Cap

Updated 8/13/2018 2018 – Andrade Almas vs Johnny Gargano (1/27) 2017 – Trevor Lee vs Chip Day (3/25) 2016 – Black Terry vs Wotan (8/21) 2015 – Shinsuke Nakamura vs Kota Ibushi (1/4) 2014 – Daniel Bryan vs HHH (4/6) 2013 – Daniel Bryan vs John Cena (8/18) 2012 – El Hijo Del Santo/Villano IV vs Angel Blanco Jr/El Hijo Del Solitario (2/25) 2011 – CM Punk vs John Cena (7/17) 2010 – L.A. Park vs el Mesias (12/5) 2009 – Bryan Danielson/Claudio Castagnoli vs Mike Quackenbush/Jigsaw (9/13) 2008 – Bryan Danielson vs Takeshi Morashima (12/27) 2007 – John Cena vs Umaga (1/28) 2006 – Bryan Danielson vs Nigem McGuinness (8/12) 2005 – Kenta Kobashi vs Samoa Joe (10/2) 2004 – Eddie Guerrero vs JBL (5/16) 2003 – Kenta Kobashi vs Mitsuharu Misawa (3/1) 2002 – Bryan Danielson vs Low-Ki (3/30) 2001 – El Hijo del Santo vs LA Park (1/23) 2000 – Atlantis vs Vilano III (3/17) 1999 – Kiyoshi Tamura vs Yoshihisa Yamamoto (6/24) 1998 – Kenta Kobashi vs Mitsuharu Misawa (10/31) 1997 – Steve Austin vs Bret Hart (3/23) 1996 – El Hijo Del Santo vs Negro Casas vs El Dandy (12/6) 1995 – Holy Demon Army vs Kenta Kobashi/Mitsuahru Misawa (6/9) 1994 – Mitsuharu Misawa vs Toshiaki Kawada (6/3) 1993 – Shinobu Kandori vs Akira Hokuto (4/2) 1992 – Negro Casas vs el Dandy (7/3) 1991 – El Hijo del Santo vs Negro Casas (5/17) 1990 – El Satanico vs El Dandy (12/14) 1989 – Ric Flair vs Ricky Steamboat (4/2) 1988 – Stan Hansen/Terry Gordy vs Genichiro Tenryu/Toshiaki Kawada (12/16) 1987 – Stan Hansen vs Carlos Colon (1/6) 1986 – Nick Bockwinkel vs Curt Hennig (11/21) 1985 – Jerry Lawler vs Bill Dundee (12/30) 1984 – El Satanico vs Gran Cochise (9/14) 1983 – Sangre Chicana vs MS-1 (9/23) 1982 – Jerry Lawler vs Dutch Mantell (3/29) 1981 – Stan Hansen vs Andre The Giant (9/23) 1980 – Steve Grey vs Johnny Saint (1/28 – air: 2/2) 1979 – Andre The Giant vs Harley Race (1/7) 1978 – Wahoo McDaniel vs Harley Race (2/10) 1977 – Billy Robinson vs Jumbo Tsuruta (3/5) 1976 – Billy Robinson vs Giant Baba (7/24) 1975 – Steve Grey vs Clive Myers (11/20 – air: 11/22) 1974 – 1973 – Adrian Street vs Jim Breaks (2/12)

I have sort of three types of responses here. First, I value a few things in contexts like these, just generally. I teach and these are things that I try to keep in mind when I am directing conversations in class or navigating controversial topics. - Asking question Example: Using our Hart vs Khali example, I would be more receptive to conversations that asked questions about each wrestler or what there differences might say about wrestling or wrestling fans - Making perspective/background clear (not constantly, but when it is necessary - even if it is in one's profile) Example: Piggybacking off overbooked, knowing what type of fan someone is, what they are into, how they got into wrestling, etc, would help me understand why someone might like Khali more than Hart and I am sure there are people who do prefer the big man. - Not ignoring negative analysis, but encouraging positive analysis Example: You probably couldn't have the Khali v Hart debate without talking about negatives, but I would be far more interested in someone willing to engage what both did well or at least what they thought they did well, which would tell me as much about what they thought each was bad at as anything. - Comparing perspectives rather than arguing points Example: Why tell someone they are wrong if they think Khali is better? That won't really accomplish much except devolve everything into a series of defensive and offensive statements about what types of fans matter and so on. Im more interested in how someone's perspective is different than mine. What are they seeing that I am not and what can I share to help them like Hart more. - Attending carefully to headings and framing or opening posts (if that stuff is made for combative conversion it is really hard to get out of that) Example: I wont lie. I would click on a thread that started with "Khali is better than Hart", but I wouldn't expect much good about it. Rather I would be more interested in a thread that framed it as a comparison. Avoiding overusing value statements and really thinking carefully about WHEN to use them. I am not saying you can't judge value and use those statements, but they are overused and derail conversations quickly. As for scope, I personally not really against outlandish perspectives, as long as they are nuanced and detailed. I'll listen to just about anything, especially if people are at least trying to be careful and nuanced. To me, talking about wrestling is more about opening up doors and encouraging people to watch and like more wrestling. Sure, I like having spirited debates, but those shouldn't be the rule, especially when talking to people that you don't know really well in a medium that removes nonverabals. There is just so much stuff to block meaning and make combative stuff not work. Example: If someone said Khali is better than Hart and they framed it well and argued their point I would be happy to hear that out and even engage it. I may not respond becaue I am not sure its something that will be that meaningful to me, but I might, depending on how it is argued. If people are being detailed and taking their time to make such statements what does or does not get traction - what is or is not worthy of our time will be dictated by responses and what is interesting. That is arts of all forms ebb and flow through popular and niche discourses. Finally, I really think the main thing when talking about art (where standards are not necessarily completely subjective, but are so very flexible and malleable) it often comes down to people taking personal responsibility to not derail conversations. That isn't just not trolling or taking a minute to explain your opinions/analysis; it is also engaging posts in productive way. I just think generally speaking people know the kind of thing that will sink a conversation and often those are the things that suck is in. Example: Lets say our Khali vs Hart conversation started up and after a few posts someone comes in and says "Hart was boring as watching shit harden. Khali sucked but he was better than Hart" or "Hart was the worst WWE/F Champion of all time" or "Khali was a joke".... well forget those posts. It isn't going to help anything. I am not saying you need to write a novel, but we know when people are trolling or posting something dismissive and not only should they not really do that, but others should be willing to ignore it and engage interesting conversations. A lot of this is stuff I mostly see here. I think generally speaking this is and has been a place to engage wrestling as an art, but of course there are times things get off the rail. That all has been beat to death elsewhere; I just mean to say I think this has been a space that has privileged much of this. I am not saying everyone needs it together or anything.

Interesting final list. I have seen quite all but two of these and they are all well worth a mention. Good stuff

Man... i went to 30 and it was a blast. I am going to do my best to get down to NOLA for 34.

I agree with the support and even somewhat the warrant, but not the claim completely. In all honesty, I am sort of a peak guy in terms of my own analysis and preferences. I would much rather watch high end wrestling (obviously?), and agree completely that you can tell a lot about a wrestler or style(s) by looking at the top stuff. My issue - and perhaps this wasn't clear and maybe Parv and I differ here - is that it is very limiting talk about a style or styles or region or wrestler or whatever when you are only looking at peak stuff. To understand why it is peak you have to kind of have some idea of what average looks like. We may not want to seek out average matches, but how are we supposed to know what we think of something if we haven't seen it? We are going to run into average stuff unless we are just taking some top match list we find and not veering from it. Those average (or slightly above or below or whatever that isn't "elite") are going to color how one sees a style/time period, not just the high end. I am not saying you can't judge anything or make any sort of claims based on high end matches, but that doesn't tell the whole story and - more importantly to me - doesn't account completely for the genre or style that someone may be claiming to like or dislike. It is the relationship between the high end and the larger body of wrestling that interests me. I tend to think more and more people are looking for samplings of styles that will hook them in what sorts of samplings, what are the high end matches, that can hook people into the varied manifestations of lucha? For those who don't care for lucha, is there is a disconnect between the high end match and the average match that you don't see in other styles/time periods? Aslo, spot on about lucha not being homogeneous. It has been brought up a few times in the thread and I keep hoping some people with more knowledge of lucha than me will dive into that a bit more

Given the hype around Flair, his place in the WWE narrative, and the near universal love he receives he could be "overrated" and one of - if not the - best ever in the same breath.

I agree here, but I think a few matches stand out as potential places where the conversation could be much more substantive. Even though I think there are broader systemic things at play I do think that individual reception of matches and divergences could shed light on why even some of the high end stuff might not catch with broader audiences. Maybe we are still too new in the modern way of watching and consuming wrestling and/or perhaps we (as the type of fan that might stumble in here) are to niche-y in our consumption habits, but I think with these booms in footage availability and the ease of access, that high end stuff is going to be the gateway for a lot of people. I know that isn't a lot of people's preferred way of watching, but its a reality. That is a whole other conversation, but I'll just say two quick things about why I think this matters: 1) You can't judge a genre by its high end matches, but with the ever expanding ocean of footage and the omnipresence of match reviews and lists on the interwebs it only seems logical that some will start with high end stuff. Lets assume for conversation sake that this is the case, might a relevant way to get at the more recent questions about how do we promote or how does lucha get better footing in the future be to look at the hyped lucha matches and see why they are or are not capturing new fans and encouraging them to dig deeper. 2) We of course harp on people like Meltzer because their influence is far reaching, but I think people are underplaying their own modest reach and how wrestling fandom is still evolving. Even in the last 3-4 years you can see tangible changes in sites like CSS that has a section for fan posts. Membership there went through the rough during WM 30 season (i believe) and more people are now being exposed to pieces highlighting wrestlers outside the WWE cannon. Participation here in GWE was much higher than people expected. The point being, more than ever there are spaces for people to establish a trendsetting voice. The nodes of influence are dispersing quicker than ever so when stuff is hyped, it resonates. Sure it is modest right now, but its always expanding. For example, the vast majority of the high end lucha I have watched (and LOVE) is because of the 80s set and this board, primarily Will, Grimmas, and OJ among many others. I had honestly never really had much desire to give lucha another try until a yearish or so ago when I was listening to people talk about greatest matches ever, gwe, making cases and so on. So the question is how does the hyped stuff hold up on first view? Why does (or doesn't it) resonate with people? Does it inspire people to seek out more? Does it help people get into lucha or deter them or set up false hopes. Do top end matches help or hurt Lucha's chances of catching on in the future as (or "if") nodes of influence continue to dissipate a bit? I am interested in the 2/3 isn't great for brawls statement. I get it in the abstract and have seen you say when talking about Park, but could you maybe comment on further? I know you have reviewed Dandy vs Azteca and discussed it elsewhere. That is perhaps the biggest rift between how I see some of those matches and how you do. I am more interested in Dandy vs Satanico. Do you have a posted review of that match and if so, where might it be? I am curious as to why that one didn't rank as high for you. Is the 2/3 falls issue a thing here? Have you gotten to Sangre Chicana vs El Satanico 5/26/89 yet? If so, how does that one grab you and is the 2/3 falls an issue there?

I like this. The conversation appears to be spinning its wheels here. I am sure this is available somewhere here, but can I ask where you have a few matches that I am pretty sure you have seen and reviewed? Chicana vs MS-1 - 9/23/1983 Satanico vs Cochise - 9/14/1984 Santo vs Espanto Jr - 8/31/1986 Dandy vs Azteca - 6/1/1990 Dandy vs Satanico - 12/14/1990 Santo vs Casas vs Dandy - 12/6/1996 Atlantis vs Vilano III - 3/17/2000 Trauma I vs Lupus - 9/4/1016 Not to pry for full reviews of them all, but I am curious as to where you have them. Those are all matches I have at *****. They aren't the only lucha matches I have there, but they are matches I think are fantastic and are sure fire classics.

Given the whole lucha thread debacle I laughed out loud when I saw this come up. Honestly, I think Flair and his place is a fascinating point of discussion, but it has been driven into the ground here. If the merits of Flair are something you are actually interested in discussing (and not just baiting people into indignation over) I really would recommend Parv's "Fair to Flair" series. It was decisive to say the least. I loved it and thought he raised some really nuanced points about what Flair did and why it mattered. I think there is also a Flair vs Hart thread somewhere that was somewhat maddening at times but has lots of the opinions rolling around. I am honesty not being dismissive; I have to head out and I really want to watch this Beyond Wrestling show I started. I have never really chimed in on Flair here so maybe I will come back and chat about it later tonight, but the long and short of it is that I went through a phase of not digging on Flair as much, but I just can't help but love how he made things work that had no business working at all. I mean, he was facing completely different expectations. his career wasn't designed to be watched in the way we watch wrestling today, but I still find myself constantly fascinated with Flair's work, especially the nuanced differences between matches. Even if he was redundant and his psychology didn't work, I find him extremely re-watchable. Anyway, I imagine this won't get a ton of substantive traction given how much Flair has been discussed here.

Honestly, I think the best anyone can do is continue to beat the drum for Lucha and hope you reach more people. I mean if we are talking about an assortment of factors, some personal, some systemic, some historical, we aren't going to be able to do much to make a substantial change in the short term. All anyone can do is continue to discuss lucha and provide detailed analysis of what makes something entertaining and great i hopes of slowly cultivating a positive narrative about lucha that catches on a larger scale.

great points here and in your post before it. I had always sort of known that Mil's influence was far reaching and intuitively understood much of it was politics, but hadn't really thought about how that might be connected here. I also never really realized how I didn't think of the Guerreros (when in American territories) luchadors, even though I have notes about the style clearly influencing some matches i reviewed.

Egad, some of this got off the rails. I want to double back a touch to those questions Dylan asked because I think the answer to both SHOULD be "yes" without question, but they seem to be at the heart of the thread. They inform both why it was started and why it has woven on and off the trail a bit. There seem to be two distinctions that keep getting conflated for a variety of reasons 1. Why is a certain style (here, lucha) not covered in the same way as puro/why does it not occupy the same space in digital wrestling communities (a very worthwhile question that probably does have a complex answer and we will also probably never full pin down) vs why do certain people not watch lucha and carry the banner for it (not a particularly interesting question and one that more or less boils down to taste). The former is what I think the thread was started about. The latter is how much of the discussion (argument) has gone and i think that is more of a grammatical thing than people being careless. Speaking for myself I talked about it in terms of why lucha might be harder to click with and even though I was thinking in terms of populations, discourses, stalwart wrestling outlets etc) grammatically that easily gets interpreted as an individual issue, "why can't these people get into it". and, not unrelated 2. To what extent are people who have assumed - officially or not - positions of influence in wrestling centered communities responsible for watching, being knowledgeable about, speaking with some earnestness about lucha (or any style) vs to what extent anyone who is speaking about lucha in wrestling communities should take their background with the style and the spirit of the conversation seriously vs to what extent those people should be required to like or praise lucha vs to what extent everyone should feel obligated to watch lucha or styles they aren't interested in or know they aren't into. This one is a little more all over, but it seems important to me. The first one is an interesting question. The last two are more or less nonsense, but some of the responses seem to assume that is what people are asking. Not to pick on Parv, because I know he has watched a lot of lucha and I have seen him articulate his opinions on it clearly, but I think if at the heart of much of this the conflation of a personal, well informed conviction about a style to account for a question about patterns of coverage and presence in online communities.

I get the point of the last paragraph there. Understandably, people seem to be sort of grappling with how much people should be expected to watch things they aren't into and how much of "a chance" people should give styles before they abandon it. The easy and obvious (and correct) answer is "however much they want" and "depends on the person". We can exchange metaphors for it till New Years, but it isn't going to change that each person can and should decide how much time they want to spend on wrestling they aren't feeling, but obviously there is more going on. I guess for me I think a hand full of tries is solid. No one is responsible to answer to anyone but themselves, but if someone can and is willing to articulate why they aren't into a style that tells me they gave it a try, thought about it and don't like it. I have made pretty clear that I think those producing content - I hope - should maybe push a little beyond that and be a touch more versed. Regardless, it more or less is dependent on how much you are going to discuss and engage the genre or style. If you don't want to talk about Lucha or shoot or WOS or whatever you don't really have to watch any of it. You don't have to give it a first try. But if you want to engage threads about it (particularly in a space like this) people are going to inquire and feel out what kind of background you have. I'd be interested what others - particularly those who have expressed discontent - think the standards should be for giving something a chance, if they think their should be standards.

Yeah... Wrestling is absolutely comfort food, its like Kimchi. I lived in Korea for a bit and hated kimchi when I got there, but if I had tried it a few more times and in a few different ways I wouldn't enjoy one of my favorite meals on earth now (Kimchi Jigae [stew]). Similarly, I couldn't stand Giant Baba the first few times I saw him. But if I didn't try a few more times and in a few different contexts I wouldn't enjoy one of my favorite matches now (Baba vs Robinson). Sure, people shouldn't be forcing themselves to watch lots of wrestling they can't stand and "making" making themselves like things, but I return to what i said before; there are lots of ways to get fulfillment out of wrestling (other than just the entertainment value) especially if you are engaged at the level many of the people on this board are.

I just watched Kandori vs Sato and thought it was quite good. Anyone have the details for that (Date, place, show?). If nothing else it showed one of the things I love about Kandori. She is so intense and deliberate in her movements, even when she is just walking around. Also, anyone have that Hotta match from 3/21/98 or know where I can find it. I found an earlier one that I will watch later, but didn't have luck tracking down that 98 match. Kandori is pretty easily my favorite female wrestler ever. Admittedly, I am still relatively new to Joshi as a whole and only have a working knowledge of it, so there is a ton I haven't seen yet. Right now though, she is more or less a head above everyone to me. I love Aja and Hokuto and Dynamite and lots of others, but no one has the diverse skillset Kandori has. She can bring as much ass kicker to the ring as Kong and can sell and be as sympathetic as just about anyone if she wants. She is believable but still an entertainer. More than anything I think her ability to turn on the intensity in a comeback or a control sequence to bring a new dynamic and wrinkle to the match is second to none. I always find I like her matches more than most, especially her high end stuff. I think I have her with 4 or 5 five-star matches and I feel good about it. If nothing else I would argue she brings things to matches (particularly high end matches) that no one else could bring that elevate those matches. I could probably put her top 10 matches against anyone, but I could definitely put her top 10 individual performances (which would roughly align with those matches) against just about anyone I think.

SCI Final? The Scenic City Invitational tournament. Anthony Henry vs. Chris Hero vs. Gunner Miller vs. Jimmy Rave, elimination rules. Ahhh... thanks. I heard that tournament was unreal good. I am going to have to buy this show soon.

With regard to this, I often wonder what people are referring to when they say they've tried getting into lucha. Does it mean they tried following cubsfan's uploads, or watched the matches getting MOTY hype, or does it mean they've tried to watch some of the more famous bouts? I don't think lucha lends itself well to a random sampling, but at the same time you have to be open to the idea of liking lucha to really get into it through the great match approach. The way that I got into it was to watch the '89 and '90 seasons. Japanese wrestling was the opposite. I had a laundry list of great matches I wanted to see right from the beginning. With lucha it was more about learning who the characters were and enjoying their interactions. The critical analysis came later. That is a good point. For me I started with a random sampling. I would run into something that looked interesting on youtube, or have some lucha on a random comp I had or something. I got the 80s set and just kind of started from the top. There was never a time I didn't like it, but I always knew I was missing something. Admittedly Sangra Chicana vs MS 1 was the first lucha match I just sort of lost it for and as someone said earlier, it is primal and different. However, it also helped the pace and pattern and intensity of at least apuesta matches. After that I sort of just dove into a lot of the higher end stuff from the set and from the early 90s and everything started coming easier. Now I can throw on just about anything and (I believe at least) "get" it. It is easier for me to understand the characters quickly and read the nuances. I do wish I could go back and really follow large swaths in order, but it isn't in the cards anytime soon. Maybe one day. Last minute update: Rules were also a struggle for me. It doesn't bother me as much anymore, but sometimes when I see a match where a ref does something that really impacts the finish of what was otherwise awesome I get really frustrated (example: Park vs Santo). That stuff may add to a match for some, but it still bothers me and takes a bit away. The lucha audience and the wrestler's relationship to it is my absolute favorite. I was watching some random high end stuff with my friend, who is mexican, a while back. She enjoyed it (and was translating important stuff for me) but isn't a fan really. She was telling me that her sister isn't a wrestling fan in any conventional sense but goes to shows with friends just for the experience. One of my wrestling fan bucket list items is to buy a lucha mask and go to a show in mexico.

SCI Final? I can respect that. I can't think of a recent match that stuck with me like it did.

It is razor to me and I couldn't blame anyone for going either way, but for me it comes down to if you asked me to pick one of them to rewatch I think most of the time I am probably picking Trama vs Lupus. I could change my tune tomorrow, so I will likely use this as an excuse to rewatch both of them one day before the end of the year... ya know... for research.

I just watched that Delta vs Galactar match yesterday (because of this thread) and thought it was really fun. If I made a top 10 it would probably be around 9 or 10, just thinking through what I ranked from this year. I also just watched that Hero vs Gresham match (again, because of this thread) and it is awesome. It is the perfect example of how there is more than one way to create an epic, classic match. This is just such a brilliantly nuanced match that mixes fun engaging action with attention to detail and clear, (I think overtly) deliberate storytelling. The way they committed to playing off the size and power vs technique and speed dynamic was was entertaining. I am still a little torn on how I feel about the ending, but it is one of those cases where I think if this were the 80s I wouldn't think twice about it and I like that kind of throwback. Even still, I think I had DIY vs Revival at number one the other day in another thread, but the more I think about it the more I think Trauma I vs Canis Lupus was probably the best match I have seen this year for the reasons listed in this thread already. I thin it gets extra points for being such a brilliant and intense apuestas match in 2016.

You are also right about this. Part of the fun of being a fan is watching new stuff. My point was nobody should feel that there's something wrong with preferring to spend time watching one thing over another. As an example, a few months ago, I watched, over a few weeks, WrestleMania 9, SMW Bluegrass Brawl, AAA TripleMania 1, NJPW Dontaku, FMW Kawasaki Stadium and WCW Slamboree. All these shows took place over about a month in Spring 93 and it was really interesting to watch and contrast what was going on in the business at the time. The point is, there was a huge variety there but of all those shows, it was the AAA one which I just couldn't get into - and that's happened with Lucha for me before. Bits of the show were fun for sure, but on the whole I just feel it's not really for me. For that reason I don't think I should feel guilty for not watching a lot of it. oh for sure. I don't think anyone should feel obligated to like anything and if someone gives something a genuine try they shouldn't feel obligated to drudge through lots of it. Most of all though, if watching something isn't fulfilling in some way I don't think people should be watching it, but there are many ways to find fulfillment in wrestling, especially if - to return to this trope - if one is going to produce content on it. I just don't like the idea of changing one's behavior BECAUSE others aren't matching yours. Obviously this is in response to Grimmas' frustrations and I am not at all saying he should continue to watch puro because I think he needs to be well rounded. Lord knows he has watched more than his fair share. I just - as a consumer of much of the podcast content from folks here - like listening to people who are versed in lots of of styles and eras, even when they don't like it. There is value in keeping up with what people are talking about if you are going to participate (or in many cases lead) conversations in a space like this, but there is also value (perhaps moreso) in keeping up with and being well versed in less emphasized genres and working to emphasize and create avenues to encourage engagement with them. As a complete aside. I need to set aside some time to watch a bunch of different things from the same year. I have never made an effort to do that and watch in that way. I always think it is a good idea when I see people doing it.

Going back just a touch. I agree that people should be watching what they want and shouldn't spend too much time on wrestling they actively don't like or are bored with. That said - and this is intuitive - what is the point of a board like this if people aren't willing to explore. i do think people should push themselves to watch new stuff and I think there is merit to exposing yourself to styles at least to the point of formulating an informed opinion on it, especially if this forum and even more especially for those producing podcast and blog content. As a consumer of much of that content it is a lot more enjoyable now that I sort of get what many of yall are into and what you aren't. It makes it easier for me to gauge what I am listening to and take recommendations. Back quickly to Matt D's post about coverage. I find it is always more difficult and spotty getting info bout Lucha. I don't think that explains much, but the internet certainly leads fans to puro well before it often leads fans to lucha. Moreover, it is sometimes even hard to find info when you are seeking it out. I have been doing ratings and keeping track of things like location and date for stuff that I rate and it is often much harder for me to find lucha stuff (especially if it isn't high end or really pimped). I hope there is more or at least a continued effort to produce lucha oriented content to encourage others to engage it.

or Grimmas is saying he doesn't feel obligated to watch puro anymore, since puro fans don't feel obligated to watch lucha. That's a completely difference statement. I find this statement really weird. People not feeling obligated to watch wrestling they don't feel emotionally attached to (or that don't like a particular style) is something that happens across the board, not just lucha. There's a ton of fans that don't like or know about indy wrestling and don't feel obligated to seek and watch the most pimped matches. Same for British wrestling, lucha and even puro. I felt obligated for years to try to seek out the best stuff of the year in order to make a best match of the year list or to feel worthy to talk about who is the best. If you only watch your favourites how can you claim to make a best of anything list? Aren't you just making your favourites list then? That was my mindset, but that is a minority mindset, so I'm dropping it. Honest curiosity, are you changing the way you watch wrestling because you think you will enjoy a new/different viewing habits/patterns (or whatever) or are you changing because you don't like that you feel like others (or maybe enough others?) are doing it? I am curious as to why you are changing how you watch wrestling... frustration? fatigue? something else all together?

This seems spot on to me. I have said often that I am really glad you all did the GWE stuff because even though I didn't submit I really enjoyed following the podcasts and threads. Not only did they help me kill those bikes rides and walks to and from school, I (and here we go) got exposed to tones of good stuff that I just wouldn't have otherwise. That said, the tone of the conversation here has changed. I don't participate much and do so in waves as I have time/motivation, but that project really seemed to do a number on some people and this is a different space now. This isn't some semi-invested poster harking for the good old days; I legit wonder if some people are having fun talking about wrestling anymore. I get it. A lot of people invested massive chunks of time and energy. I has to be draining, but I do hope whatever funk the GWE project put on the board as a whole wears off. As for grimmas's obligation stuff, that makes perfect. Credibility is always negotiated actively in these spaces and this is a highly engaged and well educated board. People actively dismiss the opinions of others fairly frequently for not having seen this or that or not "getting" something or not backing up opinions with the right kind of evidence. Sure, it would be great if everyone just liked what they liked and we all may come in with that intention, but that isn't how discourse and credibility ever play out. I think in the case of some people - particularly those who are leading these communities and putting out lots of audio content as well - it isn't just a matter of watching for street cred. Those folks should be watching lots of stuff and formulating opinions on them, that makes the more knowledgeable, informed producers of content. They don't have to like it or even pretend to, but of course there are pressures to be somewhat versed in puro (particularly 90s all japan) if you are going to talk about wrestling in media where the target audience is internet wrestling fans.

That comic book analogy is probably a lot better and more accessible way of thinking through it the way I was with narratives and storytelling.