Matt D

Honestly, I don't know if he was professional so much as he didn't have the clout to get his way and express himself.

I've seen tremendously little Pat Patterson (but I love hearing him talk on DVDs/Legends roundtables). He gets a lot of credit for putting together more story based WWF big matches (Royal Rumbles, but also matches like Warrior vs Hogan). Do his matches from the 70s/early 80s that have survived show a lot of narrative elements?

Well he was only above average. What did you expect?

Break it off and we can regroup and refocus?

Should we just refine it to the first few years of guys' careers?

It's a good match. Mark looks good with his sort of duck and dodge stance. His mannerisms are pretty good (especially looking to Paul E). His chain wrestling isn't even that bad. The story is smart. For instance, the shine period: Mark tries to out power Luger, gets outpowered and shifted into the corner, clean rope break. Mark tries to out out wrestle Luger, gets out wrestled, clean rope break, tries to bully him and gets hip tossed and throws a fit, shifts Luger into the corner and hits him to take over for a little bit, playing to the whole of the match so far. He hits some intense looking punches. They do some back and forth and Luger gets back on top with a body press and goes to the arm. That's all good stuff, executed well. Mark was pretty good in there. He still had crappy kicks, but he was also super athletic when he did stuff like leap frogs or lightning big boots. The mid match arm-work is nice because it gave old school a little more meaning. It didn't make any sense for heel taker to do arm work after all. Finish is a bit of a mess, I will grant you. I think at the very least the opening segment was really quite good.

Mean Mark had a really fun match vs Luger in 90.

I think at Survivor Series either Zeke or Mason Ryan(I forget which. they are interchangeable to me), had some segment where they did 3-4 slams (or press slams) in a row, and it was just starting to move the crowd, actually.

Hayes is actually a super fun color commentator before 91 or so. He starts to slip after that. The very best thing about Hayes is that he'd watch the match and pull together a narrative which had NOTHING to do with what was going on in the ring. But he'd work really hard to lace it together and it'd make sense. It just wouldn't be what you were watching. He was a really solid storyteller, just.. a bit askew. Highly entertaining.

I like Kane more than the next guy but he could have never had the Mayweather match.

Heels did Gorilla Press in Mid South, both Volkoff into the ribbreaker and Butch Reed

Also, I hate saying it, I really do, but I feel like at this point, with all the discussion about ownership of teams and salaries and evil empires and what not, we have to talk about the comparison to the BEHIND THE SCENES elements of wrestling, which is, honestly, more than half of what we talk about and follow.

You guys have gone far and wide with this. It's TERRIBLY frustrating that while wrestling SHOULD be better than reality, it's not.

That is super harsh on Christian. Yeah, he didn't draw, but each of the Orton matches were different and in my mind each was worth watching.

Me too, absolutely.

I LOVE the reaction of the kids in the crowd to Sting as he comes out. They were so into him.

Wrestling should be better than these other things because in wrestling, they can shape and control the narrative.

Mooney/Lord Alfred was a great team. Hayes is a guy who I thought was terrible when I was a kid and who I've come around on 180 since then through actually watching matches.

Obviously, the purpose of the figure-four is a set up move making it harder to kick out of the cheap roll-up later. (I'm kidding, mostly). Also, I don't watch sports regularly (not even MMA), but I do watch wrestling. The serialized elements appeal to me just like they do on a show like lost or in comics, and I definitely see a lot of what happens as wrestling as symbolic/mythic. what matters isn't how it relates to basketball or boxing but that it stays consistent within itself. Wrestling has way more in common with Rocky (or a longform serialized TV show ABOUT Rocky, like some of the sports anime, I would assume, than actual boxing.

Having a bunch of moves isn't nearly as important as knowing what to do between those moves.

Where would that be a heresy? http://board.deathvalleydriver.com/index.p...all&st=1860 For instance, keep going back pages and see all the FoF polls.

There was a lot of other stuff going on with that match, though. Context. No one really wanted to see Gibson fight Morton. And those poor bastards had to sit through a PN News Scaffold match first.

I really like Tito vs Barry. It was super back and forth but totally believable.

We can never know intent. Even when they TELL us the intent in a shoot or interview or commentary or what have you, we still can't know it. All that we can judge on is what we see. If that means we end up connecting dots that were never meant to be connected, well, it means something that the dots were there in the first place. And if those dots are there over a huge run of matches? Well, that probably means something. To me, having a "great match" doesn't mean nearly as much as a large body of work that shows signs of things I like. A match like Hogan/Warrior at WM VI was absolutely laid out by someone like Pat Patterson. Should that fact matter? Savage faxed a script long enough to be War and Peace to Steamboat pre WM III. Should that matter? Intent is a bitch and context makes things interesting and is worth knowing BUT art is in the eye of the beholder and all that. i know to me, I like watching a lot of work by a wrestler, in context, and then I judge more on the whole of what I've seen the wrestler do than any specific match. I don't look for great matches. I look forand tend to appreciate great work in context. I also lean away towards stuff I know are least likely to tell a story, because at this point of my viewing life, I know it'll just frustrate me. That's just me. It's ultimately subjective. Some people might enjoy moves and action and spectacle, or yeah, pacing might be the most important thing to them, and they're no more wrong or right than anyone else, but it sure makes discussion tricky sometimes.

That would be assuming that the Press was the only move Ric did off the top. It wasn't. I'd also say that a 2 Wins for 500 Getting Tossed Off The Top isn't exactly something that evens out in any sporting context. Can you think of anything where a 0.4% of success is consider good odds in sports? I can't think of one that comes to mind. John Still, if you only win 0.4% of the time and at least one is the whole kit and kaboodle that gets your name in the history books.