Matt D

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."

Tons of Moves contrived around the ladder. I feel like the ladder is much more organic in the Goldust match. It's a match where they happen to have a ladder as a tool as opposed a match where the ladder is a gravitational centerpiece that changes the general logic of pro wrestling. The ladder as a means as opposed the ladder as an end unto itself, basically. I haven't seen the Summerslam match in forever, though, so I'll admit that might not be the case as much there.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xo3qb0_goldust-vs-shawn-michaels-world-title-ladder-match-8-24-96_sport I still like the Goldust ladder match, probably more than Shawn's other ladder matches but that's because there's less stupid shit.

I still think they dropped the ball not doing a Network-Only one night tournament for the title before MITB after Bryan went down (they had a saturday house show that it could have worked at). Or at least King of the Ring exclusive on the network in June or something. The former was almost a kismet moment for them to capitalize on a negative in a strong way.

It's pretty striking to compare people's feelings back in February about how this year would go for WWE to now. the TV deal was a disaster that most people didn't expect. They were supposed to sail on that and use it to cover any danger of the network transition.

I have a feeling that there's not a single person in Titan Towers who are thinking that a lack of old territory content has anything to do with the numbers being low.

I see it advertised on facebook and websites all the time.

So someone raised him as the worst wrestler ever. Let's find out. We'll keep these quick. HTM vs Bam Bam Bigelow - PTW - May 9, 1988 Lots of stalling, working the crowd. He does it with a lot of energy though.I really like the way he doesn't just leave the ring every time Bam Bam advances, but he dives out in a big way. I have a feeling a lot of his IC title matches are going to be heavily focused on being a vulnerable champ. Lots of heel in peril. It's a bit more tolerable for a mid card heel, but it might get old, no matter how passionately he dives out of the ring. I think his selling/bumping is actually pretty good, way better than I was expecting. There's not much chance to show offense here and the finish is pretty weak with a last second countout win set up to give Bigelow a phantom victory by hitting his outside in splash just a little too late that felt a bit fabricated. Weird announce team here. Just Heenan and Hayes. HTM vs Ken Patera - Boston Garden - May 2, 1987 The crowd was super hot for this. Patera replaces the recently injured (On SNME by Kamala and HTM) Roberts who came out to announce it. He comes out with Damien too. Fans go nuts for him though and he seems to really appreciate it. He just chucks HTM across the ring with slams and Honky sells it like death. Different sort of stalling here. He doesn't dive through the ropes so much as he heads halfway through. There's arm work, first by Patera, with some good shine offense though it goes a bit long, relatively, and then, after a missed corner charge, by Honky on Patera. Unfortunately, neither guy sells it after it's over, even though Honky mocks a sell of Jake's arm. The best part of the match is how Patera positions HTM in an armbar in the corner of the ring repeatedly so that Jake can push the bag at him. Nice comeback with Patera tied up in the ropes but getting out while Honky is taunting Jake. Pretty decent finish for a match like this with Patera getting the bear hug, Hart going up on the apron, HTM cheating to get out but Jake catches his leg off the rope and Patera hits an elbow for the win. Post match they ALMOST get him with the snake while in a full nelson. Solid match that would have been actively good if they made the armwork mean just a little more. HTM vs Mr. X - MLG - Nov 16, 1986 Everyone has to watch this match. It's a lot of fun. This was just after the Honky vote results and he came out like a total face and the crowd wanted nothing to do with it. He slowly started to slip into more and more heel mannerisms and moves as the match went on. Meanwhile, Mr. X continued to wrestle like a total heel, just eyeraking over and over again, but he's more and more over with the crowd as they go. He's just flabbergasted as an "x" chant starts and it's amazing. Totally amazing. Eventually it lulls him into this crazy sense of flair and he tries for a springboard splash (in 86, in WWF; not even a slingshot, a full out springboard), misses, and eats the Shake Rattle and Roll for the loss. Honky's pissed at the fans post match. Everyone has to go see it. The crowd was great. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MC_uR3AnIWk

FWIW my point wasn't that Honky is one of the worst ever, just that at least in WWF he was worse than Beefcake. I'm still not convinced. Maybe Rhythm and Blues Honky vs Dream Team Beefcake but that's not entirely a fair comparison, and frankly, I'd have to watch footage to decide and i'm not sure I want to do it. I do feel like HTM is someone who hasn't had a proper reevaluation since the metrics shifted a bit over the last few years. Again, I'm not sure I want to do it but I don't think anyone else is going to. To me it feels like the main arguments against HTM are: 1.) Conventional Wisdom from an earlier age. 2.) The fact he didn't like to bump. 3.) The fact that he's wasn't Ricky Steamboat/Randy Savage and didn't work their more action-packed style. That's not to say he was good or his matches were good (I don't know), but when I look at someone and see those as the main strikes against him, that raises a red flag to me. They're very much 1998 metrics.

Tugboat had a great big splash, that really cool single underhook headlock suplex thing. and was more than competent showing vulnerability during the 92 Natural Disasters babyface run, and on the flipside pretty good in their squash matches. Not a great wrestler by any means, but I don't think he rates here. I think Honky would only count in something like this if someone cared only about workrate.