Jump to content
Pro Wrestling Only

Matt D

DVDVR 80s Project
  • Posts

    13069
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Matt D

  1. The comparison to Mil, to me, is a guy like Brody. He knew what he was doing in there, but it was in his best interest, as a travelling attraction, a creature of mystery and mystique, to look strong no matter what. Sometimes, it made financial sense to him for him to give more in a match, and in those cases he did. So that makes him either one of the best, most successful, wrestlers of all time, or a pretty crummy one. Beats me. He's not coming close to my list.
  2. Very. But not quite as close as a year ago. I'd like to write something about Buddy in the next few days too.
  3. I've been very vocal about my issues with Hansen's physical peak, especially the "home promotion+physical peak+height of footage" conundrum, so that's fair. We don't know. From what we have, it's POSSIBLE that he spent his more of his physical prime giving too much to his opponents and bumping up and down like some sort of 1990 Mr. Perfect, and if we had it, it would hurt his #1 case (though not his #10 case or whatever). There are hints of that in his matches with Verne, but they're just hints and I feel mostly confident with the evidence we have. Yes it's on the low side, but there are, as I said, lots of angles, and none of the glaring faults I, personally, find in a lot of the other #1 contenders. I completely respect and understand your opinion here though.
  4. There is a far bigger difference between 3 and 50 and 50 and 100 to me, especially lacking evidence where he actively does NOT convince me.
  5. I understand where you're coming from Childs, but for me, it's a non issue because of the fact we see him in so many roles. The evidence we have is exactly the evidence we need. In some ways it's easier for me to judge him than someone who played only a few roles in his career, but we have all of that career. We can see Bockwinkel from so many different angles, far more than most wrestlers we have many more years of, I'd say. We have evidence of him dealing with so many different wrestling challenges. For me, it's more than enough.
  6. Matt D

    Matt Hardy

    My big takeaways so far are 1.) That Billy Gunn was a bump freak in 2001. 2.) That I really want to see the Koslov and Mark Henry matches at the end of 09 into 09 to see if Matt worked the same exact "arm being targeted" story in all four which would either be awesome or terrible (not sure which) and 3.) that while I really liked the Swagger match, the finish drove me absolutely nuts.
  7. Really, just watch the entirety of WWECW starting from ..what, Backlash 2007? That can be your post-GWE project.
  8. My list has elements of this, certainly, even in my top ten. On the other hand, there are sensibilities and then there are active things you think are negative elements (bad wrestling as opposed to wrestling you just aren't as into). There are very few people that could have made my list and that I am familiar with that I don't have some strong feeling one way or another one. If I don't "like" a wrestler, there's probably a reason for that. I will absolutely go out of my way to try to understand why someone else might "like" that wrestler, though and try to understand why I don't. I'll factor that in, try to weigh the positives that other people see and feel and the negatives I see and feel (and the negatives others see and feel and the positives I do), and maybe the wrestler will rate, but it's a balance and they have to overcome it.
  9. That's funny. Currently, I have Rey 6 spots higher.Both are in my Top 25. Bryan's been slipping a bit though.
  10. Some people are just known Ring Generals.
  11. Matt D

    Matt Hardy

    I'm actively watching Matt matches right now. I am more or less out of words for now but I will have something to say about the swagger title change later.
  12. A Case for Bockwinkel: (I feel like it's a shame that people have already started voting. We just had a case for Michaels go up a couple of days ago and a case for Funk go up yesterday or the day before. We're in the final argument stage of things and parts of the jury are voting already. I'm going to try to rush this out then. I wish I could do try to match that great Satanico post, but no can do. It's a busy week, but here goes:) There are so many things that Nick Bockwinkel did so well that it's hard to even know where to start. What I'd like to do, to begin, is list out his range, a number of roles that he was effective in playing, and that he was able to wrestle good to great matches (some all-timers) while achieving. This is in no order: 1. Bumping, stooging heel for aging legend (Vs Verne, Mad Dog, Crusher, Baron) 2. Bumping, stooging vulnerable champion for up and and coming Ace babyface (Vs Hogan) 3. Reluctantly cheered champion holding the line vs a foreign threat (Vs Al-Kassie) 4. Comedy kingpin with a bunch of goons vs Super-babyfaces (with Heenan family Vs. Andre and Hogan) 5. Heel champion Ace vs technical up and coming babyfaces (vs Rheingans) 6. Tag role of the same (With Stevens vs High Flyers) 7. Southern tag heel (w/Saito vs Gagnes or Hennigs, or High-flyers) 8. Confident heel champ vs established technical opponent (vs Martel) 9. Same as a heel challenger establishing said new babyface champ. 10. Vulnerable but dangerous heel champion against deadly brawler (vs Wahoo) 11. Travelling champ who underestimates local hero (vs Chavo) 12. Snobby outsider champ who DOESN'T underestimate local hero but has to have a number of varied matches with him without losing the title (vs Lawler) 13. Fiery babyface wanting revenge (crazy sprint vs Zbyszko) 14. John Wayne (vs Hansen) 15. Super technical in front of a Japanese audience (vs Funk and vs Robinson) 16. Aging, cagey veteran trying to survive against a young babyface slowly surpassing him (vs Hennig) 17. US Supermatch that has to end in a draw (vs. Flair) 18. Travelling heel champ stooging big for the local hero while staying credible (vs JYD) 19. Desperate heel up against monsters (the clips we have vs Andre or Ladd) 20. Very strong shorter match TV worker during the Showboat era (vs. Debeers) And that's what we have from maybe 76-86, when he around 40 to just over 50. He spent decades of his career as a babyface. And there are more. I just picked twenty different in-ring functions that he had to do and had to do well, many of them calling upon different skills and talents, that involve someone actively wrestling differently. I could have given more examples of matches for almost every category too, with almost all of them being very good to great. That, to me is amazing. The only other people who would come close to this are #1 contenders, and almost all of those benefit from us having much more of their physical prime on tape or from working more broadly in multiple territories (though Bock, of course did. We just don't have a ton of that on tape; most of what we do is great). He was able to accomplish this through deeply and thoroughly understanding pro wrestling and storytelling, through engaging the crowd, through knowing when to give and when to take, knowing how to maximize moments and momentum, to fully committing to his role at all times. He was incredible at portraying emotion in matches, jubilant when causing punishment and terrified when getting overwhelmed. He refused to let the crowd dictate what he was doing, but instead forced them into line with what was best for them and the match, adapting but never surrendering ("You're boring them Martel!" being my favorite single wrestling moment I've seen in the last five years, maybe?). Everything had purpose. There are wrestlers, great wrestlers, who can string more-or-less unrelated chapters together so that their matches are better than the sum of their parts, so that they make a symbolic, thematic, more or less satisfying whole, but Bockwinkel was able to relate the chapters to one another so that he never had to do that. There wasn't that need for symbolism because the text stood on its own. It was finding the perfect moment to turn the babyface's offensive rush into a King of the Mountain heat segment, or how to start countering one bit of bodypart work with the opposite equivalent, and so on. There's no sixty minute match I've ever seen which tells so involved a story as Hennig vs Bockwinkel. I've never been satisfied with the idea that wrestling isn't a good medium for storytelling, because I've seen it. That match shows that it's possible, and not just over ten minutes but over sixty, and that it can be the most compelling thing in the world. He created stories that mattered to people, that resonated, that moved them, and he made it seem so flawless and so natural. There was so much variation, too. I can barely wrap my head around how he managed it. And of course the fundamentals were there. He bumps around the ring like a pinball for Verne Gagne. His long-term limb selling is exceptional, and he had a way of selling fatigue from a long match in the finishing stretch like almost no one else. I believe that selling is the key to creating meaning in wrestling and it's hard not to watch his performances and think that he'd been through a war and that maybe, just maybe, he was going to lose that title (and if he did, the babyface would have EARNED it). His matwork was wonderful, holds and counters, perfect timing, great facial expressions and trash talk, and screaming in pain when he was on the wrong end of it. His strikes were snug. His offense was varied. He moved in and out of holds so well in the opening segment of a match; there was such flow to it. He cheated extremely well (and man was he a great southern tag heel), and as a babyface, he could both garner sympathy and swallow the heel alive with righteous fury. That's the thing. he's not just a smart worker. He's a total package. At age 45, he could still outFunk prime Funk, outFlair prime Flair and even, at times, outHansen prime Hansen. But, almost always, he only goes to that level when it makes sense to go there, when the value is there, when the needs of the match calls for it. I don't think it's a big spoiler. He's my #1. There are amazing wrestlers on my list in the #2-9 spots, some of the most talented, skilled, brilliant, sound, varied people imaginable, with hundreds of great matches to prove their worth. I just can't imagine any of them in that #1 slot instead of Bockwinkel.
  13. My issues are almost purely time related. In the last 3 years I focused hard on lucha, went from 0-lots of candidates but I have so little time to watch basically the entire country of Japan, which I'd also be starting from scratch with. I tried and quickly realized that I couldn't pick up the context I needed in a considerable way, given my ass backwards approach to rating people that involves a holistic look. Past Benoit, which is a tangential issue, there's no one that I feel is great that I'm not ranking. My bigger issue is about "well, that wrestler wrestled the right match for that crowd" when I don't agree it was a GOOD match. That's what I have a harder time wrapping my head around and where my strongest bias is.
  14. People don't say that. They say "Bossman did this, this, and this better than Inoki," or if it's apples and oranges then "Bossman was better at doing this than Inoki was at that." Or "Bossman wasn't quite as good at this but he sure did that way better and I value that more."
  15. I value 10 minute TV matches in 2014 as much as others value NWA title matches in 1984. Both are pretty much the pinnacle of the craft for their respective eras.
  16. Matt D

    Shawn Michaels

    Well, first and foremost, how do you feel about WM11?
  17. I understand that, but you're still not allowed to quit.
  18. FFS, stop watching things that we didn't tell you to watch and watch 2009 (Christian, especially the London match, which is the match that got me to watch live wrestling for the first time in 2-3 years, but 1-2 more so you can see the differences from match to match and maybe Goldust) and then the FCW/NXT stuff (Ambrose, Ohno, and Cesaro).
  19. Putting this out there for people considering Pritchard. Twenty minutes with a totally green student.
  20. Matt D

    Shawn Michaels

    I give Shawn a ton of credit for understanding pro wrestling, or at least, for having a honed and learned understanding of pro wrestling. It's just that sometimes he uses that understanding for evil. And other times, he can't execute it to the fullest. We're so deep into this process that I'm not sure what's been said in what thread or in PMs or facebook discussions or what. Honest question: I think Shawn is hurt by people not liking him as a human being. That's probably not fair to him in this process, however, one aspect of that which shows up in his work is that he would, at times (even key times), do the right thing to get himself over at the expense of his opponent or the match or the bigger picture. Does that hurt him for you?
  21. Matt D

    El Satanico

    Hell of a post, Elliott.
  22. +1 for jobbing to the Hurricane.
  23. Matt D

    Sean Waltman

    Is there any post-WWE Waltman that's necessary to see?
  24. Matt D

    Steven Regal

    Which makes you perfectly prepared to mark out for late career Regal.
×
×
  • Create New...