kid dracula

I have this thing with big Kenny Omega matches where for the first two-thirds of the match I'm thinking that I'm sick of this guy and he's really overrated. Then, for the last ten minutes or so, I'm gasping and squirming in my seat and yelling at the screen for the near-falls. Absolutely unbelievable finishing sequence in this match. Ishii is a legend.

Yano is great, and Ibushi doing a standing moonsault with his hands tied struck me as a genuinely incredible feat of athleticism. This match was a blast!

I'm not typically a fan of Sabre's soft-style grappling, but I thought this match was a lot of fun. I particularly liked Sanada catching him in the full-nelson again and again and again. Good stuff.

I feel like I've heard this argument a lot, and I don't really understand it. In what way would Raw be worse off, and less serving of its many masters, if it was booked as a traditional pro wrestling show? Wouldn't the show be much more appealing if it weren't built around feuding GMs, endless horrible comedy skits, impotent babyfaces, etc? If the current formula was working you could shrug and say it is what it is, but their ratings are hitting historic lows every week. If the pressure is on them to grow and deliver bottom lines, they're failing awfully. The Network is nowhere near the numbers they promised their investors, and they may never be. They also failed to deliver a big new TV deal, and I wonder, given the ratings trend, what their next contract with USA is going to look like. I had the same question when Vince was on the Austin podcast, and he explained that they simply need a massive team of writers, because the business has changed. But why? Who changed it? Has it changed for the better? If the many new masters they now serve includes stuff like, "We must let Stephanie emasculate every wrestler in the company to establish to the world how powerful she is," that seems like a self-inflicted wound.

Most of the wrestlers people are asking him about are on Twitter. Someone wondering about Wade Barrett's workout routine could ask him directly just as easily as they can ask Dave.

But would you say that everything you don't like is without merit?

I've been following the proceedings from a distance because I haven't seen nearly enough footage to vote, but this current blow-up is extremely interesting to me. I think I am in sympathy with Parv here. If you were making a list of the 100 wrestlers you're most excited to watch, it would be totally reasonable not to rank Jerry Lawler, based purely on your feeling that you don't enjoy his work. I think in a poll like this, though, participation means taking on the responsibility of reckoning with those guys who you don't personally love. I wouldn't rank the Beatles on a list of my favorite bands, but if I was voting on the Greatest Bands Ever I would feel obliged to listen to them, and think seriously about their relative greatness. The idea that there are 100 rock bands better than The Beatles doesn't seem to even merit consideration. I might not place them in my top 10, because their work doesn't resonate with me in the same way as say, The Velvet Underground, but surely they'd make my list somewhere. Likewise, the idea that there are 100 (or, good lord, 1000!) wrestlers better than Jerry Lawler seems difficult to accept. People seem to want to cry "but it's my opinion!" as if there's something sacred and holy about having one. I'm not sure how I feel about that. To make an extreme example, if someone says it's their opinion that Goodfellas is a lesser movie than Spongebob Squarepants, well, how can you refute that?