Matt D

Hennig/Hall is worse

The last few pages are great. That was a hell of a post, Dylan. I think we know where I fall here. I get the feeling that Loss is trying to find Truth, almost like PWO over the last few months has been part of a great experiment to come up with that GOAT, and really, what's interesting isn't the answer, isn't the destination, but the journey, and figuring out the why behind these great matches. I absolutely think that Great Matches are a factor. Even numerically, but it's just a factor. There doesn't have to be only one. We can come up with more inclusive ways. It can be a starting point, but even then, if we're trying to learn and understand and really gauge, then it makes sense to look at how wrestlers dealt with multiple things. Not just their great matches but all sorts of matches and situations. Personally,I think it's important to look at situations within situations. But that's me and I get that. I just don't think Great Matches have to be an end all. Why can't we look at that AND other things. Is it harder to quantify? Sure, but wrestling is an art form. Also, I love the microscope. Love it. I'm not always up to watching a bunch of matches of one guy in a row, but I Can watch a Murdoch match tomorrow, a Funk match the next day, a Regal match the next, and some random thing from PR the next, and there's room to discuss all of them and leave them out there for the next person who watches that match to comment on. I'm excited about that.

I have a feeling, Matt, if you and me were given two competent wrestlers, a finish and a timeframe to do it in, we could lay out an excellent match between them, provided we had the time and resources we need. That still doesn't mean it would be any good. The skeleton of a good match may shine through, but it may still have major flaws because of the limitations of the wrestlers. By the way, when you come into massive amounts of wealth wealth, we will do this. The finish will be the heel being unable to hit his finisher due to limb work set up in the first part of the match. The WON Message Board will hate it.

What confines do you have in baking a cake? Still, I'll amend my statement since it was obviously unclear due to pronouns and there is a further element. If a wrestler has the best match that someone could reasonably have within certain confines consistently over time, he's a great wrestler. Also, the job of a wrestler can vary from match to match. It is not always to have a five star classic.

A wrestler goes out there to do a job. If he does it well, he's a great wrestler. If a wrestler has the best match he can have within certain confines, he's a great wrestler. If you watch a wrestler enough, you can see what he does well or doesn't do well. Obviously some jobs are harder than others. Having 30 minutes to wrestle a match in a main event presents different challenges than having ten minutes to wrestle a match with agents breathing down your throat. I'm not saying that I think Mike Jackson is a better wrestler than Ric Flair, but I'm willing to hear the argument if someone wanted to make it.

What does a wrestler do within those confines? Jerry Lawler had a ton of great matches doing nothing but punching people. Unless you say that using a DDT or other head-droppy moves is an essential part of being a good wrestler. And I know you don't feel that way. They had limitations. Absolutely. What matters isn't that they had limitations but what they did with those limitations. A great wrestler can work past them and do compelling things. Does it mean they're less likely to have great matches, absolutely, but I don't see how that makes them any less of a great wrestler. They just were dealing with different confines. And I think you can see this if you analyze their work, what they do in every single situation.

I don't think the "take pride in their craft" argument has anything to do with what we're talking about. Alternatively, you can judge a wrestler on the micro, not the macro. And I think that this is one very strong argument to do so.

I'm reminded of Doug Furnas hating working in the WWF, because he felt like having good matches was secondary to hitting time cues. Don't you see that Great Matches might not be the best metric to judge wrestlers then?

It's my major argument when people say "Well, that's the basic minimum of what a wrestler should do" when it comes to "playing a role well" or "storytelling." It's pretty god damn rare that you actually see this stuff if you're looking for it. The reason why "playing a role well" is important is because so few people manage it. Guys like Mark Henry and John Tenta stand out because they do so many little things effectively when so many other of their peers don't. And they're not necessarily "hard" things, but they are things that take thought and concentration and that are logical but not always intuitive.

Shoots are interesting for sure. Flair's shoot made him out to be pretty dense. But I worry about putting too much stock in them. What's more important - being able to do good things, or being able to articulate why they did good things? Bret no doubt put more thought into his matches than Flair. Flair, and I can really see this point of view, felt planning things out in advance was antithesis to actually working, where your job is to react in the moment and think on your feet. I don't think he puts much value in memorizing spots and sequences, because anyone can lay out a match in advance that's really good. There is a difference between working and performing. That's one of my favorite Steve Austin quotes. "Wrestlers no longer work. They perform." Things have disintegrated in WWE to the point that Jericho took it as a major point of pride that he was able to call a PPV match on the fly against Shelton Benjamin. That meticulous planning started with the Savage/Steamboat series, continued with Bret and now, most wrestlers have no improvisational skills to speak of. Well this goes back to a lot of what I always say. Warrior vs Hogan is a very well put together match. It might even be a GREAT MATCH (though I know you leaned more towards "effective" in your last watching, but there are other examples one could use). The point is this: Who gets credit for it and what sort? Hogan? Warrior? Patterson? Also, if anyone can lay out a match in advance that's really good, why aren't there more really good matches?

I realize shoots are not an end all, but I think philosophies are interesting. Flair claims that it was his job to give the fans what they expected every night. They're there to see a certain show and it's his job to give them signature things so they don't feel cheated. Bret claims that if it ever hits a point where the fans are watching a match of yours and they can predict what you're going to do, then you're not doing your job ("You don't want to do what the fans think you're going to do"). Now, I don't think that honestly plays out in all of their matches, but it's interesting to go on what they've said. That said, one of Dylan's big shots against Bret is that he overvalues innovation, and I'm not going to contest that. I think he does, but it's tempered the fact he's really shooting for logic most of the time.

Also, when you're done with your write up, if you want to compare, here's ours: http://board.deathvalleydriver.com/topic/5...t/#entry1149097 It's the first one we did so I probably would have written it up a little differently at the end. I'm curious what someone thinks coming from seeing a lot of Rockers matches instead of a lot of Demolition matches.

If it's the 88 MSG match, keep in mind that it's a match Shawn bitches about since he doesn't think Demos gave them enough. Carry on.

It's amazing how much Memphis seemed to manage every week. Especially in a year like 93.

There's a ton of other good stuff in 86. The TV was pretty fun because Larry was all over it in entertaining ways.

Was there powder and a fan involved?

Dick Murdoch vs Pat O'Connor AJPW 12/15/75 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwXdMjWuwhc This is a very cool, very frustrating match. Here's the quick breakdown. Ten minutes of Murdoch putting on headscissors, O'Connor getting out, going for a headlock, getting put back in. Most of the work here is by O'Connor trying to get out and each time he makes it, there's an escalation of energy in him trying to get on top and Murdoch putting him back down. He finally takes over with a cheap knee to the face. This leads to some amazing looking arm stuff by O'Connor and then some back and forth legwork. THIS ends with a limping Murdoch being unable to hold onto the headscissors for long and punching O'Connor in the face. Up until this point it's a really fun match. I might doubt the logic of O'Connor going back to the headock again and again but I can see it as old man's pride. The problem is that the FACE PUNCHING leads into 6 or 7 minutes of comedy. And it's good comedy, first with Murdoch complaining about O'Connor's fists, sneaking his own, and then getting wildly out punched, and then with O'Connor escaping holds quickly as the crowd laughs and Murodch lumbering at him (including a great spot where he goes through the ropes). It's entertaining, but a minute or two before they were starting to punch each other in the face, while limping, after 20 minutes of holds. It's jarring and really, annoying. I like comedy a lot at the beginning of a match or throughout a match, but i don't think it belonged in the tail end of THIS match, even if it was all well done. Then the time-limit is coming so they go into a pretty compelling series of pinfall attempts until the bell rings. Well worth watching but highly frustrating.

I'm sure that won't keep us from doing it in the future.

Brody/Snuka vs Masked Superstar/Murdoch - 12/26/85. Crowd LOVES Murdoch. The spot where Murdoch apes Snuka's leap frogs and ends it with a dropkick is one of my favorite things I've seen in a while. Crowd is nuts for Brody vs Murdoch. Brody's slam is pretty shitty though. Lots of back and forth early. Murdoch looks universally great. I like Superstar's arm whips when he has Snuka in a grounded hammerlock. Crowd lights up for Calf Branding. What would have been a sort of hot tag is just lame as we get a transition after Brody stomps to break up a pin. I'll say this, he has a good spot where he eats a Murdoch shoulder block and staggers back to a knee only to hit a dropkick when Murdoch tries again. Give and take. Then Murodch hits a dropkick of his own. And Brody's selling is comical. He clumsily backsteps into the corner and then decides to drop down. Superstar has a bunch of fun and varied strikes, and eats both guys' offense pretty well. Brody's suplex almost turns into a jackhammer by accident. Snuka as a very pleasant and gentle backbreaker. There's a nice little segment where Murdoch eats a big brody boot only to duck a second one and hit a cross body. ... And everyone meanders around ringside for the finish. I'm not even sure I could impose a narrative on this thing. The only thing I got out of it is that Brody has shitty slams and Murdoch is really good at calling spots.

Jarrett in memphis in 93 is really painful til the heel turn

They had numbered pamphlets. I have talking points. You have quite wonderful comps. I also get your opinions mixed up with Charles' and John's all the time. Sorry. This is a fast-paced, high impact world of wrestling discussion.

I kind of want to see Backlund vs Afa

I can't keep track of you people and your god damn talking points from six years ago. Especially when you're not even putting out numbered pamphlets anymore. I have a hard enough time keeping track of my own that no one wants to engage me on.

I feel like sometime this year I really need to rewatch Eddie too.

I think people aren't saying much because the results this year just aren't very interesting.