Matt D

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.

On the bright side they could turn Becky Lynch back into a Riverdancer to be his valet.

Oh, you guys got Khawk. That's great.

Elliott, I still have big issues with him along the lines of creative collaboration and the simple fact that at various points I actively hate the role that he's playing so well, but you made a great defense of the fact that he was playing that role in the first place, and while he won't end up in my top twenty, he will do very well in this project overall, and I'm more than fine with that at this juncture. That said, I think there's a danger in defending roles so thoroughly. A guy who does the right thing for the matches he's in, for the crowd that he's in front of, executed very well? Sounds like Davey Richards to me. A guy who has a following who is financially successful in his role, at least on a minor level. One's based in hardnosed closing of opportunities. The other's based on frenetic opening of them without restraint. Both fit the desires of the crowd they're in front of. When it comes to that defense, where's the line other than the fact you personally prefer the role of one to the role of another?