Matt D

It means I'm not as good at it as no arms guy #1. That goes back to a lot of high end guy vs high end guy stuff, though. In general, I think you can learn something by seeing wrestlers in different situation, especially ones where they have a tool taken away to see if they understand pro wrestling enough to adapt to that situation. I'm not saying it's the most important thing, but it's worth paying attention to. The greatest wrestlers understand what they're doing well enough that it doesn't matter. It's all in how they use whatever tools they have in any situation. That's what I'm saying.

BUT if I can find some way to still do it without arms because I understand the craft of making valentines that damn well, then I'm awesome!

My other favorite talking point is that Arn Anderson doesn't get enough credit for John Cena's matches. I have no idea what happens when he has those video game, finsiher stealing ones though.

For what it's worth, my usual talking point isn't that but more along the lines that you really learn how good a wrestler is understanding why he was doing what he was doing when you take away some of the tools. That's in a gimmick match, or in situation where he has to work in a limited amount of time, or yeah, when he's old. It's not just age though, but different circumstances, and age is one of the more interesting ones.

There are other things to factor in, like wrestling the right match for the right crowd. Moreover, obviously the best matches are ones which have a number of great elements, but I know what I value more. It's really more my preference, but it's also sort of like a magic eye. I can let go and enjoy just about anything now and again, but I can't unsee what I've seen, you know? The genie doesn't go back into the bottle.

Working smart and doing little things is so, so, so much more impressive to me at the age I am now, to the point where I sort of look down on people who value athleticism and innovative moves and stiffness and bumping and fighting spirit or what not more. I feel bad about that, but it seems like something that we're sort of supposed to grow out of as fans in favor of storytelling and nuance and selling. Granted, a lot of those earlier things can be tools in a broader storytelling, but they're blunt tools and feel really empty to me without the rest. It's all subjective but some of it is more flashy candy and some of it is more studied and learned craftsmanship of intent. Yeah, I'm kind of a jerk. Sorry.

You don't win a pre-Wrestlemania battle royal by accident.

It's very possible I've never actually seen a KENTA match. I do remember complaining a whole lot that brainbusters weren't allowed in WWE in 2002, though, which I am terribly embarrassed about now.

I want some sort of prize. I think there's no way in hell Bryan would wrestle the Kamala match the same way now, for what it's worth.

And I think that's okay. In fact, having a long-term plan but not being so married to it that if something unexpectedly gets hot, then deviation from the plan is not an option is the mark of a good wrestling promotion. I don't disagree. I just think that the whole "WWE is working their fans!" thing might give them a bit too much credit in the set up.

Frankly, if you look at both the big picture and the little picture and all the backstage news, it's a lot clearer that they've changed directions a bunch of times and shifted gears based on ratings/buyrates/national news/what signings they could make or couldn't make/crowd reactions. It's not a straight line, but a crazed wavy pattern of doom. I can see how people who haven't been following the news/shows could think that it's all a slow build and a big plan but from those who are paying attention it's much more obvious that WWE is reactive on almost all of this, not proactive. They try to make what they feel is the best decision at each point, but how they got there is a jagged stumbling mess.

The Cesaro/Kofi match is what impresses the hell out of me.

I think we could have a megathread archive just trying to analyze Steph's mind.

I don't agree that the system improves (all of) these guys. It's a different style. If you prefer the WWE style to the indie style, then you are going to think they've improved. Exactly. I'm a fan of freedom myself. I do like the WWE style but I have seen it hurt wrestlers and matches over the years. On the other side of the coin, It is interesting to note that the WWE style is not exactly what it was even 10 yrs ago. For ex, some of what you see today would not have been allowed back than. The WWE has actually gotten more Japanese like/ indyish. Which goes back to what I was saying about change. I'm not sure I'd be happy if everything was in the 99 or 03 style. I'm also not really big on the Cena vs Rock video game style with and finisher stealing and what not but I think those matches are rarer now than they once were. I'm curious. Would anyone argue that Punk, for instance, isn't a much better wrestler now than he was when he first got to WWE or before?

We can't handle arguments over threads. Especially when they end up here of all notes.

Guy could have gotten both! Does DDP Induct?

I think it's amazing that after years, maybe decades of people hating the WWF/WWE and how they limit indy guys, pretty much everyone agrees that the system improves almost everyone multifold. Did the indies change, did the WWE change, or did we change?

It wasn't a bad rumble by any means. There were a lot of fun/good moments, more so than in most years, I'd say. The crowd was going to shit on anything that wasn't what they wanted. Actually, my biggest problem was the end. Reigns hits the spear, and then when he goes to throw Batista out, Batista just reverses the throw out. That was kind of goofy.

When's the last time the crowd turned on Santino?

Obviously, Rey and Batista should become a heel unit because of their resentment.

Yeah, I was going to say. There was so much going on there in that match. If he had pulled off something incredible or even passable given the situation, I would have been impressed, but it's not even the physical elements. I'm probably the biggest proponent on the board that you learn more from what a guy can do when he's 52 than when he's 32, in really how much he understands how pro wrestling works and how good a wrestler he is, but Bret had been through so much and there was so much baggage in that match. I think he mainly wanted to put his family over and give himself and the fans some closure. It's also a case where you assume a lot of the ideas behind it were Vince's and it was sort of a bloated compromise between the two of them to even get him to show up.

I do prefer handhelds to no footage at all.

Not sure where they're going with the Rhodes breakup unless Cody goes heel. Dustin eliminated him by accident, not the other way around.

Part of me thinks the WWE really does hate their fans right now. They're trying to push back mainstream for the Network launch and Mania XXX and they've got bizarro Canada crowds in every city cheering for some unmarketable goofball and trying to make the show about them instead of about the product they're trying to present. I could absolutely see them seeing it like that. Is Raw in Philly tomorrow? That'd be great.

Batista: "I leave for a few years and the fans are all god damn nerds now?"