tim

I wouldn't even call Shield/Evolution good to be honest. Long and boring. Sure, the narrative was fine but if you have a narrative you want to get across in a match the work still has to be good.

It's been far too long since a good Rhodes tag with a long Dustin FIP. Very good tag. E/Rusev could be a pretty great bomb throwing power match given a bit over 10 minutes.

I love how the Shield function perfectly as both a workrate trios and a dreamy boyband faction.

SOURCE: Science can't argue with that

I've been meaning to start a thread about 'sociology' of wrestling crowds these days actually. As nice as it is to hear an old school crowd hot and "playing along" with the show, booing heels and cheering faces passionately, I don't think we should get down on todays "smart crowds" so much. Because in 2014, what are the crowds that add the most to the show? Are they last night's Nashville crowd who cheered Cena like they're "supposed" to? Or is it the smart crowd in Chicago who don't play along, try to get themselves over, but respond loud and enthusiastically to everything, have their own opinion, and force WWE into putting on a better show than they would otherwise? Which crowd would you rather see RAW in front of or be a part of?

Rey in 1996 was an enjoyable high flier, Rey in 2009 was an all time great.

To be fair, Alicia Fox over the past couple weeks would be the highlight of just about any wrestling show ever. edit: I assumed that the ADR/Sheamus match was going to be good. But I just couldn't possibly give enough of a shit to keep the tab my stream was in open.

sounds awful. cesaro's momentum has really been killed. this RAW is so bad.

WWE needs to extend alicia fox segments to be a minimum of one hour long

I'm not sure. I think Morishima had one of the best title reigns ever in the company. Good matches and got over as a monster. Nigel's title win against him was a ridiculous moment, maybe the biggest crowd pop I've ever seen from ROH. Then the crowd decided to turn against him because he wouldn't wrestling while injured, or something, and ROH ran with it and it was weird.

Crowd hasn't seemed too bad, then again there's been some bad crowds lately. They were good for a couple segments.

This show is pretty bad so far, other than Cody backstage. I hope they let Rhodes vs. Batista/Orton actually be something.

I think standards change for what is innovative. Obviously. I don't think standards necessarily change for much else. Malenko/Eddie was impressive to you because it was a level of workrate you hadn't seen before. But at the same time, we all know there were matches going down in 1995 that hold up beautifully and were as full of workrate, athleticism, cutting edge offense, etc. as Eddie/Malenko was. But then again, not all styles that have lots of workrate and offense are the same. A workrate-filled AJPW match is a lot different from a workrate-filled NJPW juniors match. Eddie/Malenko was a juniors style match; were there juniors style matches doing things similar to what that match did at the time, but didn't get quite the recognition? If so, I would say that it should no longer be called a great match. No matter what, you can watch an old match and appreciate a number of things. Selling, match lay out, crowd, timing, how well the offense is utilized, etc. When I watched the 80s lucha set, those dives felt every bit the highspot they were to me. A could watch a beautifully executed, well-timed tope and it would hit me harder than any of the double twisting tornado backflips or w/e that I can see on thousands of indie matches on youtube. I can watch a Jerry Lawler brawl where 99% of the match is punches and appreciate it for the quality of the punches, the timing, the selling, the crowd reaction, any number of things. So I don't think having a higher standard of what is considered high-end offense hurts older matches. So what about those matches that it DOES hurt? When looking at matches that had a rep but are now considered by many people to not be any good I think there's one question you have to ask yourself: was it actually innovative? Because there can be older matches where the offense no longer holds up as high-end, but is still obviously good for a number of other reasons -- even because of that offense and how it is used. So if a match was at one point considered good for its level of offense and athleticism, yet no longer holds up, they obviously didn't do any of the other many things they could have done to make it a good match. They were relying on the novelty of new moves the pop the crowd and get reactions -- again, there is nothing wrong with busting out cool new moves in a wrestling match, but there are many matches that are able to do so yet still be good on a number other criteria. Which isn't something I think can be called a great match. However, if they were legitimately innovative, that takes skill and creativity, so it should still be called a great match. As for athleticism as a trait for a wrestler to have, I think in general of course it helps a lot. It gives you more tools to chose from as to what you do in the ring. At the same time, I think it can be something of a primary resource curse. Guys rely on their athleticism to get pops and don't work on their selling, timing, structure, etc. Kurt Angle to me is exhibit one for that class.

I think when you're talking about reevaluating something it's useful to make the distinction between reevaluating something that was seen as bad to now be good, and reevaluating something seen as good to now be bad. There's not much trouble in seeing how a lot of things don't get their proper due at the time they're released, created, etc. In every single field of art or entertainment, looking for "hidden gems," things that didn't get their proper due at the time but are obviously of a high quality, is always eagerly done. Trying to say something that was widely seen as good at the time is now bad though, is more difficult. Take the Dynamite/Tiger mask matches. A couple years ago when the NJPW project was going on, few people liked them. We all know, of course, that they were critically lauded in the day. So what gives? Were hardcore fans just dumb and crazy back then? Well, it's because "innovative" work is hard to appreciate after those "innovations" have taken effect and don't seem special anymore. You can evaluate it critically without context and say as a match it doesn't hold up, but in context they were doing something very special that got people watching at the time very excited. In those cases I think you might be able to say a given match is no longer "good," but not that the given workers are no longer great workers. They were doing things no one else was doing at that time or took it to a different level, which is something that requires talent, creativity, the technical competence to pull it off, etc. But then you have to start thinking about how innovative these things actually were. To keep going with the TM/DK example. Were they really that innovative, or were a bunch of wrestlers doing similar cutting edge stuff but for whatever reason TM/DK got undue attention from fans? In that case, were there people doing similarly exciting things, but were given less attention, and moreover were those people actually able to have matches that still "hold up" while doing those similarly exciting things? In that case, I would say it's grounds for TM/DK to be "stripped" of their accolades if their matches no longer hold up. However, if TM/DK really were doing legitimately innovative things that no one else around them was doing, then even if the matches don't hold up then I would say they deserve whatever accolades they have from the past.

Nothing is more carny with more works than Wall Street. But Vince is out of his carny league there. He's dealing with people who can actually win Senate races.

There's still a lot to like about WWE right now. The thing is they're blundering a couple really big things. The Kane/Bryan feud on top is horrendous, the forced and counterproductive heel stuff they're having Cesaro do has seriously damaged his momentum and the Bray/Cena angle is incredibly overwrought. Overall though, the RAWs are MUCH less boring and lazy than they were for most of 2013 and good matches are still coming out at a steady pace. Shield/Evolution is one very bright spot on the shows. I'm positive on WWE overall right now and am interested to see how things develop with the title situation in the next couple weeks, which should tell us a lot. RVD, though. Ugh.

no one is worse than rvd

I enjoyed the show tonight but it sure didn't evoke any desire to watch current ROH ever again.

When did soccer start this upswing in the US? Around the World Cup 2006? I've always been around forums online with a lot of British posters so I've always been used to hearing the team names etc. online but then a couple of years ago you'd start seeing people wearing Man U shirts around or whatever and it just seemed so odd to me.

If we assume Bryan will be back to wrestle at Money in the Bank, I'd put the title on a popular upper midcarder who no would would expect to win the world title at this stage. Adds some unpredictability to things in general and keeps the crowd happy while during a month+ without Bryan on the shows. Bryan can win it back in a competitive match with a definitive ending and the guy slides back into whatever he was doing. In my mind this guy would be Seth Rollins.

Less overwritten cheesy stuff like the Wyatt/Cena feud (much, much less). More simple and effective stuff like the Shield -- bring in charismatic guys who can go in the ring and give them simple but unique presentation. More emphasis on ring-work, move more towards a 1990s Japan style -- not in terms of wrestling style but in terms of presentation. Show it as a serious competition with legit-seeming wrestlers and build strongly to "big matches." No one has to believe it's real of course, they just have to be entertained while watching it and excited to see big match-ups. Maybe more self-consciously goofy stuff like Adam Rose but the writers need to know where the line is on that stuff. Take the Women's Division (and for the love of god call it that rather than the Divas Division) more seriously. Give them more emphasis, real angles and bring in women who are good in the ring.

I just want a PPV-long tournament to crown a new champion at Payback. Is that too much to ask?

Alicia Fox's post match rampages are legitimately the best thing going in wrestling today. Everyone needs to see the post-match on Main Event.

Any timetable on this bad boy coming out? Have a lot of free time this Summer and kinda want to watch a Yearbook, and if a newer one is coming out soon I'd rather just jump on that from the start than watch a previous one.

There seems to be a lot of negativity about last night's RAW but I really liked it. All the matches but the main event were good and the six man was excellent. The Fox/Paige match was good with an awesome post-match and Natalya/Nikki was just an odd and entertaining thing to behold. The Shield angle throughout the show was well done leading to a great and really hot ending and pretty much every segment had meaning, no meaningless un-motivated matches between guys we're given to reason to care about. Only Fandango/Ziggler came close to that and at least it had the ridiculous to the point of being amusing kiss afterward. The only down spot was the Kane/Bryan stuff. But I guess this is a sign WWE thinks Bryan will be back by Payback. I think spirits about WWE will improve a whole lot once that awful, awful, terrible feud is behind us.