Matt D

Vote Sting!

Who the heck is Hoshino? This is getting off to a fine start.

That is our definition of greatest right there then.

I'm not married to drawing. I'm less married to drawing than most people, to be honest, since I think you can tell everything you need about a wrestler from the matches we have, generally, whether they're main event matches or opening matches on cards. I'm very much a proponent of looking for patterns in how wrestlers deal with specific situations over time as opposed to putting all the stock in GREAT MATCHES. So yes, drawing isn't actually something important to me. It's just the #1 WON HOF metric from what I can see, and certainly the thing that's argued the most in those notes, so I thought it had to be raised.

Is there any argument for Monsoon as a promoter? Also what's the precedent of people getting in for combinations of things. Wrestler+Promoter+Announcer, etc?

I do think we've got time to work this out. If we go down a road fairly far, decide that there's no destination in sight, we can at that point just set up shop where we are and run with it. If we were doing this tomorrow, there'd be more of an issue.

I wasn't involved in the 06 version, but every single time we have a discussion about the WON HOF, I'd say the #1 criteria is drawing and card placement. Now that may be because Dylan is pushing for guys like Patera and Blackwell, or that may be the nature of the WON HOF relative to the PWO GOAT or what not, but I'm not sure I can disengage it from in-ring work because I'm so used to that being part of the discussion on this high level. I think we have to start from a common answer for "Does drawing matter?" with the breakdown of "How much does drawing matter?" being a personal thing. That sort of common ground.

Serious question: How important is it to harmonize criteria? I'm not saying 20% drawing! 30% GREAT Matches! 15% able to carry someone or anything like that. But should we spend the next couple of years at least trying to work out what Greatest of All Time means for the sake of this project, because I think everyone's criteria is slightly different, if not wildly different. It's one thing when one person values an element more than someone else. It's another thing when they think they're talking about something different.

It's far off but I'm hesitant to do some of the legwork on certain guys that I've been reluctant to watch for one reason or another. I still have huge gaps. I can probably get cajoled into it though and I'll, of course, spew out words on anyone I have an opinion on.

What about Finlay at Uncensored? That was the rare sort of mid-card match that the TV Announcers were talking about the next night, maybe even for weeks, even if it wasn't central to any plot. How does that compare in "Big match" standing to Rey vs Eddie? Charles, as for what you said about big matches, I think Regal had that in spades with his Christian feud. During parts of it, the frustration and desire was palpable, even if it was just over the WWECW title. I think it's trickier with Lord Steven, since he his character was supposed to be part comedy and part above everyone, snooty. I do think some of the other examples listed above are at least worth looking at.

Leaving Warrior aside, I'd argue that it wasn't usually Regal's role to do that on the midcard, and that when he was put in the role to do that, he generally did well, whether it be working Christian in 2009 or his big Raw match with HHH or the Pillman memorial match or some of the FCW/NXT big matches. It's just that he, more than most wrestlers I can think of, seems to know his role on the card and not to go into business for himself. When he's put in that position, he lives up to it. While I downplayed influence before, I think he does have it as well as the major british/european style wrestler in the US over a 15 year period, as well as someone who helped a lot of other wrestlers with moves/finishers/etc.

Ultimate Warrior was a big match worker. Who's to say Regal couldn't do it? What's the big match he had that's not good? Vs Sting? Vs Jericho at Wrestlemania? What he was, was a guy with a substance abuse problem which cost him a couple of big runs where he might have had that opportunity. I don't know if I'd hold that against him as a wrestler. It's one thing if you have big matches and whiff. It's another if you don't have them.

I have no idea how having big or influential matches has anything to do with how good a wrestler is.

I think Lex is better and the reason is because he saw it as a job. Lex was there to go in, to get paid, to have some fun, and to go home. In 95% of comparisons ever, that would probably be a hindrance to him, but you never got the feeling that he was trying to have a classic or homage something or that he needed to get this much in or whatever. He wasn't a worker, he was an employee, and the guy did his job. He had a lot of athleticism to fall back on. He was generally protected in booking. He had enthusiasm when he was a young babyface and a natural sort of confidence that came through as arrogance for his three or four big heel runs (even his later stuff). He could follow direction. Depending on where he was physically, he could keep up with the guys in the ring with him. He generally connected with fans. Honestly, what I really would want to go back and look at is some more of his 94-early 95 when Raw was in REALLY small venues, because Luger was much more of an arena sort of guy. Triple H on the other hand is king of having 2/3rds of a good match. I think the strongest parts of his career are before 1999 and this year, basically, though I'd have to revisit his smackdown babyface year too. He wrestled almost every match like he had something to prove and in doing so, the only thing he ever really managed to prove was that he needed a road agent to chop seven minutes off of almost everyone one of his big matches. He generally had credible looking, logical offense and would bump big when called upon, but his matches were always full of too many twists and turns, especially in the finishing stretch that it all became somewhere between tedious and desensitizing. In the search for memorable moments, it all somehow becomes a mishmash of forgettableness. I think Hunter understands wrestling better, but in this case, that actually hurts him, because Lex was far more willing to just go out there and do his job.

Only if it's on the Duke of Dorchester.

The Argument for Kane

That's fine and understandable. I tend to see wrestling as symbolic. I get that some people don't, but I think the level that Regal was talking about, in as how a wristlock is administered, is something most of us don't worry about too much. We just breeze past it, though if it's done particularly well, we'll probably notice.

The drawing aspect isn't so surprising to me, that and legit toughness (Haku, Rude) or general outside success (Rock, Ventura) or what sort of legitimacy they can bring wrestling (Angle, Brock), or how good they were to you when you were coming up (Wahoo for Manny, for instance). That said, I do think we've seen far more of wrestlers talking about the art of pro wrestling and actually working in the ring over the last couple of years, which is something that really wasn't even there a lot in the shoot interviews of the 00s, so it lets us look at how things are viewed slightly differently. Some of that is because it's wrestlers interviewing each other now.

No one seems to give Cena crap for that. Austin rags on him for the STF though, which is funny.

And vice versa. I was listening to the Austin Podcast with Regal and he talked a lot about what he liked in wrestling and it got me thinking especially since Regal always champions a number of Indy jerks that I wouldn't want to watch if you paid me. A few notes: - Steamboat/Savage. Austin brought it up and Regal said he liked it right until he spoke to Steamboat and then they sort of moved on without going into detail but it has to be the script right? - Cardio. One thing that Regal brought up was how much Flair's cardio mattered to him. This is one reason that I've heard Flair, in the past, praise Brody. - Energy/Effort: He said at one point that he'd like any match where they were really trying hard. - Technique: Putting on a wristlock the correct way was a big deal to him. - Believability: This comes from his carny background. I'm just curious what people think about this. We've all heard a ton of interviews with wrestlers by now. I can't think of many things less important to me than cardio. To me, knowing your limits and working smartly within them is far more important than having incredible limits.

The best stuff ever attached to the name ECW was Christian, WWE TV Champ.

After seeing the intensity that Breeze has been showing lately in NXT, I'd be a little worried if I was Ziggler. The guy should definitely bring the sleeper back. If the Gagnes could use it as faces, so could he.

Didn't get a chance to watch tonight but how was the goldust/stardust heeling?

Tony doesn't strike me as a brave man, but he's a guy I sort of like. I could see another season of Fargo with him in the Martin Freeman role.

He'd make shitty matches entertaining by being Gorilla Monsoon, not necessarily by calling them shitty.