MikeCampbell

See Windham, Barry. Also Rhodes, Dustin. BTW, I didn't just pull the Davey/Eddie example out of thin air when trying to give my definition of psych. I purposely used an example where leg work would be meaningful to the hypothetical match. For every match with meaningful leg work like that, there are probably 1000 where it's strictly filler and has no meaning or impact at all.

Your not alone, dude. Whenever anyone does top ten RAW moment countdowns, that one is usually right at the top to the list, with good reason. Does anyone else find it weird that Austin, who'd been swearing up a storm all year, got all offended and mad at Gorilla for telling him to get his ass out of the building?

If that's the case, he "got it" in a hurry then. The 5/1/89 Copps Coliseum show is basically Rude wrestling himself for 20 minutes or so, and is quite the fun match.,

Will, can you clarify something with that statement? By Briscoe and Dory, do you mean both wrestlers in general, or do you mean matches between Brisco and Dory?

Brother, it's pro wrestling. It's not intended to be highbrow, high concept stuff.

I've always hated that argument. It strikes me as a knee-jerk reaction when trying to defend something that doesn't seem to hold up under higher scrutiny.

Simply put, psychology is why the wrestlers do what they do. Example: Eddie Edwards and Davey Richards are fighting on the floor. Davey fires off a roundhouse kick, but Eddie ducks and Davey winds up kicking the post. Eddie gets Davey in the ring and starts attacking the knee. Why is Eddie doing this? A. Because Davey just screwed himself up and is hurt. B. Because he can soften up Davey for the half crab, which is his finisher C. With Davey having a bad wheel, he'll be less likely to KO Eddie with one his roundhouse kicks. It's all of the above, they all make perfectly logical sense. That's good psychology.

Agreed. I wasn't talking about ranking the all time greats when I made that statement. This is more in tune with what I'm talking about, actually. When it comes to "workrate" I don't think too many people will argue that Tully Blanchard was better than Hulk Hogan in 1986. I also don't think too many people will argue that if they were put into each other's roles, it wouldn't have worked out too well.

A world where workrate isn't king = reality Workrate is important, but it's far from the be all end all of wrestling.

I just ordered that show, along with a few other WWF house shows, on the strength of Hogan/Steele (more accurately Hogan doing a ring out job to Steele) as well as the novelty of the Freebirds and the Spoiler.

Are you talking about their match from August at the Kiel?

I guess jdw was Eddie Edwards' lone vote.

Zangiev worked a single against Takada, and a tag (with Hashimikov) against Yamazaki (with Anjo). Zangiev vs. Fujiwara or Tamura could have potentially ruled it hard!

Keiji Mutoh also fits the category. When he was motivated, like he was versus Hashimoto in '95, the result would be a top pick for best NJPW match of the decade. Other times, like vs. Takada in '95 and '96 . . . not so much.

I really liked the fact that the main event ended with Bryan going over Del Rio, given that Del Rio just went over Bryan cleanly a few weeks back.

Most likely the latter. I was so looking forward to seeing this when I got Will's Brad Armstrong comp, to say I was disappointed would be an understatement.

I'm sure that Hirohito wasn't the ONLY reason why they started billing them that way.

Kenzo Suzuki was supposed to come to the WWE in '04 as "Hirohito" and have programs with Jericho and/or Benoit playing up U.S. vs. Japan (hence Benoit being billed from Atlanta and Jericho from Manhasset).

My memory is probably exagerating it, but it seemed like every ROH show 2002-early 2004 or so would feature at least two or three spots where someone would get overhead suplexed into the corner.

Jeff Hardy from 2002-03. He was damn near sleepwalking through his matches.

What would Landell have been called, had he joined? Bud Landell? William Landell?

This is why I've mellowed out to the booking of running Van Dam vs. Mahoney at Anarchy Rulz '99, rather than going ahead with Van Dam vs. Johnny Smith. While the latter would have been a fresh match, it'd have most likely wound up not being all too different from what we got instead.

http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?showtopic=3909 Storytelling really just comes down to how the viewer perceives the action.

Slickster and I watched the 11/30/91 MSG show not that long ago, and I think a couple matches from there warrant consideration. Hogan vs. Flair: The obvious follow up to Flair costing Hogan the title at Survivor Series (which I'm sure is earmarked to be included), and it features Flair KOing Hogan with knucks for a three count (followed the decision getting reversed). Nasty Boys vs. Rockers: A good match in itself, and also adds fuel to the Rockers dissension when Shawn accidentally (?) causes Marty to get pinned.