Matt D

This just popped up and has some things different from what Our Friend in Japan's posted (though I don't think anything not already in circulation, but maybe some things not online) https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1sltmMy_dqGb4r6x6ZfZcQ

I need to check out the Stasiak matches there. I absolutely love him in Portland but he his WWWF work has such a bad rap.

He did think this was a good idea. He has to get points for that:

So former WWE writer Kevin Eck posted the following on his Baltimore Sun blog (I think). The part in bold is what I'm wondering if people believe: I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by the questionable booking. During my time on the WWE creative team, we actually were told that there really are no babyfaces or heels in the Divas division. It was strongly implied that the Divas are all just a bunch of catty chicks, most of whom are mentally unstable. A perfect example of that philosophy was the booking of the program between AJ and Paige last year. Instead of establishing a babyface and a heel, both characters acted heelish, Their "frenemies" angle was more confusing than compelling. Thus, the rivalry between one of the most "over" Divas of all time and a heralded newcomer to the main roster wasn't nearly as good as it should have been. The audience needs someone to root for. It's really not that complicated. If the idea now is to get fans to cheer the Bellas — and I'm honestly not sure if that's the case or not — don't have them just show up on Raw one week acting nicer and wrestling a babyface style. Tell me a story. What circumstance has sparked this change in their personalities? Speaking of the Bella twins, their reunion last year after Nikki had turned on Brie three months earlier is a textbook example of uninspired and illogical storytelling. Nikki told Brie that she wished her twin had died in the womb and went on to demean her sister for a month due to a stipulation that made Brie her personal assistant. Yet at Survivor Series, Brie helped Nikki retain her Divas Championship. Why did Brie do it? We were never given an explanation. That's not only lazy booking, it's also insulting to the audience. My guess is that either Vince himself or someone in creative threw out a cliche about blood being thicker than water, and that was that. Move on.

This is pretty definitive. I'm going to do one more though.

It's a catch-22. So many people are out that they can't afford anyone to take time now.

That's a Negro Casas who would make my top 30 but not my top 3.

There's value to keeping opponents apart before a match anyway. Part of the problem with modern WWE is that they run the same match so many times on TV in so many different variations. It sort of makes sense to have your champion only work now and again on the road to Wrestlemania.

C'mon, Johnny, the issue isn't Cena. The issue is Cena on top of everything else. They were almost have to rely on Cena in a more prominent role this year because so many guys are out.

Geez. Yeah, something has to give. There's only so deep a well to draw from.

Just humor me. I'm curious how this one will go. It's anonymous so don't worry about Johnny Sorrow coming after you or anything. I think it primarily came from Powerslam, sourced from a former WWE writer. “I remember being nervous the first time I delivered the script to the McMahon dressing room where HHH would dress (he would never use the locker rooms with the rest of the boys). When HHH answered I told him the RAW script was ready for his review. On the first occasion, he grabbed the script, flipped through it but did not read it, and asked me point-blank: ‘Am I f***ing going over?’ This first time that I delivered the script to him, he did indeed win his match, so I said yes. Then he politely gave the script back to me without reading it and said, ‘That’s all I needed to know,’ and walked back into the McMahon locker room. A few months later when Gewirtz had another weekend off, I delivered another RAW script to him on a PPV Sunday. And it was the same routine. He nonchalantly flipped through it and said, ‘Am I f***ing going over?’ This time, however, he was to lose his match via disqualification. He would keep his title. I said to him, ‘Well, sort of.’ Then Hunter froze. He said, ‘What do you f***ing mean, sort of?’ I said, ‘You lose the match via DQ, so you still keep the title.’, ‘What page?’ he growled. After I told Hunter the page number this occurred on, he ripped that page out, threw the rest of the script to the floor in a rage, and slammed the door in my face. Needless to say, the next day during the agents’ meeting, the script had somehow changed and now HHHwon his match – cleanly. This was hardly an isolated incident.”

Do I need to watch that Blackwell vs Bobo singles match?

The Impact Zone comes to the Rumble! Yeah, sure, them too. The Rumble is an event. It's not a normal PPV. I still think they should hold it in Iowa generally, if they want to control crowd reactions.

That crowd would absolutely know who he is and go nuts. Tons of tourists/Europeans, even in FL.

As memory serves there are 3-4 matches. One is to set it up with Brady Boone. Then there's a singles match which is Ax vs Patera. It's got a bit of novelty. Honestly, it's one of their first real feuds that had any storyline behind it, but it's just not one of their better ones. There are two matches from the same day that are virtually the same. Here's my review of the set up: http://www.thehistoryofwwe.com/demosjackboone12-11-87review.htm Here's my review of the Boston match from years and years ago: http://www.thehistoryofwwe.com/demospaterahaynes11-7-87review.htm And of Haynes/Boone: http://www.thehistoryofwwe.com/demosjackboone12-11-87review.htm I guess if you're going to watch one, watch the Boston match? Apparently I liked that but I haven't seen it in years. 2010 was a very long time ago at this point.

Glamour Girls are better anyway.

One thing that's interesting to me is how few second generation guys are in developmental as opposed to a few years ago. Another issue has to be how the rise of MMA/success of other pro sports affected the talent pool relative to 10-15 years ago. That said, they recruited differently even five years ago. The world's become a smaller place.

Just keep Chekhov's gun in mind so I don't have to pan it.

We come into every match we see with preconceived notions, and I have my analytical frameworks, absolutely, but it's still not something I lead with so much as something that proves true after the fact were you to classify the matches I think are good and the ones I think are not. That said, I still try to admit context. But I'm going to use the word effective or "correct" instead of good. "Utilizing selling in order to create a coherent and compelling narrative so that what is done has meaning" should be the bare minimum, the baseline. It's the starting point. I'm not so big into modern art either, though. I think part of this argument is tied to the difference between leading a crowd and letting a crowd lead the match too, which is something Austin talks a lot about (though maybe more on the small scale than the larger scale).

I'm going to end up watching this damn match, right? Anyway, the issue with that is that it reverses the cognitive way things generally work. I don't watch a match with a checklist in hand. It's a much more internalized experience. Selling isn't about dogmatically following any sort of rules. It's about consequence, weight, and meaning. That's true for any match. In general, and this is really a separate but connected topic, at this point in my viewing life, I don't have a lot of regard for doing things that actually hurt as opposed to things that look like they hurt but actually don't. That's a handicap to a match being good to me. It's something for a match to overcome. I think wrestling should be about the collaborative illusion. I know I'm still in a minority on that though.

I don't think that is unfair, but I also believe that is a extremely narrow way to look at things. I think judging things for what they are is more important than judging them for what I want them to be. The Ishii vs. Shibata match is a match that doesn't fit into any criteria I would use to judge most matches, but it wasn't most matches. I personally think selling is the most important aspect of wrestling, but I can also see the value in this match. It wasn't the best match I've ever seen, or even the best match on the card, but I think they tried to do something a little different and totally succeeded. If I judged it like I would judge a Ric Flair vs. Ricky Steamboat match I wouldn't have enjoyed it, but I also wouldn't be acknowledging that they were trying to have that kind of match. I'm not trying to tell anyone they have to like this match, I'm just saying judging it by some set criteria isn't fair to someone trying to do something outside of that criteria. I'm still not with you, but I feel like if I go any further down this road, I'm going to have to actually watch the match and I really don't want to, so I think we're going to agree to disagree on this and you can keep fighting it out with our young friend here.

I think it's fair for someone to say "I think a wrestling match needs to have element A, B, and C to be good. This match didn't have one of these elements, so it wasn't good." Maybe it's a narrow way of looking at things, but when we're discussing something as primal in the DNA as the nature of selling, I think it's a fair view for someone to have.

It's down to a matter of semantics here, I think.

You can consider a match successful and effective but not good based on what you value. Sometimes the right match is what you would consider to be an artistically bad match. Sometimes the right music is a very well produced, well targeted Justin Bieber/Nicki Minaj song. Sometimes the right movie is an effectively directed and scripted comedy staring Adam Sandler. They can be successful. They can be effective. You can remark on the craft put into them and their understanding of the audience. None of that means you have to consider them good.

I agree with this statement but my question is, how does a guy like Jake that doesn't have the high-end stuff fall below guys that only have like twelve matches total that anyone has seen? Guys like Pat O'Connor are going to be on lists and how much of his stuff is even on film? Someone watches five matches on YouTube and suddenly he's top 100 all-time but then guys like Jake & Barbarian get totally disregarded. Definitely some different criteria among all of us for what constitutes inclusion in the list. Which isn't even a negative as I like that the lists will be so different from one another. Batting average?