was saying that the guys in the back don't think he's a good worker as a result of this. I don't really care what the guys in the back think, their opinions are no different than when a director comments on another director's film; great for debate but of little to no value. However, is Sheamus' supposed inability to work light a problem for some? Is it even a legitimate thing?

That isn't defending the art though, it's defending the person. The Woody petitions basically said, "Woody is a great artist and a great guy, just leave him alone already!" I'm not saying that, for me it's that I can say, "Woody Allen is a tremendous filmmaker, but at the same time he's a despicable human being who committed some horrendous acts. As an artist Woody gets an A+, as a human he's clearly a failure." That's an important distinction to make, I think.

I would highly suggest the Rock match from No Way Out '01 and the Austin match from Unforgiven '01. Both are high chapter marks in the "Angle is becoming a pro wrestler as opposed to an amateur wrestler" narrative that runs through just about every one of his matches in 2001. Funny thing is Angle's not the best performer in either match but they are great examples of Angle's willingness to give as a performer and to allow his opponent to shine for the sake of the story.