BigBadMick

While we're planning ahead, have you decided on your tv matches of 1992 to review yet? I'd like a little peak at the list, to watch before the show.

Thought it was interesting that they had Seth acknowledge the suspension. Suppose it makes more sense than sweeping it under the rug.

Hopefully....

Ok, I'll mess about with the setting to get the whole photo...

That's interesting about Brody-Dusty. I think I've a photo of a bullrope match between them...

It's not that I've appropriated opinions and wisdom from here, entirely. I know people are loathe to speak of a pwo type of fan, but to me it falls broadly into a pro-80s and 90s US fan with a definite cooling off of enthusiasm for the noughties. That's me to a tee. The only thing I found jarring when first discovering the board was the Angle and Michaels talk.

That's a bit harsh, GOTNW. I know that two years here has dampened my enthusiasm for Angle and Michaels. That doesn't make me a sheep. You're young and fiercely independent. Give it a few years - these type of things will matter less.

As good as Canadian Stampede was, imagine Michaels and Sid in there instead of Shamrock and Goldust - WOW!

Great show guys, really liked Kelly's old school and proud stance, and Marty brought the vim and vigour.

Squared Circle Gazette gets feedback from other sites too.

Just finished listening to this today (damn you, GWE podcast backlog!). Tremendous show, really interesting insights.

On the subject, has anyone watched this? http://wrestlingepicenter.com/cart/product_info.php?products_id=2090

Anyone know where I can see the Top 200 Nitro matches list, as mentioned by either Elliott or Mando>Eddie?

No problem

I might have missed it, but did you say who Benoit was meant to team with as a replacement for Austin and Pillman?

Changed jobs recently and fell way behind on these. Pete, your Irish ancestry were rolling over in their graves when you didn't correct Johnny - the Easter rising was 1916 alright, but bloody Sunday happened in 1972.

Chad, Getting close to that time again. Do you have a list of 1992 tv matches you'll be reviewing? I'd like to watch them before the show airs if possible, thanks.

Agreed. Gave me a much-needed chuckle. Thanks Loss.

Looking forward to reading this. And about 100 pages of reactions to the list (What a week to fall behind...).

Just finished up this marathon. Epic.

I used to think like that. These things blow over quickly enough. Grimmas and JvK do (did?) podcasts together, they'll be fine.

You know I'm a big fan of your show, and this is just my opinion, but I prefer when you concentrate on more positive aspects of wrestling.

Correct. I am only arguing that output really can't be overlooked, taken away, dismissed lightly etc. And often forms the core of a case. And when the output is literally Kobashi's career, I don't really understand how anyone can pick up Bret's career and say those two things are in the same ball park. The disconnect is how Steven gets from saying output is important but he also values input (true of most of us) to his valuation of Bret as someone at #5, while KK is at #18. He talked about evidence and that appears to be willfully overlooking it. It's not about willfully overlooking things as much as just reaching a different conclusion. Steven rates output but he rates input more, as he's admitted. So even if he agrees with you vis a vis the relative outputs of Kobashi and Bret (and I don't think he does since he'd probably give Bret a bit more credit there), it's the input that makes the difference for him, since he ranks Bret's input a fair bit higher than Kobashi's. And he's not wrong for that. You've sort of decided that Kobashi is levels above Bret and anyone who disagrees is wrong but nobody is fucking wrong here. That's where people take issue, where you've decided the objective answer and anyone who comes to a different conclusion is "willfully overlooking evidence". Steven has evidence. He has it in all of the little things Bret does. All of the touches he adds to his matches, all of the neat finishes he comes up with that play off stuff, all of the ways in which Bret portrays realism and serious wrestling in a WWF ring, all of the good things he was able to do with the scrubs he was working with, with all the crispness and effectiveness of his offense and moves, all of the ways in which he works EXACTLY like Steven wants a wrestler to work. AND he has it in all of the great matches Bret has. THAT is Steven's evidence. Kobashi doesn't do those things for Steven, or at least he doesn't do them nearly as much. What Bret inputs into his work is better than what Kobashi inputs into his. Steven values input highly. Therefore he put Bret higher on his list. I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about that. Someone like Taue has more great matches than a guy like Ted, but you put Ted higher (if I'm remembering right). Why? Because of all the shit that Ted does better than Taue. Steven has justified his case for Bret over and over. Just because you disagree doesn't make him wrong. Wow, that is everything I've tried to say. Thank you. That was a hell of a bit of peacekeeping there, Jimmy. Respect.

This thread has been a blast to work through 5 pages at a time. Kudos for this, the Jerry Saggs fiasco and the UN-GWE activities.

About an hour in. I envision you two having a lot of fun with the dun dun dun machine.