ohtani's jacket

Someone finally uploaded the Rick Rude vs. Eric Watts match in full. Probably not one of the greatest matches in WCW history as the clipped version had me thinking, but a quality piece of TV nonetheless and a must watch for Rude fans. The rematch from a week later has also been uploaded but it doesn't have the same dynamic. What it does prove, however, is how much better Jesse was at getting Watts over than JR.

Inoki only became directly involved after Dream Stage Entertainment took over PRIDE. They reached a business agreement prior to PRIDE 9 for Inoki to supply New Japan wrestlers for PRIDE fights. That was in May or June of 2000. PRIDE basically started when a guy named Xavier Cullars promoted a fight between Rickson Gracie and Nobuhiko Takada in October of 1997. Takada and Anjoh had called Gracie out several times back when UWF-i was at the height of its drawing power and Gracie was Vale Tudo Japan champion, which led to the infamous "fight" between Gracie and Anjoh in Gracie's LA gym where Anjoh got his ass kicked. This turned Gracie into a sensation in Japan and eventually Takada and Gracie had their fight which Gracie won. Sakuraba's rise happened by accident. At the time he was wrestling with the other UWF-i workers in the Kingdom promotion that rose out of UWF-i's closure. Anjoh and Kanehara signed on to compete in the UFC Japan show in December 1997, but Kanehara was injured in training and Sakuraba took his place. His fight ended with a ref mistake and to make a long story short he got a rematch as the final of the tournament they were particpating in due to an injury to the other finalist and he manged to win the rematch. And that's how Sakuraba got started. Pro-wrestler vs. shooter was very much the drawing point of the early PRIDE shows and in particular pro-wrestling vs. Gracie jiu-jitsu. Later on it became more of an MMA promotion and shat all over Japanese wrestling with its superior matchmaking, title fights and production values.

You'd think he was the World's Greatest Entertainer reading this. The trouble with Henry fans is that they go so overboard in praising him that when people go to check him out they can't get past the notion that it was supposed to be amazing. That can be true of anything that people praise, but Henry fans overcompensate for whatever bias there is against him.

C'mon, it went from being the best WWE TV match since Rey vs. Cena to being a US MOTYC in any given year and one of the best TV matches in the past decade. You'd expect a match like that to be pretty damn good. I watched it again and it's a good match, but it's missing a finishing stretch. If there hadn't been two minutes or however long cut for commercials and they'd done a proper finishing stretch instead of aborting the match for a Jericho angle then I could understand the hype, but as it is I don't see how it was better than Benoit/Finlay or Rey/Finlay to name two WWE TV matches I really liked. Punk/Henry was a tight little match with an obvious story thread, but it seems to me that little things like Punk selling the back or Henry trash talking are receiving excessive praise. Now since we're often guilty of excessive criticism that's no bad thing, but I just didn't see anything above what you'd expect from the booking. I mean, wasn't the whole point of the match for Johnny Ace to book Punk in a tough match where he was going to take a beating because Punk called him a toolbox or something like that? It's a hop, skip and a jump from a great territorial studio segment and they were never MOTYCs. I dunno, maybe it is semantics, but I was expecting something along the lines of the good WWE I watched from last year but it was only two thirds of a match. But yeah, if he'd said it was the best TV match so far this year or even the best WWE match so far and put it in his top 10 for the year we probably wouldn't have this thread.

I don't see a MOTYC as the best match to have happened thus far. To me, a MOTYC ought to be good enough to still be in consideration at the end of the year. If the best match thus far is a three star match then there haven't been any match of the year contenders yet.

I don't think it has anything to do with standards dropping. The lucha matches Dylan has listed in his top 10 would all be legitimately good matches from 1998 onwards and in some cases before then. Lucha is having its best year for matches in quite some time. I just think Dylan overreacted in his excitement over the Punk/Henry match possibly because of his disappointment in WrestleMania the night before, possibly because he really likes CM Punk and Mark Henry or possibly because he really liked the match. Is there anyone else calling it a MOTYC? I always enjoy reading what Dylan has to say about wrestling and have done for more than 10 years now, but if Dylan says that Punk/Henry is a MOTYC why am I supposed to name something that's better? When people claim something is a MOTYC it's not only a match rating but a recommendation as well. There are some of us who didn't watch it live who will check it out based on that MOTYC tag. When I watch a MOTYC I expect to see a match that would be a MOTYC in any given year not just this one. If the best matches aren't MOTYC level then they're not match of the year contenders, does that makes sense? And if I don't agree with the MOTYC tag or can't quite see it, surely it's worth having a discussion about.

Early Finlay is awesome. I mentioned the other day that he was a better Dynamite Kid than Dynamite Kid but perhaps I stole that subconsciously from Walton. Everything about John Naylor annoys me. I can't explain it. Boscik always winds up disappointing me. I watched a Rocco/Cullen match from Screen Sport yesterday that was completely different from the traditional WoS freestyle style and it sucked like the majority of Rocco's work. All that Screen Sport/ASW stuff is an abomination.

Well, I just watched the Bret Hart vs. Jean-Pierre Lafitte RAW match and I don't see how anyone wouldn't put it in the same ballpark as Punk/Henry including the post match Lawler/Yankem stuff v. the Jericho angle. It was a typical sort of Bret gets beaten up but finds a way to win anyway bout and nothing special in that respect, but Lafitte didn't look blown up or confused at any point and who shits on a guy doing a Pirata Morgan gimmick?

Sakuraba's brain says hi.

I like Bret v. Lafitte, but as I noted when I watched it for the SC poll it's a match that really revolved around Lafitte's big spots and Bret bumping. Nothing wrong with that but the dead time in that match was REALLY dead time, with Lafitte sucking wind and just laying around with holds applied waiting to get to the next spot. I like the match a lot and don't want to slag it, but Lafitte is not Henry when it comes to keeping "dead time" entertaining. The Vader tag is a really awesome match that is even less consequential than Henry v. Punk. I actually thought Henry v. Punk was a great way of re-establishing Henry as a killer/monster type and while I generally don't like Punk as Ricky Morton type, that works v. Henry. I would have to watch all the matches back-to-back-to-back to into a ton more detail, but I obviously liked Punk v. Henry a lot and I know I'm not alone in that regard. How does Henry keep dead time entertaining? By trash talking? Henry looked slow and lumbering in the Punk match. Isn't he recovering from an injury or something? Punk/Henry only really worked for me because Punk's offense is literally too useless to beat Henry. I think I would've enjoyed it more if it had been stiffer but those elbows to the head and some of the other strikes were weak.

I remember liking that Kendo Nagasaki/Wayne Bridges match and Bridges is one of the WoS guys I dislike the most along with Mal Sanders and John fucking Naylor. I take it you haven't watched the Nagasaki/Myers match or any of the Screen Sport stuff?

Punk/Henry was a match of the week type match. What is it about the match specifically that makes you think it was better than any match wrestled in the US in 1995? Was it really better than say Bret vs. Jean Pierre Lafitte or that Vader tag?

Watched Punk/Henry and don't see how it was a MOTYC. It was okay as far as little guy tries to chop down a pine tree goes, but I didn't buy the finish whatsoever and the whole thing was overshadowed by the post-match crap. If they were going to do a countout finish, Henry should've gone out over the rope too. But regardless, why would you rate a match that was basically two thirds of a match without any finishing stretch? The match was pretty much aborted so they could fit the Jericho crap in the quarter hour. And what a dumb angle that is. Can't they do something better with Punk than this straight edge shit? I mean, I kind of admire the guy for cementing himself as a WWE performer as it seems like he did it against the odds, but who the fuck wants to watch angles about alcoholism or drug addiction or anything like that?

El Hijo del Santo vs. El Hijo del Solitario vs. Angel Blanco Jr., Triangular de la Muerte, 3/31/12 There are about three or four handhelds of this available on youtube. The handheld with the best angle is broken down into half a dozen parts. It's also the most complete, from entrances to post match unmasking and celebrations. A couple of the other versions are clipped. This was fairly typical for a Triangular de la Muerte match. As soon as a three-way match was announced I had an inkling that it would be along these lines rather than a classic. The early falls are perfunctory, but there's always the hope that the mascara contra mascara section will be something special. In this case it was the standard Santo singles match. After such a bloody and violent feud, I was disappointed by the lack of blood. The heat, on the other hand, was fantastic and something which won't be captured in the televised version. If you ever want to hear Santo draw huge heat for his signature spots then this is the match for you. Blanco did the long lineage of unmasking rudos proud by kicking the bottom rope a couple of times and attacking Santo after he was given Blanco's mask and the post-match celebration was enjoyable, but nothing about this was great. I thought it would've been far cooler to do Santo and Villano vs. Solitario and Blanco Jr. masks vs. masks match.

Added -- Chic Cullen vs. Rocky Moran (5/2/84) One guy who was on TV a lot in the 80s was Chic Cullen. He was an average looking Scottish bloke with a bad hair cut who was a fairly decent worker that they put some stock in. The more I watch of him, the more I'm starting to like him or at least acknowledge him as a mainstay. This was an outstanding title match for Cullen's British Heavy-Middleweight belt. Moran was from the same stable of workers as Finlay and a cheat basically. Usually, the heels shelf that type of work in a title match in similiar fashion to lucha, but not this time. Moran was being badly outwrestled at the beginning of this match (in fact, at first I couldn't figure out why Cullen was getting all the offense) until he finally began a barrage of illegal moves. There was an awesome spot where Moran pleaded with the ref not to give him a public warning and as the ref gave it went straight back to attacking Cullen. Cullen sold all this big time and the crowd was heavily into it. Alan Kilby was sitting at ringside waiting to see who he would challenge for the title and opening rooting for Cullen. Great match.

I will check it out if I have time, but I would want to know more about Okada and Naito and whether they have any sort of charisma because that type of psychology bores the crap out of me in Japanese wrestling.

Looking at Dylan's MOTY list, Panther/Casas and Terry/Che are matches I expect to follow the conventions of lucha libre hair matches, the Santo stuff I expect to follow the conventions of lucha libre brawling, the Casas/Sombra match I expect to follow the conventions of lucha libre title matches, the Finlay/Tajiri match I expect to follow the conventions of Japanese wrestling, and the Henry/Punk match I haven't seen yet but would expect to follow the conventions of the modern, present day WWE style. If I were to rank them it would simply be based on which match I liked more. Naturally, there are things I value in all wrestling but those things would be present in each individual match otherwise they wouldn't be on my list. I don't think I would rate the Santo tag above the Casas/Panther match simply because the selling was better in the Santo tag, for instance. It would be because the Santo tag was a proper lucha brawl whereas the Casas/Panther match was a maestro match when it was supposed to be a hair match. I suppose you could argue that wrestling the right type of match for the right situation is a value that can be applied universally, but I was just wondering how fixed your viewpoint is. You've already implied that you're not an absolutist so I guess that answers that.

Aren't you expecting a bit too much from wrestling? How many examples were there on each yearbook of wrestling reaching the standard you've set?

Most people go into a match cold because they're watching something they're not familiar with or don't follow on a regular basis. Casas vs. Panther, for example, has been built to since last year (possibly even the year before.) I didn't watch all of the set-up but the guys who did were really high on that match. Speaking for myself, the Punk/Henry match would be easy to watch in isolation because I at least know those workers but with the New Japan match I'd be lost and I doubt I'd give it a fair shot.

El Hijo del Santo & Villano IV vs. El Hijo del Solitario & Angel Blanco Jr., Todo X El Todo La Venganza, 3/23/12 This was nowhere near as good as their first match, but as the middle part in the feud it was still pretty good. The February tag defied a lot of lucha libre conventions, whereas this was more along the lines of a traditional pre-apuestas match. The rudos milled about drawing heat while the technicos bled, then they switched roles. The rudos didn't care so much about winning this time round and just wanted to rub salt into the wound. The technicos gained a measure of revenge by winning the match, but were denied a total victory and will have to sit and stew for longer. The difference between the two matches is that this one didn't go the distance. The third fall was short and as with most matches pre-apuestas they held back on the big stuff. That said, there was still plenty of cool shit. I really liked Santo in this match. I thought he took a tremendous back against the ropes beating and bleed so much his mask looked burgundy. The highlight of the match was the set-up for his tope, which looked like it was cut and paste from 1986. There aren't too many people who do a better tope than Santo, but this one was particularly nasty. Blanco took an awesome backflip over the ring barrier and looked like he'd been knocked into next week. He looked like the off-stump after a West Indian fast delivery for those of you who understand cricket. Other highlights included Solitario playing Fuerza-like rudo tricks with a kid and folks shielding themselves from Villano's blood which splattered with each blow. Like I said, the rudos won't have minded losing this match, and for that reason this was a bit of a slow burner to build more heat for the mask match, but it was another chapter in what just might be the feud of the year and well recommended.

I just watched the Lesnar segment on youtube and I have two questions: 1) Why did they cut to a behind the shoulder shot of the Titantron before Lesnar came out? 2) Why did Cena let Brock pose and hit the F5 on him? Yeah, it's wrestling, blah, blah... c'mon, the set-up was a handshake.

Updated my list with some of my recent picks: Steve Grey vs. Keith Haward (2/5/85) Jon Cortez vs. Keith Haward (1/13/87) Keith Haward vs. Chic Cullen (3/5/84) I really like Keith Haward. He had no personality whatsoever but he was a wrestling machine. The Cortez bout is the least problematic as the booking holds back the other two matches, but I really liked how Grey was forced to bring the physical side of his game to a catchweight contest with Haward and the Cullen bout was really solid wrestling with a really shitty finish. And one of Flik's picks, which I wrote about at Wrestling KO: Abe Ginsberg vs. Pete Curry (10/23/74) This ruled. It was one of Flik's choices over at PWO for the best WoS bouts. And a good thing he mentioned it too as I would've never watched it on name value alone. Ginsberg seemed like an interesting character. He wore a black leather helmet to the ring and Walton commented about how he often had a go at Kent through the ropes. He was all business here, however. He went up a class to take on a heavyweight in Curry and for a heavyweight match this was peppered with awesome looking holds, stiff moves and smash mouth wrestling. Sadly, as with a couple of other great looking workers this is the only Ginsberg match on tape. Gutted. Speaking of Wrestling KO, here is my monstrous European wrestling thread -- http://z11.invisionfree.com/wrestling_ko/i...c=2555&st=0

I guess if Vince was on the bones of his ass he'd have to take risks. It's kind of funny when you look at the Wrestlemania XIV card considering how much of a game changer it seemed at the time, but there have been some unbelievably shitty Wrestlemanias during boom periods. In fact, Wrestlemania is like the Oscars: you know it's going to be crap, but you watch it anyway because you want to see who wins. Somewhere along the way when they started building up the WWE brand, Wrestlemania became the biggest stage of them all where all these legendary matches take place and now there's an expectation that every year you're going to see something showstopping. I mean there was always the hope that maybe something great would happen at Wrestlemania, but now they actively try to make each and every Wrestlemania memorable. So I guess the question is would Sheamus v. Undertaker deliver on that even if it was a great match? I read the thread over at DVDVR and this is nothing against Brian Fowler, but would he think Sheamus v. Undertaker was some of the greatest storytelling in the history of the business? Because ultimately that's what people want from Wrestlemania when they plonk down their money. It seems like a bit of a juggling match to me. You could probably argue that it's a double mainevent one match should be used to elevate a new guy, but this whole Undertaker has a great match at Wrestlemania thing has taken on a life of its own in the past few years. I guess they're just milking it dry.

I guess they have no confidence in them drawing. After all, isn't there a tremendous amount of casual fans that make up the Wrestlemania buyrate? It does pose the question of what they're going to do when their previous stars are too old to keep coming back.

The issue is that WM is mostly a nostalgia show now. Has been for years. Save for Punk vs Jericho, the entire WM card was built around Taker, Michaels, HHH and Rock. The rest was an afterthought. Since when did Wrestlemania undercards not suck?