BillThompson

I'd like to think I've changed a lot. When I first got into wrestling I was very young, and basically if you weren't a main eventer I didn't care about you. I loved guys like Randy Savage, Hulk Hogan, Ultimate Warrior, Ric Flair, etc. I was very much a WWF kid, as they had TV I could watch all the time, that was not the case with WCW. Workrate, or insider knowledge if you will, weren't really a factor for me. I liked the good guys, disliked the bad guys, and cheered accordingly. I took a long break from wrestling and when I came back I was a teenager and I was suckered in by certain voices online. I read Scott Keith and took his word as gospel. I discovered places online like DVDVR, but they seemed so beyond what I thought of wrestling as. They were talking about elements of wrestling that I didn't care about or thought mattered, and they certainly weren't spouting their opinion as if it were the truth like Keith would. I considered myself an extreme workrate guy, but the truth is that I was a Keith guy, I wasn't really paying attention to workrate as much as I was making sure I liked what he liked, I took another break from wrestling and returned around the Attitude Era. I didn't really care for the product WWF was offering at the time. I liked Austin, but I didn't care for the flash-bang style of WWF at the time. I gravitated more towards WCW where at the very least it seemed like there were more wrestlers I enjoyed; Jericho, Benoit, Guerrero, Malenko, La Parka, etc. I still read Keith regularly, but I noticed that I was caring about different elements of a wrestling match than I did before. It was no longer strictly workrate, as most would define it at least, that concerned me. I appreciated the hard workers, but I was paying more attention to elements like psychology, selling, bumping, timing, etc. This is also the time period when I got heavy into the tape trading scene. I discovered Lucha beyond the few shows I had previously seen, and truly delved into Japan for the first time. I began to understand the guys at DVDVR more, and for the first time ever I had the sense I was becoming more of a complete wrestling fan, if that makes any sense. Fast forward about twelve years and I returned to wrestling once again. To say that I changed would be an understatement. I now loathe the opinions of Keith, he's essentially a representation of the close minded sarcastic prick I used to be. I now look forward to exploring wrestling theory and taking in as many viewpoints on wrestling as I can from as many people as I can. I took on PWO as my de facto wrestling home, and this place has helped to cultivate me as an adult wrestling fan. Heck, I've gone from an extreme workrate guy to someone whose tastes align more with Matt than anyone else I know. I still have my moments, don't get me wrong, but I'd like to think I'm a better wrestling fan. I've reached the stage where exploration, knowledge, ad wisdom are what matter to me. My concern is no longer with being right, arguing, or spouting off the rhetoric of Keith. So yeah, my views on wrestling have changed a fair amount.

That's actually Bull Nakano vs Devil Masami. And it's a fantastic pick for something like this. You're right, I looked at my review real quick, saw the Masami and thought Manami.

I'll toss a Joshi your way, Bull Nakano vs. Manami Toyota (04-18-1993) from Japanese Women Pro-Wrestling Project. It's on YouTube.

I get what you mean, sort of the bull in a China shop type of guy.

1) I'm glad you're giving Thatcher a chance. 2) This is my MOTY for 2014 so far. You make a lot of interesting points regarding Busick's selling. Admittedly I didn't see those things when I watched the match and I would be interested to see if I notice them next time I watch and if it changes my view of the match drastically. 3) The main reason I've become enamored with Thatcher are the talking points you used. His limb work is fantastic, he has a focus that very few wrestlers seem to have these days. He doesn't just lock on holds or quickly move through mat work. It's a struggle with him, a rugged exchange where every move matters and feels earned. I can't stress enough how I feel that is missing from the majority of modern wrestling, indie or otherwise. 4) I'm very interested in Thatcher moving forward in his career. To my eye he's found a definitive style, and works matches that I find deeply compelling. He works hard in his matches, and I think fans connect with him because they can sense how hard he does work. I don't think there's anyone in wrestling today who brings as much to mat work as Thatcher does. It's high praise indeed, but if he keeps moving on the trajectory he's on I have little doubt he'll wind up a GOAT guy.

I do think China is fairly high on MMA, or at least there's a fringe element there that is. I haven't followed the Asian MMA scene for some time though, I could be way off. Sounds good to me. I can't wait to dig into EVOLVE after the latest reboot. I have my reservations because it seems like Gabe always manages to mess up EVOLVE. But, a promotion that is centered around the work of Thatcher, Busick, Gulak, and Sabre can only be a top notch promotion.

None that I can think of off the top of my head. I think there was a fed called Beijing Pro Wrestling that was around for a bit, but none have stayed in business for very long.

It's certainly an interesting move by Gabe and co. I can see it working out terrifically for them, but at the same time I wonder if it will yield long lasting results from a country that I don't believe has ever shown a sustained interest in pro wrestling. I think you'll dig him, hopefully, but I'm not sure.

How so? Never heard that claim before, but it;s one that has me interested in the reasoning.

They probably post at those places to get the word out, drive viewership of something they are proud of. I don't pimp my blog all that much, but I like to think I'm doing good work with my reviews so I make sure it's in my sig at any wrestling forum I may post at from time to time.

I'd say those reservations are unfounded. I've already nominated Matt Hardy, Timothy Thatcher, and the Hardy Boyz. I'll be voting for Kurt Angle and Matt Hardy fairly high on my lists, etc. There are a lot of differing opinions being delivered in the nominations and who people say they will be voting for.

Which is why I made this topic, and offered my justifications. The only issue for me will be if people keep bringing it up over and over again. I really dislike Adrian Neville, but all I really need is one justification from his fans for placing him so high. I'm not going to keep hounding them about it all the time (not saying you did this, mind you).

Dave That's very interesting, may even cause me to change some aspects of my article.

Thanks Charles, will definitely give that a look.

It'll come out in the next issue of The Tag Rope, hopefully. Unless it doesn't pass the editorial process, then I'll definitely post it here. Sadly, after all the deep thoughts in this thread, my article will probably be a bit of a letdown.

Just wanted to say thanks for all the responses. I wrote up the article tonight and it came off pretty well. Not much quoting, but this discussion helped provide the basic framework I was looking for in writing the article, thanks.

I'll have some matches I want you to take a look at later, Bill. Not necessarily to say he makes my 100, but I think Bossman was actually a king of the 3 minute WWF/E C show match, and you'd be curious to see it. Will gladly do when the time comes.

Alright, hopefully I have the time to formulate a response of my own. First of all, I didn't ask this question to cause any arguments or fighting. It's genuinely a question I am interested in getting different takes on. That's why I made sure to ask everybody, and a few specific people, for responses. I had an idea that the VoW guys would have a different outlook than everyone else, but that's why I wanted to make sure they were included. I'm glad they brought forth a perspective that doesn't appear to be shared by the majority of the board. At the same time I'm glad that Matt has his take; I believe it enriches us all as intelligent wrestling fans to hear and be open to as many different opinions/theories as possible. For me that's easily what I love most about this board, and why I asked a question such as this one on this board. Wrestling is an art, I'm pretty adamant on that point. Being an art that means it's open to extreme subjectivity and that means many differing opinions. While it is true that things got a little too confrontational and a mite too hostile, at the end of the day what makes wrestling tick as an intellectual exercise is our ability to bring forth different theories and present them with valid reasoning. What makes the circle complete is that someone will then come along and completely disagree with your theory, and offer a rebuttal of sort. I enjoyed the heck out of reading people break down the questions I asked and the very idea of workrate. I have plenty of food for thought for my article, and that's thanks to the intellectual theorizing of this board. I won't deny that at the end of the day I tend to side more with Matt than anyone else on this board when it comes to the way I view wrestling. That being said I find it extremely valuable to have opinions present that disagree with what Matt and I think. Even in interactions I have with Matt I often disagree, because such is the way of things with a subjective art. I don't agree with Joe or Rich when it comes to workrate, or even wrestling in general most of the time, but I welcome their opinions because their opinions make this board a much richer place. That, as trite as it may sound, is what I got out of this conversation, and that's why I enjoyed the exchanging of theories and the academic breakdown of a concept like workrate. So, thanks everyone for the responses.

Just stopped by on my phone real quick to say that I started a 146 hour shift on the ambulance this morning. Been super busy all day and haven't been able to get on my computer. I've enjoyed most of the responses though, and will elaborate more tomorrow when I can post from my computer and not my phone. :-)

It's those by the numbers performances of which I speak. There's no denying, at least for me, the highs, but he did have a habit of phoning in good performances an awful lot.

Okay, I'm starting this thread because people seem to question me everywhere online when I mention Titus as a top guy in the world in 2014. I think a lot of this stems from the general disconnect between what I think constitutes quality wrestling and the long held belief that someone is only a quality wrestler if they are on the main stage and having 20+ minute long epic matches every night. I think plenty can be found out, perhaps even more, about a wrestler in his 8 minute matches than in his epic matches. Either way, I decided to make this topic to go into why I think Titus has been great in 2014 and has developed into easily the most underrated worker in the world at this present time. I started to take notice of Titus during his Superstars/Main Event run in the middle of the year where he squared off against Kofi Kingston and Big E. The Big E matches being good weren't a surprise because I like Big E. But, in those Big E matches Titus showed skills that I never truly saw before. He had great timing, played to the crowd really well, carried himself like a star, hit all of his moves with a ferocity one would expect from a big man, showed surprising athleticism for someone as awkwardly big as he is, sold and bumped terrifically, and for the first time ever appeared to have a true understanding of in-ring psychology. Going back and looking at the Kofi matches were where he started to really move up in my estimation. Kofi is, for lack of a better word, awful. There's almost nothing he does as a pro wrestler that I enjoy. Yet, here was Titus O' Neil managing in about 6-10 minutes to make Kofi seem like a world beater. All of a sudden Kofi's offense looked like it hurt, his timing seemed like it made sense, and Kofi took on the costume of a proficient pro wrestler. I'd love to contribute some of that to Kofi, but the sad reality is that Kofi immediately went back to being shite, and it's only those matches with Titus and a few with Sheamus where he looked good. Then there are the Sheamus matches, where in against another quality opponent Titus delivered some really good hoss like showdowns. Hard hitting and impactful, they weren't good matches just because Sheamus is good, but because Titus was able to work with Sheamus and produce compelling wrestling on my TV. Titus has followed up that with his very funny and entertaining run as Slater Gator, where he branched out and showed that he didn't have to be just the big hoss, he could be a comedy worker as well. He's series with Neville looks promising only because Titus is the type of worker I can see dragging something out of Neville. The idea of him working with the likes of Sami Zayn is promising as well. He's never in the longest of matches, but week in and week out Titus gets the most out of every match he is in, and continues to be something to enjoy in what has been a bad 2014 for the WWE. I know most will disagree with my assessment, and honestly if you don't see any value in 4-10 minute matches then watching Titus will do nothing for you. I do see that value, and in Titus I see plenty of value, entertainment, and one of the best wrestlers in the world in 2014.

Okay, I'm working on a couple of columns for the magazine I write for, The Tag Rope. One I already have pretty much laid out, why I think the WON HoF is pointless, but the other I was hoping to get some talking points from the board for. Essentially I'm going to be looking at workrate. It's evolution as I've been watching wrestling, why it mattered, does it matter as much today, what does it even mean, what are the other factors in defining quality wrestling, etc.? So, here's some of the questions I'd like some feedback on (and not to single anyone out but I'd really love responses from guys like Charles, Dylan, Matt (especially you), Parv, Ohtani, the Voices of Wrestling crew, and a bunch of others who regularly engage in debates about workrate. How do you define workrate? Is workrate important to you? What elements make up a quality match for you, and how much of that is workrate? Do we need to move away from workrate as a metric in evaluating matches? How did the online communities view of workrate influence you earlier in your wrestling fandom? Those are just the basics, I know I'm asking for a lot and I won't use every response, but I think if there was ever a place that could bring an interesting view of the idea of workrate it's the PWO crowd. Thanks.

Savage's final year or so is definitely a mark against him, but it's also a time period when he managed to get a legitimately good match out of Dennis Rodman.

If we're disagreeing about Thatcher being a great wrestler, or in my estimation easily the best wrestler in the world, then probably so.

I'd say they're all roughly around the same level, but I would give the edge to Luger over all of them just for how great he was in 1989-1992.