Laz

The idea of a wrestler having a select finish never bothered me, but what does is when the finish either goes against the wrestler's style, comes off as considerably weaker than other parts of their arsenal, or doesn't fit the context of the match. A technician should be using a pin, submission, or elaborate move whereas a roughneck brawler should stick to something simpler and impactful, and a glorified Russian Legsweep (Ziggler's Zig Zag) feels bland after a dozen kicks to the jaw. Similar to Loss, I prefer it when a talent has a handful of signature moves they can use to end a bout, especially if their gimmick revolves around fighting prowess and/or technical skill. Using both Samoa Joe and Bryan Danielson as examples, each man had multiple ways to end a match, Joe with the Muscle Buster/Coquina Clutch/Island Driver and Bryan with Cattle Mutilation/inside cradle/repeated strikes. This allowed them to tease legitimately compelling near falls in addition to adding an air of spontaneity to every bout, and also fit their gimmicks (Joe the savvy fighter and Bryan the technical genius). On the other edge of that coin's face, DDP was so perfect at building the Diamond Cutter that his work should be studied by the modern "script everything spot for spot" generations. He protected it, only teasing it when the match made sense, and typically hitting it out of nowhere for the win. It felt like he knew that he could end the match at any moment he wanted but was waiting for the perfect time to do it. Similarly, Taz built the Tazmission as pure death, with the built in angle of his suplexes meant to hurt and disorient but he wouldn't stop until you tapped to his choke, fueling his ego that much more.

Not sure if I agree on the Dean Malenko mention earlier. He was the grounded gatekeeper of the Cruiserweight division in WCW, was involved in its (arguably) best feud vs. Jericho, and his influence could be felt hard during the early 00's Indy boom. Love Corino being here, and agree he could go either way (earlier or later). I'll add CM Punk here, just because I think 1996-1998 ECW would be the single best product for him.

I had that issue once I got halfway in. The list of nominees came in very handy after 25/26, and my own ballot reflected the overall drop in quality after the SBG era started.

Not wrestling, but an easy soundbite containing "generation" can be found in the Mortal Kombat movie. Both Raiden and Johnny Cage's sensei say it, at the very least.

Similar to Mad Dog. I weighed overall quality of work, importance to ROH, and length of tenure in.

Fit Finlay. He was channel change material to me when I started watching WCW and his WWE run really made me rewatch my tapes and enjoy his matches that much more.

The fitness world continues to evolve and produces better athletes overall than yesteryear, so I don't see how the argument against today's wrestlers being more athletic overall can really be made.

I may have missed him, but DDP.

I don't typically throw out star ratings anymore, but I also don't do too many wrestling reviews anymore, either. When I wrote for TSM I was super liberal with the snowflakes but I'm finding that maturity brings scrutiny, or at least lurking 'round here has made me look for things I typically didn't care too much for in the past. Lately I've been trying to grade based on 5 sets of core criteria when I do talk match quality, which I've found less likely to devolve into the typical "WHY NO FIVE STARS?!?!" slogging. I break each category into denominations of 4, so a 5-star for me fulfills each one of these fully and a DUD gets none of them. 1. Entertainment Did it get the crowd into it? Did it get me into it? Was I bored? Did the crowd pop? e.g. "Sure, Joker vs. Chris Cash was a pure spotfest, but at least the crowd wasn't sitting on their hands." 2. Psychology and Selling Did the guy who's looking for an armbar submission target the arm? Are they working to win versus working to outshine? Is the "Hulk Up/fighting spirit/kip up" spot aiding the narrative or a detriment? e.g. "YAMATO worked on Shingo's arm that entire match, so it made sense that Shingo's lariats became less and less effective." 3. Workrate: Quality or Quantity Are the talents making the most of their time? Does it look like they're actually trying to put on something good or just going through the motions? e.g. "Punk grabbing the chinlock after that sprint lets him gain some wind back and shows that Joe may have the power advantage but Punk knows how to negate it" 4. Context How does this match relate to other matches involving the talents? How does it relate to the rest of the card? Does this sequence mean something different here than it does elsewhere? Is this an exhibition, a feud-ender, a middle chapter, etc.? e.g. "Even with the few botched spots, HBK/Taker from WM25 still resonates as it showed Taker was growing more and more vulnerable with his age." 5. Personal Enjoyment Is there an extra oomph to it because of how I view the talents? Is there something there which stands out to me even if others overlook it? e.g. "This was sloppy, but that's the charm of prime Sabu: he's a rabid animal let loose, and the results aren't pretty." There's obvious bleeding between each set of criteria and countering arguments, as sound psychology may not always be entertaining and my personal enjoyment doesn't necessarily trump a match's actual context, but that's generally what I go by.

Okada/Omega gets ***1/2 from me if I'm being generous. The first portion of the match is all Omega working on Okada's back, then he switches to the neck, and he KILLS Okada with knees and bombs...only for Okada to shrug it off like nothing happened and get the win. This is great wrestling in 2017?

So, I've read every post up to this point, and I'm starting to formulate a potential explanation for why lucha libre isn't as beloved as puro is. Before I talk further, I'm turning to those who know more about the style and history of lucha than I do when I ask this: How "protected" was the kayfabe of lucha? American wrestling was presented as legit for most of its existence, ditto puro, but was convincing fans that they were witnessing a real fight as big a cornerstone for lucha as it was for the other styles that receive more praise?

Y'all are acting like any Rumble match since Patterson officially retired has been worthwhile anyway.

If there's a better example of a guy whose best work was before he reached the biggest stage in the last few years then I'm not familiar with them. KO'S allure on the indies, and ROH especially, was that he always stood out from the pack. He turned his gut into a character feature, would incessantly talk shit whether on offense or defense, and routinely stole the show by daring to actually engage the audience instead of solely following the planned spots. The career long feud with Generico stole the show in every company it was featured in, he was the 100% perfect foil for Cornette as ROH commissioner, and his honesty was outright refreshing. In fact, I'd say that KO becoming just another part of the show, having his matches follow the same rigid formula as everybody else's, is what turned me off of WWE entirely. Steen saved my love for wrestling, and while I'm glad he's got more money now than ever before and is the champ in the world's largest wrestling company, the booking and obvious micro managing took his specialness away.

Not wrong about the Bucks, necessarily, as they've definitely reined themselves in over the last two years. I'm thinking they're starting to realize how much more everything hurts as you get older and how one can maximize the gain of a spot via timing over insanity.

Hoodslam. Anything. They've already made a solid go for themselves while attracting plenty of non-wrestling fans and the absurdity is a good jab at the dumber things that plague every promotion.

re: LowKi As far as I know, he's been super over everywhere he's been given any sort of push. He was the ace of early ROH, one of the early highlights of TNA (with only Styles and Lynn overshadowing him), was a big deal for JAPW/MLW, regularly booked high for Zero-1, and his brief WWE run actually showed he had a ton of charisma that he just didn't usually tap into. BFG '06 might be TNA's best overall show.

Practically everything Rob Gronkowski does is influenced by his love of wrestling. There was a video from 2-4 years back of him partying at a club during the off season and randomly DDT'ing a friend.

He might stand out more in DG than elsewhere, but the stuff I've seen (mostly from the last few years) has been pretty damn good.

Bringing up Rhino, and I have a feeling I'll be alone in these, but he had a pair of better-than-should-be TV title defenses at the end of 2000. The match with RVD was a solid *** that cemented Rhino as a top guy in ECW, and I'll even say that the match with New Jack was a masterpiece given the talent involved.

Roderick Strong vs. TJ Perkins, PWG Threemendous III DDP vs. Raven, WCW Slamboree 1998 DDP vs. Goldberg, WCW Halloween Havoc 1998 Saturn vs. Raven, WCW Fall Brawl 1998 ...you know, just grab any combination of DDP, Saturn, and Raven from 1998.

Roided Wolverine How to Kill Your Family in 3 Days Beyond the Valley of the Crippler HEADBUTT

He's not quite old enough, but I could see Michael Wincott being a great Pat Patterson.

There needs to be interaction. NEEDS to be.

Your eyes be right, Slater is taking a joke and making it work on a very deep level. That his current role openly harkens back to everything he's done on the main roster, actually letting the history influence it, also needs to be praised.

So here's a guy who got over because he isn't what a wrestler is supposed to look like, because he doesn't talk like a wrestler is supposed to talk, and works in a way that is different than how a wrestler is supposed to work...and you're mad that people who are actually paying the company want to see him?