supremebve

Is putting on great matches the goal of every wrestler in every match, every night? No, but when it comes to the wrestlers we're talking about I'd be willing to bet that was their goal 90% of the time. We aren't talking about Heath Slater and R-Truth, we're talking about the best of the best wrestlers. They didn't become the best of the best without taking professional pride in the quality of their performances. I agree with all of this. I would also add that greatness doesn't have to make sense, sometimes great is great, because it is great.

I named John Cena. I would love to hear someone try to make a case that Cena is great based on his skills rather than his output. It cannot be done in my view. I think the point is that it doesn't matter what skills you do or do not have if what you put out is great. The first Young Jeezy album is great, despite the fact that Young Jeezy is actively a terrible rapper on it. Young Jeezy has improved vastly as a rapper over the years, and yet he has never put out an album nearly as good as the one when he was terrible. On that first album he stayed in his lane and didn't try to do anything but rap about anything he didn't know intimately. He was able to create a project that still sounds great over ten years later. He got better, branched out, took more chances, and ultimately didn't make music that connected like he did when his skills were less sharp. It doesn't matter that he's technically better now, he isn't as good of an artist. Using more complicated rhyme schemes and trying to use more complicated metaphors doesn't mean nearly as much as a guy straight off the streets telling you exactly how the world he lives in works. When Jeezy told you that his crew "don't drink Pepsi, they just sell coke," you believed him. When he tried to wow you with his rap skills, you didn't believe him. Technical brilliance doesn't earn you anything in my book unless your output matches that brilliance. I'm not going to hold your faults against you if your output is great, because the goal is to create greatness. I'm not saying it should be the only factor, but great matches should be the #1 factor, because at the end of the day putting on great matches is the goal.

We're on page six, has anyone actually named a wrestler who they thought had a lot of great matches, yet was not a great wrestler? We've argued about people who had a bunch of matches that we didn't think were as great as everyone else, and Kobashi who almost everyone would consider great. If Great Match Theory is a fallacy, no one has actually named someone who disproves the theory.

not the only example of Kobashi being excessive. It isn't, but I do feel too often the crutch against Kobashi boils down into "I liked him until he started throwing out Burning Hammers and chops." The chop era of Kobashi is probably my least favorite section from him but then he has the tag match with Taue vs. Tenryu and Akiyama where Kobashi plays a better apron role than Bret or almost any others in wrestling history. The GHC matches I have watched recently feel varied between the Akiyama Dome epic, the Takayama slugfest, and the craftiness of Ogawa trying to steal the title. Kobashi is able to adapt to each of those three opponents in captivating ways. Kobashi certainly was someone that had such a huge desire and drive that it was a necessary evil in a lot of ways for him to reach the physicial limits and emotional crescendo in the matches he performed in. Not everyone of those matches completely delivered as stuff like vs. Misawa from 6/99 shows, but when they do connect with him like 1/20/97, 7/98 vs. Jun, and 3/1/03, I am left at the end of the match staring into space for minutes of the time completely drained but coming to a realization that the match I just witnessed took me to a peak that I thought was unreachable from viewing wrestling. When I watch those matches, I get the feeling they continue on and on (...and on and on) long past any sensible point. In fact, I get the feeling that it's 3 or 4 matches crammed into one. It's like the Crash TV version of match building. Am I the only one who doesn't mind Kobashi's ridiculousness? He seems like the absolute peak of a Movez wrestler. Every worker is flawed, but most of them are flawed in a way that is less fun not more fun.

If someone doesn't agree the matches are great it makes perfect sense to me not to include them, but not including someone who you think has plenty of great matches doesn't make much logical sense to me. My issue is with people claiming that great matches don't make a wrestler great, which is like saying someone with multiple Pulitzer prizes is not a great writer. I don't think you can have one without the other.

I am of the opinion that a wrestler is only as good as his matches, just like a painter is only as good as his paintings. I don't really care how good you are at all the things that make up wrestling if it doesn't lead to great matches. If a painter is great at brush strokes and color mixing, but then the canvas looks like a bear shat on it when he's done he isn't a good painter. I put HHH at #100 on my list, because at the end of the day he has a lot of good to great matches with a large variety of opponents. He's not the best worker in a lot of those matches, but he carries his half more often than not. I think his biggest flaw is that he is a completely uninteresting worker unless he's in some sort of gimmick match. Is it fair that he was given the opportunities he was given over other wrestlers who may have been technically better? Probably not, but he was and that is what I have to judge him based on what he did.

Blah. I watched a shitload of NJ from the 80's last year and Kosh was terrific. The Takada feud is classic. And in the 90's he was the miracle worker of turning shit into something fun, plus some usually strong performances on G1's. I didn't vote for him, but Koshinaka is a guy who can turn chicken shit into chicken salad. He isn't someone who I ever go out of my way to watch, but I'm always pleasantly surprised when he shows up. I wouldn't want to watch a Koshinaka box set, but he's a huge breath of fresh air once every 50 to 100 matches.

I find it hard to believe that him being out of shape had nothing to do with his release when he says stuff like this.

I don't think this is the case at all, they pushed the shit out of him in NXT. When NXT first turned into it's own little promotion he was pushed as a top heel. They wanted him to get in shape, which let's face it wasn't unreasonable, but he somehow kept gaining weight. From what I understand they told him that the door was open for him to return if he showed a greater commitment to conditioning. Conditioning? The guy have a match that was over 2 hours just recently how much more conditioning does he need? Also he was in the best shape of his career right before he was let go so the idea that he "kept gaining weight" I see people throw around is always a head scratcher to me. Hero was an example plain and simple HHH fired Hero to show all the current and future indy guys that no matter how good you think you are that doesn't guarantee you anything because if they are going to fired Chris Hero what chance do you have? Yes the door is open to a return because at that point they can easily just say he's shown that he's matured as a worker or he's applied the lessons he learned here or really any corporate double talk bs they like to make it seem like the reason they take him back is based on anything logic. Are you basing this on anything but opinion, because from everything I've heard it was a pretty amicable parting. Hero is a guy who has the frame to have a good body, he just doesn't seem very interested in putting the work in to be in that kind of shape. They asked him to put the work in, and he never got into the kind of shape they wanted and they released him. That isn't HHH trying to send a message, that was HHH releasing someone who didn't do what they asked him to do. I'd like to see Hero in NXT too, but I fully understand why he isn't there.

I don't think this is the case at all, they pushed the shit out of him in NXT. When NXT first turned into it's own little promotion he was pushed as a top heel. They wanted him to get in shape, which let's face it wasn't unreasonable, but he somehow kept gaining weight. From what I understand they told him that the door was open for him to return if he showed a greater commitment to conditioning.

Jimmy(Stacey) you know you want to come over to my side and say that the Kobashi/Kikuchi vs. Fuchi/Ogawa was a better match than the more famous Can Am match. I heard the trepidation in your voice, but you know that match is better just like I do.

Worth the price of admission? It depends on how you value the best wrestling show you've ever been to, and an absolutely perfect, life altering experience. I don't think I'll ever go to a better wrestling show, and I'm fine with that.

I'll give you guys three guesses where I was at tonight. Hint: it rhymes with makeover malice.

Did you see his instructions to the fashion models? One of the things that is funny about Kanye is that he doesn't seem to have a single person around him to say "Hey, y'know that's a terrible idea", "Isn't that a bit weird?"; so he's like a living embodiment of someone who can just implement any idea he wants no matter how mental. I think that total lack of self-awareness or perspective would make him a wonderful wrestling character, whether babyface or heel. Kanye's biggest strength as an artist is his self awareness. Kanye's biggest weakness as a person is his total lack of self awareness. I don't understand it, but he's seemingly two different people based whether or not he's near a microphone.

Barry Bonds chose to cheat repeatedly and abundantly because he resented players who he felt were less talented getting greater recognition than him. It doesn't get much more heelish than that. Barry Bonds is not a heel because he took steroids. He is a heel, because he was 100% aware that he was the best baseball player on the planet, and treated everyone around him like they were lesser. Imagine Ric Flair, who didn't sell for anyone. He just beat their ass and strutted around as they laid on the ground beaten and bloodied. Mark McGuire did steroids and no one hates him, they just don't like the fact that he did steroids. People hated Bonds before the steroids, during the steroids, and after the steroids. We just like to use steroids as the reason to keep him out of the hall of fame, when he's the single best baseball player any of us have ever seen. (don't tell anybody, Bonds and A-Rod are the two best baseball player of the last 50 years.)

I just submitted mine, you wont believe how hard it was not to stop halfway and start all over again. I think this is a list I'm happy with, but an hour from now I could very well think something else.

That's on you. "Used to" doesn't mean anything to me and my list reflects that. I thought MVP was the best wrestler when I was 11 because I digged his outfit and name. Some opinions don't hold up. I get that, but was MVP ever a consensus top wrestler in the world like Kurt Angle was? I think Angle, more than just about anyone, is a guy we're judging negatively for traits that we once found positive. I guess the gist of my issue with how Angle is evaluated is that, somehow our opinions changed and we're upset that his style didn't change with them. He was almost universally praised for his wrestling style, what motivation would he have to change? I don't watch TNA so maybe I have a different perspective, but we didn't start picking apart his WWE run until it was over. So it is kind of like listening to RUN DMC and being mad that they don't rap like Kendrick Lamar.

Also, there is the fact we have seen him wrestle so often, debated him, got tired of the style. When I was thirteen The Marshall Mathers LP was the pinnacle of hip hop to me. Argued about it, played it all the time, quoted every song with my friends. Now I think it sucks, and would never think of putting it on. But it is probably me who has changed, not the record. I've heard different styles, got into rap from different eras, been exposed to more stuff, started to appreciate different things. It doesn't mean anything to me anymore. But it meant a ton at the time, so it must have something about it that makes it great or compelling or impactful, even if these days i don't care for it in the least. It is by that kind of rationale that Kurt Angle and Shawn Michaels make my list. Lower than the wrestling equivalents of Talib Kweli or Kendrick Lamar or Nas, but higher than someone like Vince Staples, even though I'm ten times more likely to listen to Vince Staples than Eminem. This is pretty much the most fitting analogy of my rap fandom and my wrestling fandom as I've ever read. I don't know whether or not my opinions were wrong in the past, but my opinions have changed drastically. I was 19 when the MMLP came out and I couldn't have been happier with it as an album. It was over the top, vulgar, and packed full of all types of bells and whistles. At the same time I was a big fan of ECW, WCW Cruiserweights, and Kurt Angle. All of those things were essentially the Marshall Mathers LP in a wrestling ring. I was at a point in my life where subtlety wasn't high on my list of priorities. I wanted my music and my wrestling to be "action packed." I don't think the value of those things should be discarded now that I'm older and appreciate different things. Angle is really good at the style he wrestles, despite the fact that I'm not much interested in that style any more. I have him on my list, because at the time in which he was having his most famous matches his style was greatly appreciated. Some things don't hold as well as others, but after reading through this thread it is clear that most of us loved his stuff as it happened. Should we throw things away, because they don't fit in our current view, when they were praised by their intended audience? Counterpoint: some of the most successful things in the world are pretty terrible but are still praised by their intended audience. Nickelback comes to mind. Nickelback always comes to mind. It's your call whether that's good art or not. Nickelback is officially the new Hitler. If you bring them up in an argument you can't claim to have won. At least that is my story and I'm sticking to it.

Also, there is the fact we have seen him wrestle so often, debated him, got tired of the style. When I was thirteen The Marshall Mathers LP was the pinnacle of hip hop to me. Argued about it, played it all the time, quoted every song with my friends. Now I think it sucks, and would never think of putting it on. But it is probably me who has changed, not the record. I've heard different styles, got into rap from different eras, been exposed to more stuff, started to appreciate different things. It doesn't mean anything to me anymore. But it meant a ton at the time, so it must have something about it that makes it great or compelling or impactful, even if these days i don't care for it in the least. It is by that kind of rationale that Kurt Angle and Shawn Michaels make my list. Lower than the wrestling equivalents of Talib Kweli or Kendrick Lamar or Nas, but higher than someone like Vince Staples, even though I'm ten times more likely to listen to Vince Staples than Eminem. This is pretty much the most fitting analogy of my rap fandom and my wrestling fandom as I've ever read. I don't know whether or not my opinions were wrong in the past, but my opinions have changed drastically. I was 19 when the MMLP came out and I couldn't have been happier with it as an album. It was over the top, vulgar, and packed full of all types of bells and whistles. At the same time I was a big fan of ECW, WCW Cruiserweights, and Kurt Angle. All of those things were essentially the Marshall Mathers LP in a wrestling ring. I was at a point in my life where subtlety wasn't high on my list of priorities. I wanted my music and my wrestling to be "action packed." I don't think the value of those things should be discarded now that I'm older and appreciate different things. Angle is really good at the style he wrestles, despite the fact that I'm not much interested in that style any more. I have him on my list, because at the time in which he was having his most famous matches his style was greatly appreciated. Some things don't hold as well as others, but after reading through this thread it is clear that most of us loved his stuff as it happened. Should we throw things away, because they don't fit in our current view, when they were praised by their intended audience?

I think Fujinami is the guy who will have the biggest jump on my 2026 list. I watched enough to know that he is great and he's pretty high on my list. The issue is that I didn't have nearly enough time to do a really deep dive in his work. He's phenomenally good at almost every aspect of in-ring wrestling. I remember when Ric Flair said that Fujinami was the best Japanese wrestler he'd ever been in the ring with, I thought he was just putting him over at his hall of fame induction. Now, I kind of understand why he would say that. I got into Japanese wrestling through the All Japan Heavyweights and the New Japan Jr. Heavyweights, somehow I just plain missed Fujinami until very recently.

That would be Pete Weber. I don't know if he's a heel or if I just love needlessly flamboyant athletes, but I like how this dude gets down.

The funny thing about that movie is that it is very clear that the Twin Galaxies people love Billy and don't realize that he is a giant tool. There is some sort of crazy hero worship thing going on with him, that just feels creepy from the outside looking in.

I fully and totally agree with this. I think he's the best movie villain of all time, and that is just his natural personality.

This is going to sound hypocritical given how I mocked the "wrestling must be logical" approach earlier but I've been doing BJJ for the past few months and even with my still shallow understanding of shoot grappling, it's just totally changed my views on mat work. Most long headlock spots, for example, just look ridiculous to me now because all I can think when I see them is "why is he just sitting there?" or "why isn't he trying to force his weight onto the opponent?" And sorry but the obviously cooperative nature of lucha matwork is something I can't unsee now that I see it. It would be great if the guys did stuff that resembled amateur wrestling but what I see is guys clearly letting go of holds and blatantly feeding limbs to do flashy shit that looks nothing like any kind of shoot grappling. I can still like it if I'm in the mood for it but I don't see how luchadors doing cool shit on the mat is much different in concept from US Indy or Dragon Gate guys doing cool flippy shit. Yeah, I can't look at wrestling matwork and think that it looks like anything but cooperative, because I've done some actual submission grappling. Actual grappling is full of little things like wrist control, underhooks, and other things that just wouldn't translate to a worked environment. I've just accepted that it is a different thing, that isn't anywhere close to reality. I remember in Mick Foley's first book he said something about how a front facelock would pretty much win any street fight. No one would actually want to watch someone grab someone's head and hold them down by subtly shifting their weight. The thing that really makes it feel really cooperative is that no one would actually work an actual submission hold. Once a submission is on a fight is pretty much over, there isn't any way of fighting an armbar or a choke for more than a few seconds. Why are people watching wrestling for realism? The thing about wrestling at its best is when they can make you feel like it is real, despite the fact that you never forget that it is not. I don't think that is a matter of realism as much as it is a matter of performance. I love The Empire Strikes Back, and I find myself lost in it every time I watch it, but I never think that it is real. I don't think the force is real, lightsabers are real, or Jedi's are real, but the movie is well done and works for me on every single level. I don't have to believe that things are real for me to buy into them.

I don't get the people who are against showmanship in any entertainment venture. Hase dancing in a submission hold doesn't bother me at all. I've actually seen people do things like that in shoot fights. Whether it is Randy Couture giving Tito Ortiz a spanking while dominating him on the ground or Nate Diaz locking in a triangle choke and flipping a double bird at the camera, showmanship generally makes things more fun. I like trash talking, touchdown dances, bat flips, and anything that adds fun to sports/entertainment.