S.L.L.

Admittedly, probably used the wrong combination of points and examples there. Been a long time since I watched the Michaels/Ramon ladder matches, don't really remember how compelling the stories in them were. Matches being memorable was probably more about the novelty of the gimmick at the time. I think - and don't quote me on this - that ladder matches were still happening infrequently enough by 1999 that Hardys vs. Edge & Christian could still make an impact on people, and then after that, there was a period where there was a pretty big glut of ladder matches, and I don't know that anyone really became a star out of that period. Nice thing about making the Money in the Bank match a yearly event was that it forced them to end that period in order to protect the match, so Benjamin could get noticed for standout performances there, although he was getting talked up plenty years before the first MITB match even happened through the whole "great technician" thing, the initial World's Greatest Tag Team run, and the HHH matches. But I think nowadays it probably is possible for the gimmick to get a guy over now. Still, wasn't really talking about commercial success of the gimmick, just aesthetic. Again, haven't revisited the Michaels/Ramon matches in a while. Maybe the "right lesson" wasn't actually there to be learned. People still learned the wrong lesson from it on an aesthetic level. Really only a casual comic fan, and I don't know what the commercial viability of the Dark Age was. And I personally felt Watchmen was overrated, though Dark Knight Returns worked for me well enough. Still, get the sense from my own reading and from my experiences with more serious comic fans that guys like Rob Liefeld "learned the wrong lesson" from an aesthetic standpoint. So maybe the lesson I should've been pointing to here wasn't "great matches are built around great stories", but "novelty acts work better when they're actually novel".

I am just kinda surprised that Russo is booking potential rape as a heel move.

Last time I watched Angle was his match with Jarrett from Genesis. Thought he actually looked better physically than he had in years, actually looked like his triceps might have grown back. Really took me by surprise. Still, that's just one match that happened six months ago. Entirely possible my eyes could've been playing tricks on me. But in that one match, I thought he actually looked more or less human again.

Was it Laurinitis who was supposed to scout Milano Collection AT and ended up scouting Milanito Collection AT instead?

Yeah, this whole angle is just a mess from top to bottom. It's just that in the end, it seems to be HHH who is getting exposed the worst, and for once, it's not entirely his fault.

Well, outright advertising the sway he has over the booking probably doesn't help matters. Nor does the fact that he's a really shitty face. On top of that, as TomK has often pointed out, styles make matches. Not too many good stylistic match-ups for Trips in the ring, but there are a few more good ones in terms of drawing fan interest to some degree. Randy Orton isn't one of them. Guy poised as the heir to the throne of a family that they've spent the last decade teaching us to hate working as face defending their honor against a similarly slimy character who wants to bring that family down....there's no one to really be sympathetic for here. I mean, I've gone over the problems with the HHH/Cena feud a billion times now, but at least there was a market that HHH was appealing to there. Did it in a stupid, counter-productive way, but gave a group of fans a reason to care. You can't say that about this angle. Where are the fans who want to see the honor of the McMahons defended? Somebody needs to strap the WWE creative team and the entire extended McMahon family down and force them to watch the Perros/Capos feud Clockwork Orange style until they know how to effectively book a heel vs. heel feud at the top of the card.

In fairness, this is probably due in no small part to ROH being a shell of it's former self.

Actually, one last thing I want to say about all of this....I can't even begin to imagine the hell that Akitoshi Saito must be going through right now. Even if it was just a freak occurrence, you know this will haunt him for the rest of his life. By all means, mourn Misawa, but keep Saito in your prayers while you're at it.

Actually, I don't think any of us are really complicit in this one. I do have some other thoughts on the matter that might not sit well with people, but with less than 24 hours removed from his passing, I'd rather not start in with the lectures just yet. This sucks enough as is. Now isn't the time for me to make people feel worse about it. For now, all I'll say is that Mitsuharu Misawa was one hell of a professional wrestler. He leaves behind an amazing legacy and gave us tons of great memories, and for that, I'm grateful. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go be sad for a little while.

The thing is, I don't know when exactly it reached that point. I'd argue that Family Matters was at it's best when it had a similar dynamic to Happy Days, i.e. it was clear that one guy was the big attraction of the show (Fonz/Urkel), even though it was also clear that someone else was the true main character (Richie/Carl). But really, both shows were like that for most of their run. But I can't pinpoint when Family Matters lost that dynamic. It's easy to pinpoint on Happy Days: Richie left the show. Family Matters threw a lot of secondary characters by the wayside, but the core group of characters was always there, and most episodes maintained the "Two Lines, No Waiting" formula: Carl, Eddie, and Urkel go ice fishing while Judy is jealous of the attention Richie gets; Carl is tormented on the one-year anniversary of a hostage situation gone wrong while Urkel tries to get Laura tickets to a Johnny Gill concert; Urkel teams up with Grandmama against Eddie in a basketball tournament while Carl and Harriet argue over Carl giving Laura a later curfew than Harriet said she could have; etc. They weren't all like that of course, and the show changed a lot to accommodate Urkel's wacky sci-fi antics, but even when he was given the limelight, they did an admirable job of keeping all the major characters involved or busy with their own stories.

I think Dean said that Myrtle wasn't the perfect love interest for Eddie (as he was really consistently repulsed by her), but argued that he should have been. I recall someone else (not sure who) making the good point about Waldo's relationship with Maxine providing a good contrast at Urkel's (attempted) relationship with Laura: whereas Urkel's oddball behavior constantly drives away Laura, her best friend is able to see through Waldo's oddball behavior pretty quickly to the nice guy underneath, and they strike up a long-term relationship. It's kind of weird that a show that Brother Chucked a lot of characters over the years also did a very good job of managing it's secondary characters while they were kept around. I'm starting to think that wrestling promoters could learn a few lessons from Family Matters.

Then again, Finlay's been in the respected veteran worker role on ECW for a year now and he's still waiting for his token run with the title. Well, feasible, not guaranteed.

This is absolutely true, and in hindsight, I really don't know why I went with "Goes to Camp" for my analogy. My bad. And I will go to my grave maintaining that Family Matters was a perfectly fine sitcom for most of it's run that suffered from guilt by association with Full House. As it spun off of that, and was basically the same type of family-friendly, life-affirming sitcom, only a billion times more bizarre and containing actual funny jokes. Well, I guess Urkel turned people off, too. Never really got what people's problem with him was. People didn't like it's Full House-ishness, but they also couldn't wrap their heads around the things that made it radically different from Full House...it was kinda like the sitcom equivalent of lucha libre in that sense, which seems somehow appropriate coming from me.

By that same token, if you're looking for a more high-energy Baba, I highly recommend his 1966 bout with Fritz Von Erich. It's a wild, out-of-control brawl, which makes a nice companion piece to the Destroyer match, showing you how he could excel in two very different situations.

Owen's post-'99 career is kinda tricky to read. If we work under the assumption that Owen would have stuck it out for the long haul, and that he would have maintained roughly the same level of popularity he had at the time of his death, he'd only be 42 in 2007, and he'd be 44 today. I think it's feasible that in the last two years, he could've had a run as ECW champion. Loss was right. There wasn't the demand to give Owen the belt that there was for Benoit/Eddie/Rey/RVD/Jericho. That said, probably as much or more demand to give him the belt than Chavo Guerrero or Mark Henry. I think it's feasible.

Most of my close friends growing up were wrestling fans, and most of them eventually walked away from it, though most of the ones I'm still in contact with will drop by if I'm ordering a PPV or something like that. I have only one really close friend who would really still count as a "fan" to any significant degree. Actually, it's a pretty significant degree - he actually trained with Mikey Whipreck's fed to become a wrestler, and would have made his debut this past March, but walked away because it was taking up too much free time for something he didn't want to pursue seriously as a career. We actually kind of have an interesting dynamic with one another: I introduced him to puro/lucha/indies/older stuff/misc. non-mainstream wrestling, and over the years, we ended up developing opposing aesthetics - I became the modern "anti-smark smark" who prizes execution and basic storytelling skills, and he became the kind of "moves mark" that I usually rail against online. I guess that should inform my online behavior more than it probably does. Unfortunately, the impersonal nature of the internet tends to make unnecessary, over-the-top hatred of people easier, and at least in this case, seems to be the only difference between people I write TL;DR tracts about and a guy who is one of my best friends in the world, even if he does make the occasional crack about my John Cena man-crush. With everyone else, my wrestling fandom usually isn't a major issue, simply because I don't present myself first and foremost as a wrestling fan. I let people get to me and my basic personality, and once they know I'm a basically alright guy, and we're on good terms, I can tell them I'm a wrestling fan at my leisure, and it won't really affect their established perception of me. At worst, it becomes the bizarre, inexplicable quirk of an otherwise reasonable dude. Best case people appreciate my interest, even if they don't share it, and will occasionally engage me in discussion when they hear about something wrestling-related and want my insight (I had a lot of friends and family coming to me in the summer of '07 asking me what the deal with this "Ben-oyt" guy was). Usually they're just politely indifferent, and then we move on to other matters. Do I regard wrestling "highly"? Depends on how we're defining that word. At some point a few years back, I started writing a book about wrestling and my feelings about it. I think it was something I never expected would get shared with anyone, and honestly something I probably knew I'd never even finish more than one chapter of, but I was feeling it at the moment. I did finish the introduction, though. Here are some excerpts from it that I think sums up my feelings pretty well:

Personally, the first time I saw 6/3/94, the only context I had was "OMG GREATEST MATCH EVAR!!!", and while it was clearly a great match, I really didn't see anything in the body of the match itself that put it clearly ahead of everything else. Context was definitely a big help there.

Wasn't most of the material in the ridiculous "Mark Henry has somehow become the fulcrum of wrestling talking points" on DVDVR lost during the purge of non-stick wrestling? Sadly we also lost such gems as the "Kane vs. Abyss, who is a better worker" thread, and the "pictures of women in wrestling bleeding as fetish porn" thread. Can't say I miss it much. Non-Stick wasn't actually purged. They kept it archived, but the archive was hidden to everyone but the admins. I have access to it now (I pulled my quotes from the Henry vs. Abyss thread, actually). Everything is listed as being on the main wrestling folder, so I don't know if everyone has access to it now or if it's just me. But it is still there.

No, since I'm not prepared to trawl through tons of old threads, many of which are on forums that no longer exist anymore. It's just the way I remember it. You remember it wrong. Well most people seemed to go pretty crazy about the Wrestlemania match (which wasn't any level above what he's done in other post comeback years) so I think things are changing. Again, I don't know enough. Eh, guys like me really liked his Cena matches in 2007, too. Not terribly uncommon for Shawn to have one or two matches a year that pass muster. Less common that he has more. I haven't even seen the Taker match yet, but pretty much everything else he's done this year seems at least serviceable, so I tend to lay off of him now. Again, I remember it otherwise, but to prove it so would be a long and tedious process. Finding and posting one thing would be a long and tedious process if you didn't know where to look, or if it was an elusive, largely isolated incident. But if there were all these bandwagon jumpers making these claims like you say there were, it should be a fast trip through the DVDVR search engine. Technically yes, however.... 1. The burden of proof is on the accuser 2. The accused is considered innocent until proven guilty 3. You can't prove a negative 4. Proving this specific negative would require posting every single thing ever written about Mark Henry in that period, so as to show there was never any single incident of someone calling him a top-flight worker, which is not a reasonable request, especially not in comparison to what I asked of you, which you were unwilling/unable to do (Regarding Moves) Well, not in as many words, but if you put in a search for 'moves~!' or whatever on the DVDVR (for instance) search engine, I'm sure you would find hundreds of results. The phrase itself applies ridicule in the way it's executed, and the refusal of people to accept that others didn't like Jerry Lawler matches because his offence was shit. The matter in question, which you cut out, was whether or not people say that having a large set of moves that you can execute well isn't a good thing. Nobody says that. Possibly. One example is the Mayweather/Show match, which was good for novelty value but nowhere near MOTY type quality. You say that like it's an indisputable fact. I thought it was a MOTYC before I even knew what Phil had to say about it. I'm sure other people of similar minds felt the same way. If you don't look at it from the viewpoint that Show/Mayweather is indisputably not a MOTYC, and that it is factually impossible to think otherwise, it's not all that unreasonable. Indeed they did, but the fact that others in the minority came around to Cena doesn't necessarily mean they were brainwashed by Phil. They might have just agreed that Cena was improving. I never said they didn't, just not in the way or to the extent that you think. You can't/won't prove otherwise. Can you prove otherwise? "NO U" is a really shitty tactic for you to be using, but at least this one isn't asking me to prove a negative. This is TomK in March 2006, pretty deep into the Henry re-evaluation period: Not only Tom explicitly stating that Henry wasn't a superworker but saying one big reason he wasn't a superworker was because he lacked offense. That's two from one paragraph, and it wasn't exactly hard to find. Can you match that? I'm sure S.L.L. will be asking you to prove it. Wait... I don't have to ask him. I can do it myself. Here's Rob Naylor himself - a dude I have nothing but love for - from the very same thread I took the above quote from. Technically not proof of Bix's claim since Rob didn't use a euphemism for "fat". Still, there it is. Again, not the herculean task you made it out to be. But then, I actually had proof to find.

Some of the people at WKO. Especially Luis who I like but he's basically a Mike Sheep. Mike is a guy who's opinions are definitely in line with Phil's and Tom's for the most part and who's wrestling aesthetic is largely informed by theirs. That said, definitely a guy who can form his own opinions. http://z11.invisionfree.com/wrestling_ko/i...?showtopic=2167 Yeah, his reasons for not liking Quackenbush are kinda Phil-ish. Obviously a guy coming from the same place as Phil. Still him forming a completely opposing view to Phil's. Such is the case with most of the board.

You're proving my (and Tom's, and Loss's) point. This has actually started to happen fairly recently, as Henry got even better this past year, and most anti-Henry folks have softened their stance on him accordingly. However, I reiterate, this never happened back when people were actually using the "these people think Mark Henry is a superworker" strawman. Can you prove otherwise? I assume you're being hyperbolic here. And the train of thought hasn't really turned, although I personally have been okay with Michaels so far this year. Personally, I think the point was that being so offended by someone holding a different opinion from you about wrestling that you can't deal with it in a rational manner is silly, and while we've probably all been guilty of it at some point or another, we should try and be above it. To wit.... This was what Phil, Tom, and miscellaneous followers were actually saying. People who didn't like Mark Henry were so offended by this notion that they couldn't deal with it rationally, so they put up the "they're saying Mark Henry is a superworker" strawman. But no one was actually saying that at the time. They were saying Henry was a servicable-to-good worker. Can you prove otherwise? This remains a thorny issue for a number of reasons, and I won't get into them all right now. I'll just say that in 2009, I think it's true. Nobody ever said otherwise. Some people did say that moves don't always automatically enhance a match. Moves marks were so offended by this notion that they couldn't deal with it rationally, so they put up the "they're saying moves are bad" strawman. But no one actually says that. They just say that moves don't always automatically enhance a match. Can you prove otherwise? Not in the way and not to the extent that you claim. Can you prove otherwise? Aside from the Michaels thing, your "middle ground" opinions were Phil's and Tom's side of the argument. Can you prove otherwise?

My point - how many of the "Segunda Caida types" are paying subs to the one? How many of them voted in the WON Awards? It's entirely possible that Dave now takes ballots from non-subs, in which case I can see a block of non-sub voters pushing it. Sort of like Flair getting a lot of votes online for Time's Man Of The Year Award. The difference is that Time pitched those results as I recall. I also could be entirely wrong about how many of the Segunsa Caida types sub to the WON. John I honestly don't know. I admit it's still a wrong-looking answer, but it's the most logical answer I can think of. I really don't know where else it could be coming from. "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" -Sherlock Holmes

Rob has always struck me as an OK dude. That said, not sure how defensible any of his points really were, and got the feeling that if Tom had pushed him just a little bit further, they probably would've collapsed completely. Point #1: People (admittedly not Tom) are pushing the notion that having a good moveset isn't a plus for a wrestler It's kinda fading away, but "these people think Mark Henry is a superworker" used to be a pretty popular strawman argument. I know there was at least one thread at DVDVR (or at least a tangent of a thread) that I ended by asking someone making this claim to point to one specific instance of someone saying this. Since there had never been an instance of that, and since admitting as much would kill a popular strawman, the thread just sort of ended so that the argument could be used another day. I imagine if Tom had pressed Rob to point to an instance of someone saying that having a good moveset isn't a plus for a wrestler, I'm inclined to think he would've been stymied. Point #2: Phil and Tom have sheep Probably true, but he's mostly using this to support his other points, and it doesn't really work. Point #3: If someone can't articulate their thoughts well, then that means they're just parroting opinions Hive mentality is real, of course. And I haven't been above accusing people of having a hive mentality or having questionable motives for having certain opinions. That said, generally assume people come by their opinions honestly, and only feel the need to call that into question if there's real reason to believe otherwise. Wonder how many Segunda Caida "sheep" gave Rob real reason to call their motives into question, and how many he called into question simply because their opinions were radically different from his.

I forget which board it was at but I think it was tomk who pointed out that what you're responding to isn't a talking point that anyone actually tries to argue. Nobody argues that cool moves are bad, just that cool moves by themselves do not necessarily make a great match and lack of cool moves does not make a match bad. TomK on Smarkschoice: Not the only time this point has ever been clarified. Don't suppose it will be the last. It bears just enough resemblance to the truth that it makes for a good strawman argument, and people who use strawman arguments tend not to give up on them easily.

Tom hit on this already, but since I'm at my best when I'm expanding on his points anyway.... This is a pretty big misreading of the situation. Panther vs. Villano V is really not the kind of match that draws support from your typical Observer reader. Not the kind of match that gets pushed by guys who look to Dave as a tastemaker and tend to parrot his opinions. As I recall, Dave hadn't even seen the match until after the awards came out, so it is not like he really pushed it on his readers. Guys who didn't know much about Panther wouldn't be actively seeking this out. This is a match supported by Segunda Caida types with a different aesthetic from your core Observer voters, and to that end, was genuinely shocked it finished as high as it did. Would guess this is an instance where voters who liked the match really liked the match. Would think this is a group mostly consisting of people who are already familiar with Panther's work (who had to overcome the shock of Panther losing his mask in the first place, as Tom noted). Probably a sub-group of people who hadn't seen a lot of Panther's work, but had an understanding of who he was and had a Segunda Caida-ish aesthetic. Unlikely that these people, if exposed to more of Panther's work, would change their minds. I could be guessing wrong, of course. Like I said, really didn't expect the match to fare as well in voting as it did, because the majority of people pushing it didn't strike me as Observer voter tastemakers. But if I had to guess, those who voted for it were of a similar mind. Not a match Meltzer pushed, really doesn't even seem like the kind of match he or your average Observer reader would like. And it's not like Blue Panther or Villano V are Shawn Michaels or Kurt Angle. Not guys who have a history of being arbitrarily supported by Observer readers even if they don't deserve it. Often don't get supported even if they do deserve it. So not sure where else it would come from.