Matt D

I know what Undertale is but have no idea what One Punch Man is. No idea.

Phil in quickly to prove Jingus right.

Now do Bobby Bass, Kris.

The Mayweather match could well be the best Wrestlemania match of all time and he does every little thing absolutely perfect in that match. He's someone who could be my 100.

The biggest questions, I suppose would be... 1.) If a wrestler doesn't go with a script, do his matches still have strong narratives? 2.) If a wrestler does go with a script, do his matches still feel organic and natural or are they overly contrived? 3.) In either case, is the wrestler able to adapt in the face of something unexpected happening?

More Talented Wrestler who uses his talents well > Less Talented Wrestler who uses his talents well Less Talented Wrestler who uses his talents well > More Talented Wrestler who uses his talents poorly

I only know Tatum from Global, but I kind of love him in Global. He's in that Rip Rogers, Bobby Bass, Chris Colt, Hickerson category of guys I'd love to have on my list but I don't entirely feel like I've seen what I need to. (Rip has the most variety I think)

Fine, I will simply say that I reject the perfidious and outdated dogma of workrate primacy instead. Happy?

Ok, let's stop the thread. Is anyone here, any single person, arguing that there shouldn't be some element of both in a great match? Has anyone argued that at any point?

Because frankly, why the hell not a this juncture, I'm dropping in Bill's article about workrate, the most interesting bit being the idea of a physical workrate and a mental workrate as two separate but invaluable elements (my summing up of what I saw there): http://wrestlingwithwords.com/workrate/

Don't give in to Parv Pressure.

I gave my breakdown earlier in the thread when you were all talking about Sid and no one touched that post. It's mainly a primacy issue.

I'll break down some matches at some point, give you specifics, but others have done it as well and that's out there. I can't promise this before the GWE vote.

That former style was pretty awesome.

I once tried to explain PWO and the sort of podcasts we had here to my wife by stating that a Strip Club DJ was on a podcast with a British Shakespeare professor. One of these two is fairly, laid back, calm and composed. The other carries himself like a sweating, swearing, belligerent version of this: We live in a strange, topsy turvy world.

I will take a look. Cortez vs Breaks I've seen, but early enough in the process I might have to revisit. I watched Veidor vs Tony Charles the other night and I really enjoy how much effort Veidor puts into getting out of every hold. He's a very interesting defensive wrestler. In this specifically I like how they balanced the sportsmanship with the competitiveness, especially Charles' reactions as he was flummoxed. There were a couple of times that he held onto a headlock off the ropes or locked in a really complex reversal that were just great. Some of the fall teases were really solid too. I'm going to keep watching Veidor. (Well after Saint vs Breaks of course).

I'd probably appreciate Atlantis more if I made a concerted effort to look at his work in trios over the years. He's been a tecnico glue guy in so many and that might be his best calling card, even if he's more famous for his run of recent apuestas matches. But I haven't really done that, so to me, he's a technically skilled worker with tremendous longevity who has rarely blown my hair back in singles matches. I don't blame Atlantis for my qualms with the recent mask matches; I just have trouble getting into them because of the lack of blood and grit. The Ultimo Guerrero and Sombra matches would probably be significant feathers in his cap for some voters. For me, they mostly just help his longevity case. Did you see the Silver Fox match that dropped last week? Was that out there previously? I haven't seen anyone talk about it. It's not a blow-away match by any means, but if you haven't seen it, you should.

To start, I'd say that the argument I've been making over the last few years is one of "working hard" vs "working smart" with the former generally what I consider the traditional Meltzerian definition of workrate to be. I think the words that we're gravitating towards instead of logic are narrative and storytelling. 1. Can you find the throughline of a narrative within a match? 2. Is that narrative compelling? 3. Is that narrative consistent? If not, does that inconsistency lead to an eroding of the overall narrative? (Do moves have meaning? Are they sold appropriately? etc.) 4. Do the wrestlers contribute to that narrative utilizing various character and tone-driven decisions on pacing, crowd control, reactions, etc? If not... 5. Are the moves within the match executed so as to enhance the narrative? If not... So there are what I would consider workrate elements in 2, because boring isn't compelling, but a match can not be worked particularly hard and still have a compelling narrative if the effort is put in through selling and creating perceived meaning. For me, that last element is the primary workrate one, though, and it's really the last element, the least important one, though, of course, still important, as all of them are. I think people think it's an argument of 3 vs 5, though, consistency for the sake of consistency vs action for the sake of action or execution for the sake of execution. That's not the case at all.

Your clarification is clear, yes. Thanks.

That's an interesting statement. Could you go into more detail on what you mean by that?

I really like 05-06 Guerreros oversized athletic bully Olimpico. I've seen very little (maybe none?) of his 90s tecnico work though, which I imagine is extremely different. I also like jerk heel Psicosis a lot, but not enough to get him on, I don't think.

I feel like I sort of have to have Terry/Navarro but it'll be guesswork. Likewise, VIII. Solar I feel stronger about for some reason.

I'm not really a classical, traditional tecnico sort of guy but I have Atlantis relatively high. What's the downsides on him? I sort of get the sense that he does everything well but he doesn't stand out in one specific area like other people who do everything well (such as Santo). I do think he garners sympathy very well. I'm kind of high on his rudo run, as I think he embraced the role more than Santo did, for instance. I know I'm an exception there though.

I've got a lot of the same as everyone else, including Fiera, MS-1, Chicana, Fuerza, etc. Park is towards the end of my list. I'd love to include Wagner, Jr., since he's so charismatic but he's too detrimental to far too many matches. I don't have a strong enough sense of Navarro/Black Terry to rank them as things are now. I'm closing in on Morgan. I don't feel confident on Perro, Sr. I'm not there yet on Villano III either. I need to give Espanto another look. We have a lot of him but it feels scattered to me. I've got Hector Garza on there, mainly on the strength of his two 00s rudo runs. I'm seriously considering putting Brazo de Oro on.

If this doesn't result eventually in a Jericho heel turn based on what I said then I'll eat my hat. The same hat that has faced being eaten before and remains uneaten. Unfortunately, I don't think the hat ends up eaten this time around either. One of these days though...