S.L.L.

I think you might be in for a rude awakening.

This might be more of a semantic argument than anything, but it's very hard for me not to see the match as "text" and everything else as "context", if for no other reason than because it is the specific defining feature of this entire genre of performance fiction. Theoretically, you could remove all the "other stuff" from wrestling and it would still be wrestling, albeit an extremely stripped down, less interesting version of it. If you remove wrestling from wrestling, it's not really wrestling anymore, is it? Ted and Virgil could wrestle each other with no story, and it wouldn't be anything I'd want to see, but it would qualify as wrestling. Ted and Virgil building up their rivalry through interviews and angles, and getting you all psyched up to see them duke it out, and then.....nothing happens? Or what if they did something different? What if they settled their differences in a game of backgammon? What if they had a rap battle? What if they raced on Dead Man's Curve? What if they agreed to disagree? Is this still wrestling? I don't think you're advocating this or anything, but there is a reason why the wrestling match became the preferred measured unit of wrestling, and it's a damn good one. There is context that plays upon it, and I think that's very important, too. I think in the right circumstances, context can turn a two-star match into a five-star one (not that I have much use for star ratings, myself), and I think you need to consider it when judging the text. But I still think the wrestling match, just by virtue of it's necessity to the medium, makes it the text. What does that even mean? Let me see if I can find what Meltzer gave it. ** What this means is that Scott Keith is a tool and that Meltzer is a guy you read for his delivery of the news, not his interpretation of it. I haven't watched that match in ages, so I can't really comment on it other than to say that I was just getting into wrestling when it happened, and I absolutely loved that whole feud, so you won't hear me badmouth it until I find reason to do so, which I doubt I ever will. Two things: 1. Even if you feel those "workrate" names don't meet the criteria you're talking about (at least without extending beyond the confines of wrestling matches), the people who talk about them almost universally do. I've mocked opinions that certain people hold about certain wrestlers that I've thought were stupid, but generally, I don't think those people are being insincere about those opinions. 2. Even given #1, I'm not entirely sure I agree with your assessment of GOAT discussions. The most recent one I've seen was on this very board.... http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?showtopic=12779 ....and the discussion really doesn't strike me as being all about counting the number of suplexes a wrestler does or judging the execution of high-flying moves like it was figure skating. I mean, yeah, guys regularly executing stuff badly *COUGH*Sayama*COUGH* are going to penalized, but that's a legitimate flaw, and I don't see it as being unfair. But it's definitely not treating wrestling as the cold, sterile, robot dance thing that you seem to be worried about. I mean, Terry Funk's name gets thrown out multiple times just on the first page. Does anyone think of Terry as a bland, generic workrate guy? I wouldn't argue against it, but I wouldn't call it a slam dunk, either.

Alright, a couple of things to say in response to this. 1. I was sorta going down the wrestling-to-music analogy road because jdw had already gone there and you weren't disputing it yet, but I can't really disagree with this specific point. The two are not perfectly comparable, and it is for these very reasons. So hopefully, I'll never have to talk about Tatu again. That took me to some weird places. 2. It's the latter, and I don't think you'll see anybody dispute that, which is something I'll get back to in a bit, but.... 3. Consider the implication of what you've written. If all that other stuff can be classified as "context" for the match, doesn't that make the match the "text" by definition? Thus bringing us all back to "the marquee says wrestling". I mean, yeah, you strip Savage/Steamboat of it's context, I think you'd still have a good match since you've got two guys who really know how to play their roles in-ring and who execute their stuff well, but it certainly wouldn't have the same legendary status it does today. I know I wouldn't think of it as highly. But it would still probably be entertaining. But what if you kept the context and removed the match itself? I mean, I can think of wrestling angles where the context was more interesting than the text, but really, context surrounding nothing, context as an end unto itself, is not enough to compel me in any form of entertainment. It's important, sure, but by definition, it's only really valuable when you have text to attach it to, hence the emphasis on actual wrestling matches. 4. Apparently, an awful lot. You say that the essence of wrestling is not the matches, but you illustrate that point by pointing to DiBiase vs. Virgil, DiBiase vs. Savage, and Watts/Lee vs. MX....three wrestling matches. So, yeah, I think it's safe to say that's where the essence is. 5. Here's the tricky part, which I had started to pick up on but no one else has really pointed out to you yet, though I think tomk may have been trying to....in downplaying the importance of "great matches", you talk about things like "***** workrate classics" and "who did the least botches" and "45-minute chain-wrestling epics", and you're classifying something like Watts/Lee vs. MX as not being a "great match" because "there's nothing but punches" and things like that. Basically, I don't think you're defining the term "great match" in quite the same way the rest of us are. I mean, the Mid-South set was put together by people on this very board, and they didn't put matches on unless they considered them "great matches", so by their aesthetic - and by mine, for that matter - Watts/Lee vs. MX would in fact qualify as a great match. You seem to be suggesting that reliance on the heel/face dynamic, characterization, storylines, angles, and so on precludes a match from being a "great match", but most of us think that that's a key part of most great matches. I mean, I've enjoyed plenty of syndie show "wrestling in a vacuum" in my time, but I don't really think of it as "great" wrestling for the most part. It's a major disconnect, and it makes your argument hard to follow. 6. Heenan never murdered anyone, so I'd pick him. Well, if I didn't want one murderer, I certainly wouldn't want ten. Jake ain't perfect, but still, none of those dudes murdered anyone, either, so I'd probably pick all of them, too. If I had to pick between Benoit and Snuka, I'd pick Benoit. If I had to pick between Benoit and Jerry Estrada...eh, that's a tougher call, but Benoit seems more reliable. But all that aside, I get what you're trying to say, but it's an argument that presupposes that Benoit was a charisma-free, character-less drone who mechanically cranked out technically sound matches with no humanity or emotion for his entire career. But no actual Chris Benoit fan (insofar as any non-insane person would refer to themselves as a Chris Benoit "fan" these days) believes that. I mean, outside of guys like Mike Oles - and I don't know that he even posts anywhere anymore - I don't know anybody who really believes that's what makes for a great wrestler and great matches. Even guys who are fans of wrestlers who I actually do think fit that description don't actually talk about them in that way. 7. Even assuming your definition of "great matches" (assuming I'm reading you right) is correct, it seems equally - if not more - absurd to judge context as being equivalent (superior?) to text just because you disagree with the way the text is being judged. That feels like a false dichotomy: we either judge wrestling matches on a purely technical level with no consideration for it's story or for the characterization of the wrestlers, or we judge it based on who cut the best promo before the match even happened. There's no middle ground there? There's not even an alternate way of judging the text? I mean, usually when a critic questions the validity of standard critical methods of judging text, he tries to find his own way of judging it that feels like it more accurately reflects the work and his feelings about it. He doesn't just throw the text aside and choose to focus on the stuff around it as being of equal or greater importance. That's just not how it works.

I think I've said more about them in the last week than I did the whole time they were actually on the charts. It's....disconcerting.

I don't necessarily feel I'm "owed" anything, but... Yeah, as Dylan said, Scorpio has way more on his resume than "one good match with Benoit". Also, Rude is a guy with a pretty large portfolio of good/great matches. He definitely doesn't belong in that group. I don't think DiBiase does, either, but that's obviously a matter of some debate. But anyway, if you're going to reintroduce this as the core of your argument, you need to address some things I said in my last reply: And no one - myself included - is disputing that. What's under dispute is the question "To what extent does a guy need great matches to be considered an all-time great?" What's under dispute is "Why can't DiBiase's Abbey Road be the basketball skit?". What's under dispute is the merits of "wrestling matches" vs. "everything else wrestlers do as part of their performances" when judging the overall greatness of a wrestler. My response was that tATu and Bone Crusher were musicians who excelled in the "everything else musicians do as part of their performances" aspect of what they did, but couldn't pull their weight (admittedly hard with a guy the size of Bone Crusher) in the "making and performing music" part, and that that was a sad commentary on DiBiase if he was going to be lumped in with the likes of them. He deserves to be lumped with Bowie, a guy who actually delivered on both fronts. I'm not kidding you. I don't dispute that there's more to wrestling than wrestling matches. But the marquee does, in fact, say "wrestling" (well, it often says "WWE", but they can't fool me, I know what that second "W" stands for). Wrestling matches aren't all there is to the wrestling genre, but it is very much at the center of the whole thing. That's why they call it "wrestling", because it's about wrestling. It's the critical distinguishing feature of the entire genre. It's not the only part of it, but again, who would call David Bowie a great musician if he didn't put out great music? To be fair, Tatu and Bone Crusher represent extreme cases. They're more Jimmy Valiants than Curt Hennigs. Actually, Jimmy Valiant was supposedly a good brawler in his prime and had some real longevity as a name star...maybe they're more like The Boogeyman. But still, I was trying to illustrate that when you take away a performer's ability in their area of core competence - music for a musician, wrestling for a wrestler - it becomes pretty hard to call them great even if the stuff they do around that area of core competence is done well. I mean, I like the basketball skit as much as the next guy, but it's wrestling. The whole reason they did it was to make people want to see DiBiase get his ass kicked in wrestling matches, because that's what the whole genre is about. But once you get there, you're expected to actually deliver the goods, and if you don't, it hurts you a lot, probably more than most recognize. I know you're not into the contemporary stuff so much, but those who are can probably appreciate the case of Wade Barrett, a great interview and a compelling heel outside the ring, but can't translate any of that into compelling performances inside the ring, and he comes off really badly because of that.

It doesn't have to be, it's just the one I came up with. I could've drawn the comparison to Marilyn Manson. That's not very flattering, either, but the comparison I'm forced to draw when talking about a wrestler not significant for his wrestling is a musician not significant for their music, and that's inevitably going to be an unflattering comparison. Because David Bowie wasn't just the Ziggy Stardust persona. No one is going to say that Bowie's Abbey Road is the Ziggy Stardust character. They're going to say it's the Ziggy Stardust album. Or Hunky Dory. Or Low, or Heroes, or Scary Monsters. It's going to be music. David Bowie is a musician, and when they talk about his great works, they're going to be talking about music. Of course, as well as the music. Just like all the shtick DiBiase did outside of the ring was a huge part of what made him great as well as the wrestling. But take away all of Bowie's great music, and we're basically talking about the Marilyn Manson of the 70's. I want to preface the rest of this post by saying that I'm not really sure what you're trying to argue anymore. I mean, I thought I knew, but it's starting to get very muddled, especially right around here, so if I misinterpret something, my bad. I'm trying to do the best I can. This thread is called "To what extent does a guy need great matches to be considered an all-time great?". If actual wrestling matches are not clearly divisible from everything else that wrestlers do, how were you even able to conceive of the idea for this thread, nevermind articulate the idea as cleanly as you did in the thread title? TomK did make a great post, but either he was missing your point, or you missed his. Yeah, I think he's having the same problem with the argument as I am. He was responding to this.... ....which isn't a super-clear argument. Again, not entirely sure what point you're trying to make here, but as far as I can tell, especially when put in the larger context of the thread, you seem to be talking about the importance of gimmicks and characters independent of actual wrestling matches. TomK's response was this: Personally, I think he's underselling IRS a little. Remember how he would knock a dude down with something and then stop to adjust his tie? That felt like something an evil wrestling tax auditor would do. I always bought into him on that level. But the point is, TomK responded to your point about (I think) the importance of gimmicks and characters independent of actual wrestling matches, by pointing out the importance of gimmicks and characters within wrestling matches. Agreed on all points. Indeed, it was an awesome match. And when people talk about late period Watts as a wrestler, I'd like to think they'd point to something like this. They can, and should, also point to him getting buried under the Soviet flag...but if you want to talk about late-period Watts the wrestler instead of just late-period Watts the on-screen authority figure, shouldn't we point to a wrestling match? I won't dispute this, but it hardly seems remarkable. Granted, I'm using two different meanings of the word wrestling - the actual act of having a wrestling match, and the "pro wrestling" genre of entertainment as a whole - but I think for the most part I've at least tried to clarify a further reduction, separating genre elements into "wrestling matches" and "everything else wrestlers do as part of their performances". That's about it. As reductions go, it's not a huge one. In fact, it's one most people make, including yourself, as evidenced by starting a thread entitled "To what extent does a guy need great matches to be considered an all-time great?" And no one - myself included - is disputing that. What's under dispute is the question "To what extent does a guy need great matches to be considered an all-time great?" What's under dispute is "Why can't DiBiase's Abbey Road be the basketball skit?". What's under dispute is the merits of "wrestling matches" vs. "everything else wrestlers do as part of their performances" when judging the overall greatness of a wrestler. My response was that tATu and Bone Crusher were musicians who excelled in the "everything else musicians do as part of their performances" aspect of what they did, but couldn't pull their weight (admittedly hard with a guy the size of Bone Crusher) in the "making and performing music" part, and that that was a sad commentary on DiBiase if he was going to be lumped in with the likes of them. He deserves to be lumped with Bowie, a guy who actually delivered on both fronts. I'm not kidding you. I don't dispute that there's more to wrestling than wrestling matches. But the marquee does, in fact, say "wrestling" (well, it often says "WWE", but they can't fool me, I know what that second "W" stands for). Wrestling matches aren't all there is to the wrestling genre, but it is very much at the center of the whole thing. That's why they call it "wrestling", because it's about wrestling. It's the critical distinguishing feature of the entire genre. It's not the only part of it, but again, who would call David Bowie a great musician if he didn't put out great music? I wish it went for puro as much as it did for American wrestling. God, those dudes are bland as hell these days.

The "fake" comments were around long before Pfeffer. John Derogatorily? Aside from the gambling stuff in the real early days? My understanding was that it was always known, but not something used to actively shame people with until Pfeffer in the wake of Shikat shooting on O'Mahoney. And that was just the part of the fallout from that that we seem to feel most directly. A lot of problems in wrestling to this day feel like things where you can draw the chain of events back to Shikat/O'Mahoney.

Because the marquee says "wrestling". So back in 2003, I was actually kinda paying attention to the current music scene for the first time in my life. At that point, t.A.T.u. was getting a bunch of airplay, and their whole schoolgirl lesbian shtick was getting a big media push. At some point in the middle of all that, Bone Crusher showed up, and he had this really goofy, bombastic live presence that I don't think I can properly articulate. But I found it amusing. Thing is, while his actual vocal delivery was as charmingly silly as his stage presence, he kinda struck me as having lousy flow, and really, his whole appeal was in his gimmicky presentation. Similarly, both of the t.A.T.u. girls were awful vocalists with a dreary, unremarkable band, and their appeal lay solely with their gimmick. And this argument briefly emerged in my head over which musical act whose music I don't actually care about was more interesting to watch. I pretty easily chose Bone Crusher, since his music relied on gimmicks, but did so somewhat effectively, and also because I have the internet and, by extension, access to actual lesbian porn. But it's 2011. t.A.T.u. and Bone Crusher haven't had hits since 2003, and I'm inclined to think you can tie at least some of that to them being musicians who didn't have much to offer in terms of music. And that's not to say "bad" musicians never hit it big beyond one-hit wonder status, but their actual music usually offers something that appeals to their fans, even if it doesn't always appeal to someone like me. Can DiBiase's "Abbey Road" be the basketball skit? Can t.A.T.u.'s "Abbey Road" be them making out on-stage? I like DiBiase a lot. I'd really like to think he had more to offer as a wrestler than t.A.T.u. had to offer as musicians.

Not to deflect too much (well-deserved) blame from those goons, but I think there's a very strong argument for Jack Pfeffer as the guy who did more damage to wrestling than anyone else. If nothing else, "don't you know it's fake?" being treated as a legitimate knock against wrestling by otherwise intelligent people is directly attributable to him.

I understand that term to mean someone who enjoys mainstream wrestling. If "smarks" like ROH and PWG (and maybe Japan, as long as it's full of headdropping and high flying), then antismarks trumpet the talent of Mark Henry or appreciate a silly angle. That's a big part of it, but there's also a common acknowledgement that "antismarks" also like a lot of non-mainstream stuff, but they often like the "wrong" non-mainstream stuff. Liking FUTEN instead of Dragon's Gate, for example, suggests "antismarkdom". Liking lucha libre at all is grounds for the claim to a certain extent, but if it isn't, liking Black Terry and Negro Navarro more than Mistico or La Sombra is. And there are mainstream wrestlers that are "right" to like. Angle still is, I think. Michaels was up until his retirement. Call that into question...well, you get the idea. Exactly.

I thought a little while about how I want to answer this one. That fits pretty well, as does the stuff goodhelmet and Bob wrote. Beyond that, though, labeling varieties of fandom feels really useless these days. To put it into perspective, one new term that's come up lately is "antismark". It's been thrown at me and several other people on this board, many of whom regularly watch IWRG matches on YouTube. Insofar as the word "smark" means anything, I would have to think watching handheld camera footage of independent lucha libre promotions on YouTube would have to be considered an extremely "smarky" activity. Yet, those who do so are not simply labeled "antismarks" in spite of it, but often because of it, which suggests to me that in 2011, the word "smark" either has changed it's meaning drastically, or it doesn't actually mean anything at all. To be honest, I'm not terribly interested in finding out. I don't need a label to define me other than "wrestling fan", "really, really big wrestling fan", or possibly "freak".

I'd argue this is less of a problem caused by the continuation of the streak and more a problem and more a problem of WWE booking apathy. The streak is at a point where a Taker match at Mania pretty much books itself, and having that match as part of the overall package is definitely a good thing for Mania. But in terms of setting up the other matches from their main storylines to build the show around...did they even really try to do that this year? The Edge/Del Rio feud felt like an afterthought for the most part, and the Cena/Miz stuff felt less about their rivalry and more about what The Rock was going to do. The Taker match gave them a sure thing, so it became the Taker show by default, but it's not the streak's fault that WWE Creative was going through the motions on the biggest show of the year.

Though you and I have gone rounds before, I have always respected you and that is an example of why. That is the best idea of ending The Streak~! that I have ever heard. Amazing. If this board had a reputation option you'd get mad rep, man. By the way, what heel did you have in mind? Personally, I'd go with Del Rio. The dude is talented. The downside is his age. I think I first came up with this around Mania 24, and very much had MVP in mind when I thought of it. The Miz probably could've done it as well, though he hadn't quite been established enough that you could just put the belt on him yet. Today, Del Rio would probably be the guy, as he's already safely inserted in the main event scene, and has the whole "smarmy douchebag" thing with just enough cowardice to pull it off. The only downside with him is that he's already already a main eventer, and this feels like a spot you'd want to fill with an upper midcarder who you're just about to pull the trigger on to create a new top heel while maximizing the "he didn't deserve to end the streak" aspect of it. Don't think you can do that after you've already won the Royal Rumble, but I don't see anyone else on the roster right now who fits the bill. At this point, I'd just as soon hold off on it.

There was a period where they were using them a ton just a few years ago. These days, not as much, though as mentioned, you'll still see it from time to time. And no, there's really no going home again on this one, at least not on a widespread level. I've said it before and I'll say it again (in fact, I'm really just C&Ping something I wrote at DVDVR a while back), taking a cue from our friends overseas and south of the border and focusing more on 6/8/10-man tags is probably the best solution to the problems Jerry outlined above. It gives people star vs. star matches on TV. It allows big singles/tag matches to be built up without burning out the match-up before they can even get to PPV. It gives lower-ranked wrestlers a chance to associate with higher-ranked ones that they might not have had otherwise, and in doing so, gives them the chance to make a bigger impression and opens up the possibility for them to get tied up in feuds or alliances with big names. It also means less time in the ring per match for everyone involved, and less wear and tear as a result.

Impression I got of Kamala in Texas is that he was great working tags and short singles bouts. Guy with a lot of nasty looking offense, shockingly agile for someone his size, and ate offense and bumped really well. But he had trouble filling the middle of longer singles matches. Like TomK said, he wasn't afraid to sink in the heart claw for a looooooong time if he had to, and while I have a higher tolerance for clawholds than most, I've no illusions about what was going on there.

The real screwing of the pooch on this was dropping Money in the Bank from Mania because they're dead set on making their five gajillion gimmick PPVs work instead of cutting their losses. I've written this elsewhere, but I don't think I've ever trotted it out here...ending Taker's streak has become the "revealing Maris' face" of pro wrestling. The writers of Frasier had initially planned to eventually reveal what Maris actually looked like for a special occasion, but before they could, they realized that they had built up how big that reveal would be so much that there was nothing they could actually deliver that would live up to the hype, so they just never did it. Beating Taker at Mania has become such a huge task - moreso than ever after this show - that no one could possibly end the streak under traditional means without it falling flat. So I theorized that their only way out was to take it in the complete opposite direction: cowardly heel wins Money in the Bank, Taker then wins a grueling title bout later in the night to keep the streak alive, only for the cowardly heel to bum rush him afterwords, cash in Money in the Bank, and beat him to win the belt and end the streak in the cheapest way possible, and become the most hated heel in the company in the process. It's still "disappointing", but unlike HHH winning here, it would be disappointing in a way that would actually useful in the long run. But that out is gone now. I think. I don't know how the MITB PPV stuff works. I know at Mania, you had until the next Mania to cash it in. I guess now you have until the next MITB PPV to cash it in? So maybe it's still possible, though I think it loses a bit of punch.

You only really have room for five on that show (one for each panelist). Bulldogs/Rougeaus feels like an idiosyncratic pick, the WWE Roundtable equivalent of using a personal pick in the DVDVR 80's sets for something weird. The other four make sense, but aside from Von Erichs/Freebirds, pretty sure you could pick better feuds for each of the guys involved. Also, Khawk remembered correctly. There was a previous "Rivalries" episode. I've seen part of it, but I can't find it online on short notice and don't know the full lineup of what they talked about. Pretty sure I remember Snuka/Muraco and R'n'Rs/MX being brought up, but beyond that, can't say for sure. Still, it's a broad topic, and one they could probably revisit a lot. Still, most picks aren't bad, but feel like they could be better. Austin/Rock feels like it could've easily been swapped out for Austin/McMahon, since that was really the bigger, more relevant feud. Likewise, Hogan/Andre could've been superseded by Hogan/Heenan, which would've covered Hogan/Andre and then some. I think the current WWE version of wrestling history has Bret/Michaels as being the biggest rivalry in the history of the ever ever, so kinda inevitable that that would be there and get the bulk of discussion, even if I'm not sure it really deserves to. Hart Foundation vs. America might be too broad. Bret vs. Owen would probably be my choice, and we could probably drop Bulldogs/Rougeaus for Michaels/Ramon if you want both Bret and Shawn represented. But overall, not a bad lineup.

Really? Cena lost, Rey lost, Lawler lost. Taker won, but basically died en route to victory. Orton and Edge, both of whom are really only faces because the company tells us they are, won. Orton actually worked like a face for once, but on a "mark" level, I honestly came away feeling bad for Del Rio. Snooki and Team Random Smackdown Babyfaces were triumphant, but this didn't feel like a "send the fans home happy" Mania at all to me. Strictly speaking, this was a perfectly fine wrestling show with the matches delivering for the most part. Honestly, I didn't even hate Lawler/Cole that much, though I don't have any strong desire to ever see it again, and the Snooki match had me fantasy booking a fifth season of Jersey Shore where they go to Cancun for spring break and she somehow ends up becoming Bracita de Plata and getting carried to a good ten minute match by Pierrothito. But the booking of it all just felt so weird, and this is the one show of the year where the booking really means as much to me as the match quality, so...yeah. I imagine I'll like it more as I get distance from it, but right now, the show leaves me feeling hollow.

IT'S A SHOOT, BRUTHA!

A fittingly small and petty thing to laugh at from yesterday's update:

Wait, what? The recently retired Taylor Wilde had to hold down a second job at the Sunglass Hut while she was Knockout Champion, but she ended up quitting that job out of embarrassment after one of her customers recognized her.

Dick Slater was pretty great. I don't get the sense that he's underrated by the people who talk about him, but he doesn't enter into the conversation that often, either.

You ever see his title defense against 2 Cold Scorpio? Great stuff, and definitely not just because of 2 Cold. I actually thought his NWA Title run was pretty strong given how inconsequential the belt was at that point. For great post-knee reconstruction/destruction Windham...it's been a while since I've seen it, but I remember really digging his match with Steve Corino from Dusty's TWA in 2002. It was on Schneider Comp #22. Give Will money.

Never let it be said that I don't give the devil his due, and honesty is the best policy (though sometimes it needs to be superseded by tact ).

Just to hazard a guess to a rhetorical question: zero. I can't even give them "at least TNA is doing it for higher wages". I mean they are, maybe enough for the top guys that I could bump it up to 0.5, but when a titleholder on a televised promotion still needs a second job at the Sunglass Hut, you're functionally no better than Rotten.