Matt D

To be fair, that's true with almost every match each and every one of has watched in this process. I've been on a purpose kick lately, because I think we undervalue the idea of "what is this match trying to achieve?" That's important, but so is context, both within the card and within the week/month/year. I still have no idea how anyone can answer this question for any match unless it is explicitly hammered home by commentary or some blatant, shout it from the rafters action in the ring. I'm not 100% sure how to respond to you. Obviously you think that wrestling is a far less nuanced, either intentionally or indirectly, art form than I do. I am honestly glad that you enjoy what you enjoy despite that. The best answer I can give you is that if you watch a lot of wrestling, you can see patterns. It's that if you learn about wrestling and about how cards built and were put together, you can come to see signs. Can you read things in that aren't there? Probably, which is why you don't just watch one or two or three or six matches for a process like this. You watch a lot and you try to see how two different wrestlers respond to a specific situations; you look at how a wrestler responds to two different situations. Can you ever KNOW? No. But you can think and you can feel. It's a manner of engaging with the text and making connections, which is the basis of almost all learning and understanding. As for a piss break? Yeah, that has a purpose and the question then becomes whether or not the wrestler did the best job he or she could in order to achieve the purpose of the match. How you weigh that relative to everything else is up to you, but I think it's ridiculous to penalize a wrestler for going out and cooling down the crowd if their job was to go out there and cool down the crowd. You don't have to reward them for it, but it's something to keep in mind for the sake of this project.

To be fair, that's true with almost every match each and every one of has watched in this process. I've been on a purpose kick lately, because I think we undervalue the idea of "what is this match trying to achieve?" That's important, but so is context, both within the card and within the week/month/year.

I have some 2002-3 in-person nostalgia for Joe killing people, so I'm being hesitant on that.He's someone that might get slotted in somewhere.

AJ is just making my list in the bottom quarter primarily on the last couple of years strengthening his case. Joe has a shot but I'm not sold. I'm not sure if I've ever seen that but I'll catch it later. Thanks for posting it.

Loss almost got Sting onto my list, but I can't justify it.

I'm high on Wiskowski but it's a footage issue to me. He wasn't around Portland as much as you think in that 79-82 period. Some of his work there is spectacular and the rest is solid but, it's not as much as I'd want. I was higher than anyone on the Bockwinkel draw in AWA, but I just don't think there's enough there. We get bits and pieces but there's enough that isn't as good as I'd like it to be that I would need more to really judge for sure.

Buzz is at the very end of my list right now and he's the guy who might not make it. In my own head, I have sort of a Brock Lesnar vibe with him, where he's so explosive and dynamic that I think I'm giving him more credit than I ought to as a total package for my list relative to the footage we have. It's making me want to fill the gaps with my imagination. We'll see. EDIT: He's gone. It's AJ Styles fault.

Just to close the circle here, in case anyone comes across this later, I made my counters in the Andre note, including writing up the very worst match that could be thrown at me in a manner that is fully consistent with the rest of my list. As for Blackwell, he's currently very close to dead center on my list.

Looking at my ballot, I feel strongly that he'd have a good shot at a 150 too. I'm not sure I can work him in the 100 though.

And here, a year and a half later, we have some doubt. I want to go extremely high on Virus, extremely. Over Atlantis. Over Blue Panther. Over Charles and Dandy. Maybe over Santo, Jr. We're talking #3 luchador on my list high, with one and two currently in my top five. The difference between him and people who I am trending far, far lower on like Solar I and Villano III is that we can watch him week to week very easily from 2010 or so on. I feel like I know exactly how good Virus is over the last six years or so. I feel like I have a very good sense of how good he was as a mini. The fact that he could play both roles is a huge deal to me. The fact that he has great high octane lightning matches, awesome indy maestro matches, excellent balanced title matches, is the glue in so many meaningless trios that are made considerably better by his presence, can coach and lead younger wrestlers like almost no one else... I'm extremely high on him. What I'm lacking, however, is a sense of how good he was as a lower-mid card tecnico for those missing years in the 00s. The only indicator I have is some evidence that people thought his rudo turn was long overdue.

I could honestly see someone go #1 with Breaks. He's someone I hadn't seen at all a couple of years ago and I haven't been disappointed once. He's so much of what I enjoy in wrestling, and there just aren't cracks in the act. Sure, we only have so much footage, but i never get the sense of "well, he was good in this and this situation, but he probably found himself in this situation now and again where it wouldn't hold up. We just don't have tape of that." When it comes to balancing footage issues, doubt is a huge factor, and I don't have any doubt when it comes to Breaks.

It's early and the DC Metro is shut so I got up 30 minutes early. Oh, yeah. I like his boots? Perro and Pirata will be pretty close on my list actually, but about 20 spots lower than they should.

Pirata is someone who never quite clicked with me. He'll make my list but lower than I feel like defending. I sort of blame VQ and camera work.

If it was Jim Duggan, he could have gotten them to chant USA though.

Never thought to ask but you rate Trish over Molly?

It's neutral to cover with a roll up. That's just to be expected by someone of his experience level. +1 would be showing creativity by shoving the ref to cause the DQ.

Oops, Parv needs to scratches off the +1 for Clever Adaptation in the Moment on BIGLAV.

Anyway, the issue is that they put together a Wrestlemania card barely worth the $10.

I still think this way of looking at things comes out with Mr Fuji vs. Chief Jay Strongbow as the best match of all time. And if that is the case, surely something has gone wrong. In terms of "efficency and effectiveness", I cannot really think of a match that touches it. I think this gets lost in the semantics and attempts at definition and explanation but 1.) Working Smart isn't the only thing I value when it comes to the GWE process 2.) What I value for the GWE process is not entirely what I enjoy in wrestling, though there's a lot of overlap. There is a difference between favorite and great. I acknowledge that, though usually if someone is your favorite then you find a lot of what they do great. I won't have anyone on my list that I'll sneer at, like how Parv said Low Ki on the podcast, but I'll have some wrestlers higher than wrestlers I enjoy more, because I think they are greater or better. They just happen to go against some of my preferences. We're trying to make the best lists we can. Getting OUT of GWE mode is going to take a few weeks I think. And 3.) I get that people might not believe this, but those of you who say "I enjoy what I enjoy because I enjoy it!"... That's not a radical thought. I think we're all in that boat. Have I found patterns in what I enjoy? Sure. Is it likely that if a match has certain qualities, I'll enjoy it more than ones that don't? Sure, but there are exceptions. Its not at all a science. I think there's a lot of value in trying to figure out why we like what we like, or why we think something is good, or not good, or what might have made it better in our eyes based on things within the realm of possible. That's the starting point for interacting with one another on matches and wrestlers. But it's not a case where I decided on a philosophical point of view first and then sought out matches second. I can understand why people might think that way, but it stemmed organically from me liking matches and not liking others and trying to figure out just why that was the case for both.

I saw Dusty vs Tank and the Lothario tag third fall. No major comments. Dusty was so great at working from underneath but it was interesting to me how the crowd seemed sort of reluctant to take the ride with him. Some of the brawling out on the floor was a lot of fun. I got a kick out of Tank's gear. He would have been a great 1991 WCW jobber. There was a lot to digest in the Lothario tag. I think what stood out the most was how well Lewin and Spoiler worked together in keeping the claw on Jose. It wasn't really southern tag distraction heat. It was more like a Texas Tornado Tag heat, where Lewin would just interfere freely but it was too late by the time the refs or Gomez could intervene. I wish the finish was a little better put together. They were doing a test of strength with a minute left. It didn't build the drama nearly as well as it could have. Lots to appreciate though. Every match with the Spoiler seems like a bit of luck.

They should turn Ziggler heel on Reigns tonight and have him be the first opponent for champion Reigns post-Mania. That'd do the trick.

I just follow OJ around the wrestling world three years behind.

I should see that Fuji match.

The arena crowd isn't the only crowd in 2016, especially for things like Superstars matches.

No one touched my last explanation. I understand that Harley Race pile drivers are distracting but I'm not going down that road again while that is stil there. I'd much prefer Johnny logic'ing Parv and Flair drinking together and talking about Shakespeare.