Cap

I completely agree on HBK vs Punk. That could have been a fantastic program and produced really good matches. I am not a huge fan of return HBK, but he had high points and Punk would have definitely been a high point. Sting vs Taker is an obvious one. Austin vs Goldberg could have technically happened and if it were booked with any amount of care it would have drawn huge. The match, however, probably would have been terrible. Brock vs Bryan could have not only been a really great match, but could have drawn money if it were done right. Savage vs HBK and Bret as real main even programs also stand out. I think Vince left a lot of money on the table by phasing out Savage. I am not sure any money was left on the table, but Eddie vs Danielson should have happened when Eddie was doing his redemption indy tour. Those matches are so strange to me and I think a match with Danielson would have been better than any of the ones we actually got.

I have been thinking about 90 (or 95) - 100 as the sort of "I want to recognize these people" section. The further from the top 10 I get the harder I find it to have real conviction about the specific spot as much as I am comfortable with "zones" or "tiers". Once I get to the end of the list I my desire to recognize a guy as sort of a tie breaker between guys who will make the list and guys who wont and (perhaps unfortunately) I think that will come down to what I am watching or really into come submission time. That said, it is still a guy I will – as was aptly put above – go to bat for. If I am feeling sort of nostalgic about how much I like Sid when I was a kid, Sid is still not making the top 100 for me. But if I for some reason really into Paul London matches around the time the ballot is due, I can see me putting him somewhere between 97-100.

I haven't rewatched the early stuff in quite some time, but I always remember the Briscoe Brothers (especially Jay) being pretty good right off the bat, especially if you focus on them in the context of the indy boom and the style that was being developed there.

I could see him sneaking into the 90-100 somewhere on my list. I am not sure it will happen, but it COULD. I REALLY like his matches with Nakamura in the G-1 and actually think he would benefit from working with people other than Tanahashi in the top spot more often. I find much of what he does with Tanahashi somewhat repetitive (fun, big match style, but repetitive) where I think he thrives when faced with different challenges that provide him different ways of nuancing his character via in ring work.

I am watching disk one of the 80s lucha set.

The WWC feud with Colon is what really put him there for me. I had seen a lot of his work in Japan before that when I was watching a little more casually. The stuff with Colon blew me away though. That is where his versatility really stood out. I actually remember very distinctly the moment he became probably a clear cut top 5 for me. It was during the bullrop match (one of my favorite matches ever) about 3/4th the way through the match where he is reaching for the last corner and he gets pulled back on his butt by Colon. Hansen sits and almost openly weeps. It was this brilliant little turning point in the whole feud to me. It felt like the moment that inside, Hansen new Colon was ultimately going to beat him. This big monster couldn't hold that in and he just whaled. Since then I have noticed a lot of those little things he does that put emotion into his matches, even in his sort of chaotic brawls. Hansen sells emotion really well. It is usually anger and rage, but that makes the frustration and hearbreak that much better.

I was just going to comment on Bret's ability to work credibly with big men. He is one I am going to have to go back and revisit close to the deadline, see how I feel about a handful of his matches once I have watched a bunch of new (to me) stuff. I just looked at my list and I could also definitely be top vote on Super Dragon. I am not sure where he will land for me, but I imagine he will have a spot on my list.

I had Hansen top 5 for sure. I recently got the 80s AWA set and I think he might have solidified himself as the man to beat on my list. It isn't so much that the work there was unbeatable as much as I just threw up my hands and said "fuck it, he is just the best everywhere".

Yeah, I presently have Arn 21 and I am not sure he could get higher than 18-20 for me. He might even move down, so I likely WON'T be the high vote on him. Bret is one of the tricky ones for me. A few years ago I would have counted him among my favorites. I got more serious about watching a wider breadth of wrestling about a year ago and in turn started picking apart what I personally liked and didn't like a bit more he has worked his way down my list a bit. However, when I start comparing him one to one with people about 10-15 slots in either direction I really struggle, especially if they are people like Arn who have such a different career path and type. Bret is probably the person I have seen the most of who could honestly still move 20 or more slots on my list.

Based on where I have them right now (with lots more to watch and rewatch before I feel comfortable with my own ballot)... I could be the high vote on Bryan Danielson, Eddie Guerrero, William Regal, Shinsuke Nakamura, Koji Kanemoto, Tracy Smothers, Gran Hamada, Jay Briscoe, and/or Arn Anderson. EDIT: I could also be the high vote on Mick Foley.

All that more or less supports the point here. It isn't that they have never had heels or never had periods of being somewhat heel centric, but that their focus right now, their strenght is heel fighters. They have had heel champions, but as you said the longer reigns, the big draws were USUALY a mixed bag, until fairly recently. They are selling their fights based on heel work and part of this is because they are low on faces. Their biggest gates are drawn by heels and when they want to make sure they draw big numbers they turn to... heels. Sure they have had heels, but I am not sure they have ever been so focussed on heels to carry the product. Even if there was a period like this, I am just saying they are a heel organization right now and that this... like everything... is pro wrestling.

Yeah... MMA, just like wrestling, just like the rest of the world has its share of bigots and assholes.

Supremebve, maybe, but I think that only holds up as long as she is winning. Her success made responses to her very mixed, but as soon as she lost many people have been quick to turn on her. I am not invested in people hating her. I wanted her to lose, but I always root against unstoppable champions in sports, sans Anderson Silva. I don’t like the persona of flawless champion. I hated superman. I hated Hulk Hogan. In MMA I almost always root against a fighter that is seen as unstoppable. So that is part of the reason I dislike her, but she has never seemed like public figure I identify with either. I am talking here about the people I watched with and the responses I am seeing on line. I watched with a group of very casual fans who were all on board to see Rousey kill Holmes. As soon as she was getting rocked the room got really excited and everyone (to a person) started talking about how Rousey has always been kind of a bitch and how that was awesome that she got humbled by a class striker. MMAjunke ran an article yesterday about all the online hate she has been getting since the loss, about how the general tone turned (link below), so it isn’t JUST me. There was at least a large part of the audience that genuinely wanted her to lose. Sure, she has anti-hero appeal and I think that is what makes her a conflicting character, but she certainly isn’t a baby face. http://mmajunkie.com/2015/11/trading-shots-on-the-gleeful-response-to-ronda-rouseys-fall-at-ufc-193

Because she is a classic style heel. People love to watch her because she has talent and in reality they are paying to see her perform, but deep down inside a lot of people were watching for the chance to see her lose, even if they didn't think it was likely. The discourse about her has always been mixed, but just looking at the general tone of conversation after, a lot of people are betraying their contempt for her as a public figure. It is proven by how much people are reaching. I see tons of non-mma fans talking about how she deserved it because she didn't touch gloves. No one cares about that most of the time. Sure, if she had won people would have talked about how incredible she is, but she lost in devastating fashion and people are quick to jump on the "you had that coming" bandwagon.

It is a good question because some of it is kind of intangible to me. She just has a chip on her shoulder and really seems driven by hate in a way that is kind of over the top. She acts like and even says that no one has it harder than her, that no one deserves to beat her, that she truly believes she is a special human being. She just has this ethos of thinking she is above everything else and there is very little sense (for me at least) that she has much humility or that she empathizes with others. She always favors all of this above sportsmanship. It is like she must hate someone to fight them and that often comes off in obnoxious ways (like her little scuffle with Holms at the weigh in and her refusal to touch gloves with a fighter who was more or less a pro the whole time. To be clear, I don’t necessarily FAULT her for any of it. You gotta do what you gotta do to make yourself ready for a fight and she is under pressures I can’t imagine. Plus, all of that is textbook heel stuff. That is how you sell fights and get butts in seats. Rousey will, for the foreseeable future be an appealing athlete. I don’t like her in a strictly fan way. I just like rooting against her and it is somewhat arbitrary. I think that is the case for most people. If they don’t like her it is in the way they don’t like the Patriots or something. It is fun to root against them because they are easy to hate and harder to identify with.

This has been a tough year. I have really grown to appreciate Bock so much more over the last few years and really love his work. I think he was a very unique performer, an absolute legend in the ring. As mentioned above, he was great and not just in his context. He transcends time and was such a compelling overall talent. Cheers to Bock.

I don't know. I thinkt he world wanted to hate Ronda. MMA fans do love performance above all else, but Ronda's attitude makes her hatable. The way it happened was certainly a catalyst, but I really think fans (both casual and hardcore) were ready to hate Ronday and ready to have some grounds to bash her.

The UFC wasn’t always a heel promotion, but it certainly is now. Their central stars are Conor McGregor, Jon Jones, and Ronda Rousey. McGregor is probably not nearly the ass hole he plays on TV, but dropping lines about how many people died to make his watch and taking the belt from his champion opponent… that is top level heel stuff. Jon Jones does drugs, more or less gets caught cheating on his wife regularly, and drives his car into stuff all the time, never seeming to be too remorseful. He is so generally unlikable it drives me nuts. Ronda also rubs people the wrong way. She seems likeable sometimes, but her competitiveness turns her into raging bitch. The chip on her shoulder is well past endearing or charming. Casual and hardcore fans seem to be mixed on her since she is so fun to watch, but the general joy over her getting handled last night make it clear she is really a heel. Vince wishes he had heels that got the kinda heat these three do. The heels are the center of attention in the UFC. We have come along way since the Face-centric days of Forrest, Chuck, GSP, Silva, Randy and so on.

I have seen very little Memphis, which I took steps to remedy recently so maybe that small part of my post is null and void. It all sort of misses the forest for the trees though. I conceded my first thought on it was kneejerk and missed the mark, but I am not sure 50 different partners would make him jump Arn or Eaton. Those are the only two I would have above him right now on the working list in my brain. Again, it is parsing out the top five. The positives outweigh the negatives by a country mile, so any sort of criticism is probably a bit of a stretch, very subjective, and/or – as in this case – somewhat fleeting and kneejerk.

In hindsight Morton would probably be a real top tier for me. The more I thought about this the more he really does stand out as just simply one of the best. He would be at least in my top three to five after more consideration. It really is sort of nitpicky and not a knock on Morton at all, but when one guy has proven success with multiple partners and the guy has success with just one, it’s a consideration. Its like if you are hiring someone to work for, say, a wrestling promotion as a talent scout and both candidates are equally qualified, but one speaks 3-4 languages and had experience in Japan and Mexico in addition to the states, while the speaks just one and primarily worked in the U.S., you notice that diversity. The second candidate might be one of the best talent scouts ever so it isn’t a dismissal of them in the least, but a point of distinction between elite talents. It’s the difference between one, two, and three… these are narrow distinctions, not knocks on talent.

NYC Folks, A buddy of mine is throwing a celebration of '80s wrestling in Manhattan's Chinatown on 11/13. There will be screenings of old school matches and promos leading up to a feature presentation of The Wrestler on the big screen. $15 buys admission to the films, beers, and the chance to win wrestling and local stuff in a raffle. As a wrestling fan this event sounds really fun. It should have stuff to appeal to you regardless of your level of investment in wrestling. The details and their official write-up below. If you have any specific questions you can send me a message and I will do what I can to get your answers. Cinema Under The Influence presents: Darren Aronofsky's The Wrestler DCTV (87 Lafayette St, New York, NY 10013) Friday, November 13th @ 7pm, $15 Tickets: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/cui-the-wrestler-tickets-19331178074 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/events/932559213496079 Email [email protected] for more information Winter is coming, and CUI is happy to warm your heart with a big screen revival on one of our favorite contemporary dramas, Darren Aronofsky's The Wrestler. Shown for the first time in repertory, this is a wide-screen bodyslam to the system, shot on location in New Jersey in stark hand-held Super 16mm and boasting a career-best, Hail Mary performance from Mickey Rourke. We are proud to partner with NYC legends DCTV and present the film in their gorgeous screening facilities located in a landmarked firehouse in Chinatown. The night begins at 7pm with a cocktail hour featuring a super-cut of classic wrestling moments from the 70s to the 90s, culminating in a main-event match before the film. Per the usual, we will have a raffle featuring sweet stuff from local vendors. A keg will be tapped, and drinks are included with your ticket.

Generally speaking, I much prefer cage matches on the whole for the variety of reasons people pointed out here. That said, I have some specific gripes with cage matches and really like ladder matches when they are done right. Ladder matches are more fun to me under two circumstances. First, if the match is between two people who more or less have a match appropriate for a heated blood feud and then work the ladder into that in a way that makes good storytelling sense (selling, psychology, the whole thing people have talked about). When it is one on one and they spend too much time just setting up spots and what not I can stand it. Second, if the match is two on two or a triple threat or four corners and they use the numbers to make sense out of the fact that people aren’t just climbing quickly I get more invested and lose myself in the match. That takes some coordination and it doesn’t always work, but those are typically more satisfying from a logical standpoint. I don’t really love the car crash spot fests (no matter how many people are in it) or ladder matches where they highlight the logical inconsistency of someone selling too long early and the clarity that the other could pretty easily go get the belt if the hassled. I have a very similar problem with escape cage matches. I know a lot of people like them, but I have always disliked the stipulation. To me it lacks coherence. The cage should be something that keeps things in and keeps things out. If you get outside the cage it should feel like a match that has just gotten out of control. The idea that the heel wants to escape is fine and that can be worked into a match, but to watch a face try to escape a cage never felt right to me. Plus, leaving out the door is too obviously easy. Again, if someone hassles they are gone; match over. It is supposed to be the blowoff of a feud and is often designed to keep two people who hate each other in the same spot so they can settle it. Like, take the Colon/Hansen cage match for example. I love that match. I think it works the logic and action of an escape match beautifully, but then at the end Colon just gets up and walks out real fast because he is hussling to get to the brawl outside. It deflated what was such a good match to me, even when I was sort just invested as a fan and not thinking too critically about it. Plus, escape cage matches tend to repeat a limited number of cagetop spots in a way that feels old. Now, pin cage matches, hell in a cell, war games…. AWESOME. I even like a lot of escape matches, but I don’t love the genre.

Eddie Guerrero is a really interesting one for me because he is one of my two favorite wrestlers of all time, but I am not sure his career constitutes being one or two on my GWE list. This has led me to be very self critical about what I like about wrestling and what constitutes good wrestling in my mind. I am working out my own criteria and tweaking it as I expose myself to different types of wrestling and different psychologies. No one can remove all bias and favoritism from their list and I think trying is outright silly, but I do think it is important to try to step back, to implement good watching and analytic practices to try to check for your bias when possible. So, I am really interested to see where Eddie ends up on my list vs my sort of more haphazard and unofficial “favorites” list. I am also trying to do a quick case for all my possible top 10s as a way of just fleshing things out for myself and maybe bouncing it off others. Eddie seems like a great place for me to start. The Case For Eddie For me Eddie’s appeal is not necessarily stretches of top-notch wrestling or his number of great matches, but it is how he seemed to approach wrestling after 1996 and what made him stand out. I think Eddie’s strongest trait is that he always seemed to out perform the spot, the gimmick, the match, or whatever that was given to him. Eddie always seemed to make a story bigger than it was. The cruiserweights in many ways felt like just the flippy, athletic and often workrate portion of the show with few exceptions. Especially juxtaposed to the “story” heavy WCW product of the time, the cruisers didn’t have narratives that jumped off the page. Jericho and Eddie stood out in this regard and even though I kind of loved Jericho’s stuff, Eddie’s heel turn and feud with Rey made me sit up and take notice. It felt like a serious feud that had gotten personal in the best way possible. I was rewatching some of that a few weeks ago and it was framed so horribly too. It wasn’t paced out and given time to breath very well, to capture the moments where the audience is supposed to take in the seriousness of the situation. That is such a credit to Eddie (and Rey, but I think to a lesser extent) that he got a lot of the emotion and the urgency of the story through despite what was around him. Eddie was also great at making his lesser opponents better and more legit than they were in other contexts. It wasn’t just about getting a good match about them. He worked with them in a way that accentuated their character and made them more interesting. Bradshaw and RVD stand out to me as guys that I am not real fond of, but love their work with Guerrero. Another case is Malenko. Regardless of what you think about the Guerrero/Malenko matches from ECW (and I have sort of mixed feelings about them) I am not sure Malenko was ever more interesting than he seemed in those matches and I actually credit the way Eddie worked with him over time more than anything else. He worked with a sense of urgency that I think a lot of the cruisers in WCW tried to mimic with Dean. It highlighted Dean’s strengths and hid his weaknesses, but more to the point it turned his dull in ring persona into a caricature. Being ice cold was something we were told was part of his gimmick before, but it wasn’t till Eddie that I think that really came out in the ring and Malenko’s movements and nonverbal became legible as part of a broader story. The he paused, let Malenko stalk, and sold his submission work just brought a lot of Malenko I think. And that is Eddie’s best in-ring quality, his ability to work in multiple stories and characters in a way that brings a lot of layers of meaning to a match. It is what makes him stand out and excel. He brings his own character, his opponents character, the storyline, the endgame, and anyone who might involved outside the match into the ring work itself. I have talked elsewhere about how much I value the character being accented and forwarded in the work itself as a way of holding stories and matches together, something I think the greats do well. It gives something for everyone and makes the match itself so much more interesting. His indy work during his road to redemption was sort of example of this. Some of that stuff was terrible, but Eddie’s work in, even his attempts to save some of the worst matches (the Doug Williams match comes to mind) always seemed to help his opponent shine not just as a good worker but as a character. A lot of that just came in matching pace selling to their strengths. I think the Bradshaw feud is the perfect example of this too. I give his blood bath at Judgement day five stars. I know that is higher than most, I just think the way he worked that match from the second he came on the screen to the second he was off it was more or less flawless and he brought out an excellent performance from JBL. He works in the race and class politics in a way that makes Bradshaw look like a legitimate super villain (or at least compared to how he might have looked to the average fan months before that). Bradshaw was more or less a wrestling verison of King Pin (deceptively strong and smart billionaire who uses all of those things to get what he wants). Guerrero was the perfect opponent to highlight those things with his facial expressions, his selling, and the way they went back and forth. The whole feud is the only reason Bradshaw felt remotely legitimate as a champion and gained any momentum during that run, in my opinion. The face DQ was an amazing end to that because he “won” the fight by losing the match, highlighting how difficult it will be to top Bradshaw with all his resources and tricks on top of his physical skills. Looking back on those promos and matches, Guerrero was putting masterful performances that got everything (even the political tones) over in a way that made the whole thing hang together and gave the company multiple things to work with after. All of this is on top of his obvious athleticism and precision. I think he sold pretty well, but nothing super special. He had incredible attention to detail most of the time when it came to working and selling body parts, but his selling itself doesn’t stand out as something that adds to the drama often. He had his off nights of course, but for the most part I walk away from matches always satisfied or outright impressed with how crisp and tight he kept matches, especially considering I think he was one of the best at meshing lots of different styles in general. He kept lots of offense that was not really part of the American psychology really legit looking for the most part. By the time he hit the main event (or even the E) that wasn't odd, but he continued to evolve and stood at as a crisp and believable wrestler. Those are the things that I think make Eddie really good. They are skills that he brought to matches on superstars and heat as well as matches on PPV. He certainly has his weaknesses, but I think Eddie will be near the top for me. I am going to go back and (re)watch some of his lesser-acclaimed matches/runs and see how this manifests itself (or not).

I am honestly getting a little higher on HBK than I have been in the past. I have been as guilty as anyone of overreacting to the WWE's narrative. I like his high end stuff more than I thought, but I am still bothered by a lot of his habits . Whereas I would have probably expected him at the very back end of the list before, he might sneak into the 40-70 region.