pol

God, I hope not. No more power struggle angles ever again, please.

Tanahashi/Shibata from Destruction got five stars, with the caveat that he really didn't like how hard they were hitting each other. I liked the match, probably would have it around ***3/4 - ****. I would have enjoyed it more without the New Japan excesses like no-selling suplexes and long, boring forearm exchanges. Thought the Jr Heavyweight title match from the same show was maybe better.

I imagine that was a more tenable position when Apuestas matches were actually worked differently from regular matches.

Considering modern wrestling better just because the level of athleticism is higher strikes me as such a depressing and artless way to look at wrestling. It's like saying music is better now because the production is clearer. Also, arguing that any preference for something old over the new version is a result of nostalgia/rose colored glasses is disingenuous. It's certainly true that most people that make "X was better back in the day" statements are not doing so as a result of serious and well-considered evaluation, but I think guys like Loss have clearly put enough time and thought into watching and critiquing wrestling from many different eras that they deserve better than such bad-faith accusations.

My brother explained this one pretty well. If you wait for Cena or Lesnar to win they will be on rough, but competitive shape, but costing Cena the match when Brock is on the verge of losing is much, much smarter play than waiting for the match to end. Yeah except it's Brock Fucking Lesnar

I thought that was the most heat I've heard for anything at a WWE event for quite a while....

Reigns is injured. Looking forward to the next few weeks of panic booking. On the bright side this is probably really good for Ambrose.

I enjoyed Cavernario/Cometa but thought it was pretty much a spotfest, which is fine for what it is but I think Cavernario has proven himself capable of better in his En Busca matches and the match with Titán. The third caída followed the epic stretch run pattern of "big move, nearfall, lay around for a while, repeat" which I find kind of tedious when it makes up like half the match. The cool moves were suitably cool though so it's hard to complain too much. I really hope Cavernario stops doing that splash to the floor spot or he's going to have trouble walking within a matter of years.

Well I'm eating crow after rewatching Atlantis/Ultimo Guerrero. Absolutely phenomenal match and a strong MOTYC. Not sure what the hell I was smoking on first viewing. Only complaint was Atlantis almost no-selling the Guerrero Special but it almost seems like a nitpick given the atmosphere and how incredible everything else was.

I thought the main event was an incredible moment, but I sincerely wish I could see what the people calling it a classic or even a MOTYC are seeing. I thought it was good, perhaps very good, but nothing more than that. I thought the way they went straight to the epic selling and nearfalls in the third caída was really weird, like a good ten minutes had been clipped out of the match. I did go in expecting more punching, mask ripping and blood and I'm sure the lack of those affected my opinion so I will have to go back and rewatch it.

There's a bunch of footage here. They have a Japanese (or perhaps 'Japanese') guy called Chico Yoshikawasan. The promotion also features

Here's a couple of great bloody gimmick brawls from the Brazilian Gigantes do Ringue promotion (or perhaps that's the name of the TV show?). Anyone know more about this stuff?

That makes sense. I guess it's a matter of whether you prioritize the craft or the art of wrestling when making a list. It's possible to appreciate the skilled craftsmanship of a worker that doesn't resonate with you artistically. If you do prioritize craft, though, I think it's incumbent on you to address the aforementioned "Davey Richards Problem". I guess one argument could be that working the best match for a super indy workrate crowd requires a far less skilled craftsman than working the best match for, say, an '80s Mid-South Coliseum crowd.

What does it mean to distinguish between "greatest" and "favorite"? When people talk about "trying to be objective", it worries me that they really mean "slavishly deferring to consensus". I'm not trying to be a dick here, just wondering what criteria people use to determine a favorite vs. someone they consider "great". That distinction depends on having an idea of what constitutes good wrestling separate from what you personally enjoy in wrestling, and if you don't enjoy something, what reason is there to consider it good other than the consensus of others? I just don't see anyone saying "well I don't personally enjoy this wrestler but I'll have them in my list anyway' for anyone that isn't broadly agreed to be great.

I can't claim to really know anything about the mechanics of pro wrestling, but I'd assume that the spot-oriented (by which I don't mean 'spotfest', but building matches around big spots) style with stretch runs with big nearfalls that is popular with most fans these days pretty much necessitates a large amount of pre-planning. I've seen a few people claim that New Japan matches are largely called in the ring which I have a hard time believing.

I like Bryan when he's not put in a position to actually have to know things. The Bryan and Vinny shows are fun for just two friends talking about wrestling. It's when he tries to debate Dave that he ends up looking bad.

It's strange to hear people chanting 'ECW' at RVD in 2014. You have to imagine the majority of the people chanting never saw a single second of ECW when it was actually active.

It's clearly indicative of something; how could it not be? Mass trends don't simply appear out of thin air. That said, Dave using Reign's placement as evidence that the WWE has successfully made him a star seems pretty dubious.

Are DVDs (or downloads) of full years of CMLL TV available anywhere? And if so, what's the best year to start with?

There's no semiotic framework for interpreting wrestling matches themselves. I'm not sure that there can't be one, but there isn't right now and that makes it pretty hard to do any kind of meaningful analysis on that aspect of wrestling.

I assume it's so named because the receiver's body resembles a scorpion when in the hold. Same deal as the manji-gatame (swastika hold).

The major difference with the Money in the Bank thing is that those were already established guys. Which makes me wonder; introducing 'new' (as in, new to the audience) talent directly into main events used to be common in the territories, but it's difficult to imagine WWE ever doing that these days. Would it work if they did? Not necessarily talking about a Vader-style debut here.

Dave shooting down all Bryan's attempts to come up with a hypothetical way Triple H could die in a freak accident on a recent Observer Radio was incredible.

I do think the very fact that so many people who aren't really thinking very hard about whether Sting is a great candidate based on drawing power consider him such a no-brainer shoo-in HOFer is an argument for him in itself. The guy has an aura far in excess of his statistical record as a draw and far in excess of comparable candidates like Luger. He's one of the top guys considered synonymous with WCW for many people, and he's seen as a legendary performer. In a business like wrestling where perception is everything (or at least a solid second to making money) I think that should factor in. How much you see that as a factor for induction probably weighs a lot on whether you think he passes the line or not.

I've definitely seen enough people repeat "the same five moves in the same order" enough times to say that it's a myth. Incidentally, Google "five moves of doom" now and you get far more results about Cena than Bret, so I guess I'll submit that one too.