Matt D

The Taue Revolution

According to Jim Ross, Brian Pillman is pound for pound the best athlete in 1991 WCW!

I was there that night. We were excited. Then we were disappointed. So, so disappointed.

In general, I'm much more impressed by someone who uses limited athletic ability to great effect than someone who uses a lot of athletic ability to pretty good effect.

Khali has a very specific value to the company though, as he's a celebrity in India which is a huge market and can stand out for publicity reasons, as well as has a certain level of credibility just due to his size when it comes to putting someone over. Thanks to Total Divas, I'd actually say the Bellas are more valuable to the company than he is right now, but it's pretty close.

100 heels.

People were pretty high on Bagwell in late 97-early 98 after he'd spend some time in Japan. I remember DEAN for one being so in the workrrate reports from the time. Also, he was a perfectly fine partner for Scorpio in 93.

From what I've seen from the shoot stuff so far, I like the more grappling-heavy stuff, the whole "building off openings that the other person lets me" to create counters and what not, but I have a long way to go. I've seen very little strike heavy matches.

I had a post that I didn't actually go through at one point talking about the general feeling in 98 when he had the phantom TV title win and people's reactions when it wasn't acknowledged but I didn't quite feel up to articulating it

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.