MJH

Nice to know I'm a cliche... . But I like plenty of "southern tags". I just thought that match was OK, rather than anything special. There was nothing there I haven't seen done plenty of other times, either as well or better. The best spot in the shine was the posting sequence and that's hardly original. I never felt there was a great rhythm to it, and I want more than punches. The backdrop wasn't the highest or prettiest in the world by any means, I'm not sure what the spot in the corner was supposed to be where Lawlers laying across it... though he did a nice bump to the floor for the cut off, and the slam on the outside, in the context of the rest of the match, was emphatic. The heat was fine but "there", and they went straight to the finish off the hot tag. The match was fine... but great? Not at all. Lawler's punches are great. And you're right, hardly anyone can do them well at all. But... I want more offence from a guy I'm supposed to be buying as the best in that territory/world/ace/whatever. As an old man working a veteran gimmick, sure, that's fine, like a broken down Kobashi. But for a guy in his athletic peak, I want more.

I thought the Lawler/Dundee-MX tag was decent enough, if run-of-the-mill. I don't see how you can call the match with Harley "a Lawler match" at all, though. Ignoring the fact that the touring world champ is going to be leading the thing, it's Harley's routine. That's not to say Lawler's bad in it (I'm not as impressed by a 'variety of punches' as you are - they're still just punches; what exactly makes it any more impressive than Kobashi having infinite chop variations?) but it's as obviously "a Harley match" as something eight or ten years later would be "a Flair match".

Tenryu's the most interesting "outsider" case I've heard. I'm all for revisiting the late-'80s stuff. I agree that he had the better singles matches in 85/86 with Choshu, certainly the last time I watched them which is going on a few years. Jumbo's singles matches with Choshu never really did much for me; but neither did Jumbo's matches with Hansen. Some guys just match up well, whilst others don't. Kobashi vs. Hansen was dynamite. Kawada not too far below. Misawa vs. Hansen struggled. I don't think the discrepency between them is any sort of barometer in their respective talent, just of chemistry. Vader matches up much better with Sting than he did against a lot of better workers (even if I'm not as high on those matches - or Vader - as some). Tenryu/Jumbo I watched recently (ie; that comp). I'd certainly veto any "Tenryu was better than Jumbo there". Tenryu was great, but Jumbo was better. Jumbo (for a much smaller time due to his illness) was a better "old man", too, than Tenryu's been. He had much better opposition, though, that I'll grant you. Tenryu may have been a Top 10 for the '90s in Japan. He's certainly between Misawa/Kawada/Kobashi and Hashimoto. Taue might have an outside case but I think the only thing Taue has on Tenryu is offence (Taue's biggest strength) and being a part of elite matches (with a much reduced role than the others - RWTL '96 is a career performance and he's third in the match). Benoit was better. Liger was probably better. Eddy was better too but if we only take his Japanese work then probably not. I certainly don't think Tenryu's a Top 10 worldwide for the '90s. And I haven't found any of the WAR stuff to be revelatory excellent. Deserving of more than it got previously, but dwarfed by others around it. Is there a good comparison outside of wrestling on the longevity issue? The Beatles are #1 for a seven year run. Of course they were releasing albums at a much faster rate than people do nowadays but no great band has longevity, do they? And, really, how *great* was Tenryu in the early '00s? Or even the second half of the '90s? The odd very good showing, perhaps, but *great*? I'm not so sure. Was his run as a top-level worker really longer than maybe 10-12 years? Others have that. And, besides, Jumbo has as great a longevity-based case as anyone; 16 years as a strong Best In The World candidate.

I'm not seeing the correlation between Jumbo and Fujiwara. Jumbo was pimped pretty much as soon as people were watching Japanese wrestling overseas. The whole "Jumbo was lazy" debate was only raging because in the '80s Meltzer was really high on him. Fujiwara was essentially ignored/forgotten for years.

Yeah, like Ditch said, the difference is the AJPW guys were revered at the time. Lawler wasn't considered a top US worker in the '70s/'80s, and was never considered (as far as I know) for the NWA Title, nor got extensive work overseas which between them are solid barometers as to how he was perceived. I didn't hear much of anything in the way of pimping Fujiwara until, what, 2006? I'm not saying it automatically makes it less valid, of course, but there's a pretty strong difference there.

On the matwork front - obviously it's only important if you place a credence on it in your work. I think Misawa/Kawada/Kobashi are the best ever... but a lot of their basic wrestling technique and matwork were very sub par. They were often lazy on whips, Misawa in particular would hop into his lock-ups, etc... Kawada, I guess, was OK on the mat; but what did any of that really matter? I always liked Takada's matwork, actually. I didn't find it "lazy". Was he as technically-gifted on the ground as Tamura? Not at all. But, like I said a few posts earlier, I think 12/84 with Yamazaki had strong, intelligent matwork. I always thought they were great with their body language and kept the crowd really well doing it. But I'm with Jerome on the "Takada was a pro wrestler first" thing. To his benefit.

Just to clarify a few things: (First to Loss on the "movements") I'll admit to being dismissive and skeptical of mass changing of opinions. When after years of being well-received but hardly revered, suddenly Fujiwara is proclaimed as an all-time great (when, unlike Lawler, the footage was always there), I think it's only natural to be hesitant towards it. And when it comes to Fujiwara and Lawler in particular, they fit perfectly in line with certain trends. Both are very stripped down, very "carny", very simple, etc... there's nothing wrong in that, of course, and I think both did deserve re-appraisals and deserve more popularity and plaudits than they'd got previously. I just don't buy either as a GOAT candidate at all. "Great" on occasion (I love the Fujiwara/Sayama matches; ditto the higher-pimped Lawler/Dundee stuff etc...), generally good-at-worst and often very good. Ultimately, I think Lawler was an over-achiever and too limited to be a true all-time great. Perhaps if he'd had a run with the NWA belt or something, and there was a chance to see him in Japan/etc... he'd've added certain things (the punches get tiresome for me, sorry). I like him plenty, but I just don't see a Top 5 US wrestler there. On Fujiwara there are times when I really like him, like the Sayama matches and there's an upset over Maeda circa 1990 I really liked even years ago, but other times he bores me (vs. Yamazaki/vs. Takada). Like Lawler there's a lot of charm and charisma, etc... but I don't see a GOAT guy.

Her earliest match with any real regard is the 1/91 match with Bull. There's some nice stuff before that, to be sure, I quite like the Chigusa match in March (I think) '89, and the tag match a month later. But there's nothing nearly as revered as her '93 stuff prior to Dream Rush. And there's no real great consistency to it either. Elements were there (especially the selling, that was there really early), but I don't think you can say she was at her peak until that point. The Hokuto of '91 through early '92 before she went to Mexico with Mita and came back as LCO/Dangerous Queen/bleached her/black outfit/etc, isn't a worker held up as a GOAT. You could say "great", but she was still on the way up. And she was hit-and-miss (and sporadic) once the retirement "road" started. Queendom's great; Big-Eggs a disaster. etc

Oh, I didn't mean people believed it was a shoot. Only that there was far less scope as to its "believability" then that there is now. I've heard far too much criticism of Takada's matches on the grounds that he did a spin kick or something similarly stupid; or that such-and-such was better because it/he holds up as more realistic-looking, etc...

Oh I don't think they're alone in it, just the (by far) worst culprit.

Is your criticism that guys use the same offensive moves in similar order? Because that has been going on for the entire duration of wrestling history and honestly I don't see modern WWE being any better or worse in that regard than any other promotion. Except they have set sequences rather than a set "moveset". Danielson doesn't just have the inside elbow/clothesline thing. He has a dropkick in the corner, switch on a whip, moonsaults over, hits the ropes, ducks a line and then hits the inside elbow/clothesline thing.

Who in the WWE doesn't have a set shine/comeback as a babyface? Doesn't have the same five or so spots they hit in the same order every match? What heel doesn't have the same resthold (FFS) and the same set of spots in their heat? It's not bad... but it's paint by numbers. Rey might throw in a more complex spot with a Jericho or Punk. Danielson may mix some other stuff in. But you can predict 95% of a match before it's happened, and in order. I mean, how many 619s did Rey hit/attempt in the Chamber, 10? It was a strong performance from him but really?

Peak vs. Longevity is a BS argument. Density is infinitely more important than duration. I know I ruled out Hokuto for GOAT on the grounds of having too short a peak, but that was a really, really short period as a top worker. Even if we limit Misawa to 1994-1996, that's three times Hokuto's run (Dream Rush -> TLTB '93 with some time off for injury), equally as dense per annum in great matches (if not even moreso), and he had stronger surrounding years too.

You're higher on the current WWE product than I am, Dylan. I'm more accepting of it than Jerome, say, as I do still watch it (at least enough with which to form an opinion), but I find the matches dull. They're not bad, and *WWF/E* has had more good matches week-in/week-out (at least on television) in the last 10/12 years than at any other point in it's history, but they're all by rote. Was the "paint by numbers wrestling" a quip of Dan's? Everythings so programmed in. Set shine. Set cut-off. Set heat. Set-comeback. Set-finishing run. The matches are "good", but I find them uninteresting. Whilst I said it's a critique of the decade that Rey is a WOTD candidate (though that phrase fits Danielson better), it's also a testament to his talent that he still stands out as being a great wrestler in such an environment.

I don't see Thesz getting roped into Hustle, either... "Shoot-style" is a hard thing to judge restropectively, anyway. No one had any idea what an MMA match looked like in 1991, and if people want to buy "this is what real pro-wrestling looks like" line, they're going to hold its realism either for or against it. Takada wasn't that kind of shoot-style worker at all, even though I'd argue that some of his Yamazaki matches fit the whole "chess" bill as a formative form of Tamura/Kohsaka (which is surely, equally, more about technique than it is story). What I always liked about Takada/Yamazaki matches was the perceptions of momentum that I'd get. They'd almost be working control segments. Maybe that was just my own interpretation and we all know that when you actively look for something you can join the dots in such a way as to make them fit but... It is interesting how matwork perceptions have changed, though. People used to criticise Tamura for being too flashy, for "just going for stuff" (whilst accepting he had such technique to be able to pull it off), whereas Takada would "plot" his counters more. Something like that. I thought the first Yamazaki match had great methodical matwork. It's "lazy" compared to Tamura and Han, sure, but what isn't? I said in the Yearbook thread I prefer their first match as I've always found it had the best balance of technique and story/character (even if it's Han's default match with young-ish, flashy native). --- I spoke about Toyota in the Yearbook thread too... I don't think she's a GOAT candidate at all. Broadening the scope beyond "it has to be one of the All Japan guys", I'm not sure if any of the early '90s girls really have a case. Hokuto's run was far too short and hit-and-miss either side of '93, and she'd surely have the best case? Jaguar has one, of course, and when you tie in her time as trainer, how far ahead she was of just about everyone before her etc... it's probably the strongest. Chigusa was great, but I don't see a bigger push. The thing with Toyota though is, I think, people are in danger of using her "GOAT" cred against her. When appraising her you can't overlook that she did x things as good, if not better, than anyone, ever; she's elite for pure moveset/workrate, as a FIP, as a bumper, probably as a "hot tag" too (the problem is she'd play both Morton and Gibson herself). She might not be a complete worker but still... To Jerome: Totally with you on Yamada. Never even rated Hotta. Probably hate her more than you (the last show I watched was a massacre of Fukuoka from 7/4/93). To Ditch: The Kyoko draw is what it is. To try and do their match for an hour is just about the craziest match plan I've ever seen. That they managed it for nearly 50 of the 60 minutes is staggering. Of course it's overkill. That's kind of the point. It's the ultimate realisation of the "leave it all out there" old-timer cliche. It's not a "great" match in a traditional sense, by the end its a mess. I wouldn't change it, though. --- Rey is great, but his contendership as '00s WOTD says more about the '00s than it does him (without trying to sound like I'm discrediting him, like I said, he's great). He's not a GOAT candidate, though. I can understand someone making the case as he was, maybe is, one of the few great wrestlers around/alive/still working. As someone said, Eddie's the better US/Lucha crossover candidate.

His UWFi run was never that highly regarded in relation to the '80s stuff, though... I mean the Vader series, yeah, particularly the second, and there was some love for the Allbright matches (though not as much as the Kawada one). There's a match with Sano (I think 10/94) that got some play as one of those niche underrated matches... but that's about it. Whereas the Yamazaki matches (specifally 12/84, 9/85 and 8/88), Maeda (11/88) and Backlund matches were routinely touted as Top 10 shoot-style matches. Maybe not so much the Backlund match for obvious reasons (and the Vader match would've fell into the same category), but they were "usual suspects" with Han/Tamura and Tamura/Kohsaka. There might've been a DVDVR push for Ikeda/Ishikawa as well. Even if one of those four drops out, that's three great, important matches in the "top ten"; that's generally enough to keep a high spot in a worker's list no matter how lazy he might've been against a Miyato. I refuse to beleive Nakano outworked him at any point ever, though. Fighting charmfully through a busted nose does not make him good. Edit: I can take the inconsistency argument, and I'll admit to being much less put about by someone "taking the night off". I really, really cannot see how he was the lesser performer in any of the Yamazaki matches, Maeda, etc... though. I haven't watched them in forever but I can't see Koshinaka outworking him. Hase? Kobayashi!?

That I have no answer for. I don't think Takada is a GOAT candidate, but to push him outside a "Top 10 Shoot-Style" blows my mind. Out of curiousity - what is the "contemporary opinion" of Takada/Yamazaki's 80s matches, Takada/Maeda 11/88 and Takada/Backlund?

People get way too overexcited by a guy playing a great douche character... I mean Anjoh was good, it's not as if he's Tatsuo Nakano, but really?

That's quite old for him, though, isn't it? But, no, I mean, it reflects worse on her at this point. Am I the only one who had to check, given the ring name, that she's an actual person and not Lawler making a joke?

I always liked DiBiase's criticism of Misawa/Kobashi/Kawada - "they worked harder than they needed to." And, yes, I'm aware of the wider point. No one's going to react much to someone calling Terry Funk GOAT, though; I think I have him at 1/2 US GOAT and that's a below-average position.

Oh, Jerome, I'll totally with you on Han and Tamura, I wasn't implying that all they had was the matwork. It's a bit like Blue Panther; that's their calling card, and the one aspect I feel safe as saying they were the best ever at. I think perhaps it's just that bit removed, or different, similar to how people talk of Lucha but in (especially) RINGs case being closer to an actual truth. There's "story" and "structure" to a point. You could say Han had a great moveset, he was as creative in his form as Toyota or Kobashi were really, but I find myself sort of transposing the idea almost. Selling, too, although that Tariel match (assuming you mean the '95 loss, which I agree is a fantastic short match and a fantastic performance/"carry job") is really an exception within the form, generally the selling's more pure body language, putting over the long-term toll rather than hobbling excessively to put over a kneebar or whatever. Tenryu, I'll agree, was pretty great. Fujinami too. But it's back to my first point; there's "great" and there's "might be the single greatest wrestler ever". I'll admit that the excessiveness of the "Lawler Movement" irked me into holding more against him, or focusing on what I didn't see there rather than the good stuff I did. (kind of like the NJ Juniors in the '96 Yearbook forum). I'd hear stupid arguments about how "Lawler showed more counters to a headlock against Race in their '77 broadway, ergo, he's better than Steamboat". Or something of that ilk. Whereas those headlocks were Race's routine (and he used the same ones with Steamboat) and I'd put the entire match as perhaps our best example of Harley's touring 60:00 routine. Lawler was great (or thereabouts) and I love his stuff with Bill Dundee. I think he just became too much of a poster-child for the whole "anti-moves", "big-up for brawls", "punches and angles for hicks = wrestling" trends etc... Ultimately I agree that his selling and bumping etc... were really, really strong, but there's a big leap between that and GOAT, isn't there? And, yeah, it's what Dan said. People are always more interested in what's new to them, it keeps things fresher. Though there is an anti-AJ rising; Misawa's death exacerbated the discomfort people felt with "dangerous" moves after Benoit's death. Do people really think Misawa or Benoit are less-talented? I couldn't say. I'd hope not, it doesn't affect me, I never really stopped watching or avoided Benoit's matches, and I don't wince any more than I used to at Misawa falling on his head. Maybe I'm alone in that...

I think the differentiation needs to be made between "an all-time great" (one of many) and "greatest of all-time" (singular). And, even still, I think there's only ever roughly the same dozen-or-so 'places', hence the pro-Fujiwara movement bringing an anti-Takada one... Lawler coincided with a fall (of sorts) for Harley etc... and then other people fall by the wayside like Dynamite etc... Personally I don't see much of an argument for the majority of the people on that list, though I'd call most "great". I've never got the Lawler/Fujiwara pushes, though I can see something in Lawler (the same for, say, Tenryu or Fujinami), but I think GOAT is laughable hyperboly. Ishikawa is even moreso. I'm as big a Han and Tamura fan as anyone, but I don't see a case at all - "best matwork" and that's about it. It doesn't mean they weren't great, but... [There's probably some European guys to be added to your list of "new-found great worker" etc...] I still think it has to be one of the All Japan Four (Jumbo, not Taue, of course). I can understand where Terry or Eddie comes from, and obviously Flair will always be around, but their best stuff was just on a different level to everyone else's.

If we're talking the US then I'd have to go with Benoit. But on a worldwide scale the AJ Big Three were still on their own level. If we're talking who of the three had the best average match quality, I'd say Misawa. 3/31 with Kobashi is the best men's heavyweight singles match. RWTL Final is, obviously, the MOTY. The 6/7 tag is my #2 tag and then the other various Misawa/Akiyama vs. Kawada/Taue matches are all up there too.

I've always just termed "sprint" in relation to the pace of the match (ie; "all-action", etc...) rather than it's length. You get 8:00 WWE matches worked at a slow pace and something like the RWTL Final worked at a pretty furious pace (certainly for heavyweights). I'd similarly term the latter a "sprint"; and I figure what separates it from "spot-fest" is obvious. I think "sprints" actually benefit Taue; he was at his best when just running through his stuff, particularly as a dominant figure.

This is a strong sprint, with a surprise finish, but it's one of their lesser matches together. If you're looking for an overlooked Misawa/Taue match, I'd take their one a year later (even with the blown finish) over this, but I think it goes to show you with All Japan when something like this comm (5/23 tag titles;this;KawadaKobashi) isn't really spoken of a great deal.