MJH

I'm not disagreeing that '88 is the better overall year... but those '98 matches fit better for me in that bracket.

I agree with Loss. We're all prone to shitting (often overly so with hindsight) on things we don't like. Do some of his posts come off as (perhaps) overly-negative with regards to modern WWE? Sure; and he's made it abundantly clear that he doesn't like it, so that's to be expected. But the idea that he's vague about what he doesn't like about it? I've never found that at all. The whole "self-conscious epic" term is one I got right away. Is it the most "concrete" way to criticise the match? Probably not, but it sums it up. Hell, it's not as if he called Cena/Punk bad, I'm pretty sure he referred to it as "good" in one of these threads, and I think he said the same for HBK/Taker. I mean, it's probably something we should drop and agree-to-disagree on because both sides are pretty much set and have stated their respective cases. I might not always agree with Dylan, for instance, I mean we've gone back-and-forth over various stuff, but I've never questioned the backing-up of his arguments; I'll always give his arguments the light of day as it were. And the same for Jerome. Whilst I support the idea behind the yearbook sets completely, and viewing matches in context is how they're intended to be seen, BUT, if anything, the perspective of someone who doesn't watch WWE as regularly as myself/Dylan/Will/whomever is to be encouraged because they'll have that different perspective on it. They won't be seeing it in relation/by the standard of WWE in 2011, and it's important to have both angles.

I don't know... I'd say 11/1/88 - 11/1/98. That way you get Takada/Maeda, Takada/Backlund and the '88 RWTL "Final", and you get Kobashi/Kawada, Tamura/Kohsaka and Misawa/Kobashi from '98. Is '98 a "great year for wrestling"? Probably not, but those three matches (and Takada/Maeda and Hansen+Gordy/Tenryu+Kawada) fit nicely in that overall period. In fact, Takada/Maeda is quite possibly the best start.

I'm amazed this is even up for discussion...

I can't deny that, but unless that's your sole criteria ('being a star'), I don't see the argument. Was the product taking a downturn before he came along and rejuvenated it? Did the ratings spike when he was on, or were they moreorless the same regardless of who appeared? Is there a breakdown that shows he was more important a draw than McManus, Kendo Nagasaki, Jackie Pallo/etc before them, or even Rocco/Marty/Johnny Saint etc? Where the shows he worked on notably bigger gates than those he wasn't? His legacy is as a joke (I mean, a complete and total joke). He didn't elevate a single person from being paired with him. He's in the absolute lowest percentile of workers I've ever seen. Being an asshole is a non-factor; if he had Eaton's reputation as a nice guy it wouldn't make the blindest bit of difference: he was the (insert a thousand superlatives) shits.

Whatever argument there is for Big Daddy is off-set by him being a fucking joke, and suitably remembered as such. I've never heard a single person reminisce about WoS without talking about how much of a shitty embarassment he was. I'd love to see the ratings/attendance breakdown that shows he (rather than Joint Promotions) was actually a significant draw compared to other guys.

I'd forgotten how good a cut this is... But, yeah, similar to what I said about Kawada/Kobashi 4/14. This is brutal and just perfectly done for what it is (an extended squash). You just don't get stuff that looks this much like a fight anymore. Those nodowas, too, are some of Taue's best. Oh, Taue's post-match quote being 'que sera sera' made me laugh...

One of a few random thoughts as I'm upto 5/21 on the AJ set... I haven't seen a closing stretch done this well in years. You can't judge the match too much on it, given how little aired, but their selling, execution and the believability/etc of what they were doing, even by the standards of AJ at the time rather than from a month of watching something completely different, was incredible.

I remember this, but not whether or not I replied. If I didn't, well... I can see your point but I think it's also missing mine/Jerome's. "Every match is basically the same" doesn't mean, literally, every match is moreorless identical. It means, the matches are formulaic. If you've seen a handful of Cena matches you know the general form they're going to take, the general order he's going to do his spots in. Or Christian. Or Danielson. Or anyone. Now, yes, in a wider sense, that's true of a lot of wrestling, and even if you watched 100 straight Terry Funk matches you'd pick up on "how he liked to work"... but it's never been so exact elsewhere. A nice sequence in Cena/Punk SS was that Punk got in shots between the shoulder tackles/"blue thunder"?/5-knuckle shuffle of Cena's comeback. Jericho is/was, also, very good at exploiting/twisting these set sequences. But it only works because they're set sequences. I think I used Danielson as an example rather than Cena the last time? About how he can't just hit the inside-elbow/clothesline off the ropes he has to get switched on a posting, run-up and flip backwards over the heel, hit the ropes, duck a line and then hit the inside-elbow/clothesline thing. That's what we mean. It doesn't vehemently bother me exactly, but it is absolutely there, and is absolutely a weakness of the style. I don't think Jerome/Ditch is arguing that the camera work makes good matches bad... only that it's very distracting. I'm kind-of used to it at this point, but yeah, it can take you out of a match. It might well be a "horseshit term", but I know what Jerome means and we spoke about it on DVDVR IIRC. HBK/Taker I would be the better WrestleMania example, though, I thought HHH/Taker had more of a singular narrative/story to it than HBK/Taker or Cena/Punk. The general idea, as I understand it, is, "oh, well, if the finish is strong enough we only have to kill time for the first half". There's other aspects to it, but that's the general idea. HBK/Taker was, as I've said before, and I don't see an argument otherwise, 10 minutes of nice but generic "big vs. small" stuff, the reset on the double-dive, and then an escalating run to the finish. I liked the match, I thought it was good and it works perfectly in that setting with guys with their history/connection to the audience. But the drama is caused by the 2.9999s, not by any story. Cena/Punk didn't establish anything early at MitB. They coasted on the crowd (almost to the point of losing them). They did more at SummerSlam (and I thought the work was tighter), but there wasn't any real "storytelling" going on. They brought HHH into the match with the 1-counts in a way that didn't interfere too much - and I liked - and they established that Cena is stronger (duh), Punk is quicker/craftier, etc... but they remained "equals" in so much as no one had any established control for any real period of time. You have to build that to a 'key spot'; a la Misawa/Kobashi 10/97 (early use of TS85) or even Batista/Cena (top-rope legdrop -> powerbomb counter). The "key spot" ended up being the actual finish with HHH not seeing Cena's leg. On the one hand, then, it did build to it, but you could sense the huge deflation in the crowd, it really was a horrible finish. I know they needed to keep Cena strong, and Punk had to stay strong, but it's still fucking you over. One of the main problems is they either seem too forced in putting over the match (HHH/Taker), or not enough (Cena/Punk). And because they only really have 1, maybe 2 finishes, it's one-move a piece at the very tail end which only leads to counter-overkill and guys not being able to really put over the other guy's stuff as well as it should be. Like I've said before, here, elsewhere... I perfectly enjoy HBK/Taker, HHH/Taker, Cena/Punk etc... I think they're good, strong in the current climate/standards... But *great* means a lot more than that to me.

You have to take into account how much TV they have, though. Raw/Smackdown/Superstars/NXT is 4hrs per week taking each hour as having ~20mins missing for the ads. Of those 4 hours, how much time is taken every week with good matches that'd score well on, say, the DVDVR Yes/No thread? You get maybe one or two matchs per week going into that, so, 25-30 minutes? ~12.5% isn't something to be celebrating. It's an equally small percentage of bad matches, yes, but matches you'd remember a few months from now?

"Not very good" can still mean he's "good", "solid", "ok", "fine"... it doesn't have to equate to being awful/terrible/whatever. Now, of course, maybe Jerome does think that Cena's the absolute drizzling shits . I don't, I think he does enough stuff well-enough to be fine; every so often I think he was good in such a match. I don't think I've ever thought he was "very good" though. As far as awkwardness goes, of course it has a bearing on his ability. Is it the be all/end all? No. But people are very forgiving towards Cena in that regard; a lot of what he does looks bad and would look even worse live/without the WWE changing shots to hide the impact on everything. It doesn't bother me so much at this point (I can understand it bothering Jerome a lot more, as an example of someone who doesn't watch very much modern WWE) but the idea that execution is completely irrelevent is ridiculous.

"Not very good" isn't "shitting" on him; nor is calling him "awkward" when he pretty clear is.

I'm in the middle on the WWE in-ring style. Like the production, it's very protecting: a babyface has his set shine, his set comeback, his set entrance, his set pose, his set finish, a handful of set bumps; a heel has his set bumps, his set entrance, often his set rest-hold during the heat/control, his set 3/4 spots he works into the heat, his set finish. It's very choreographed and dot-to-dot/paint-by-numbers, but you can plug anyone of a moderate ability into it and they'll do OK, which is what it's designed to do. Great workers can still have strong matches within it, but you do have to just accept the fact that Rey has to the do the 619 and, much much much more importantly, has to do it in such a way that the guy is in position for it so the crowd know it's coming. I might suggest "how about hitting it when the heel's crawling up the ropes and then just as his head pops above the middle *boom*...", but the reality is - even though I fully believe the crowd would recognise it/see it coming - the agents/Vince would chew the guys out for not milking it and the 'spot-that-puts-them-in-position' is a spot (ie; a pop) unto itself.

Ego, in-fighting: pretty much the same reason any popular group disbands really. There's probably a more detailed account in the Observer at the time (repeated, though truncated, in the various HOF bios).

Just for the sake of stating a number, whilst I'm not sold on Rey as an absolute GOATC, I don't see how he's outside Top 25 and that's being loose; I probably have him in the 15-20 bracket but that's without making a conscious list in my head. Like I said in the Punk thread, I think he's become "THE" US Babyface worker, and he's also my '00s WOTD.

I'd agree on "splitting hairs" definitely, but as far as it being "really hard" to make the case that Eddy's better? I'm not saying it's a 'slam dunk' comparison that Eddy > Rey; they're both great as in great and not "so-and-so's been pretty great recently". Eddy's obviously far more well-rounded (though when you're Rey's size and I'm sure he probably still looks about 15 without a mask, he was always going to be "limited" in that regard) and had a wider range of what he could do; he could fly and base really (really) well, do great comedy schtick (Chyna; Loss Guerreros/Lie, Cheat Steal) to really intense, and whilst I do think Rey was a better pure face worker, like I said the best ever in the US for me, I do think Eddy's actual connection with the crowd was more resonant. Whilst he was great at it, probably the most spectacular flyer to've come around at the time, I do think Rey's "junior peak" (? I know he's not even close to technically being a heavyweight now but you get what I mean) is more spectacular than anything else. The work itself is beautiful with Juvy and Psicosis, but as I've watched them back at various points, none have really struck me as being nearly as well-laid-out as Rey's stuff has been in the last decade. I mean, Rey's sensational at Havoc - you could hardly be any more en pointe with those spots - but at the same time, it's clearly Eddy's match.

It's probably best transferred into the earlier GOAT-thread if we're running with the segue but: Rey's great - the only guy in the world I'd call great. But I don't feel any urge to put him on that kind of a pedestal. I mean, at any point when he was alive, given their "down turns" basically coincided, was he Eddy's equal? I don't think he was (not that that's by any means an insult). And whilst perhaps his work in the last 5/6 years has put him over Eddy on a career-vs-career basis, and there's still your usual problems with modern WWE that you can use to argue against that, I'm still not fully sold nor do I think you could make the case when a very obvious contemporary and comparative worker was better for so long. What I do think Rey is, though, absolutely, is the best US babyface worker. I know Dylan's high on Morton, but if Steamboat was the barometer of the past I think Rey's jumped him.

Their '91 match is definitely worth watching too. Tamura was such a strong young talent and Anjoh was a perfect opponent.

Not to mention being totally wrong for Cody Rhodes to be doing, but hey...

I've brought this match up elsewhere at times, but I was surprised watching this just how much it's Benoit doing the work; I wouldn't say he's "leading Liger by the hand" or anything, but he's clearly dictating and controlling this and just looks great. The likelihood is he had been for a little while before this, but this is my signpost as where Benoit became the best junior in the world and a great, great fucking wrestler.

I'm pretty sure the guy translating for her was glad for it.

Didn't Michelle leave to essentially be his full-time carer?

Given Edge was tearing up before the bell, I'd wager he knew it was very likely to be his last big match.

Whilst I don't think Masters ever got anywhere near *great*, you can see how hard he was working to improve and how much thought he was putting into his work to make it better. As a result it can look forced and deliberate, but it's hard not to appreciate the effort: the guy certainly deserved a second break.

April would've been too seen, I was throwing a thought at the wall, but... I'm still not sold on Aja/Bull being as big as it could've been. When's the last time you saw such a big match in any company be booked second from top? I still really like it, but it's as if that era had already ended, and the switch is a month or two late for me. Maybe they could've done it late September/early October? I don't know. But then you also have Hokuto/Kyoko hitting a home run before them and the main event being basically a World Series winning Grand Slam. I don't see too many people coming out of that show with Bull/Aja being the first thing on their mind/lips after that.