Cap

That makes sense. What you are getting at is much clearer to me now. haha. I think i read that a while back. I understand your analysis of it I think that is generally how most people see the match. Maybe I will sit down and write out a full review for it sometime since I am thinking about it, but I wont derail this conversation with much more talk of it.

This is exactly why you share star ratings, to encourage people. Why else do we say anything on here. This is my point about the grammar of a star rating having this weird undercurrent of objectivity that just falls apart the moment you recognize there are lots of ways to have great matches and there are lots of valid perspectives on wrestling (NOT that EVERY perspective is created equal, but that there is more than one way to skin a cat). How is telling people its the greatest thing you have ever seen and giving it five to implicitly encourage someone to check it out substantially different. The only real difference is if we treat star ratings as something more objective than they even are in practice or debate. Meltzer's rating of Okada/Omega is indeed a perfect example. People take Meltzer's ratings way too seriously and him giving that match 6 ruined the watching experience for a lot of people and has sparked a disproportionate amount of conversation. It is precisely because people treat the star rating as something it isn't and can't be. I simply vouch for ratings as a way of quantifying ones own standards and analysis. My point isn't that standards should be thrown out the window, but rather that standards should be carefully considered, outlined, and subsequently considered when reading ratings. My point has always been that people should rate matches responsibly, but they shouldn't hold back on giving something 5 or 4 or whatever because it isn't conventional wisdom. At the same time they shouldn't ape everyone who throws five at something just because they throw five. Your ratings should mean something first and foremost to you if you do them. Not something sentimental, but they should have some purpose if you are going to bother doing them. The most important thing remains the relationship between your justification and your rating; you should be able to analyze why you think something is 5 and then let someone else decide. I agree with what you're saying here, but let's pretend there's match that is generally considered five stars -- like Ms-1 vs. Sangre Chicana, for argument's sake. And I come along and I want to say that Tony Salazar vs. Herodes is also five stars. It doesn't matter what I write about Salazar.Herodes or how true it is; people are going to watch that match and think: "well, that wasn't five stars. What was he thinking?" I'd gain much more traction if I said, "here's a four star lucha match" or "here's a great match from the 80s." For starters it's more realistic, and if people really like it they're going to boost the star rating up anyway. As soon as you say it's five stars, people have MS-1/Chicana in the back of their minds. It's extremely difficult to escape the baggage of star ratings. They've been around for nearly four decades now, and if you're from my generation, you were raised to believe that a five star match was the pinnacle of wrestling. That's why I don't think **** is substantially the same as saying something is great. Saying something is the greatest thing you've ever seen can be more readily taken as a personal statement, but as soon as you affix those star ratings you create something that is meant to be as good, or better, than the best matches the viewer has seen. It would have to be a pretty tight knit community for folks to think, "oh, that's one of Jimmy Redman's five star matches or that's one of those matches Parv rated five stars" as though star ratings are merely personal reflections of each person's viewing habits. As for taking Meltzer's star ratings seriously, I don't have a problem with people taking them seriously as I don't have a problem with people taking Ebert seriously or Robert Christgau. I don't see what's wrong with taking star ratings seriously. I don't RYM ratings seriously, as well as All Movie Guide; why should wrestling be any different just because it's wrestling? I get this and to some extent I agree. I think wherever we differ we probably just differ and perhaps it is a generational thing, perhaps not. Perhaps it is as simple as where we place the emphasis of the conversation, perhaps not. However, I want to flesh out a potential distinction and in turn my point just a touch more through the example you used. I can only speak for myself and my ratings through this example, so I don't mean to harp so much on personal example, but here we go. So I agree Sangre Chicana vs MS1 is an absolute ***** match. If I made a top match list it would be at least top 3 and maybe #1. I also have Eddie Guerrero vs JBL (Judgement Day) at ***** and I don't know a lot of people who do, but I stand by it. Now people may watch that match and say "that isn't five stars", but I still maintain that that match is special. Without launching into a full review, it is one of the absolute best instances of wrestling as theater/drama. It accomplishes something that I have seen so few matches really accomplish. It blurs the lines in a way you just can't fake or buy. It was a gutsy performance and provided incredible visuals. Art imitated life in a powerful way that could not have been planned. It plays out race and class politics through violence in a way that is is moving and visceral. It is - for my money - one of the most impressive, careful, detailed, and then ultimately passionate individual performances I have ever seen when I watch Eddie curtain to curtain. It is the best example of a face DQ lose creating a meaningful distinction between moral victory and "official" victory. I actually just watched it again right before Christmas and felt justified in my rating. I believe it is a truly elite match and will defend that. Now, I have seen that match get as low as *** I think (at least in the 3s) and I assume it gets lower elsewhere. Would I rate it above Sangre Chicana vs MS-1? no. Do I think it is as good a match? no. Do I expect people to like it as well? no. Am I wrong to give that match *****? I am not being facetious with that question. I am curious if you think I am too liberal with the stars in that example? I think we are generally in agreement that ratings shouldn't be thrown around flippantly and that the 5 means something. I mentioned earlier that I am revisiting a few of my fives based on this conversation. I think that is important because I agree that I am putting my stamp on something when I say it is *****. Whatever my stamp is worth or not worth is partially articulated through that. It is like I tell my students, I don't care about their opinions. I care about their beliefs and there is a very important distinction there. Opinions are easy and free. Beliefs have a price and that price is time, energy, thought, rigor, so on. Star ratings - to me - should be about beliefs, not opinions. The baggage of the stars is hard to shake and in a way there should be some social pressure involved in beliefs, but it should be a check to make sure whatever your standards are they aren't flippant. Sometimes the result of that may feel like its out of left field. There are just too many variables for much else to hold water in practice for me anymore, so I think star ratings to the extent that they are used should reflect a dynamic interplay of and animate conversations about rigorously developed beliefs more than anything. Obviously, at this point I am talking through my own stuff as much more more than I am offering a counterpoint. Again, not sure we are THAT far apart on this as much as we are focusing on different things. As for Meltzer, yeah, I agree he should be taken seriously as a critic. I am not saying he isn't a valid critic. I am not saying people should ignore him. I just think the fallout of him giving 6 was a bit excessive and people's responses to his ratings are somewhat indicative of the objectivity problem. By "objective" I just mean that people sometimes treat star ratings as if they are stagnant and definitive, and in turn position them in conversations, arguments, and debates as such. It may not really be a problem here; I haven't followed the convo that closely on PWO.

Thinking of trying to get to my first CWF show on the 21st. I am not 100% sure I will be able to make it, but I hope so.

Ahh... got it. Thanks a ton.

They really are a shining example of what would happen if everyone's dad got to have a touring band.

I read somewhere recently and have always seen passing comments that suggests that Joshi fans or maybe even fans more broadly are or were at one time really down on Kandori. Has there been an active disdain for her? Can someone explain this if it is a real thing or point me to some place to read up on it?

This is exactly why you share star ratings, to encourage people. Why else do we say anything on here. This is my point about the grammar of a star rating having this weird undercurrent of objectivity that just falls apart the moment you recognize there are lots of ways to have great matches and there are lots of valid perspectives on wrestling (NOT that EVERY perspective is created equal, but that there is more than one way to skin a cat). How is telling people its the greatest thing you have ever seen and giving it five to implicitly encourage someone to check it out substantially different. The only real difference is if we treat star ratings as something more objective than they even are in practice or debate. Meltzer's rating of Okada/Omega is indeed a perfect example. People take Meltzer's ratings way too seriously and him giving that match 6 ruined the watching experience for a lot of people and has sparked a disproportionate amount of conversation. It is precisely because people treat the star rating as something it isn't and can't be. I simply vouch for ratings as a way of quantifying ones own standards and analysis. My point isn't that standards should be thrown out the window, but rather that standards should be carefully considered, outlined, and subsequently considered when reading ratings. My point has always been that people should rate matches responsibly, but they shouldn't hold back on giving something 5 or 4 or whatever because it isn't conventional wisdom. At the same time they shouldn't ape everyone who throws five at something just because they throw five. Your ratings should mean something first and foremost to you if you do them. Not something sentimental, but they should have some purpose if you are going to bother doing them. The most important thing remains the relationship between your justification and your rating; you should be able to analyze why you think something is 5 and then let someone else decide. This is vital. I actually went back and tagged a few matches that I have at five for rewatch after getting into this thread. I haven't changed anything yet, but I its part of that taking responsibility for your ratings thing. The second I think maybe I was too liberal with this or that match, I try to make time to check. Worst case scenario, I watch a great match... ouch. Yeah, I think if I were really compelled by this I would just reevaluate what 5 stars meant to me. It is a slippery slope because then I would go to thinking about 5.5 or even 5.75 and then I would just be chasing my tail. There are a hand full of five star matches that stand out I suppose, but I can break that down if/when I ever make a top 100 list or something like that. I just don't have time for adding to a glorified tier system. I am more or less convinced Meltzer was trolling the internet anyway, but whatever.

That is all why I didn't do it for so long and why now I am now fairly indifferent to how my list stacks up to others now. I find the grammar of the star rating is just misleading. Anytime you quantify something as fluid, multifaceted, and rooted in artistic articulations of meaning as wrestling you are going to create and deal with those problems of standards, expectations, and so on. It is tempting to get bogged down in that before you ever start and of course too many conversations get trapped under the weight of "how could you give that match (insert star rating), are you crazy" accusation, rather than a comparison of what people are looking for or at. I found star ratings just really a good personal exercise, helping me sort through what I liked and what I didn't, and more importantly WHY?! I need some structure and organization to attack and grapple with something analytically in a meaningful way. Its a product of my job and the way my brain has always worked. I am terrible with dates and other details so ratings were just an easy way to give form to the unwieldy beast that is ALL THE WRESTLING WE HAVE TAPE OF. That is one of the reasons I am interested in those matches that people "rate" highly that don't really match the "conventions" of a great match. There is room for the orthodox understanding of star ratings and what constitutes elite matches to be finessed and articulated differently, if not outright challenged in a way. This isn't to say people should do star ratings if they don't feel compelled. Quite the opposite, I just think people should approach wrestling in whatever way is best for them and star ratings aren't any more than one way of thinking and organizing thoughts. Granted it is a way that has gained some weight and meaning for a variety of reasons, but put in proper perspective it is relatively harmless.

Inspired to revisit some of my five star matches by some recent conversation of the ratings system I just took another look at this one and came away still think it was absolutely elite stuff. This is a FIGHT between two bad asses and it comes across that way. Without this breaking into anything like a shoot they are able to inspire the feeling of a real street fight between two people that no one is breaking up. Fights are sloppy and bloody and things don't go perfectly and this match captured that, sometimes intentionally and sometimes not. Matches that perform the hate between two wrestlers and really make me buy into that get a lot more leeway in terms of spots not being perfect because those spots read as the imperfections of a fight. Not that there were tons of imperfections, but this match got there for me. I love that they go right into it. You don't need to know anything about the context or the wrestlers to pretty quickly pick up that one of them is a big monster and the other is just a legit badass and they are going to brutalize each other. They work in lots of choke spots and face wrap spots that are good. They aren't contrived, but organic. Kandori's eye looks nasty early on and provides cool visuals to reinforce the violence and the stakes. When they brawl out into the crowd I think the match hits a new level. I love the implied violence you get here. You get some of it with Kandori/Hokuto as well with the table spot. It adds a lot. Here you see Bull just hammering Kandori, but all you really see is Bull's fists and hair and an ocean of people making way. Kandori fires back with some legit looking haymakers to turn the momentum right before they get back in the ring. I also loved once the momentum shifted again when Kandori missed those big punches only to get kicked square in the head. That was a nice touch there. Kandori is uniquely able to fire back in strategic spots because she believably sells that she is just tough enough to eat a bunch of punishment and then the second Bull gives her room like she might another woman she is going to get clocked in the back of the head. Bull pays for that over and over. When she takes a shot on the top near the end and gets her leg caught you get the feeling that things may shift for the final time, but no... Bull finishing it with two huge leg drops from the top (leg wrapped in the chain) was beautiful violence. Kandori sells the damage to the eye after the first like its legit (maybe it was) and is still holding it while she is pinned. I am a minority vote here, but I can't put this any lower than top marks for me. I think its an all time brawl and probably my favorite chain match (mostly because I hate the corner stipulation). Of all the varied matches where people are tied together this is probably second only to Hansen/Colon. This match has violence, escalation, hatred, selling, and it progresses in a way that makes sense. I didn't really find any of it lagging as it all held together nicely to me. They even used the chain relatively well, only getting tangled up once I think and that was pretty easy to fix. This is just top shelf stuff to me.

A match HOF would certainly be compelling, getting at that consensus thing discussed earlier in a structured, almost institutionalized way. I find either and both projects interesting.

I was only kidding (mostly) about a GME project becoming a dystopian hellscape. The prospect is interesting for sure. I think it is much more manageable undertaking at least.

I am curious, what is the harm or issue with giving that match 4.5 or even 5 if you thought that is what it deserves and then outlining the reasons you just presented? Is it an issue that that diverges from the general conceptualization of "great" matches or is it an issue of not knowing how to sort it all for yourself? I think there are lots of ways to have a great match and context always changes my ratings. When I find out more about a match I will sometimes go back and re-rate it. There are plenty of matches I have at 4 -4.5, maybe even some 4.75s that I think probably don't get that in a vacuum or by popular opinion, but I think they deserve it for whatever reason. It is just my own take on the quality of the match, no more and no less; the stakes are relatively low and there is always space to explain if need be. I am always interested when someone has a match rated highly that I never thought of as great. I wanted to think about this some before I answered it, but I've only confused myself even more. The truth is that I don't know if there is an issue with it or not. Part of the problem I have is that to me it is effectively a perfect match for what it set out to accomplish. I suppose you could say "but what it set out to accomplish wasn't that impressive or important," but in the context of that show it's just not true. If that match doesn't happen that way the main event likely fails. Joey Lynch doesn't start getting booked in bigger places without that match either, though I'm not sure it's fair to judge a match based on something like that. A couple of other matches that illustrate my struggle with this would be the Dirty Daddy v. Cain Justice opener from CWF's BattleCade which was pretty much a perfect showing in that spot from two rookies and Anthony Henry v. Fred Yehi from last nights Style Battle debut. In the case of Daddy v. Justice the goal was not to outshine what happened on the rest of the card, but to introduce Justice's new character, warm up the crowd, and do an effective title switch for their rookie belt. The work was pretty much perfect as you had a nice mix of crazy spots, good selling, body part work that paid off, and an effective finish. I'm not sure the match went 6 minutes, but I also can't think of a single thing that could have been done to improve on it. There are 25 minute ppv matches have more cool spots, are in bigger buildings, have a more dramatic string of near falls, et. but also have portions of them that I think don't quite work or don't have the sort of consistent quality exhibited here. That said I would personally feel weird given Justice v. Daddy five stars, or even four stars, where the hypothetical ppv main event would have a shot I might cut more slack. Length, scope, card positioning might be the factors at play here, but not exclusively so because I can think of other scenarios where I might pull the trigger on something higher in a similar situation. Should a matches ambition factor matter? If so I think I could make a case that Anthony Henry v. Fred Yehi should be five stars. I admit that I'm biased for personal reasons, and I also admit that there were things about the match that weren't to my tastes. But in the bigger sense I thought the match was kind of a genius piece of work by Yehi, and as physically demanding and impressive a match as we are likely to see in 2017. A very hard hitting and strong temp'ed match that wasn't excessive for the most part, worked outside in 40 degree weather, where you get over that draws can happen in the promotion, and sort of make your opponent in the process, is really more than anyone should reasonably expect on a show worked in front of maybe 60 paying fans. And yet while this one got lots of praise in real time, and I think the context clearly makes it something exemplary, I can't see going five stars. I'm not sure what the point is really other than to say that in all three of those cases the context makes me feel like those matches were pretty much perfect or damn close to it. And yet none of them are 5 stars in my eyes, and the one that I'd probably give the highest star rating to (Henry v. Yehi) is also the one that I think has the most visible flaws divorced from context. I'm not sure I really agree with OJ's point exactly, but I do think that there is definitely great rhetorical weight if nothing else to that designation and it makes me wary of trotting it out for things, and contributes to all sorts of inconsistency with how I apply the star concept in my head and what I actually think is strong/ideal wrestling in practice. Makes sense. I think I generally feel similarly about rating matches in terms judging their context and the varied other ways a match can be "great" without being "classic". I tend to use the ***3/4 and **** for those matches that I think were great for what they were doing, but didn't hit any of the notes that I think make a match (as one - but not the only - unit of wrestling) memorable and all time great/next level stuff, which is my standard for a 5 star match. Ultimately, this is all old hat debates about context vs vacuum, universal standards vs personal taste stuff in yet another package. There is certainly a subtle tension between objective and subjective the moment someone voices their ratings, and there are myriad contributing factors. Certainly one is creating expectations the moment they toss 5 flakes a matche's way in public, but to me the key is one's willingness to stand by and provide rationale for that rating. I am not as much interested in the preferable way to rate or championing either liberal or conservative leanings as much as I am knowing how people rate so I can be versed in reading their analysis/reviews. I am certainly not in favor of a favorites = classics model or the standardless throwing around of 4.75 and 5 yard ratings. At the same time I have time for any rating that someone has put some thought into and is willing to stand behind. I can maybe learn something from that. The whole thing sort of gets organically regulated individually and communally anyway. There are people here who's star ratings hold a lot of rhetorical weight on the whole and people who's don't. That is just the natural product of credibility cultivated over time. At the same time its pretty easy to navigate the terrain individually. You can tell who's taste's are going to resonate with you and who's wont, who's lists you trust and who's just aren't as helpful for you. If someone has David Arquette vs Tank Abbott (5/1/2000) at 5 stars (AS GOD INTENDED) I can pretty easily pass because we live on different wrestling planets. Similarly, there are plenty of people who don't see what I see in Joshi or Lucha or Memphis so their rating of those types of matches just aren't helpful when I am looking for perspective or to see what is hyped in a given era (or whatever other reason I am looking at ratings). Until someone decides to spearhead the dystopian hellscape that could be a Greatest Match Ever project, the stakes are relatively low to me. Its all personal responsibility and (to ape parv) honesty.

Consensus in that way makes sense, as long as it isn't pressuring folks to rate or not rate something the way they see it.

I tend to agree that personal favorites don't necessarily mean five star classics, but I am not looking for anything like consensus in today's wrestling community. Opinions ebb and flow for the most part far too much. I like surfing around and seeing other people's reviews and engaging sometimes to hone my own analysis and criteria, but consensus means very little to me. Most of my five star matches are fairly well hyped, at least by folk who are into that style, but if someone has standards and think critically about what made a match great and is willing to defend the rating has some merit. There is a match or two that I have at 5 that I haven't seen many others have, and I used to think about that a lot, but I have gone over it bunch and have strong feelings about why the matches I have at 5 are really truly all time classic matches. The point is taken though, personal favorite should not automatically equal 5 star classic. My biggest problem is giving a match five stars that hasn't existed for about 5 years. I have matches from the last 5 years at 5 stars, but I don't have a ton of confidence in them until they get some time behind them and I can watch them again, see if they hold up.

Only watched Omega vs Okada (obvious reasons). I thought it was good, really good, but not epic. I like Omega. I think his biggest strength his his facial expressions, selling in nuanced moments and his ability to always be on between moves. He is always walking and moving with purpose and meaning. I loved his glassy eyed selling in places where I have expected the camera to be catching him looking around to get a feel for the next move or something (very common now). I generally like Okada fine and thought he was doing his Okada thing as well as ever. The match was interesting in parts, certainly provided a lot of "oh shit" moments and provided some drama throughout. I thought they excelled in the use of space, the pacing of the match, the slow build to get the crowd in (they didn't seem dead to me for a tokyo dome crowd, but I could be wrong). Both men are physically gifted. Omega is so deceptively strong and he used that to create a lot of those moments that would just be impossible with most other wrestlers. Okada's ace face is on point. He knows when to turn the corner in really subtle ways to show the moment in the match where things get worse than he expected or he gets frustrated. He brings the base, the foundation to a match like this now and Omege did a great job of adding the details with his charisma, intensity, and his unique physical skillset. I actually liked the first part of the match better than the homestretch in a way. I enjoyed how they were sort of in a human game of chess, how they were blocking each other's momentum. They played the balance between feeling each other out and their early strategies for offense well. What I didn't like was that the match never really turned on an emotional level. I didn't feel hate and urgency in it. That might be just me and watching on my computer not live. I like my wrestling to feel urgent and hate filled, to at least elevate to that. This kind of stayed in the professional wheelhouse like much of the NJPW main events I have seen tend to do. It is also a criticism that I have seen waged against the Steamboat/flair 89 matches for the nwa title vs their earlier matches, but I still think they built in some passion, desperation, and hate better than this. That lack of urgency and hate killed the home stretch for me. It was incredibly impressive from a physical standpoint and I understand the logic of it, but it just wasn't my favorite thing. It is kind of hypocritical, because I still love me some 90s All Japan, but this felt like overkill. I prefer subtle reversals and guys staying out of finishers than 100 finisher kickouts, but the reversals here were almost too fast and too frequent that none of them got to sink in with any meaning for me. It was a spectacular physical show that didn't feel like much more to me. In all, I liked a lot more about it than I disliked. It was impressive and probably A LOT better live. For reference, I am probably giving it ****1/4 or ****1/2. It is one I probably wont watch again for a long time, but I will be interested in revisiting. I can see myself bumping it up or down with some time.

Piggybacking off JVK rates pimped matches thread, for those who rate matches, I am curious how many 5 star matches people have. I have 62* right now. I used to think that was really high, and maybe it is, but that is a really small percentage and I haven't run across a style or type of wrestling that I haven't really enjoyed and found five star matches in. Obviously there is no right or wrong answer, I am just curious about it. * One of those is Gilbert Cesca vs Billy Catanzarro, and I honestly don't know what to do with that other than give it 5 since I was blown away by it. However, I haven't sat down with the rest of the French catch stuff yet so maybe everything will shift around a bit once I do, so maybe 61 is more accurate in terms of confidence

I am curious, what is the harm or issue with giving that match 4.5 or even 5 if you thought that is what it deserves and then outlining the reasons you just presented? Is it an issue that that diverges from the general conceptualization of "great" matches or is it an issue of not knowing how to sort it all for yourself? I think there are lots of ways to have a great match and context always changes my ratings. When I find out more about a match I will sometimes go back and re-rate it. There are plenty of matches I have at 4 -4.5, maybe even some 4.75s that I think probably don't get that in a vacuum or by popular opinion, but I think they deserve it for whatever reason. It is just my own take on the quality of the match, no more and no less; the stakes are relatively low and there is always space to explain if need be. I am always interested when someone has a match rated highly that I never thought of as great.

I started doing star ratings for matches about a year and a half ago. If nothing else I like doing it because it helps me keep track of the ocean of wrestling I have watched and it has helped me be reflexive about what I like and what I don't like. I don't record anything lower than ***1/2 unless it is part of a feud or I am doing a really focused dive on someone. I just don't have time. I really only think of my ratings as a way of comparing matches for myself. It is more a way to quantify art for conversation sake and to give it all a kind of order for me. None of this is exact. I actually tried to do a different system where I assigned point totals for different things and rated matches. I kept up with that for like 3 weeks and it all fell apart. In turn, i replaced it with stars that aren't exact, but get the job done for me. Mine goes something like this, I guess... ***** Something that could be in the discussion for greatest match (with all the context and style and so on baggage included) and a match that I think is or will be timeless. To get here it has to sort of hit that emotional peak to me where it sucks me in and I buy into whatever they are trying to do fully. I also have to feel like it gives a little something extra somewhere (often by accident). ****3/4 An absolutely elite match that could be a 5 star if it had hit that next level somewhere or didn't have a really minor flaw or thing that bothered me somewhere. This is often the kind of match that I might show someone who isn't that into wrestling because it tends to be really good and really esciting, whereas sometimes the things that set a 5 star match apart might get lost on someone that isn't a fan. ****1/2 An unequivocally great match that is either safe or by the book or just doesn't resonate with me as much. it can also be something that is highly emotional, but may lack elsewhere. Much like Parv, for me this is an example of a superior match for a given time/place/company/genre... whatever. Everything from here up also has to have really good attention to detail. ****1/4 Really really good match that has high value in one or two aspects, but doesn't hit elite in anything. It might have a few things about it that bother me but they don't really cut into the whole of the match. Sometimes matches fall here when I think there are parts of them that are incredible, but huge parts that I think drag them down. **** For me this is the standard for rewatch value, a very good match that I want to see again. This is a match that I think is worth turning on for no other reason than to enjoy quality wrestling. It doesn't have to be great, but if it isn't higher than this, but it is still rewatchable and something I will want to come back to on a snowy day, it gets 4. I don't rate a ton below 4, but if I am watching and writing notes down anyway I often will. ***3/4 Good, fun match that gets the job done. Isn't offensive and doesn't fall apart. It isn't run of the mill, standard fair, but it isn't blowing the doors off. ***1/2 Good or fun, but not much more. It is just solid enough for me to say it is worth taking note of. Rarely note anything below this but sometimes ***1/4 Had something I really didn't like about it, but otherwise was interesting or solid. The match was really heald back by something *** Not my thing or just disappointing. A match might have been headed in the right direction, but fell off or really taken a turn. Or vice versa, it may have started terrible and picked up. This is a match I am not coming back to, but it isn't offensive really. My gut says I am not fucking with this ****** nonsense. I suppose there are a few matches that stand out that I could somehow give an extra nod, but it seems like more trouble than it is worth to me.

Both seem to make a lot of sense. Rude is a matter of time. DDP has been part of a lot of stories that raised his stock a bit.

I assumed you meant at a more macro level. I think our frustrations are similar, even if our focus, emphasis, or desire isn't. I still enjoy those micro disruptions, but they generally minor solutions to a larger frustration.

I like the part about feeling safe. I've always called it "taking it to the next level" and I've described with wrestlers doing things differently than they usually do. It's what breaks the mold in wrestling matches. I still think "safe matches" can still be classics, but you have to master the basics to do this, and a lot of the current indy hype guys haven't. Okada/Omega didn't have have any mastery of the basics or even real inclusion of the basics and the current "safe style" is doing a bunch of big moves for big moves sake. I agree. I think safe matches can be classics, but they have to really excel at just about everything and suck me into what they are doing. I also think it is important to note that not being "safe" can be a really nuanced thing. It can just be diverging from the model in little ways. Surprise me in transitions or give me a moment or two where I think things have gone off the rails. It doesn't have to be something crazy. For example, I think that is what made Zayn vs Nak so good for me. There were moments where they FELT like they were improving a bit and getting a little more brutal because they were in the moment. Maybe it was the plan all along, but it felt like they were stepping out in just places. I felt the same way about Zayn vs Owens, from Battleground I thought they stepped out of "safe" a few times and had me hooked for that emotional end.

I wanted to pull this back up and it "sort of" relates to what I was saying in my last post. I think the WWE particularly wants to create a world where wins and loses don't matter. They have - particularly HHH - pumped that narrative out with some frequency, but I think they do matter. Obviously not in the traditional sports way, but wins and loses pay off emotional investment, they build the narrative, ingrain characters with a history. WWE for example uses wins and losses to create buzz, to get hashtags, and that is incredibly counterproductive sometimes to the goal of building continuity or long term narrative arcs. Dolph chased the IC title and put his career on the line to win it for a month or something? Brian Kendrick is putting on the best matches in the CW division and making everyone look great and he loses the belt to get buzz for 205 live? The monster Brock gets squashed by Goldberg (I know there were other reasons and a lot of people liked it, but i didn't care for it)? Wrestling is best, people are most emotionally invested when wins and loses matter and the only way to do that is to make wins and loses matter. It mattered to people the Bryan won at WM30. It mattered to people that Punk beat Cena at MitB. It mattered to people that Taker won at mania (and it really mattered when he lost). I almost feel like the WWE has worked hard to eliminate that for the most part. It is really hard to capture that - as parv said - in many indys where the roster is so fluid, but it happens and I think promotions try to find ways to put it in. For example, I just watched Sabre jr vs Gresham. The winner of that match was kind of a surprise all three times and it made each victory that much more meaningful. It was something small, but it was clearly part of the plan. I thought the Scenic City Invitational I just watched recently did well to make the result matter by the end. Overall that "results matter" though is still generally - from my perspective - a little absent in modern wrestling. I would say if anything when I hear "current" fans repeat that WWE mantra "wins and loses don't matter" that is maybe where I feel the most alienated because it really encapsulates the core divide between myself and that fan or type of fan or whatever.

I don't know if I feel disconnected with the "current" fan base as much as I don't have that much in common with fans that have a certain level of investment in wrestling or with fans that are more one or two track. It isn't a distinction that I see as a matter of time or generation, but more a matter of what kinds of wrestling fans are we. I am not entirely sure what we mean when we say "current fans" anyway. WWE fans? Indy fans? An age group? Is it a sort of informal measure of more popular websites/twitter/other social media? I am not saying the idea of the current fan doesn't exist I am just not exactly sure what people mean because it seems to connote a few different things here. Yeah, I don't feel like I have a ton in common with the average WWE centric fan, but I have close friends that have been watching wrestling longer than I have (because they are older) who are WWE centric fans we don't see eye to eye on a lot of the core things that are being discussed here. The same goes for indy wrestling. I love indy wrestling and am kind of in the process of diving back into some of the stuff that happened this year and I think it is great, but my descriptions and ratings and so on don't really match some of the hype I see for it (again, from people who have been watching longer than I have). I get the spirit of it. I guess in a way I feel disconnected from what I think is probably the "popular - internet" wrestling take, the sorts of opinions and narratives that I see most frequently flying around the interwebs, but that is why I would rather com here. A few of the threads of discussion here are interesting, and there are a few I want to piggyback off of a second. I think saturation matters. We just have too much wrestling and for those of us who can only watch one match at a time, we will just never get to it all. I am sort of nixing WWE except big shows for a while so I can catch up on indy stuff. I just don't have time to watch it all and I know that is a problem for a lot of people. But I think that is related to the discussions of storytelling and cherrpicking. If the WWE is in any way hanging over this label of "current fan" (and i am pretty sure it is), their subtle changes in business model over the last hand full of years, especially since the network have been and will continue to shape a certain (huge) section of wrestling fandom. Part of why I don't love a lot of the modern product is that the storylines change at the drop of a hat. There is very little long term continuity and it is bad storytelling to me most of the time. Part of it is too much tv, but I suspect part of the reason they can do that they already have the money of fans that are invested in "wrestling storytelling". I am not sure the majority of fans care enough or think about wrestling enough to put the modern product into any sort of historical perspective. If they do they probably care about wrestling so much that they aren't opting out of the WWE network. This isn't news. Think back to WM30 season when everyone was losing their minds about Bryan getting kept off the main event. The constant argument was "well are you going to stop watching" and the answer was no. All the heavy hitters at the time were making it on their podcasts. The WWE has the invested fan's money for the most part so they can audible and switch gears and put whoever over whoever for the most part, especially if they have consistently good matches. Access to footage, the WWE model, and fan orientation to matches seem very cyclically related to me. It engenders a kind of fan that i don't relate to as much, but I don't really disdain or anything. I also agree with Loss that disruption is a big thing, but I may be thinking about it more on the micro level (not sure if we really differ here) My main problem with WWE matches is that they feel safe. It is why i can't give something like Styles vs Reigns top ratings, even though I loved it. I like my wrestling, even at the match level, to at least feel like it is going off script a little, to feel like their is hate. That isn't really how WWE is built now and it isn't how a lot of indy wrestling is often built either. I haven't watched NJPW for a bit, but at least last year I didn't see it as how NJPW was built. I was talking with a friend recently about our favorite matches of the year and it was an incredible year for great matches. Mine - right now - is Canis Lupus vs Trauma 1. His is Black Terry vs Wotan (I haven't seen it yet, on the way). We have been talking about why in this year with so many great matches our favorite matches where these lucha brawls with guys that most wrestling fans have never heard of. One of the big things for me is that Lupus vs T1 didn't feel safe. It felt like they were taking chances and letting the emotion of the match carry them. I get that a lot more from 80s matches and some from early 90s matches than I do from modern matches. I get it from early to mid 2000s ROH. It is why Guerrero vs JBL (Judgement Day) is one of my favorite matches ever. This is a sort of long way of saying I think this is why I feel disconnected with some fans when they are talking about great matches as if they are all time classics. Classics can't feel safe to me and if they do they have to be damn near perfect in every other way. It can be frustrating at times to be disconnected from such a huge section of the wrestling world, but it doesn't bother me so much because I more footage down stairs than I could get through this year, endless streaming opportunities, and a few outlets to discuss wrestling the way I want.

Lucha - Check, I watched a lot more lucha NJPW - Nope, unsubscribed to NJ World and more or less stopped watching anything modern Japanese LU and Progress - Check-ish, not really. I watched more but I am not really caught up at all. Indy in new region - Check - again - ish. Between the move and starting a new job, I haven't been able to make it to any shows, but I am checking out some upcoming stuff. I at least have my eyes on some schedules. 14th Anniversary Show - Check. Had a great time free of grad school responsibilities in Vegas for the weekend. Not terrible. I also got a lot of wrestling related stuff in that I hadn't planned on.

Finish two 80s sets (Lucha and All Japan) Purchase the 80s sets I don't have See lots of indy shows Keep up with more indy wrestling Double the matches I have rated on my little spread sheets Spend at least a month really exploring NWA on Demand I likely will get to half of this stuff... but its all worth a shot.