Matt D

For anyone on the fence, Dotdokins just posted two Larry matches, one vs Martel (and the video length is around 30 so who knows) and one vs Steve O that seems to go closer to 15.

He'd make my 300.

On paper, the results were all pretty much what a USA MARCH TO WRESTLEMANIA show should have. The people they needed to shine for the show were highlighted and won. But the execution of it left something to be desired at times.

This is a very weirdly put together card. Multiple superplex spots or teases. The spinning Clothesline as a big spot two matches in a row. Figure-fours in two matches.

It would have worked if we got Stardust vs Brock and Harper vs Zayn though!

After watching this card, I am okay with only one person wrestling on it making my 100. (Pre-show doesn't count) That's not to say it hasn't been fun, but yeah. I'd say Jericho has a shot at the bottom ten, but I need room for Mike Jackson, so we'll see.

They introduced Brock from Saskatoon, so probably not.

Sorry Steven. Its not about logic to me. Logic is a tool. Selling is a tool. Spots are tools. Physical ability is a tool. Blood is a tool. Stiffness is a tool. Jim Cornette at ringside is a tool. Working smart is using the tools on the table efficiently and effectively to maximize the potential meaning of everything that happens in the ring. I would add "in order to achieve a specific purpose" at the end of that sentence (or "in order to create a greater whole" works as well, or hey, "in order to achieve a specific purpose and to best build to a greater whole"), but that's something I'm still working out and I can see if other people care about that less. And if anyone wants to get more clarification, ask me in 2017. I'm good for now.

Parv stooging for his rogues gallery of wrestlers is the best part of this by far.

As noted, I really liked the duel facelock as a comeback, actually. It's the few minutes before that which were more of an issue, but I stand behind what I wrote up there. I know what I'm getting with Andre. I get what you're saying. I'd much rather have occasional bits of that (and from what I've seen something so egregious, and it wasn't even all that egregious when I looked at it closely, is rarer than indicated) than the far more energetic and dynamic but utterly match-damaging stuff that Hansen was doing in those AJPW tags, for instance. If that's the worst you can throw at me, I feel pretty okay with things.

Probably more later, but I care much more about purpose now. What is a match meant to accomplish? What is it trying to accomplish? etc. Every match in the history of wrestling had some purpose or another and usually it's not just to entertain or to fill time (though some are). I think it's really interesting to look at the balance between those goals, how the wrestlers try to achieve them, and if they can do so while having an entertaining, engaging, compelling, interesting, (and maybe logical) match.

Thoughts: Well, this was a match. The problems are obvious: 1. The transition wasn't devious enough. It wasn't craven enough. It didn't quite lead from the stalling well enough, though it did a little bit. You can make that connection, as Studd got over on Andre after escaping him a number of times and stalling/recovering, and he got over by attacking right on his way in and using his height. There should have been something more overt and blatant and underhanded. 2. The heat was one long front facelock which wasn't worked well as it came to hope spots and cutoffs. They rolled a bit. They were moving at least most of the time, working it somewhat, but not nearly enough. There was one point where the fans were really getting into it and Studd cut THEM off if not Andre, and that was good wrestling, but there just needed to be more of Andre trying to make it to his feet. They did enough that he didn't lose the fans, enough that I don't think it's a blight on wrestling by any means, but I don't think they did enough. It's interesting to me that what they did was still so effective despite it all. Some of that is definitely in the heat garnered by Studd's early stalling. 3. While I think the (As Monsoon put it) "reverse double arm bar" was actually quite effective when it came to what Andre was trying to do in the shine, namely to keep Studd in the center of the ring and control him so that he couldn't escape again, I would have liked to see something a little more visually dynamic, maybe Studd bumping into the corner a few times, for instance. I get why they kept the actual strikes to a minimum until the end, but there were other things they could have done to portray either Andre's anger, or his gleeful control of the situation. That said, there were things I liked: 1. I loved Studd's early stalling. There's something about someone so big doing it so slowly. Like I said in my notes, it's not laziness in this case because it took him far more effort to move that slowly than if he had actually just moved at a normal speed. The jawing with the fans was especially great, and all the stuff with the towel. 2. The towel actually paying off in the finish. I'm a sucker for Chekhov's Gun, ESPECIALLY when I'm not expecting it. That took me by surprise. 3. Again, I think the "reverse double arm bars" are both a pro and a con here. I did like it that Andre's main goal in the shine was preventing Studd from escaping and stalling again. I thought the surfboard/strength stuff, while not elaborate by any means, was primal and effective in accomplishing what they were trying to portray (Studd IS strong, but despite his bluster, Andre is stronger. That's the entire point of their feud!) I think the stuff he was starting to do with the arm was fun too. I wish he had done a little more of that. Andre is so striking just in tossing his body at something. 4. I liked the moment of Andre wrapping his arm around Studd's head to counter the facelock and start the comeback. Yeah, sure, it was just a little thing, but the fans went nuts and for Andre? For the match they were working? I liked that more than a Hogan stand up and three elbows out sort of deal. I think the camera didn't properly catch Studd on his feet pushing into it as Andre pushed on his way back, and again, Studd going for the hair at the very end, an admittance (once more) that he just wasn't GIANT enough to deal with Andre, was perfect, especially because even THAT wasn't enough. 5. And the finish was perfect for what they were trying to do, putting, once again, the question of "Can Studd really pick him up?" into the fans' head with the fireman's carry over the top rope and following that with paying off the towel (which symbolically pays off all the stalling) and Andre lifting him which provides the fan with the answer that they already know, even if Studd gets to escape and live with his reputation (and money) for another day. Maybe NEXT time is the time Andre will finally get to do what we all know he can do now! Better buy that ticket! So, were there bits of execution I would have been preferred to be better? Yes, absolutely, but this wasn't nearly as bad as you guys were making it out to be and I'm actually a little shocked that you didn't enjoy Studd's stalling early on.

Notes (thoughts to follow):

I'm on the Studd road now. It won't change anything but you'll make me work for it at least.

I would honestly rather not do Studd, because Andre apparently loathed the guy and I would believe that he would not just be lazy, but actually would attempt to tank the match. Studd is the one pass (and the only pass) I'd give him and even then, I'd give him some credit for knowing how to sabotage a guy, even if it's a mitigating factor at best. Him hating someone to the extent that he doesn't want to be professional with him is a pretty deep exception for something like this list in my eyes. You have my actual notes from the Mulligan match as I was watching it, which I think is as much proof as anything that I'm not actively cherry picking here. That said, if you really want me to write it up, Kelly, I will. I made the offer after all.

Bumping this, because I was genuine. I'll take up another "terrible Andre match" challenge if someone really feels strongly about giving me one, but it'd probably be more of the same.

It's amazing. Jericho's gone from pretending to be Bockwinkel to pretending to be Miz. I could see Miz giving that promo almost word for word, just with better, more earnest delivery, which is funny, because Jericho probably believes a lot of it anyway.

People would think that it was too hokey/unbelievable.

I'm hoping that we don't see the Portland set for at least a few months. While I'm familiar with a huge chunk of the matches that will almost certainly be on it (and they're all going to be great and people will love it), I need a little bit of a break from list making. I was talking to Loss a little while ago about making lists in general and how specific criteria makes things easier. He said it he was more interested in something like "best match of a specific year" or what not, but that's not hugely appealing to me save for the discussion maybe. On the other hand, he didn't find "best hot tags" or what have you too compelling at this stage of his watching. The middle ground I thought was interesting was more narrative based, but also match based. Something like "Best big man vs little man matches" where we see how different wrestlers handled the same narrative challenge. I don't think I hooked him with that though.

BIGLAV: +1 for Johnny actually critiquing something

If we were making a list of our favorites, Garza would probably be in my top 15. That's not what this is and he likely won't even make my top 50, but I'm probably still going to be the high voter on him, based almost entirely on the back half of his career. He was really the ultimate middle ground between athleticism and character. Not only was, he so, so smooth in almost everything he did physically (most especially the corkscrew plancha and the way he'd bound up to the top rope for his moonsault), he was an amazing, emotive rudo, someone who felt to me like the heir to Eddy Guerrero. I could watch him react to a total stiff like Jon Strongman Anderson all day. He's someone who could make whatever was happening in the ring immediately a thousand more entertaining and meaningful through his reactions. I probably put 10+ gifs in the review below, and while gifs are a terrible way to get across someone's candidacy, I think it fits here. http://segundacaida.blogspot.com/2015/03/mlj-2010-garza-odyssey-20-strong-man.html

We've been working so hard on this for years now and especially focusing on matches through a very specific lens. There is a sense of "eating your vegetables" that I think people are expressing to some degree, and of boxing wrestlers in to one set of criteria or another just so that we can make a list. As ambitious and enjoyable as this process has been and even though it's opened a lot of us up to wrestling we wouldn't normally watch, or that we might not have watched in such a crash-course manner, I think most of us don't entirely find the ideal wrestling viewing one where we're constantly keeping a top 100 list in mind. So I'm asking what's next for people? We've found lots of different strands to explore out of this process, roads that we couldn't fully go down to the depth we wanted. Or maybe it's comfort food, or being able to revisit some things without having to think too much about it. 1. First and foremost, it's 80s NJPW. Fujinami and Choshu and all that. I'm probably going to nab the 80s set. 2. More WoS. I have a lot more to watch. I still have only dipped my toe in for all that's out there and i enjoy it a lot. It's a great way to spend 20-30 mins at a time, and I really like Kent Walton. 3. Joshi. I don't even know where to start. I have some sense where NOT to start, mind you. I could watch Aja Kong all day, but there's also a lot of storytelling elements you don't get in almost any other sort of wrestling that makes it an interesting thing to explore. 4. Shootstyle. I'm not big on the really punchy stuff, but the more grapply stuff... 5. I'd love to watch Continental at length at some point. Maybe I'll get there.

I don't think it needs to be an either/or thing, though, and the people who will do best on most people's lists are likely wrestlers that can manage both things well, or that don't sacrifice one for the other, or that don't rely on one as a crutch. (I don't think my list is necessarily most people's lists, by the way)

It'd be a bigger problem for me if I was trying to put anyone over him.

I don't think that it's productive to assume that Bockwinkel didn't have an overall strong 70s. My worry would be in a totally different direction than Parv's.