Matt D

It's partially my fault we don't have likes enabled here but if we did, this post would get one.

Gordy, Doc, Vader I could all see myself going relatively low on. I don't know yet though. I need to see more on each. Basically "hard hitting guys who hit other guys hard in japan" aren't going to innately be high on my rankings. They have a high hurdle for me in that I don't really want to watch their stuff. Vader's US (I've seen very little of his WWF run or 94) and shoot style stuff I'll be more interested in seeing. I don't think I'll have too many guys who wrestled heavily after 00 high on my list. It'll be a smaller percentage.

I'd be also surprised if Misawa, Kawada and Kobashi wouldn't make my list somewhere. I'll see more. I'll probably rank them. But they could well be towards the bottom.

How's his son?

Honky Tonk Man vs Tito Santana - PTW 9/17/87 I feel like I can actually stop this now. There's no way in hell Honky should even be in this conversation. This was an actively good match and an actively good performance from HTM. It was probably about 70% Tito, but unless the crowd noise was REALLY sweetened, the crowd was super into it. You can see them reacting and Hart reacting to them, so I think it wasn't all smoke and mirrors. Honky's stalling was incredibly effective and he put a lot of energy into it. He also RAN right into bodyslams by Tito (I thought he was going to lock up). There are big things he did well, like broad selling, great facial expressions, and putting surprising energy into things like a missed elbow drop off the ropes or multiple chops to Tito's arm before the fans chanted and Tito reversed the hold.. There are little things he did well, like focusing most of his offense on the midsection, using kicks to it to stay on top, and setting up both a grounded double axe handled for Tito to dodge the second time and, in the big transition towards the finish, trying again for the shoulder block to the gut that he took over with in the first place. Some of his offense didn't look great, sure, but I think it fit the gimmick and was even part of why the crowd was against him. Enough of it did look perfectly fine, though, and it was focused enough that it all worked for a vulnerable heel champ. He has a very measured pacing when he's on top but I think it works. The match is also a testament to just how good Tito was I think, and the special connection he had with the crowd. Total BS ending but the fans didn't even seem to care. They were just glad Tito won. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEaLBjImVtI Warning: Your announcers are Monsoon and Mike McGuirk, but they're not quite as bad as you'd expect. Also, this is no MOTY contender. It's a PTW match with a BS finish with a vulnerable heel champ vs a hot babyface tag team act who used to be a singles star. BUT if you watch this and still think that HTM could be the worst wrestler of all time, I would be very surprised.

Having seen a handful of high end Misawa/Kobashi/Kawada matches, I imagine I'll be closer to the low vote on them. I came out of those matches honestly liking Taue the best. I can't promise that though because there is an element of continuity and storytelling and build in there that i know I'm only scratching the surface on. It's something i know I'd appreciate but the idea of watching more matches with those guys to fully grasp it is nothing I'm looking forward to.

I'll do my due diligence on Baba later. I've seen the 1990 Demolition match and maybe one or two singles. That's it.

Jericho talked to someone about that on his podcast recently. I can't remember who, Trips maybe? And the main thing was "storytelling," with both of them indicating that they really knew nothing until getting to WWE.

Ladd is a guy that I know I like a lot, but I couldn't entirely point to matches to show you why.

That is high praise indeed. Thank you.

The Mr. X match was just a fun little throwaway tacked on. I think you should probably watch the Bruno match. It's no great shakes or anything but you'd be interested due to your previous Bruno watching and's a better showcase of Honky being willing.

Once again, this is a nice, logical, reasonable thought, but my guess is that Vince is going to think it's all the more important to put the focus completely on Cena because they'll have more eyes on the show.

I'm going to start posting reviews into the Satanico note too then to skew your numbers further.

http://placetobenation.com/wtbbp-the-column-beyond-the-great-match-robbery-of-1991/ Third article is up as a herald to the upcoming podcast. This one on Hayes and Garvin stealing heat (which I know has gotten some play recently here and elsewhere) and the second match on the 1991 Halloween Havoc card.

Some posts have worked more like microscope posts though so it becomes tricky. You'd have to almost reduce for that.

This deserves a lot of words. First, I need to reiterate I haven't seen the SS match in a long time. I tend to bring things towards general wrestling theory a lot of time, I'm sure to everyone's dismay. My apologies on that. I will rewatch the Summerslam match sometime soon. Second, I understand what you're saying, certainly. I am going to reiterate as well that a lot of the discussion we have is not necessarily about good or bad but about good or great or greatest, and in that regard, attention to detail and consistency in selling is more important. In another discussion, I might not be so quick to raise this (or maybe I would be. I think my actions might belie my intentions here). Third (and again a bit of a reiteration but I think it does clarify), I'm very much focused on selling after a medium-to-long amount of focus on one body part, because that makes the element more architectural. It's a support that the overlying narrative of the match sits upon. It's a useful and relatively easy tool. It's easier to figure out a few minutes of legwork than to come up with some other compelling string of offense that's not so focused. You haven't really convinced me that meaning of the limbwork segment, which for many matches, is the entirety of the heat, isn't lessened by dropping the selling in the comeback. This brings in the meaningfulness. I think the need to sell should pretty much be relative the amount of limbwork. Proportional, if not exactly, then in spirit. If it's presented more as containment, then it's not as necessary though even then it helps to do a few little touches. I'm not saying that a little bit of limbwork should be sold like death, just that if it's a structural part of the match then that should be acknowledged or else there is disruption. It's not one size fits all. There's not just one way to do it. Fourth, while a story might jump around or sputter, I think most of the worst stories in other mediums have some layer of basic narrative coherency where they wouldn't just drop something so thoroughly, and if they did, they'd be criticized for it. If a writer spends time building up one element, that element usually reverberates throughout the rest of the book, even as just something that changed the character or his perspective somehow. Usually a red herring leads to some other revelation. It's not just shrugged off. Usually in real sports, you can extrapolate back to create a narrative from what happened. The danger and opportunity in wrestling is that the wrestlers can craft that story but if they leave a part out or do something illogical, there can be a gap, which stretches the ability to tie things together. Five, logic and attention to detail isn't everything, of course, but for me it's a starting point. I don't often let go. I watch wrestling with my head more so than my heart. I can't help that. Six, as for the idea that sometimes dropping the selling is the right choice. I don't entirely disagree. The issue is the word "right." For instance, the example of Bryan doing it in order to look more formidable to a certain portion of the audience in his comebacks, or Michaels looking like more of a star/indestructible. I'm not sure if that's the "right" choice, though, or maybe the choice that the wrestler thinks is best, which comes with pros and cons. Usually, though, it doesn't benefit the match in a bubble. Some of this is presentation too and some of it has to be more than just rote. If a wrestler has that adrenaline boost that would allow for it or is that overcome with rage, then that's an execution issue. It has to be shown in the performance itself. In that case, it's not dropping the selling so much as it's explaining it away. There needs to be a conscious effort for that, though. I'll have to rewatch the Summerslam match to see if that happens there. Seven: I'm not a "Great Match" person. I don't give star ratings. I'd much rather see a wrestler in a number of situations and I'd much rather see patterns. I do think it's quite possible that I find these patterns and then I overlay them back on matches. If someone drops selling over a number of matches in the same way, then I'll hold that against them in each match instead of looking at the match as its own entity. If they don't, I'll look at it differently. Bryan's ROH work makes me look at his WWE work differently than if I hadn't seen it. I bring the totality of my knowledge of Shawn's work into every match I watch or rewatch with him. Same with Buddy Rose or Nick Bockwinkel or Jerry Lawler. It helps some wrestlers and hurts others. That's just how I process this stuff. It's all part of a greater understanding. Do I keep the same standards across each wrestler, even in wildly different situations? I don't know. On the broadest sense, I think I do. Eight: Do I miss the forest for the trees then? Maybe. Yeah, maybe. But it's not like I don't get a ton of enjoyment out of wrestling. I don't watch wrestling to hate it. I think on the positive/negative scale, I'm pretty much in the middle around here. I find new things to enjoy every day though even through the lens of how I look at things. I'd be a lot more worried about my approach if I didn't. In some ways, that alone is a validation of it for me. I'm also glad I'm not the only voice here. I'm an outlier in that regard, though there are people not so far from me on the spectrum.

If they're going with Los Matadors vs Dust Brothers at the PPV, they can use the Usos to take two spots in the main. They seem like guys who would team with Cena. Alternatively, do they have time to heat Ryback up enough? i really think one good TV moment with him showing up when needed would do it. Remember when they had Big E come out to save people at the beginning of the year and he was really over for two weeks? WWE is sure bad at this stuff.

I just love that even after they go along with the alignment shift, all he can really figure out to do is eyerakes repeatedly until he goes for a freaking 1986 springboard splash.

I started watching Belvis Wesley vs HTM from last year because there was some morbid curiosity there but then things fell and there were shouts and I gave up. What I did actually see was : Bruno Sammartino vs Honky Tonk Man, July 18, 1987 - IC title This was a lot of fun too actually. Bruno was definitely in full living legend mode and Honky wasn't afraid to bump all the ring for him. His usual act seems to be to eat a move, duck outside, and then sell, but that's actually pretty effective, especially since the crowd hates him and he's so good at jawing with them on the outside. Bruno went to town on one body part after the next, finishing with the arm with something like 50 hammerlock grinds in total over three sets. The crowd loved counting along and they even worked one escape spot where Honky almost got out that went pretty well. Eventually, Honky did get out with an eye rake, sold huge, and took over on Bruno's back. The biggest problem with HTM, by far, is that his stuff just doesn't look all that good. He has some things, like the Savage knee to the back and his noose-style hart attack clothesline and some of the fist drops that are okay but just stomping and his axe handles never look all that great and that's a huge brunt of his offense. You can have interesting and varied offense or you can have simple but good looking offense, but it's not great when you don't have either. This all ended with a pretty lame countout but hey the fans just wanted to cheer Bruno.

My main counterpoint to your argument of "Why don't they sell the stomach the whole match?" is that one (the active limbwork that is the focal point for an entire portion of the match) is part of the broader story being told (it's architectural) and the other is just a momentary blip. This is especially meaningful, for example, when it comes to post-comeback Michaels who has a lot of matches built around him selling his reconstructed back only to kip up at the end, perfectly fine. I honestly wish they had gone further into the religion and implied that whenever he did that he had some holy power coursing through him or something. One's part of the story the wrestlers are telling and a part that's supposed to hold things up. The other is just "wrestling has to be real" which isn't what I'm saying. I want it to be consistent and I want to feel like moves matter. If you use an element in your storytelling, one that has a real narrative thrust, you shouldn't just ignore it a moment later. I don't think novels do that. They might tie it off to get to the next plot point or what not, but it usually has both weight to what happens immediately thereafter and closure, and that's both different and appreciated. It's more narrative consistency than wrestling logic, if that makes sense. Alternatively, if it just didn't work, a bad tactical choice, then I'd like to see that played out in the match in some meaningful way. I'd like to see frustration from the heel that the tactic didn't work, or you know, the babyface acknowledging it somehow. I'm not saying you have to sell it like death. You don't have to pop your arm back in like Cesaro did in his match vs Zayn. Just shake it off in some way that isn't just rushing to hit your shit. Now, then, all of this is a personal thing for me. Is it dogmatic? On some level, but I think there's a theoretical underpinning to it. Does it ruin a match for me? Not usually but it does detract and when someone makes the effort, it's appreciated. It's not just about the comeback. It also makes the actual heat section mean more because it was shown to have consequence. It's like the old mindset: the better you make your opponent look, the more it means when you beat him. The more you make limbwork have meaning even after the fact, the more it matters that you're fighting through it and I think the more it makes your offense ultimately mean.

It doesn't have to "work" but some guys manage to sell it while getting back on offense, even if it's after hitting a move, or after a win, and other guys don't. It stands out to me because it's something that I've seen done well quite a bit, even in matches where the limbwork doesn't work. It's one thing if it's never sold, or is cut off before the selling, or at least before the heavy selling, but it's another when the wrestler DOES sell it a lot and there's no gradual recovery or selling while back on offense. It was sure working a second ago when you were selling your ass off. If there's no connect between that moment and the next, it does bug me because other wrestlers can do it and do it well. it's laziness or insecurity or apathy in the face of thinking it's time to get your shit in and not understanding that moves mattering is part of conditioning the audience over time. If we were in a vacuum and no one did it (and there are certain styles where it's not done as much), that's one thing, but we're in an environment where some guys do it more often than others. By building a part of a match around a body part, by using that particular wrestling tool to kill time or get heat, there's a cost, and that cost is that if you don't sell it later on, it ends up meaning less within the context of the match. It's not paying back a loan, basically. I honestly think Bryan drops his selling on purpose to look stronger despite his size. It's not something I think he did nearly as much earlier in his career. He's basically trying to trade in sympathy for that "fans love an asskicker" mentality. Maybe he feels like he has to in order to be accepted as a WWE main eventer. Maybe the agents or Hunter or Vince want him to. I don't know. I'm pretty sure he knows what he's doing though. I think Michaels did quite the same a lot of the time, though it somehow seems less benign from him. And this is an issue because 1.) Some people DO manage to do it much more consistently and 2.) because we're looking at the word "great" quite a bit here. If we were looking at "good" it would be less of an issue.

Comparing blowing off legwork to a narrative ruse to keep the audience guessing is a daring move. That's the kind of thing I'd try to pull.

I do think they need more 80s nostalgia. More Macho Man and Ultimate Warrior and Hogan. Lots more Hogan. They're maybe targeting the wrong boom period?

I'll give them a rewatch sometime soon. It's been a while, especially for the Summerslam match. Most of you guys do have better organizational systems than I have and if enough of you (and a nice cross section) say I'm wrong, I tend to think there's something to it. At least on everything except for that Rose/Somers cage match.

That's a fair question. I think it runs into a lot of trouble we have with some of these comparative views. The answer is "probably, but that only helps so much when compared to every other match ever."