Matt D

Honestly, Bischoff should go in at some point.

I think the Outsiders can include Hogan. It was sort of how they were referred to at the very beginning.

At the least it's not a very interesting thing to talk about.

Yeah, that's what I call a match that's not as good as a match with shit that is there.

Yeah but you're also a crazy bearded malcontent.

There are matches where I lose the narrative, and then I go back and try to find it and I can't.

There's something to this. If you say you like obscure 80s mid south or are partaking in a lucha set from 30 years ago, there's some social protection there.

Did they really plan the Backlund match the night before KOTR 93 to go that long?

And i will watch that Baron/Dom match this week and give it the full write up.

Though I imagine if I was outright open about being a wrestling fan, it'd negatively impact how I was regarded at work. I mean I MIGHT be able to swing it because I'm pretty good at bullshitting, but I could in all honesty see that impacting my ability to get a promotion (and maybe surprisingly enough, probably far more so than if I was homosexual, though I don't want to belittle the experiences others might have or have had there. I'm just commenting on my unique situation.).

You know, you two could have named the board a little less conspicuously if you were trying to stay closeted on it. Sheesh. It's easy to explain away deathvalleydriver. It's a bit harder to explain away prowrestlingonly when someone walks behind your cpu. I was closeted to even my wife until October. It was just sort of the nature of our lives. When we finally decided to have a relationship years ago, we started out long distance for the most part so my life was very compartmentalized. People in college knew. My family knew. I just didn't show her that aspect of my life. We moved in the same month Benoit died and it stopped mattering much. I got a little embarrassed when someone would bring it up and I'd shrug it aside. My best man (who went to shows with me in college) mentioned it in the wedding speech as a throwaway thing. I brushed it aside. I just did it on my own time and it really didn't negatively impact our lives. I came clean though because it was getting ridiculous not to. She always went on record of hating it in general but in specific I think she was sad that I thought she'd judge me poorly for it (and that's why I'm trying to get a friend at work to come out to his partner about his Days of Our Lives obsession. It's just not worth it in the end). It's still a little weird. I've a 12 year old stepson too and I've been in his life since he was three and he knows how to lock in a cobra clutch or a figure four, but we don't talk about it or watch it together. If he comes to it on his own I'll support it but I've seen too many wrestlers I followed die or be revealed to be horrible or both. I just can't draw him in. I think he did find the signed JJ Dillon pic someone got for me recently the other day but there were no questions. I was trying to explain Parv and Johnny to my wife last night. As for the rest of my life. Nope. I work for a fairly prestigious international organization. It's the last thing I'd talk about. I have some DVDVRers that I've known for the better part of 5-12 years on facebook but they're all cordoned off and I have tags controlled.

A guess: "What would really happen?" over "What is a good narrative for this fake fighting we're portraying?" maybe with an undertone of being embarrassed by pro wrestling?

Hall should go in with Nash. Maybe Waltman too.They could probably headline a HOF. Michaels and Hunter should induct them. Maybe Hogan, but I don't think Hunter would let anyone else do it. Alternatively I guess you could put them in separately and then induct the Outsiders as a unit to get Hogan in again.

That's interesting. He also reported on Portland way longer than he should have. My gut was that he didn't do it for the sake of Memphis and Portland but because they had weekly TV and they could make the world of wrestling look bigger than it was at the time. It was a reactionary move in a transitional time.

So I kind of understand what workrate is, right? It's a tool like anything else. It's a style. It can be exciting as hell in small doses. It's not my thing anymore, but I pay attention and try to listen to people and remember how I used to feel. I never want to come into an argument from a place of ignorance or closed-mindedness for what others are thinking. I was tempted to make a flowchart. I really was. If I was at work I would have. I don't quite have the tech here. Basically, it's like this. Does the match tell a story? | Is the story good/interesting/compelling? | Is the story well executed and consistently told throughout the match? If you've made it through these three steps, I'm probably going to like your match. If you make it through two, I'll probably like it but be a little frustrated. If you make it through one, I'll probably be very curious to see what went wrong and try to figure out what the hell they were thinking. The story being good/compelling is actually important. I think people tend to disregard that one with me because I do lean towards extremes. Once you hit the third step, a lot of other factors come into it if I'm starting to compare matches against each other. Also, as a caveat, this is just "Good Wrestlng" to me. You can have exciting wrestling or fun wrestling, or a "guilty pleasure." It's not that I can't enjoy things I don't think are good wrestling. I just don't think that they're good pro wrestling. As it pertains to working hard vs working smart, OBVIOUSLY both together are best. I, in general, give a lot more credence to working smart over working hard because athleticism isn't nearly as impressive to me as using your brain to accomplish a goal.

I didn't love Cesaro vs Orton. I really liked the finishing sequence, everything from the first rope-assisted DDT attempt on. A lot of the match seemed unfocused to me, though, fairly even. My favorite part was when Orton faked the injury to take over and I think I would have liked it more if they played it up as Orton being out matched (or just worn out from the gauntlet he's gone through) vs this fresher, stronger wrestling machine, and him having to pull out every dirty trick he had to stay on top. Something like that. I didn't really see a through narrative in this at all, especially compared to some of the earlier Orton matches in this series. I liked Zeb being excited about the win and as silly as the Mania pointing is, Cesaro doing it with a little wave to Orton was fun. I've seen two dozen Cesaro matches I've liked more in the last two years.

Again, I don't want to put words into anyone's mouth. My idea of workrate is tied to 1999. When I think workrate I think SAT/Red vs Quiet Storm and Brian XL. I think go-go-go. Lots of motion. Working hard. Lots of action. Lots of stiffness and headdrops and hard hitting. Suplexes. Movez. Kickouts at two. Working hard and maybe working smart, maybe not. Fan chants. Fighting spirit. Kip ups which might be called Nip ups. Chopfests. Dives. Cardio. I think Angle vs Benoit from 03. I think Escalating finisher trading. Dynamite Kid vs Tiger Mask. Big bumping. Unprotected chair shots. Stiff kicks. Working hard. That move where you put your leg on the guy's head and flipover to hit a suplex. Working hard. Hot ending stretches. Power Bombs. Sabu vs Cactus Jack. Elaborate chain wrestling followed by a hesitation while the crowd claps. Great execution. High spots. Complicated moves that involve cooperation. Unnecessary rotations. Lightning Kid vs Jerry Lynn. Superkick reversals off the top rope. Working hard. You know. Workrate. It's not just one thing, but it's maybe less than three dozen?

I think the crux of this is the word "Workrate." Giving W2DBT the benefit of the doubt would say that he means something different with the word "worker" than a lot of us do with the word "wrestler." I'm fairly certain most of us use the words interchangeably. Not to put words in his mouth, but my guess is that he does not. I think we need to make sure we're all talking about the same thing before moving forward.

Alternatively... ... man, why was the only "Wrestling" "pitchfork" image I could find Eric Young with a goalie mask on? In all seriousness, you can like whatever you want here and we'll be civil to you so long as you're civil to us, I do wonder sometimes why this guy posts here since all he seems to want to do is show his dislike of a lot of the stuff we dig and explain how niche and weird we all are. You'd think it'd get frustrating over time.

Thus the *. Stop messing with my narratives. It's all storytelling, brah.

Where else can you hear a well-published British Shakespeare Professor discuss art with a Deadhead Strip Club DJ?* *I like the other guys too, and while not entirely accurate, that's a great tagline.

I've listened to chunks of the show. You guys do really well together. You've meshed so well and your differences are a huge strength. Larry claims that the reason why he didn't have a longer run is that he and Bruno were making power plays together and he pushed too hard for the title with Bruno's backing and it all broke down. Larry is one of the guys i trust the least in wrestling though, even if I generally like him. I'll need to catch that match at some point. As for psychology, logic and the rest, I'll write some stuff in the next couple of days. It's going to probably need a lot of words differentiating Bret Hart's idea of "realness" and the general sense of conventional/genre consistency, tempered with some of my lessons learned from watching lucha. I'm going to also have to hack a little at the idea that logic is just a tool like blood or spots or armwork or nearfalls or what not. I think that's ultimately where the disconnect is going to come. To me, it's part of what people are using those tools to achieve. It's an end since it's so inherently tied to storytelling in a way that "Blood" or "highspots" isn't. Those are means. One interesting thing, in general, is that one of the biggest arguments I've heard against Mark Henry is that "playing your role" is a bare minimum thing and not to be rewarded. My general argument against that (and the reason why logic is more important in wrestling than in other forms of media) is that it's actually such a rare/artful thing (Both playing one's role and logic). It's special because it's uncommon. Most novels, or at least the ones that are successful enough that people actually read them, are at a bare minimum logical and consistent. Plot holes in successful fiction are relatively rare. Most wrestling has plot holes all over the place. But yeah, more to come in the next week. In the meantime, I agree that it's great that different people can find different elements to enjoy so much. And of course, here at PWO, most people are mostly self aware of why they enjoy what they enjoy which makes the conversation all the more interesting.

That reminds me. I wanted to check that match out.

They restart. They're getting the money from the people who ordered Classics on Demand. That's sort of a given.