pol

Do you think a separate Juniors division is still a good idea when we know that these days fans (at least in the USA) are willing to see juniors as credible threats to heavyweights? Rey's title reign would have gotten over if he hadn't been booked like shit, and Daniel Bryan would traditionally be a Junior division wrestler. I almost think a "style, not a weight limit" restriction like TNA's X Division is a better idea these days, although the idea of guys being approved to compete for a title based on how many flips they do is kind of ridiculous in kayfabe.

Putting guys under masks with no attempt to conceal their former identity seems somewhat common in Japan. Liger, Tiger Mask II are the first ones that come to mind. Not sure if it was the same with Sayama.

I'm wanting to start watching Memphis' weekly TVs, what date would make the best entry point?

Bump! Not sure I have the knowledge to weigh in on these, but I'd like to see others' thoughts... 1. Long title reigns make the title more valuable/hot-shotting title changes devalues the title. 2. Match quality matters more to the average Western fan now than at any point in history.

The recent discussion that I can't find now about the 'smartness' of fans back in the day has me thinking - if we accept that people always knew that wrestling wasn't on the level, when did the perception change from wrestling being a fake/rigged sport to being a show?

Just something I've been thinking about lately. I've been working my way through early 90s All Japan and seeing Hansen hold the Triple Crown while Jumbo/Misawa is clearly the hottest thing in the promotion. It seems like in modern WWE the world title is only involved in the top program maybe one-half to three-quarters of the time. I can see the logic that if the title is a draw by itself, using it to prop up your secondary program gives you two drawing cards rather than one. I guess a counterpoint would be that if the world title spends too long languishing in the secondary spot on cards it eventually ceases to be a draw, so you have to give it top booking some of the time to preserve its status as a draw. Does the world title add any value to a program that would already headline on its own merits? Thoughts?

Can anyone think of any insider terminology that has taken on a kayfabe meaning? Thinking of stuff like 'ring awareness' and 'ring general'. I guess 'stiff' would be another one you hear on commentary quite a bit now but that still sounds business-exposing to me.

I guess I'm the only person who found Rusev's selling kind of overwrought?

It was brought up on our postshow last night that Hell in the Cell is perfect for them I would love to see a chain match, personally. Fits Dean's old-school character. The lack of blood would suck though.

Were Observer readers in the late 80s/early 90s seeing AJPW's weekly TV or just the great matches? I ask because working my way through these weekly TV episodes, Baba winning Booker of the Year three straight years from 1989-1991 is kind of mystifying to me. Obviously they put on a ton of great matches in that time, but as week-to-week TV it's far from captivating viewing, imo.

Put me down as one that enjoyed Reigns/Orton, by the way. I really wasn't giving much thought to how good or bad it made Reigns look at the time but I can see what you guys are saying. That said, I think the win itself was pretty decisive even if the match wasn't laid out in a way to highlight Reigns. Do you think the average fan's perception is really affected by who had the cooler spots in the body of the match, moreso than Reigns getting the decisive victory?

The difference here is that their pet project and (supposed) future ace is on the line.

Working my way through 90s All Japan, what was the deal with Gordy's 3 day Triple Crown reign in 1990? Was it just a way to get the belt on Hansen without having to give away Hansen/Jumbo?

For me it's not necessarily even about the early-to-mid-match work having to be memorable or play into the finish, it just has to hold my interest. Especially for a 20+ minute main event style match, I expect to see more than the typical "I do my shit, you do your shit" style layout you'd expect to see on a meaningless WWE TV match or something. I actually think New Japan can be pretty good about this sometimes with the guys playing on their standard spots in novel ways with familiarity counters and such.

Kinda surprised at so many people digging Okada/Nakamura, to me that match was the epitome of what I've seen OJ say before about New Japan big matches having dull builds but awesome stretch runs. The opening couple minutes of matwork was fine, but everything in between that and the flying armbar seemed like both guys taking turns to run through their default early-to-mid-match offense with no sense of struggle. May have to give it another shot given the universal praise.

The Jarrett angle was absolutely great, probably the best thing on the show actually and a strong contender for angle of the year. The Bullet Club guitar was a fantasic visual.

Bobby Fish & Kyle O'Reilly vs. Alex Shelley & KUSHIDA They worked a tidy 'do a bunch of cool spots' match while not degenerating into the excess that a match like this on the US indies probably would. There were a couple moments towards the start where they were clearly more focused on getting all the steps in their sequence right then making sure to deliver each step with believable conviction, but it wasn't a huge deal. I don't think any of these guys have charisma anywhere close to say a Ricochet or Kota Ibushi, nor do they do anything as spectacular, but there was still some cool stuff to be seen. I liked how frantic it felt towards the end with the rapidfire succession of spots and bodies flying everywhere. Ultimately to me the quality of this kind of match comes down to 'how well did they sell' and 'how cool were the spots', to which 'ok' and 'pretty cool' respectively. Side note, towards the beginning the commentator said "UWF style" and I have no clue which one of these guys he was talking about but it's ridiculous regardless. Hirooki Goto vs. Katsuyori Shibata Same match they've had a several times before, the psychology-less no-selling stiff-fest, except worse. That kind of match needs pace and intensity to work and this had neither (granted my standards for 'intensity' when it comes to Shibata are probably way higher than for just about any other wrestler). The blatant repetition of their trading backdrop no-sells from that other match was kinda cheesy I thought. Mechanically fine but just about as soulless as it gets. Tomohiro Ishii vs. Karl Anderson Fun match, Ishii's selling was off the charts even for him and the blood really helped. I think that top rope Brainbuster attempt was a botched spot but Ishii covered for it wonderfully by immediately going to his shoulder and made it actually make sense in the context of the match. I hate the 'pull the referee out of the ring' spot as far as fuck finishes go, plus even though Ishii hit his finisher, pacing-wise it didn't feel like the end of the match so it didn't really feel like Ishii was screwed out of the win. AJ Styles vs. Hiroshi Tanahashi I really wanted to like this more than I did but it felt like it never really hit the heights it should have. It's hard to blame the guys given they've just wrestled a shitload of matches in a two week period. Despite the slow pace the work from both guys was great though. Kazuchika Okada vs. Shinsuke Nakamura How much do you value a hot finishing sequence? Everything after the Rainmaker counter into the armbar was just incredible. Everything before that was two guys taking turns to run through their staple offense with no drama or really any sense that an actual contest was taking place. That finishing sequence, though...

How does everyone feel about referees counting intended near-falls where a shoulder is obviously not down, not enforcing unintended rope breaks, etc? It seems like this is the standard way of operating everywhere except Mexico now. Personally I think while obviously neither is desirable, preserving the intended pacing of the match takes priority over maintaining believability by enforcing the rules perfectly. The ref not counting a near-fall until the wrestlers adjust themselves into the correct position or breaking up a hold earlier than intended can really hurt the momentum of a sequence. The worst thing you can do is do like the ref in that recent Virus vs. Fuego match where he points out the shoulder isn't down, then gives up and counts the pin anyway...

I wasn't a fan of that one. Mostly back-and-forth with only one section of sustained control at the start, which isn't my favourite match structure but can be fine if the stuff they are doing is compelling. Tanahashi is not the guy you want as one half of a competitive give-and-take match though. I quite liked his match against Davey Boy Smith Jr. from day 10 of the G1, different from the typical New Japan fare.

Re: Dave stuff, is the issue here that Dave doesn't look at matches as an art form (or whatever term you want to use), but as a spectacle to be enjoyed in the moment? I think there's a philosophical difference at work. Here the tendency is to look at a match like a film, a painting or a piece of music - an aesthetic object for which historical context can be interesting and informative, but isn't necessary for appreciation. I think most hardcore wrestling fans look at matches like that at least to some extent. Dave is on the extreme other end of the scale though - for Dave this is self-evidently the best tournament ever because it's the one he's enjoyed the most in the moment, which is what wrestling is all about to him. To look back and rewatch stuff for context would be to miss the point because that's not what wrestling is about. In criticising his hyperbolic gut reactions are we missing the point that he just looks at wrestling very differently from most here? If this is the case though, I guess it's questionable what value there is in proclaiming something the "greatest ever" when it essentially boils down to "the one I enjoyed the most on first viewing". I don't think there's anything wrong with the way Dave looks at wrestling, but too many people assume his opinions on matches are based on serious consideration and analysis, when serious consideration and analysis would really be anathema to the way he appreciates them.

Yeah, exactly. It's borne of the "workrate above all else" mentality.

Did anyone say "rest hold" yet? Because that, at least 90% of the time I see it used.

I remember really liking Makabe/Naito. Thought it was maybe the best of the typical NJPW main event style matches in this G1 - kind of a better version of Makabe/Okada which was also very good. Will have to rewatch.

Dave making hyperbolic decrees as if they're objective fact doesn't even really bother me in itself, what really bugs me is how evident it is that the members of more hivemindy internet wrestling communities feel they can freely disregard/mock dissenting opinions without actually arguing the case because they have Dave Meltzer on their side, so obviously they must be right. See the reactions to Okada/Tanahashi not being on the WKO100 on some forums, for example.

Today's show was easily the weakest so far. It was on Ishii/Shibata to save the show and I guess with Ishii's separated shoulder that wasn't going to happen.