Matt D

Here's where I am on this after seven pages: I think that Brock vs Reigns was a remarkable accomplishment. They were able to get fans who wanted nothing more than to boo Reigns behind him by the end, to the point that when the ball was taken away from him, I think there was real momentum and if they had capitalized on it, we'd look at this entire year differently, that it could have been one of the great narratives in wrestling, the way to really build a star. That was solely on one Raw being cancelled due to weather and on the work of two wrestlers in one match, some blood, some fire, some grittiness, and a year of building up a wrestler as unstoppable. It's as much of a shame as anything in the WWE this year (and that's saying so much) that it didn't end up working out that way. Just a remarkable accomplishment of a match. Sasha vs Bayley doesn't feel as remarkable. It doesn't feel as impressive at first glance. What it is, instead, is more iconic. It's good vs evil in 2015. It's a face vs a heel in an era where that seems quaint and passe. I'm not even sure what could compare to it, really, in years. Bryan vs the Authority was more Revenge of the Nerds than anything else,and that fits the times that we live in. And people bought into it so thoroughly. They believed. That, to me, is impressive too. A lot of it was carried upon the build, but the match was laid out to pay off that build, with Bayley standing up for herself, not just within the context of the feud but within the match itself. It played off her injury. It played into the finishers and her redemption road. I think Brock vs Reigns was a miracle match and I'm higher on the finish than anyone here. I think Bayley vs Sasha was a match which was laid out to be exactly what it should be, a monolith to what wrestling can and should be when you marry story and action, when you set up a plan and execute it. It did what it was supposed to do. It did what it should have done. The plan was carried out. The people bought into it after all. Reigns vs Brock felt like it did the impossible, that it went against what should have been doable. I was in that Rumble crowd two months before. Brock vs Reigns was more impressive, but Bayley vs Sasha was wrestling done right. It's not remarkable because they're women. It's remarkable because it wasn't wildly post-modern, because it was so simple and straightforward and primal. Reigns vs Lesnar was everything wrestling could be. Sasha vs Bayley was everything wrestling should be.

I think if you're going to go that far, you should just go all the way into tokenism and wish fulfillment and be done with it. Someone probably should, if only so it can get dismissed. The idea that people want Bayley vs Sasha to be the best for symbolic reasons as a blow for female wrestling in the US (as opposed to being just a blow for the part timer or the put-upon company favorite putting on a good match on a big stage) or in order to feel progressive, etc. I'd rather we just get it out of the way, even if we are six pages in.

Turn Razor. It basically fixes everything.

Finished this yesterday. I thought it was excellent, that Kevin was a fresh voice on these and so full of context and information, and also great insight into the mentality of an AWA fan of the era, even in just his tone. If anything, I wish the show had more time, to go even more in depth. I'd be really interested to hear you guys do a focus on Mad Dog Vachon with him at some point, for instance. Again, just a great job from everyone. The only major thing I'd amend, was Dylan, towards the end talking about how much joy babyface Bock had. I really think that's something you see in his heel work as well, especially when he's not up against the monsters like Verne or Hogan. There's a glee in him punishing or showing up other wrestlers.

"He's alive, hasn't been in the news negatively for a few years, and more people know who he is than Danny Hodge."

I do intend to get the NJPW set at some point, but mainly for the Choshu's army stuff.

The sunglasses were to hide the hangovers.

You keep going that way and we're going to get Taker/McCool vs Cena/Nikki.

I think that if they do Cena vs Taker, it should have some sort of stakes. I mean, in general, I think almost every match at Wrestlemania should have some sort of stakes.

That's what made Survivor Series and the Royal Rumble so special and why they're not nearly as special now.

If he does that then a few of you should do a live watching party podcast for it.

The money is in the chase? He should have just won by Summerslam.

I think the finish makes the match better in some ways because the work had gotten to the point where the crowd was finally behind Reigns.

Thanks to everyone who took the walk with me, especially Elliott who wrote probably the most compelling defense of any wrestler I've seen in this process and Childs for being so damn reasonable. I've come to appreciate him even If not particularly enjoy him. He won't be in my top ten but he will make my top 25 over dozens of wrestlers I like more because he's simply better than them.

Thanks for the heads up Kelly.

If only he spent the 80s in Minnesota instead.

I was blown away with the singles when I came across them around 09. Great TV matches.

Berzerker was a top three WWF worker in 92. Best offense in the company and huge bumps.

We trust our eyes the most.

Hey, nepotism gave us Gino too.

I'm very interested in seeing more Tiger Conway, Jr. at this point. I thought he looked pretty good in the match we saw and I don't think he'd a name in Houston for so long if there wasn't something to him.

I loved the Lunde match too. "A blast" was my first thought as well. Great foil for Reed's debut. There are a couple of other Lunde matches in the results that sound interesting (Conway, Jr., Williams, Murdoch, Crews, Iron Mike Sharpe(?!)). That Lothario match sounds great. I was somewhat higher on Dusty/Bock than Pete too, but I won't be able to delve into it more deeply until after Thanksgiving.

I don't think it's just preferences though. I think that's where I agree with Parv (though only half way, mind you). There are objective talents. That Hansen does what he does, and does it in a way no one else really manages to is impressive. The personal preference comes in how much we value that relative to other things. So we don't discard it. He's not going to be in my top twenty. He'll be somewhere outside of there, because my preferences lead me to both enjoy and value other elements of wrestling more, but I still respect what he does and have to account for what he does, and that means he'll be higher than a lot of wrestlers who do things I value more, but don't do them as well as what he does well. They're preferences but they're weighted preferences. Where we have to take this on faith is that how we weigh things will be different from person to person. At the end of the day I think this process is more about examining ourselves and one another's opinions than the wrestling itself.