Shining Wiz

When I watch a Thatcher match, they make it so painfully obvious when they are avoiding putting actual pressure on a hold, or are opening up a reversal, that it takes all enjoyment out of watching them. To me, your key words are 'in the context of a pro wrestling match' . I couldn't agree more....if they do it in that context. Taking a flow rolll from a blue belt open mat and putting it in a wrestling ring doesn't add that context for me. Someone like Bryan Danielson was able to work aspects of bjj and catch wrestling seamlessly into the pro wrestling context. I find someone like him, or Cesaro, Sheamus, Samoa Joe, and any number of others more 'realistic' than I do a Thatcher, et al.

More power to you if you've found something to enjoy. My problem stems from their 'realism' only accentuating how unreal what they are doing is. We all know real fights don't look much like a pro wrestling match, so when you attempt to bring in more realistic combat sport aspects into pro wrestling, it often only serves to further point out that a pro wrestling match isn't a real fight. Ergo, realism isn't realistic.

Watching 1982 Memphis TVs. The biggest revelation is Eaton being a charismatic tough guy. Like.....an actual personality. The ring work is really solid already, whether tag or singles. Hands down the best guy on the show. Ironically, second best guy around is Stan Lane who's working opening matches.

I subscribed right off the bat, but I'm also in a region that can't subscribe. It won't be going anywhere, and have no intention of switching to the cable tv version if it ever makes it's way to my provider.

The BOLA reaction was an anti-CZW thing. The past page and a bit are biased people criticising other people for being biased. Fact of the matter is Thatcher isn't the most charismatic wrestler in the World and you can't control a crowd (with reason) you are a poor professional. If the promotion and person were different people would be talking about how he was EXPOSED. Like how Tanahashi was exposed v. Mike Bennett? Tanahashi didn't get booed out of the building, so I don't understand the comparison. He worked a Mike Bennett match vs Mike Bennett. Everybody groaned when the match was announced because Bennett stinks, and I think we all got the match we thought we would, which was a typical 3-star Mike Bennett nothing match. There is a clear pattern of Thatcher, Gulak, & Busick not doing well in front of certain crowds. It isn't an easy style to adjust to. Many people (myself being one of them) find it extremely boring. It takes a while for new shit to get over sometimes. Maybe this eventually will. Gabe Sapolsky seems think it will. Who knows? Right now, it's over in Beyond Wrestling, which is mostly other wrestlers (I still don't really completely understand what Beyond is, with shows with no fans, "secret" shows, etc or how they make money). It sort of got over at EVOLVE in Florida, but the crowds were more polite than super into what was happening. I think for the style to work, the psychology has to be better. As it is, these guys sort of just chain wrestle, then work holds, and then somebody taps out of nowhere 20 minutes in. If they are working towards these submissions, then it's been lost on me and a lot of other people. Then again, i'm usually so bored that I zone out, so maybe i'm not paying close enough attention, which is entirely possible. They seem to be making the mistake of thinking that when people say that they want their wrestling to 'realistic', they actually mean really realistic, not "realistic within the bounds of pro wrestling which in order to be good kind of needs some not really real drama thrown in". That's why subs out of nowhere - which happen all the time in grappling- are kind of a dumb thing to do all the time in pro wrestling matches. Though, they fail on their "realistic" attempts on any scale, since they end up doing 3/4 speed flow roles with some European uppercuts thrown in for flavour.

Criticizing him for the lack of effort is one thing, but you bring up a more interesting point - in front of a crowd that knew them all, Tanahashi got a much smaller reaction than the others mentioned. Presumably, this was a crowd pretty well acquainted with all of them, and particularly Tanahashi's track record. Might have been that they had lower expectations given his opponent and position on card, or maybe Tanahashi doesn't translate as well as other NJPW stars to North America.

I see what you did there. And it amuses me.

Most likely, Danielson and Low-Ki were known quantities. Gulak and Busick aren't. Most people who are fans of any kind of entertainment give creators they like more rope than people they have no idea. This, basically. And wrestlers most definitely work in stuff where they think they're going to get a This Is Awesome chant. Guys who work to that aren't doing it right. That's not organic. That's reactionary to the point where it's like a Pavlovian reflex. I understand the idea that Joe's presenting, but there's a big difference between a couple of guys doing something organic that elicits that type of reaction and a couple of guys working through spots for the hand clapping or This Is Awesome chant in response. You don't work for that response like it's a spot in the match. If it's worked that way instead of portraying organic competitiveness, or, you know, actual heat and hatred, then something is innately broken and that's when the "pretending to be a pro wrestler" criticism comes up. I hate it when two guys buy a ring, rent a building, sell tickets, put on flashy clothes, get in the ring and proceed to pretend to be pro wrestlers by doing wrestling moves on each other in hopes of entertaining the people pretending to be fans in the crowd. Please note - high level of sarcasm in above comment. I know most people here think about wrestling on a slightly higher level than a lot of folks do, but this may be the snobbiest comment I have read.

Got my hands on a chunk of 1983 Memphis tv.....I'll check back in with my thoughts on Lawler after.

Or.....Gulak/Busick matches aren't enjoyable to watch for most people?

This all sounds a lot like, "I don't cheer like that, so it's stupid that other people do things in a way I don't like!". Things change, maybe the standard that crowds are judged by shoul..........no. Forget I said that.

You may think its dumb, but there's a whole group of fans who show their enjoyment that way. And yes, it's just like saying "I really enjoy this match", just the same way popping for a near fall does.

Punk did as well as he did because he has the ego to not only think but truly expect that he should have maine vented a couple of Manias by now. I'd argue he did with the Taker match, but Punk/Rock at Mania could have been great.

Probably because when those people are really into it, they like to chant.

I think Storm was light years ahead of connecting with fans than Armstrong. Both were generic seeming, technical good guys, but Storm at least had something that could make him standout, even if it was just knowning how to make his deficiancies an amusing part of his presentation. Armstrong was always just......there. In the ring, I can't think of anything Armstrong did badly, and much like Dylan above, I think if he had been given different opportunities (or perhaps manufactured some opportunities) his career may have gone a good bit differently. Then again, maybe not. Either way, not likely to be on my list.

Velasquez is definitely the biggest heavyweight draw. It's just that 1) MMA has cooled of a bit since then; 2) Lesnar got DESTROYED in that fight; and, 3) If it happens in WWE, maybe 1/4 of the UFC's fans would watch. MAYBE. As for Overeem, I hope not.

I define a brawler as a kick and punch guy. Things you mentioned are more intense brawls, but Austin's matches are brawls to me all the same

I'd guess it would do less than the million it did the last time it happened.

After the neck injury, he's mostly a kick and punch special kind of guy. He made that work better than most could, but I think it's fair to call him a brawler at that point, if not before.

He's going to rank high on the list. The willingness to wrestle differently as needed, and the intelligent progressions of his bigger series of matches are things I value a lot. I can get why he doesn't float everyone's boat - mostly because he's almost the antithesis of a Japanese ace traditionally, and the inevitable backlash of being pimped as THE MAN by so many - but to me he's been a top 5 guy in the world easily for a number of years.

The only time I ever remotely cared about Jeff Hardy was his feud with Punk, because I found Punk calling him out for his bullshit all the time hilarious. Possibly the wrestler I enjoy watching the least.

Always solid, rarely spectacular. Always does a real yeoman's job no matter where on a card he is, but even when he was a focal point of ROH he was the guy I looked least forward too of their main eventers. Not that I ever dreaded watching him, but you knew you were going to get a solid 6 or 7/10 match every time out. Not that that's a bad thing, and he's been remarkably consistent for 15 years now, but he's not someone who I ever really remember being the stand out guy on a card. When we're talking the best 100 of all time I think I'd prefer that not be the case.

I was just going to say he's kind of bland and nondescript, but this works.

I want to hear the reasoning on this one....

He's particularly hard to separate from his character work because he was so good at making his character part of his matches. Thinking about it, that's a trait that not every nominee has, and even fewer are good at making it as organic as Austin. Might actually end up a huge plus in Austin's favour.