Matt D

You'll still get something great, don't get me wrong, but not something uniquely great.

After having watched hundreds of Joshi matches in the final weeks before the poll I just can't agree with this even though I really want to. Do I believe that people (perhaps myself included) oversimplify Joshi and other styles at our worst? Almost certainly yes. That said the criticisms I have pointed to about Joshi as a style are criticisms that could apply to Nagayo and Jaguar before Toyota was even on the scene. That she was the absolute worst expression of those habits and flaws I won't argue, but she was in no way the first, nor was she an anomaly. Going through the footage I discovered that I much prefer almost all of the Joshi workers as tag wrestlers. I've thought a lot about why that was the case, and the best I can come up with is that it seems to have forced their hand a bit more on selling, and made the "go-go" elements a bit less eye roll-y to me. In any event there are certainly people who understood build (Kudo) and could sell there ass off (Hokuto), but part of what makes them stand out is that they are exceptional. If the idea is that the discussion of Joshi as a style is too absolute in its criticisms I suppose I could buy it, but if the discussion is that there aren't consistent and unique trends within the style that many people will find problematic I think it's way off base Tag matches in general allow for an "out" when it comes to kick outs, that being the interference pin break-up. (As an aside, 2/3 falls tags are even better because it allows for a big finishing move or two in the middle without completely destroying the pacing. Most indy tags now seem to want to have those without the pin/transition of a fall break).

I have a hard time figuring who'll come next at this point. Eaton has to drop soon. How high can Regal get?

What about now? I have no problem with Santo over Cena. I had Santo pretty high. Like I said I have more problem with a guy like Austin over Cena, because they are a like for like comparison and Cena is better. EDIT: Bret too. Fuck that off. You put Austin really high. You must have.

I am sort of morbidly curious to watch this out of context. In context, after hours of relatively mediocre wrestling, it was something that we, as a community, banded together to survive.

Very big jump for Morton (I had him high, was almost the high vote actually, so no complaints). What's the footage boost here? Mid-South set, some Houston matches, more disseminated SMW, some early Memphis and some late Memphis? A bit more Crockett?

I feel like this is a dangerous statement, probably an ignorant one, so bear with me. I'm trying. One thing I discovered in learning to watch lucha is that my preconceived notions were wrong. Why were they wrong? Part of that was due to my exposure being mainly WCW. Part of it, however, was the tradition of lucha fandom that I had encountered in the past where 90s AAA was the pinnacle and it was the pinnacle very much for the spots and "workrate" and dives. Obviously in circles such as this one, or Segunda Caida, other elements were lionized and valued. Maybe with a deeper read of old Observers starting from a point of knowledge instead of ignorance, I would have seen that as well. In starting to watch joshi earlier in this project (albeit with incomplete results), I came in with similar notions, that it was about workrate and movez and go-go-go or whatever. I think I got that from the same sources, including going through all of Herb's wrestling tidbits, (http://rspw.org/tidbits/) and old Observers and just having this 20 year old understanding. I think some of the shifting about of specific luchadores in the list relative to ten years ago was due to people coming to it in the last five years and valuing storytelling and character work differently than in years past. I know that's a talking point for me in general, but I think things certain specific results bear it out up and down the list. I think that the 90s sets have done some of that reevaluation with joshi, but that it's a relatively early process, and that there will be gains in years to come as people continue to tackle it with different preferences and from a different angle than was done in the 90s into the early 00s. I could be wrong about any part of that, though.

All we can ask is for people to give him a chance. If he doesn't cut it for you I strongly disagree obviously, and I'd love to know why, but I wouldn't want anyone to rank someone for peer pressure reasons. All of this is another way of saying that if I could do it again Bret doesn't make my list. I'm with Dylan on this on both counts. I'd be curious to know why as well. That said, I had a few candidates that almost made it due to peer pressure of one sort of another, some that made earlier drafts of my list only to be removed at the last second and even a few that did make it for that same reason. I'm happy with where certain people (like Hansen) ended up, but less so on others. In general, I wasn't griping at any specific person there, just at generalities in the historiography of wrestling fandom that made a "win" necessary in the first place. So I'll apologize for the tone and certain implications. I was shouting at clouds. I'll try to ride out the rest of the process with a little more grace and just a little less unbridled passion.

I didn't have either Dusty or Hogan on my list, but I think it's dangerous to attribute their ranking to "not everyone was voting just on in-ring work," though i imagine that is part of why some people did vote for them. I think that would tell half, or maybe even less than half the story. (That doesn't change your general point. I just have heard it a few times and I don't think that's entirely what's happening, especially for Hogan who fell relatively high).

Catch the big matches first, but I'd suggest at least looking at a few of the more incidental things, like, for instance, the Dusek match, where he works a total loser who dared to show some backbone against him and stop putting up with his crap. (Angle to set it up): Match: Or the King Parsons match, to see how he could work a match with one wrestler to set up someone else's debut. Or the Hector match to see how he works someone with stylized offense that was more of a novelty than a real threat:

Alright, if I wanted it badly enough, I could have done better with it. Fair point. It's my fault for not pushing harder on certain things to have a more complete list. I'll rescind the argument, at least until Bock drops. We'll see how I manage then. EDIT: Breaks Avatar entered and adjusted for accordingly as well. It works better if you click on it for full effect.

I feel like the DVDVR guys should have a vaudeville act.

One thing that Loss has been absolutely right upon is that we, in general, did a poor job of stumping for anyone, especially comparatively. It was much more about our personal journeys. Even things like the Flair pods were about Flair, not necessarily about Flair relative to anyone else (same with the aforementioned Satanico post), though those were at least done with the thought of raising his ranking (or ensuring his #1 ranking). I'm not sure if that would have moved the needle due to outside votes and the sheer time span of this project. I know posts trying to sum up wrestlers came after people had already submitted their lists, for instance. I think there was a lot of people going off in all directions and then speaking towards the people who went off in that direction as well. I'm not entirely sure what would have fixed that, except for something that looks a lot more like the presidential primaries. I said this to Stacey on the pod and I mean it more generally: I'm excited for people to discover Buddy if they haven't yet, especially his week to week brilliance, even more so if that's not a way that they usually digest great wrestling (as opposed to necessarily great matches), just in the way that I'm looking forward to working my way through more Choshu or Hokuto or Tamura. You can only see something for the first time once, after all.

I am uniquely suited to have no idea how to find Japanese wrestling. (I did find a Taue/Hansen match there at one point but people pointed me that way pretty clearly and I didn't even think of it when I tapped on Hashimoto).

Yes, and I am as much of an ass as everyone else. Some of it is availability too though. You can't find enough Hashimoto matches on YouTube. I wanted to rank him but I did not have enough to wrap my mind around him with. You can with Buddy.

And isn't that kind of frustrating? a little, but the improvement he's made on reputation over the last decade is great. I'm sure it will continue to rise and in 2026 he can take his place in the top 20 where he belongs. I bet Zack Sabre Jr or someone beats him.

10 mins in to the DVDVR one, and for some reason I cracked up big at who DEAN ranked over Akiyama. It's going to be hard to listen to this at work.

And isn't that kind of frustrating?

EDITORIAL NOTE FROM 2020: I end up apologizing for this rant a few pages later. Dear reader, I ask for your kindness and for you to celebrate my passion. Please do not judge me too harshly. I fight but for my own personal truth and I fight with all my heart. I hope for you to do the same! Dandy was in my top 30, I think. I don't think he holds a candle to Satanico. But he's an emotional wrestler, and I tend not to trend quite as highly on those. I think the footage is highly in Satanico's favor as well, mind you. It's interesting to see that he was in maybe 10 less ballots than Dandy but ranked higher on average. As for Buddy and why I can't just shut up and celebrate it? Let's see: 1.) I'm personally invested. As in I ranked him high, I'm passionate about him as a wrestler, and I wrote probably fifty match reviews and an essay that is the most I have ever put into anything in wrestling, probably. 2.) I honestly think he's better than almost any other wrestler I've come across, save for one or two (as he's my three) and I would have ranked him higher than those areas I did not rank without hesitation. 3.) He trends against "great matches" though he has those, so I guess I'm a little personally frustrated anytime I see a thread asking "What Buddy Rose matches do I have to see?" because the answer is all of them from 79-82, and you won't fully get even half of the picture if you don't take that journey. The footage is out there for anyone to see right now. I get why people can't or won't do that, but that's just a general frustration about life and the watching of pro wrestling, not against any specific person. 4.) Because I don't really care about the growth. I wasn't part of 2006. Most of the voting base wasn't. And with some people I care to some degree, but with Buddy? No way. What I care about here is the primal truth. I'll feel exactly the same about Bock when he drops. I get the arguments against them when it comes to time and what we don't have. I really do. But I don't see them outside of the top fifteen even with those. In 2006, people had the excuse of ignorance. Most of the footage wasn't out (or was JUST out) or wasn't easily available. It's a different world now, and in this world, he's too low. I understand the placement and why he wasn't higher, but understanding and celebrating are two different things. I am not celebrating the growth because I care enough to still be frustrated at the positioning and I'm not going to apologize for caring.

Still complaining. The footage is all out there. Good on Hales the younger. I was the #3.

You all suck.

Satanico should have been higher. I don't see a case for Dandy over him. Frankly, I don't see a case for almost anyone over him. He was in my top 5.

Michaels was in the right spot on my list, #80, one under Mark Henry. I had Henry way too low though.

I wish Johnny apologized a little more.

This is a true statement, but we lost two as well, so I won't point fingers.