Matt D

Fair enough. I mainly just like arguing with Parv. Or anyone. Probably anyone. I'm not entirely confident on talking about a lot of wrestlers right now, without spending some more time watching things. My standing line in, let's say 2010 or whenever I first started posting here regularly and stopped just lurking is that I didn't feel confident participating on the level as a lot of posters we have. I feel more so now, more refined in my views and having seen a lot more in the way of matches. I'm still not ready to weigh in on most guys yet. One think I do think I'll do is look at a lot of less seminal matches for the sake of this project and write them up, comparing and contrasting specific performances in different situations outside of GREAT MATCHES. Everyone will be looking at the great matches and it might serve the community to offer something else, especially more so than me just hammering on the point in a general sense.

I'm the first guy who is going to give an old wrestler tons of credit for learning to work around their limitations and to punish a wrestler for not being able to figure out how to do so, but again that comes to the matches that they're putting on, not their card placement. Some of the best wrestlers in the world are completely unreliable drug addicts who squander chance after chance but still continue to perform at a high level, just in a different context. That said, I guess I'm looking at this as "best wrestler of all time," because that's how I differentiate it from the WON HOF. It's a clear line to me. I appreciate that it's murkier for you, Parv. There's also a huge difference between Mike Jackson and the Barbarian (and I like the Barbarian), but that's beside the point.

Just for the sake of argument: I think it's potentially endemic of a greater issue. If this is a poll that is primarily focused on aesthetics and quality then the fact that quite often opportunity arose through anything but and may not have arose for the same non-aesthetic reasons becomes somewhat problematic. Quality rises, no matter what? Maybe, but certainly more so during different times and in different ways. A talented wrestler could probably have much better GREAT MATCHES in a meaningful position working in Memphis in 1989 or the AWA in 1986, but they could make a lot more money in New York, where they'd have far less opportunities to really show off given the depth of the roster and the very specific way the product was presented. When they did get a chance to show off, it'd often be something like Powers of Pain vs Rockers from early 90 MSG, which everyone who did the yearbook set loved, but which was hardly a "meaningful position," and even that was an exception compared to most of their matches that were taped on larger shows. Compare that to the Rose/Somers feud that the Rockers had. So because they were good enough to be in a place that gave them bigger paydays, they actually had less opportunity to show off how good they were on a "significant position" level. Some of that was very much how WWF presented tag team wrestling as opposed to AWA or JCP. Some of it was the depth of the roster when it came to things other than talent (Demolition was super over, so the Rockers couldn't be presented on top). Mainly, I'm not saying you can't judge things how you want. I'm mostly just going into more depth on why I try to discount opportunity and look at situations instead of great matches. For that, I apologize, because I think at this point, no one really wants me to go into more detail on this. ------------------------------------------------------- As someone who's 5'5", I'm not about to penalize someone for not being 6'3" and thus not having certain opportunities, for instance, or for not marrying a Gagne daughter (which isn't the sentence in this that you should be focused on, btw. Also don't focus much on the next one, please. Just consider this paragraph a fun footnote). By my criteria, it's possible for someone to put Mike Jackson over Ric Flair if they think that Mike Jackson was actually a better wrestler from watching him in a number of different situations, and we have Mike Jackson in a bunch of different situations and territories, and watching Flair in a number of situations. I'm not saying I'm going to do that, but when it comes to the things I care about, understanding the art and science of pro wrestling and executing it, I am going to say that possibility exists.

It could say that your brother owns the promotion.

Patterns over time leading to a "how well does someone understand pro wrestling and can he transfer that understanding into the ideal performance for the situation that he is in." If it means he's in a situation to have a great match, he can have a great match. If it means that he can get over in a three minute squash match, he can do that. If it means that he can put over an opponent without taking too much of the match, he can (and will) do that. It encompasses tag matches, house shows, TV tapings, dark matches, everything under the sun. You can learn almost as much from watching four or five tv squashes as you do from a 35 minute classic, and more than that, you learn different things. It's an approach that takes a lot of work, but it's a holistic one, a whole career one. It also only judges a wrestler for the matches he has and it doesn't penalize him for not being in a position to have GREAT matches. It's sort of a performance based, career-focused pound-for-pound approach.

Parv has a list of matches that show Flair's breadth and how he would change up his formula for different opponents and in different situations. Sort of an argument-killer. I've been promising for years to revisit these matches all together to see if that proved to be the case or not. If he would post it here, then I will absolutely get to it in the next two years.

If you're good enough to be a nominee, you're good enough to have a comprehensive bio. There's something to that.

Neville recovering from the giant super 4 man bomb so quickly bugged the hell out of me. That was my big takeaway from the main.

Yeah, she's been great as a cocky heel lately. Very believable with her facial expressions and crowd interaction even if not everything else is there yet. Ah well.

I feel like someone recently made a metaphor about seeing a high school play and clapping because they were enthusiastic and you were supposed to. That's what tonight sort of feels like.

I don't get this crowd. You look out at the people facing hard camera, and it looks like there's only one guy enjoying himself at all.

The tag match had a ton of energy and a hot tag that i kind of liked but there was some stuff that was so ridiculously blown or contrived or something. Just gawkworthy stuff. That's the most I've seen the crowd into Kallisto though.

I vote for 50 since it's easier and because it'd drive Dylan nuts to have to leave 50 guys off.

Misawa was so dynamic and explosively genuine I might have to sneak him on. Taue wrestled like a complete asshole though. Just full of character. That appealed to me more than the other three. I came out of watching their big tags liking Taue way more than the rest.

Thanks for posting the Torch Talk snippet.

That's fair, but there are different aesthetic elements and then there are completely non-aesthetic elements. I think you can categorize the first and find some sort of common ground, while I think the second is arguing about something completely different. "This match had great matwork!" "But it didn't draw money!" is a different argument than "This match had great matwork!" "But it didn't go anywhere!"

i think the main reason for some level of criteria is that it's annoying for the sake of arguments/conversations if person #1 goes "Well, this match is obviously better than this match because of X." and person number #2 goes "This match is obviously better than this match because of Y," where person 1 ignores Y completely and person 2 ignores X completely. That's just not compelling to me. You have people talking about completely different things. There's no common ground for discussion in that case so what's the point of this as a social activity past making a list.

I'm excited for the GOAT project mainly because it means I get to put Taue on and leave the other three off.

It's the fault of the trap door.

I was in Boston the next week for Nitro right before my 17th birthday. That was fun, but it was also Boston. Not quite the same.

This isn't really my sort of thing, BUT after listening to you guys talk, were I to offer a suggestion I'd say go for two lists, just like Loss has defined when it comes to the GOAT stuff. The WON style for the drawing/important/influencial, etc and then the PWO GOAT sort for the greatest aesthetically.

CM Punk winning in Chicago? Bryan doing the Yes! Chants on the top of the cage.

I want to see this, actually. I'm going to go out of my way and watch this soon.

Can I have some timeline help? I always thought that Ross got canned due to his initial flare up in 94, but Wiki said his contract lapsed and wasn't renewed two weeks the flare up. I can't find anything in the WON at this time, except for at the very end of February where Dave mentioned that Ross would be replaced by Monsoon and Stan Lane on Challenge due to the Palsy, with nothing about his contractual situation. Then, in March, Dave said that the contract wouldn't be renewed at the end of March. Which is accurate? Was he not renewed before the flare up happened or was he not renewed only after it happened? He was hired back during the steroid trial for two months only because that's how long they figured Vince would be busy for it. Can someone clarify this?

Martin, Kelly, and I are on a fairly similar wavelength (if I can be bold enough to say, though no one's quite as crazy as me), so if Charles is going to aim things in my direction, we'd be okay with that. For everyone else, it might just serve as a good jumping off point.