goodhelmet

OK, I ordered a 10 month subscription. Maybe I can work ourt a deal with HTQ where we both hook you cheap bastards up with the news first.

Nothing to say about Benoit/Christian going 20 minutes? I was watching but it was a bunch of kick-punch for the first 3-4 minutes so I chose to give my daughter a bath instead. Caught the main event interview. Same ol' same ol'. Poor ol' JR who is the least sympathetic character ever. Sorry, but I'll wait to pick the match up on a comp.

I am actually taking Loss's advice. He said I should watch RAW to keep up to date. So far, I am not feeling it. The HHH squash... the Masters debacle... HBK. I think grabbing the premium stuff on tape is the way to go.

Jerry Lawler just said that RAW was the #1 cable program because of HHH. Fuck that. HHH "Dave is on borrowed time". Well, no shit Sherlock. Why can't the crowd just chant "Boring" at this pig fucker?

I have been pondering this for awhile. I have some extra cash and have been seriously considering getting a 6 month subscription. So, for those who have ordered it or are currently getting it, what should I do? I don't really respect Meltzer's star ratings. I know most of the news will get put up on the 411 or Inside Pulse websites. Is there really a reason to get this dirt sheet?

You can say he was never used to the best of his ability but he was far more entertaining to watch in WWF than when he was in ECW. In fact, I can't think of one Rhino match in ECW that is worth watching.

1. I see where you are coming from BUT there simply aren't enough hours in the day. Let me give you a little background. I never missed wrestling on Monday nights from late '96 until Jan. 99. Not once. Then from mid-99 until early 2002. If I wasn't home, it was being taped. This was WWF and WCW mind you. I have sat through alot of crappy wrestling. This was while I was single and married. I think my WCW PPV streak extended from Souled 97 until Starrcade 98 (I may have missed one or two shows due to work). MY WWF PPV streak lasted from Summerslam 99 until Wrestlemania 2002. Then my cable box was useless because of the switch to digital from analog. But I was still watching the TV. I was still hoping to find some friends who were interested in wrestling so I could relive those Monday Night Wars. The best I could come up with was watching the PPVS for free at a local bar every other month. You are absolutely right. I used to watch wrestling because it was wrestling. Now, I have too many good wrestling matches available and in my collection to worry about sitting in on an episode of RAW and watching the HHH show. because of message boards, you tell me there were two worthwhile matches on RAW. I'll put those in my gotta-see file and move on. Last night on SD!, I knew there were two matches I wanted to see. I saw them and taped them. NOw, there are too many alternatives and means to get tapes for me to worry abou hit-or-miss TV. Some of the shows may be hit-or-miss but I am getting them on my terms. Some Guy just taped me the 1996 WWF tv comp. Some of it misses while some hits. But I chose the matches while being flexible enough to take suggestions. I am not going to order all 200 plus hours of Some Guy's wwf TV (I imagine he has more than 200 hours). Earlier, you said it was taking shortcuts but I consider it efficient. My steps for finding wrestling take into consideration word-of-mouth, controversy, debate generators (ie Eddie-JBL) and reviews from around the net. THen, there is that litle thing I call wrestling knowledge. Obviously, I haveto know something about he wrestlers. Sometimes that comes with my own viewing pleasure. Other times, it comes from being well-read on the net. 2. I agree completely. 3. No argument here 4. I came across puro like alot of people came across it... starting off by reading Baisden or that Wrestleline guy. I ordered it based on message board recommendations and have never looked back. Before I was married and then, when I was finishing up school, I was on the computer ALOT. I would read, research and make tape lists of all the wrestlers I needed to seek out. I eventually came to the point where I would buy a show based on the characters and not the recommendations of others. We are still going through that today as I try to dissect Lynch's list and find that hidden gem we value so much. 5. PWI... I had a subscription from '86 to '88 I believe. I was obsessed with the rankings and the sighting of wrestlers in the different territories I had never seen on TV. I don't really remember them moaning about Hulk Hogan although I do remember a pic of Missy Hyatt on the edge of a bathtub that John Tatum in it. I remember the picture of Magnum TAs car wrapped around a pole on the cover of the Insider. I remember all of the Apter mags and how I wanted to order all of the back issues. I was also an avid NWA fan around this time even though I loved the WWF also. Then there was World Class and the UWF which I loved even more. As we had already discussed, this was before the WWF became a complete circus. I have to laugh at your comment "I wanted to believe it was real" because I felt the same way even though I knew it was fake. The times changed by the late 80s though because WWF was firmly entrneched in cartton land and I think it would be a little bit easier to make the distinction between the bad workers and good workers. If I recall, and I could be wrong, THE Apter mags used to pimp the s*** out of whever they wanted as long as they thought it would make them a buck. 6. Agreed... but being a smark allows you to articulate better why you liked a match or not... what worked and what didn't. Much of it is the vocabulary you use to express yourself. 7. Right. And there are tons of matches on my wishlist I have never heard pimped. Others I want to judge for myself... but more often than not you need a starting point of reference if you want to obtain the most without paying out lots of cash. If you or Tim Cooke or jdw or Chris Coey recommend a match, I'll be more inclined to purchase it than if someone with an Ultimate Warrior tattoo recommended it. Justin Baisden gave the 6/9/95 tag match *****. I completely agree with that rating but I don't respect his writing or his analysis or his opinion. Did I break from the pack because I agreed with his rating? No, he just happened to pimp an already pimped match. If Loss says that I need to see 123 Kid vs. Bret Hart and I initially have no interest in that match, I am going to give it a try based on your recommendation. Hell, to this day, I think the only match you and I have been on complete opposite ends of the spectrum is the Ultimate Warrior-Randy Savage Wrestlemania match. 8. OK, we agree here... except I never thought of Dustin as a great worker. Then again, during his peak (92-93) I was not watching wrestling at all. So for me, it gives me dates, sometimes the event (PPV, Sat. Night, Clash) and maybe a match that everyone overlooked like the Tex matches. So, in that regard, you seek them out because you may have not known that Windham faced Dustin on a particular date. Because of that thread, now you do.

Absolutely... and before this match, I never thought I would like a Bradshaw match. I glossed over most of this in my recap and they are all valid points. Good job. Even without the finish (which I think the post-match beatdown makes up for), it still makes a strong case. I am looking through the match listings of the PPVs, and I have to rewatch Brock-Eddy again, but this is as good as it gets.

Luckily, I was able to tape both matches but my UPN affiliate has to have the worst reception of any TV channel I have ever seen. Unfortunately, I was running around too much to pay close attention but what little I did see made me optimistic. Little fact: Tonight was the first time I have ever seen Luther Reigns in any capacity. I've heard of him but had no idea who he was. I am not impressed.

I've got my eyes set on a bigger stage. *Pays MIB off and shreds the documents* Goshdarn man, why would I ask you for particualr interviews or angles if I didn't enjoy that stuff? Or ask some guy for the Austin-Pillman angle when I got that comp made? I am not the anti-angle. I enjoy that stuff also but i don't rate it and I look at that stuff the same way I would an episode of Hotel Paradise. OK, for you, wrestling is all about getting lost in the moment. That isn't necessarily how I derive my satisfaction from the product. That is a very subjective line. Because there are MULTIPLE reasons to enjoy OR criticize wrestling. The easy reason to criticize "wrestling is fake". Themore advanced way is o rcognize the fallacy of a move or an action and why it doesn;t make sense. I agree with everything here. I don't take notes on a first viewing. I really don't compare matches with star ratings. BUT if I need to be critical of a match, I can flip the switch... but even without flipping the switch, I can see if there are flaws in match on first viewing. After that, then I determine if I should go to the next step. So to be a leader, I have to be the first one to see a match or give it glowing reviews? That isn't really the goal of recommendations. I have always interpreted recommendations as matches other people enjoy that I can then determine if I enjoy. And nearly every match from Japan that you and I have seen, someone else did the dirty work and pimped them here. Whether you believe it or not, you have been influenced, directed and made purchases based from these opinions. You may have seen 80s NWA when you were growing up. I also doubtyou were a smark who knew what a smartly worked match was at the time. You liked the angle, was a fan of a wrestler, etc. On those matches, maybe you have a leg up on the competition because you grew up watching that stuff. For the Puro, there is no way you forged your own trail with any of that stuff. Now... after being exposed through recommendation and review and analysis, maybe you can search out now. But initially? No way man. Also, you act like I am some lazy sloth who doesn't do research or can;t form his own opinion. If that is your opinion of me then that's jacked up. If not, you need to articulate that better. It isn't cheating. It is being efficient. Hey, I love pro wrestling too but I also have a wife and a kid who need some attention. Unfortunately, my wife doesn't like wrestling but she begrudgingly accepts it. In my spare time I watch it but I also get tired of it and need a break. Hell, you have admitted yourself you get burnt out on it. Then stuff comes along that recharges our batteries and we get on with it again. Right on all of this. I wouldn't debate any of this. Which is wierd since you said I'll search it out, but recommendations are most valuable when people are recommending matches that don't look good on paper. Those are the matches I want to hear pimped, not stuff that everyone knows will be good based on the participants anyway. So you want to find good matches or you want to just buy all the wrestling you can? No need. For example, I just got this comp from some guy. I looked at the partipants and determined what matches I wanted. I didn't have any SK snowflakes to deterimine what I should get. I had never seen most of this footage if any at all. I am quite capable of forming my own wishlists, my own opinions on matches, and am willing to take suggestions. I even told some guy to add any angle or match he felt was worthwhile. I'll take him for his word and trust his judgment. If it isn't worthwhile in my eyes, that is when the discussion will get into full swing. Which is wierd since I know you have read my thoughts on the bullrope match. You know we have talked about the Wargames, HIACs, etc. You know I like the bloodletting matches. I don;'t get where you are coming from.

Dman, you're a politician But let me add this to the Loss ABC Wrestling Circle. I absolutely agree 100% that we should want C.... BUT... if I can't obtain B from watching a match then why would I invest my time in the buildup if I was disappointed in the actual work? With regards to the Jumbo-Funk, Mascaras-Destroyer matches, etc, I learned most of that stuff AFTER I watched the match. I go on recommendations and if I enjoy what is set forth THEN I go and pursue a higher understanding of the match. Sorry, but there simply aren't enough hours in the day to watch buildup to something that doesn't live up to the hype. The background knowledge of the wrestlers, the styles, themoves, etc. I learned most of them on the internet. It is a shortcut but I have never denied that. Then agin, time is precious. Over on DVDVR, they are experiencing a Dustin Renaissance. We (You and I) want those matches that are forgotten or never heard of based on ths shortcut. I don't want to own every match for the sake of owning every match. I want to own matches that I think will enjoy based on word-of-mouth, my interest in those wrestlers, etc. As for my supposed contradiction for enjoying the scramble. Let me explain it another way. There is a movie with fart jokes. I enjoy it. When I look at it critically, I know it doesn't deserve Oscar consideration. You and I can like American Idol. It may be compellling TVand fun as hell but know it doesn't deserve consideration for the Emmys. I can enjoy a match even when it isn't good. It is why we start those guilty pleasure threads. We may know a wrestler or match that sucks but like him/it for one reason or another. I like bloodletting matches. I like seeing these guys bleed like stuck pigs. Doesn't mean I'll give the match ****. That is just a personal preference. THen there are matches like Homicide-Trent Acid that make me cringe. No transtitions, no logical flow, a Sabu match if there ever was one but one hat kills some of the biggest moves you have ever seen... A bad match by your standard or mine.

You call the match crap because its goal is to be a "crapfest" when we both know none of the participants in the match have that set in their minds. No, I called it a crapfest because I didn't think the match was any good... and I do think the participants knew they were going to be in a SPOTfest, not a true wrestling MOTYC. Depending on who is in the match, the goal is to entertain/win, work/entertain/win, or eat up time until the finish is called in. There are other goals you can tack onto this also. Also, I don't think winning is necessary a goal in the match since it is pre-determined. If you want to look at it from kayfabe, sure. The first one applies to someone like Sabu. His matches consist of big spots with little in between. The second one applies to the people who were in the TLC matches where everyone had their working boots on in between the big spots and kept using transitions in between using a ladder or table spot to pop the crowd big. The spin-the-ladder-around-neck spot is not something I would consider a Sabu spot since it's actually a better spot to set up something big like a drop kick from the tope rope to the guy holding up the ladder or the ladder head worker getting smacked in the head with a chair and falling down. That is a transition spot. The actual big spot is what will happen to the guy once he's attacked everyone with the ladder. I would never consider any of the members on the teams in the TLC matches "great" workers but they worked a very smart match that some of the so-called "great" workers might be hindered with instead. This is where we disagree. I'll rewatch the match again but I have seen it several times and don't think there is that much oif a difference between the TLC matches and a Sabu spotfest. THe main difference is the amount of workers. There is less fileler because there are more guys in the ring that can fill time. None of the guys in All Japan, Jumbo included, New Japan, or UWFI ever worked in a cage match. Ric Flair did and he had some very, very good matches within those confines. He excelled in that environment whereas we have no idea how good or how bad the match would have been with guys like Jumbo, Misawa, Kawada, Kobashi, Liger and Takada working in Flair's place. This is why I never wrote off a company like FMW because they had workers who were *smart* and creative within something like a cage match with death match stipulations to it. So, because the majority of the guys mentioned never worked gimmicked matches, they are lacking? Truth be told, I believe that the "great" American workers like Flair, the Destroyer, Bret Hart, Vader and Chris Benoit all have a leg up on the guys from Japan in this regard. Sure, they um... worked more gimmick matches. This isn't really up for debate. Now, this isn't something I'd use to brag about but working a "smart" cage match is harder than working within the confines of a normal exhibition match with no-gimmicks. I strongly disagree. In order to elicit the response you want from the crowd, there are cheap but effective ways to get the crowd to respond in a gimmicked match. Ram the guy into the cage and have him bounce off. Grab his leg right as he begins his climb over the cage. Jump off the top of the cage. These are crutches that can be used when all else is failing. For TLC... whack someone with the ladder in the face. Jump off the ladder. Conchairto. Whatever the case may be, you don' have to work as hard to elicit a response. It just might hurt more in the morning. This is why I use the term "great" in a loose sense because guys like Flair, Benoit, and Hart never worked in an environment like All Japan or New Japan on a full-time basis. There's no telling how more refined each of their in-ring skills could have gotten if those guys had stuck around Japan for as long as Stan Hansen did. Hansen was a worker that showed promise when he was in the WWWF but he wasn't anything special. After a couple years and several NJ and AJ tours later, Hansen became one of the elite gaijin workers in Puroresu history. That's no accident. I see where you are coming from but this is all shoulda, coulda, woulda. What we can evaluate is what stands before us. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed reading this post. I lik the different point of view but this is all speculation. Hulk Hogan could have never touched roids and may have been as good as Flair. Who knows? Garbage matches are garbage matches. Garbage and plunder is used to down your opponent. Possibly, even make them suffer. The point is to prove who the tougher guy is while also trying to out wrestle and out work (in the kayfabe sense) the other guy by shredding their back up with a scythe or using a sickle to slice their arms up. All death matches have a point; a goal. The goal is to win at any means necessary. I think you have the misconception that I don't enjoy garbage matches or death matches or cage matches or any other gimmicked match. You would be wrong. read my thoughts on the Eddie-JBL bullrope match. I love the 6/99 Big Japan Honma vs. Yamakawa bed-of-nails match. The story in that match played out... whoever landed on the bed of nails first was going to lose, regardless of what else they were doing to mutilate their bodies. I can also point out the flaws in that match such as the contrived tiger driver on the bed of chairs or Honma missing the light tube smash when he jumped off the balcony. The goal is to win at any means necessary. For *that* simple reason, that exists in all other non-gimmicked matches, is why I look at garbage matches and their ilk along the same lines as a normal exhibition match without being gimmicked. Wrestling is already an exercise in escapism because of all the people in the business who expose it, whether through ego tripping interviews (Vince) or by fucking up a simple move that throws off the whole flow of the match (botched ending). You would also have to read my debate with Some Guy in a previous thread where I said the EXACT same thing... all matches can be compared with each other regardless of the gimmick. I have already stated and defeded this assertion. I don't really disagree with any of this. I disagree with your assessment of the TLC match. It's that simple. Wrestling is already hokey enough to watch. It doesn't matter what decade or what company the match is being put out from; wrestling is still a hokey thing to watch. Everyone involved in the match already knows the outcome and probably has a good idea about the sequence of moves that will be used. That's where the intrigue for watching this crazy stuff comes from. Who is going to win and how? The ending might be predictable at times but if it makes sense and leaves the viewer satisfied with the outcome of the match then the workers have succeeded in the work/entertain/win mindset that all good workers possess. No one is left feeling unsatisfied. Once again, just because I don't like one gimmicked match doesn't mean I don't like all of them. Do you want another example... I specifically stated in this thread I enjoyed the Scramble Cage from Main Event Spectacles but I don't have any delusions on if it is a good match or not. grew up watching FMW and AAA during my formative teenage years. I can appreciate the novelty of a match like TLC 2 but I also look at the match from a critical standpoint. Smart spots, strong transitions, and some clever in-ring psychology are a couple of the things I'll always look for in a match because those are the things that, intentionally and unintentionally, that fans, marks and smarts alike, will always look for in a match. It's what keeps the escapism going in a match. If either of those things is disturbed, then the match comes to a screeching halt and all you can do is wait for the next match to come on. Keep the "hate" real in a match. OK, once again, I disagree with your assessment on TLC2... not on garbage or gimmicked wrestling. Good matches need good stories. Not all of the time. But nearly all of the "great" matches in wrestling history have had some sort of story attached to them. They balance out one another. They need each other. It's like how a body builder needs to do weight training *and* cardio exercises. The dude can get jacked off lifting a ton of weights but he needs to walk on the treadmill or run up a hill a couple times every now and then because one without the other leaves an imbalance that will halt someone from reaching their peak maximum health. In order to be great, neither the storyline build-up nor the match itself can be tainted in any way. Greatness is not achieved with an imbalance. Balance must be found so that all sides match up and leave neither one looking weak. What do I know about Jumbo vs. Funk 76? Jumbo was the student and Funk was the teacher. That is all I need to know. Mascaras vs. Destroyer? I know very little backstory. Ohtani vs. Ultimo? They wanted to be the winner of the tourney and I am almost 97% positive that Ohtani's father was in the audience and he was seeking his approval. Kawada vs. Albright? Kawada kicks ass and Albright wasn't very good. The story tells itself in the middle of the ring. I agree that you need some fundamental understanding... heel or face (which can sill be est. in the ring even if you never heard of a guy before (ROH 3 way from the first show); finishing moves or signature moves; the ability to compare and contrast two segments to see if they made snese; but after that, wrestling is fairly simple to understand. It ain't rocket science. Like you said, it is already a hokey premise. As you see more matches, you lose your love of some matches or gain appreciation of other matches. What was once a **** match in your eyes now becomes a ** snore. My main problem with what you guys are saying is this idea that a great match is coningent to the buildup of the match. It can add layers that make the eagle eye enjoy it more (6/3/94; Joe-Punk III) but those matches still stand on their own. If a match relies solely on its history then the storytelling in the ring is flawed no matter how much wink wink nudge nudge it gives the fans. I like watching wrestling. I like some styles over others. I have a shitload of tapes, have seen a shitload of matches. Maybe balance between buildup and the match is needed for you to enjoy the product. I have seen plenty of good angles and storylines result in shitty matches. No balance, right? So it was all a wash? Then there are the matches with no buildup or even poor buildup that can result in GREAT matches DESPITE the buildup. That to me is an even more impressive feat. I just ordered a tape of WWF 1996 TV from some guy. I have read enough to know the basic storlines behind some of these feuds. Others not so much but if the wrestling sucks, then it is wasted time. If the wrestling is superb despite a shitty three months of tv leading up to the match, I am ok with that. There is no way that anyone here has seen the months and years buildup to Misawa-Kawada before it happened. No, we were recommended the match by someone else and explored it with our eyes. We were intrigued enough by it to search out the stuff leaing up to it and it added to our viewing pleasure. The match still had to be good enough to capture our attention in the first place. Others are great the first time you see them. You are so amped up you watch it again and find the little things that enhance our opinion of the match even more. That makes them greatER. This really comes down to two things... 1. Initially, I disagree with your assessment that TLC2 is a worthwhile match. I'll rewatch it again and reevaluate my position. It may change or stay the same. 2. We disagree on the importance of the buildup to the match.

Hey riflewilly, Just so you know, this topic has already been started... Wrestlemania XXI thoughts

I can't speak for all of the Tajiri/Eddie vs. WGTT matches... only the PPV ladder one. It isn't worth a rewatch.

Vince became a billionaire by having a guy flip off the fans, the wrestlers, him, etc. Fuck him.

If tact is what you are looking for, you won't find it from Vince. Hell, a Bret Hart DVD titled "Screwed"? Not "The Best there Ever Was" or "The Hitman" or "The Foundation of the Harts". Screwed.

I'll reply as I see fit.... but I will reply.