Matt D

I like the fact that Bret beat people with wrestling. I'm generally okay with that. That said, I'm not one to bring up the ace argument often except for in talking how great Christian was in 2009.

I can't always do that. I hate going back to Owens vs Cena, but I was thinking, while watching it, how interesting the decision not to have a real Cena shine was, and what that would mean for the rest of the match from a layout perspective, the pros and the cons, what it would mean if Cena won or if Owens won, how they were layering in the hope spots and what they meant because there wasn't really a shine or even a more even opening, etc. *When I was in Philly watching the Royal Rumble 3 way live, I was more like "OH SHIT, BROCK LESNAR!" and at one point during a kick out at Summerslam Brock vs Punk, I may have confused my then one year old by shouting slightly at a kick out, so it's not every match and certainly not during finishing stretches, but a lot of times, I'm thinking as I go, especially when it comes to transitions and hope spots and cutoffs.

While it's fun to quantify and make lists and what not, and to compare that way, the name of the game for me at least is understanding.

That was fun. I'm tired and old now and can't argue like that. If you're going to look at that match, you have to look at the cage match from a week or two later after they hammered out all of shawn's BS.

Bagwell is a guy that was (at least as the conventional wisdom of the time went; I haven't watched back) developing into a pretty good mid-carder and mid-card tag team heel due, in part, to his NJPW trips before his injury. I just don't think mentally he had what it took to be much higher though. I do think if they ran him as a babyface immediately after he came back instead of teasing that and turning him back heel he could have been an upper mid-carder for at least a short time.

Re: La Parka 1. Watch the match. 2. You asked who out of who was on the roster. I think he's as good a choice as any. 3. He was over with the live crowds. He was unique when it came to the luchadors. He wasn't a light heavyweight. He was bigger. The point of seeing that match is to watch how he brawls in a highly emotional match. He had a unique marketable look. He had a ton of charisma. More than any other luchador save for Rey, he could tap into both the hispanic and non-hispanic audiences. 4. All that said, I still think he'd be a better fit as an Austin or Undertaker opponent in 98.

Am i the only one who sees this thread title and keeps somehow expecting Vaudevillian John Cena.

Parv, Watch this, as it's a match you really need to see anyway: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v57-ppkdTN4 Extrapolate backwards. He's actually the world's best 1997 Undertaker opponent, to be honest. (I'll admit it's a little disingenuous since I'm not sure 1997-9 La Parka could have had that match)

If superman had a defective finisher that people have to kick out of at least twice before being put away. I couldn't believe people were actually complaining that Rusev only took one AA. Imagine that! Only ONE finisher! That was the environment that Cena came into. It's what was expected of him. It's what the fans were conditioned to expect. I think a valid question to ask is the following: Should he be smart and canny enough a worker to go to great lengths to use his influence to change the in ring style of the WWE to better protect finishers. Should he have five years ago? Eight years ago? People were complaining about Rusev taking only one AA because the last thirty people before him took two or three. Should Cena get credit for having successful matches in an environment where excess is the norm or should he be punished for not trying to change and destroy that environment?

Granted, he'd need James Vandenberg speaking for him.

I don't know about this. I think somewhere around 98% of the denizens of PWO can put their thoughts into words on why they liked or didn't like a match, and that covers storytelling, execution, emotional intangibles. We have reference points from thousands of matches, and can relate how we felt back to them to distill evidence and find patterns. Maybe that takes a little more effort sometimes, but I think everyone here can basicaclly do it. Again, I think we had a lot of that with the Kevin Owens vs Cena match, where people did a great job explaining how the match may not have been laid out in a manner they would have found ideal on paper, but that the end result of it was very effective and the reasons why they felt so.

Kelly makes a confusing Kimberly though, despite the name.

I've talked a lot over the years with Dylan and Loss about the difference between rating and ranking wrestlers and matches. Ultimately I think matches are easier. You need one sentence basically. Or at least I do. "How well did the match present a narrative that was ..." And then the next words are up to you. They could be "emotionally resonant," or "action-packed" or "hate-filled" or "clever" or "well-executed" or "the right match for the right night." You'll probably have some weighted mix of twenty things and you can apply that to most matches. The trick is being consistent. It's harder with a wrestler, because you're judging the artist and not just a specific piece of art. Or you're not judging the artist but an entire catalog of art. Those are two different things. Bret's execution is a side effect of his desire to make everything feel real and believable. That's not necessarily making it feel like a real sport, I think. They're close but not the same. It's never letting the viewer step out if what's he's watching. The solid execution is a side effect of that. Selecting transitions and finishes to maximize the audience's suspension of self belief was key to Bret: it was important he had enough familiar touch points in a match but also that he varied them up so the viewer couldn't be one step ahead. He managed to do that without making his matches too cute and while maintaining internal consistency, since that was a part of the realism too. Cena, on the other hand, is king of the idea that wrestling is symbolic. His moves mean something not because they stress realism and are part of a carefully thought out and controlled tapestry but because they are built up over time and because he, his opponents, the announcers, and the company presents them as meaningful. In the ring he uses this to create a totally different sort of suspension of disbelief. That's why I think casual Cena viewers have such a hard time with him. Bret presents internal consistency. Cena relies upon and taps into an external one.

Man, I don't know. We should do a thread where we all watch those two matches and compare/contrast them.

Bret vs Bam Bam at King of the Ring 93? (Granted he won that, but he could have NOT won it just as easily) Maybe it wouldn't be as big of a spectacle but it'd still be a hell of a match and afterwards, Bret wouldn't go on TV the next night and cut a promo basically saying it didn't matter, at least. He would have sold what happened as the most important thing in the world. If you're going to bring it to that level, then Bret's entire development as a character was based on wins and losses mattering. Cena's about as far from that as possible. We're veering into sort of weird territory though.

I'd rather see prime Bret vs Brock or Owens than prime Cena vs 96/7 Austin or 91/93 Hennig. That's not an answer though.

I really don't have a good sense of Villano III.

I do think it's different on Austin's podcast when Heyman was sort of going into business for himself and for them to do it on this stage with Vince sitting right there.

My response to that is: "Yes, we know." I think it's pretty screwy (and I could attribute even more negative words than that, but I'm not going to as we're all friends here) to think that people on this site go around saying a match needs limbwork or to be a Tito Santana match to have a story or something. It's especially laughable after some of the discussion we just had within the last twenty four hours about the Owens vs Cena match.

I think Parv is seeing symptoms of one thing as a totally different disease. If work relents tomorrow, I'll go into more detail. I don't disagree with the Hansen stuff, though, and I'd extend it to people being forgiving of violence, stiffness, and blood in ways they wouldn't be of other things, when everything is just a tool and it's about how the tools are used and to what end they're used. At the same time, I think his general storytelling critique is pretty goofy. The elements he mentioned are tools. Some are just more prone to being used to excess than others. No element of wrestling is innately bad.

Apparently Tyson Kidd vs Samoa Joe was the dark match, so THAT'S a fancam to look out for on youtube this week.

I really don't think this is leading to Rollins vs HHH anytime soon. I think it's much more the case that Hunter is living vicariously through Rollins.

I'm unable to pull too many examples right now due to time constraints. Next time I watch a lucha apuestas or title match I'll try to note this. I think, actually, a good match to look at would be the one from last night. My problem (so much as it was a problem, because as many people have said, the problems in the match actually sort of worked as features) was how long the finishing stretch was relative the rest of the match. Someone else will have to make the my turn, your turn argument though. Maybe I'll watch a Volador, Jr./Mistico I match later and pin that down. I kind of hate those.

If it's a long finishing stretch: Do they put any effort in to creating these little momentum shifts/transitions or do they just happen?

Wrestler #1 hits a bomb. How does Wrestler #2 get to hit the next bomb. How do they make that work when Wrestler #1 should still have the advantage? If they do a good job with it, it's not an issue. If they do a great job with it, then it becomes a huge plus. The longer the finishing stretch goes, the harder it is.