Matt D

I stopped watching at the Four Horsemen at 4, just because I wanted to pay attention to that and I didn't have time to do more than listen, and in my head I couldn't figure out who the hell was slotted in there. There was NWO and DX, obviously, but who the hell else? I figured it was probably the Shield and they did a late insertion to get them in there. The Brood is so much more surreal. I think it gives you an interesting idea of the amount of Attitude Era fans involved in this though? Maybe?

Rogers' recovery during the Malenko/Kikuchi match after Kikuchi falls off the ropes is one of the smoothest things I've ever seen watching wrestling. The match itself is insane, both in the good way and the bad way.

I think he's been fine. He has a familiarity with the product and it shows.

I'm always glad to hear people talk about the Dangerous Alliance on WWE show. It also made me want to see a Cesaro/Ambrose/Nattie Dangerous Alliance for some reason since they were the talking heads they used.

This is why Dave gives Dylan so much crap obviously. It's the pyramid of screaming.

Some of these are fluff, but this Joey Mercury: Where are they now? WWE Article is well worth reading. http://www.wwe.com/classics/wherearetheynow/where-are-they-now-joey-mercury-26309214

I think the main reason he didn't make the roster is that they asked him to do something and he didn't do it. They could have asked him to cut off his pinky or drink more cabbage smoothies. It's WWE. He was a developmental guy.

The cool thing about Sami is that he manages to seem like he's in on the joke with the crowd without demeaning the joke, if that makes any sense. He's very good at portraying "Hey, this Tyler Breeze guy is pretty nutty, huh? Is he for real? Is this really happening" without making it seem like "Mattias Clement is sure portraying Tyler Breeze in an entertaining but goofy way, isn't he? He's doing interesting stuff with the writers' material!" I know they're totally different, but someone that I'd point to who connected to the crowd in his promos in a similar way was Sting. You always had the sense of Sting being in a strange and outlandish situation and relating to the crowd, whether he was up against Avalanche and Big Bubba or against the Black Scorpion or what. Obviously, Sami can manage this by just talking to them and not screaming and woo-ing, but that's what it made me think of.

Does this apply to when you're praising matches or when you're criticising them? I mean, if I praised Flair/Kerry would he tell me my praise means nothing because I wasn't there? If I praised it without understanding the context would he tell me I don't know what I'm talking about? Or is it only when people criticise a match for being dated or not holding up that he plays the context card? Is it okay for us to praise French catch, or should we not do so because no-one's ever done so in the past? Or can we praise French catch so long as he don't use hyperbole like "French catch was the best wrestling in the world in the 60s"? Dave has said it works both ways, yes. I also don't think saying Dave's focus is on moves and spots is entirely correct. He likes matches with hot crowds unless they involve Hulk Hogan. It's really interesting to go back to 84 and look at Dave's enthusiasm at the start of the Hogan WWF run. It's generally interesting to look at some of those old issues in general, especially when he ranks all the wrestlers.I always say that what he likes is "action," more than moves and spots.

In everything but JBL and Cole show, which is the best thing WWE does every week. And maybe how he comes out before smackdown tapings which we got to see due to the leak last week.

It's one reason why it's so cool to watch Goldust work in 2014, because he can be in a headlock and get the crowd into a match like no one else on the card.

It's really much more about admitting and embracing your biases, I think. "These are the elements I think are important. This match hits them well or doesn't. I like it or I don't. It also manages to do these other things well or it doesn't, which are things I do not value as much but other people might. I think it is or isn't a good match." Add in some context(!) and a funny road report story and that's a good review right there. It's better than most of the ones I manage.

I think you need context to watch ANY match well, frankly. I just watched 7 matches leading up to an apuestas match from a few months ago and got a hell of a lot more out of it than I did when I watched it blind the first time. I also don't think obtaining context is all that hard. It's certainly not an impossible task. Maybe we disagree in what we think "context" is?

No one's saying you don't need context. Most people are just saying that it's not all that hard to get the context and just because something was lauded 20 years ago doesn't make it inherently laudable even relative to other things from 20 years ago that weren't lauded at the time.

I really feel like the money in Punk is to have him be the jaded, jealous heel. Bryan took what he wanted, the Wrestlemania Main Event, being the face of the company, the best in the world, etc. I think that Punk doesn't want to play ball at all though, so it's moot.

One of my other favorite talking points is that anything, from good punches to lucha matwork to two counts to dives to legwork to thumbtacks to bleeding to a complex comedy spot are all tools, and the thing that matters the most in wrestling is what a wrestler does with the tools available in order to tell a story. By standards are you just saying that the tools are different? I do think that the audience's expectations are different too. Are you saying that's because of the tools? Oh wait, we should frame this in a structure and agency argument. The tools are in the structure but so are things like whether you're forced to have a 3 minute match or you get to have a twenty minute match. Then the agency is what they do within that structure. The actual choices they make. I love structure and agency arguments.

I kind of wanted to bring up Final Fantasy X as a sign that innovation/advances aren't always good, because that game is made almost unplayable by the advent of voice acting/in-game cinematics that involve animations where you can't skip through dialogue like you could in previous games (because it's too tied to the voice acting/animations). So you're left just staring at the screen for minutes on end instead of being free to move through things at your own pace and PLAY the damn thing, which is otherwise a pretty compelling game with a good character building system and engaging battle system. But it feels like it's not really pertinent to where we are now that we've hit the "Sometimes standards do get worse" point of agreement.

Actually, now I'm not even willing to accept what I said as the sum up anymore. I do think that there's an objective standard to a good wrestling that doesn't change which is that "1.) Everything the wrestler does (utilizing the tools that are at his disposal) means something to the overall whole of the match and you can draw a narrative throughline through it all, and 2.) that narrative throughline is compelling." That's my opinion of what I think an objective standard is. That's different than subjectivity I think, but it's a tricky line to walk. I know that Dylan mentioned various things (like build to big moments) and that's his idea of what he thinks the objective standard for every match. That's my idea of the objective standard of "This is what a good wrestling match is." That doesn't' change. I think the standards for "This is what the vast majority of people who discuss wrestling currently think a good wrestling match is." do change.

You can't bingo half of my sum up and not the other half!

To sum up the note: Yes standards can change. Sometimes they get better. Sometimes they get worse. It's generally hard to pin down. However, standards changing is a wildly terrible reason not to reevaluate or discuss things and really not all that important in comparing and contrasting wrestling through the eras either on a business or an aesthetic level.

Standards can change in a negative way, no?

"You," being "Will" is a fairly good starting point yes. That was a loaded question, I'll admit. I'm serving my own agenda here.

Do we think Rey was better in 2009 than he was in 1996, even though he was far more broken down in 2009?

They were never actually trying to get Axel over.

I watched two episodes of Get Smart and now Five Characters in Search of an Exit is on the Twilight Zone. On the other hand, I don't even entirely know what I'd want to catch tomorrow morning on youtube. Maybe just Bo and Adam Rose?