BillThompson

Is there really a type of wrestler PWO likes? We have pretty diverse tastes. I don;t think it has to do with presenting unified tastes but in the penchant this board has for delving deeper into wrestlers. With such an approach comes diversified taste, and as I said in my initial post, going against general consensus based on the opinion any number of posters have formed based on their deep diving.

I liked the Busick/Thatcher Beyond Wrestling match for the most part, but I don't see how it relates to 50s wrestling. To me it was completely post-modern. And overly aggressive. It's more aggressive, but the style Thatcher/Busick/Gulak are working is essentially a stripped down modern style that hearkens back to the 1950s. It's not about building up to a big move, or even working over a specific body part, but rather using mat work and wrestling control to work over your opponent, essentially grind him to a finish. In a lot of ways it's very catch-as-catch can on a base level, and when watching a lot of older catch stuff I can very much see the matches this trio of guys are having fitting into that time frame.

Old topic, I know. But discussion of the Busick/Gulak/Thatcher series of matches at EVOLVE this past weekend got me to thinking about this topic again. A point of contention from a few people who didn't like their series of matches seemed to be that Gulack/Busick/Thatcher don't do enough "stuff." They don't bust out highspots, or even just regular spots, and waste too much time on limb work, mat work, and the like. Such work was called boring, while other matches that featured lots of highspots were called great mainly because they did "stuff." I disagree with the base notion that the Gulak/Busick/Thatcher trio don't do "stuff." They do plenty of stuff, it's just that they don't rely on highspots, which to my mind is a great thing. Either way, the reason this got me thinking about this topic is because if progression equals stellar mat work that establishes a match being boring then I want nothing to do with progression. But, truthfully I think a guy like Thatcher proves that wrestling hasn't progressed all that much. It's still about the same ideas and emotions that it was in the 1950s, and the execution can even be quite similar depending on the wrestler. Thatcher gets the same response from me for ruggedly working over an Armlock as Okada does for hitting a Rainmaker, and that's because of execution. I know this is a dead topic, but I needed to suss out my thoughts on this matter, and I kind of did (although mainly just on the surface), so feel free to move on and ignore the little resurrection that happened here.

From the overwhelming majority I've heard that Busick/Thatcher, Gulack/Busick, and Thatcher/Gulak from those EVOLVE shows all ended up being great. Oh, and it sounds like they ran an angle during the final show where Chris Hero attacked all three guys. I'm hoping this leads to him being added into their rotation because that would be great.

Which is why I love PWO. Am I the only one who wishes the Wrestling Observer didn't have MMA coverage at all? Nope, you're not the only one. I refuse to subscribe for that very reason.

The sound bytes from his show on Austin and Jericho's podcast have done nothing to entice me to give his show a chance. I'm not a Goldberg fan to begin with, and he doesn't appear to be interviewing people I care to hear interviewed, so no go for me.

On an unrelated note, why has pro wrestling always had some sort of stigma against referee stoppages being legit? You read through any sort of wrestling database and results are littered with title matches where wrestler A beat wrestler B via referee stoppage but wrestler B didn't lose his title because ref stoppages aren't recognized as a way for a title to change hands. Doesn't make much sense to me as a stoppage is just as legit as getting a three count or a submission.

Rest Holds ... alright, i'll say something a bit more substantive as well. this kinda ties into something pol & i have talked about before: the majority of online "smart" fans are really just storyline marks at heart. look at the wrestling subforums on reddit or 420chan or somethingawful, and you'll see constant complaints about booking with hardly any discussion of in-ring work beyond "i like what i like". it's especially common to see people say that cena or sheamus matches are bad solely because they won, without any care for the bell-to-bell action. i think this is relevant because it seems like the thatcher/gulak/busick style would require more attention to detail to fully appreciate, compared to what you see in the national promotions. modern wrestling fans have largely been trained to think that "great match" simply means "cool highspots + throwing bombs + hot finishing sequence", so i wouldn't be surprised that any mat wrestling would bore a lot of them to tears! I think there's plenty of merit to what you're saying, especially when one of the online people who called Thatcher boring, and said Thatcher/Busick from last night's EVOLVE was dull and not good, went on to say about a later match that they did a lot of stuff, and then said that the later match was good. I struggle with the lots of stuff equals good mentality, when I think a guy like Thatcher does lots of stuff, just not highspot after highspot.

There seems to be a part of the online wrestling communities I frequent who find Timothy Thatcher boring. Kind of baffling to me as I'm of a completely opposite mind. I find him refreshing, charismatic, energetic, and believable. All factors that combine with the high quality of his ring work to make him the best wrestler in the world today.

Just wanted to pop in and say that I find it pretty endearing that others on Twitter have started referring to certain matches and wrestlers as PWO approved, or something PWO would like. To me that just speaks to our tendency to look a little deeper rather than going with the general consensus, or at least what is presented on the surface.

I know that wasn't the case for me, I was invested in what they were doing, not the moves they were hitting (though from a structure standpoint I thought both of their matches used moves wonderfully).

NM

Up to Survivor Series '98 in my Network PPV rewatch. I've expressed how bad I find 1998 WWF, but this PPV is probably 1998 WWF at its absolutely worst. It becomes crystal clear that the writing staff can't write a coherent story, and is only good at nonsensical swerve after nonsensical (or, in most cases obvious swerves where the initial actions leading up to the supposed swerve were nonsensical) swerve. The company no longer cares about the actual wrestling and it shows with I believe a median match length of around 6 minutes, and something like 12 of the 14 matches ending via interference or some sort of outside influence. Austin is a shell of a once great wrestler, Mankind can barely move around the ring, while Undertaker/Kane are boring mirrors of each other. I know the majority will disagree with me, but I simply do not get the nostalgia for this era of WWF, and this show is a prime example of how awful it was. Sadly, I think the worst is still to come.

Oh, it's probably the case, and I'm not upset over it or anything. Viewed it as another chance to get the word out on a match that I think is better than anything coming out of this tournament, and I have liked a fair amount from the tournament. I will say that a match like that, and performers like Thatcher and Busick, really make me shake my head at Dave's comment in regards to American wrestlers not being able to have great shorter matches.

My cries of Thatcher/Busick being better than anything NJPW has offered this year were met by silence in the Twitter conversation that eventually came about on that same topic.

Oh boy, let's not go down that road.

To be fair apparently that fan spent most of her time around Orton badmouthing Orton's girlfriend.

I know what you mean, am watching old Raw's from 1998 and get the same thing. It should be noted that on more than a few of these shows, Owen really looks like he doesn't give a flying fuck. By about mid-1998 I think he turned it around and was probably the best performer in the WWF who the company didn't care about. He was the only guy who ever got how to work with Shamrock and get him over. He made an extremely green Edge look like he belonged in the ring with anyone, etc. Not sure what happened, but at a certain point he did start to care again, which makes what was coming for him even more tragic. As someone who wasn't really watching around that time I can say I had the same impression the few times I saw her. Her entrance, and natural athleticism should have taken her much farther than they did.

Probably true, but the fact is, wrestling is best watched in the moment, as it's happening. The 98-99 stuff was successful in 98-99. It worked for that specific time period, era, and audience. That's what really matters. I'm not saying there isn't any merit rewatching old stuff, but the fact is, it cannot be judged as accurately because something is always lost in translation. Sure, you can still enjoy or not enjoy something from a bygone era, but no matter what, you will never experience it the same way as people who were there as it was happening. Certain references, nuances, and period-specific attributes will be lost on you. Disagree with all of this. Great art, and by extension great wrestling, holds up no matter when it is watched. A lot of it even ages better and is best watched removed from the time period whence it originally took place. I'm not really knocking watching wrestling in the moment, but by no means do I think it's essential to watch wrestling in the moment. Yearbooks, 80s sets, projects, etc. have proven time and again that a person can be placed in the time frame of the year that a match/angle is taking place and get just as much, if not more, out of that match watching it years later.

Watching the PPVs on the Network in order has been my project for a few months now. I'm nearing the end of 1998, and one sad side effect is the downer every time Owen Hart makes an appearance. I love Owen, but there's this odd sense of counting down the appearances until his death that I can't shake, and that really sucks.

Some responses, --Heyman does deserve blame for Axel and Cesaro. If he had the golden touch as so many seem to think he would have helped them. In the end he did nothing for them, and I found his segments with Cesaro to be cringe inducing bad in how he could not understand how to get Cesaro over with the audience. --There's really no way to deny that ECW was a financial failure. I'm not a big numbers guy, but the numbers in this case don't lie and ECW never made a dime and lost oodles, and oodles of money. In that sense, what exactly did Heyman get out of that roster? You give that roster to Vince and he probably would have found a way to make money with it. It may not have been the ECW we all remember, but at least it would have made money. In fact the argument could be made that Vince was the money mark helping to keep ECW alive for years, and that if not for his financial input ECW would have been dead by 1997. Facts cannot be overlooked, and as a money making venture ECW was a terrible company that was kept afloat by outside money because it couldn't make any money of its own. --As far as Paul the booker goes, he was his own worst enemy. He could never just let his wrestlers go out and do their thing. He always had to have a caning, the ring falling apart, a woman taking her clothes off, lights going black, etc. He borrowed liberally from Jarrett's booking in Memphis, and while there's nothing wrong with borrowing his version of Jarrett's booking was not as good as the original (and back to the money point Jarrett managed to make money with the same booking that Heyman lost money with.) --My point about Brock is that he doesn't need to talk. By himself he is big, menacing, and legit. Heyman as his mouthpiece doesn't serve much of a purpose because Lesnar's actions are enough to get him and his feuds over. --I tried to overlook the "rural Minnesota" cheapshot, but I can't. I'm from rural Illinois, am a published writer, a paramedic, have a wife who has a bachelor's degree, is a Mensa member, etc. Point being that the rural cheapshot is not needed, is erroneous, and only serves to make you look like a jerk.

This just came out a few days ago. I'd highly recommend it, though I am biased as I wrote an article for this issue. Either way, in a day and age where high quality wrestling magazines are hard to find, this is a good one that should be checked out.

Listening to the latest Jim Cornette Experience and there's a throwaway discussion that to me really highlights how out of touch he is with wrestling, or more succinctly how he needs to remove his rose colored glasses about the past. Basically he went into a very small rant about how the Network isn't worth it because no one wants to see the new stuff, the bad stuff like the Miz. What they want to see is all the great stuff, specifically the early 90s and 80s. I understand Cornette's point, but at the same time I think he's woefully misguided in that point of view. That's like saying the Miz is around, so that means Cesaro, Bryan, Cena, and every other person on the roster also isn't worth watching. However, the real reason I think it highlights a failing of Cornette's is how he looks back at past wrestling and sees it all as great. He decries stuff like the Miz and then talks about things like wrestling bears as if they are an example of how great wrestling was. He also ignores things like the Dynamic Dudes, the Ding Dongs, Oz, and untold other terrible gimmicks from the NWA, WCCW, Mid-South, Memphis, WWF, etc. Lots of people may think the Miz is terrible, and they are justified in thinking as such. That doesn't change how awful wrestling has been in the past, and how terrible gimmick and wrestlers have always been shoved down the consumers throats. This is why I don't think Cornette, and Ross, are the be all and end all voices of wrestling that too many people, myself included, often peg them as. They did great things in wrestling, but they also did plenty of awful things. The fact that they can't see the good in wrestling today or the awful in wrestling's past, that's just ignorant and, to run a comment into the ground, a sign of how out of touch they are.

$50 x 130,000=$6,500,000. That's definitely a chunk of change worth going after. And, if those people didn't want their credit scores hurt then they shouldn't have violated the terms they agreed to when making the initial purchase.

That's bad grammar, which would bother me as well.