Matt D

Christian had one of the best single years imaginable in 2009, but I haven't seen any of his TNA run so I can't really judge it. Honestly, I don't feel super confident making a list like this because I didn't watch much from 2005-2007, and then I REALLY didn't watch anything at all from 2007-2008. I might have seen 4 TNA matches in my entire life and I haven't seen very much US Indies past FCW since 2004 or so.

Is he? I don't know. If he's not I'm curious why, though. I want someone to knock him off the list and if the only reason that he's getting knocked off isn't due to specific elements of his work but just because he doesn't have a litany of great matches, I want to know that too.

Wait a sec. We're talking about Buck. Let's keep talking about him. What COULD have he done that he wasn't already doing to get into that top ten? Was there some element of his work that wasn't up to snuff relative to other wrestlers?

I feel like Great Workers can be kept in situations that keep them from having Great Matches, but that doesn't mean they're not doing Great Work. While Good Workers can be placed in situations where Great Matches become a lot easier to pull off and therefore you have to look at something other than whether or not they had Great Matches. And it's never about what the wrestler says is effective or what they claim to be effective. We're not judging worker-to-worker. We're just judging what we see. I just used that example as a way of saying that it wasn't certain guys' jobs to go out there and have GREAT MATCHES most of the time. that doesn't mean they're not a great worker.

A lot of it is that wrestlers are trying to accomplish different things within different confines and with different purposes. JJ Dillon talks about how he had his first match in a long time after becoming a manager and he wanted to go out there an impress the boys and he worked his ass off and had what he thought was a great, exciting competitive match and got chided out over it in the back because it wasn't what he was supposed to be doing. He did it for himself not the overall show. But he was probably capable of doing EXACTLY what he was supposed to do and making it wildly effective. You watch a large body of someone's work, squashes, matches all up and down the card, things that should be good on paper and things that should be less than good and you see everything the wrestler does in all sorts of situations. Not everyone gets the same opportunities, the same amount of time, the same "epic stage" and the same opponents. You look at a body of work, not for "great matches." You try to figure out if they accomplished what they were supposed to do and how difficult it was. You look at the big things that they do and the small things. You basically deconstruct their body of work. Or at least I think that's as valid a way to gauge a wrestler's skill (if not more so) than limiting yourself to the great matches/performances. You're certainly welcome to disagree, but I hope you at least see where I'm coming on instead of getting exasperated by it.

That is a good point. However, simply because new footage is being found and unearthed all the time, it does allow for newer things to become wide-spread and popular amongst certain groups. Nevertheless, it is hard to imagine that a newly found match would/could replace some of the big time US matches that have been talked about since their broadcast and/or release. Kind of like its hard for me to imagine an All Japan match being unearthed and being better than 6/3/94, 1/20/97, or the 6/9/95 and 12/6/96 tags. It is possible, but unlikely. I still say that the bigger point is that tastes change.

Coal Miner's Glove matches were so much cooler in 1984 Mid South.

I know that it could be a completely valid thing. People's opinions change and wrestling is a subjective art form. I could absolutely see myself liking a Paul Roma and Arn vs Bunkhouse buck and Dick Slater match more than Arn vs Flair on PPV(I really like Arn's transition after the Flair Flip, though it's a bit lessened since he does it on TV shortly thereafter, but I agree that the match isn't nearly as good as it should have been). My favorite WCW match of 93 is a Blonds vs Scorpio+Bagwell match from Worldwide, and I feel pretty confident about that. And some of my favorite WCW 95 stuff is WCW Prime tags with the Armstrongs or Lightning Express and Bunk/Slater. And that's not me trying to be obscure or indy or bucking trends. It's because there are elements in those matches I like more. It's only a problem if you try to come up with some reason to make it a problem. There are no objective best matches. There's no dogma here. There's a big note on this very site about why we all like wrestling and what we like about it. I think that we're as self-aware as anyone, and think as metatextually as anyone about this stuff. I don't think there's any big "danger" here at all. I don't necessarily think it IS a problem, until you reach the stage where you are rating the Bunkhouse Buck Worldwide match from 93 above Steamboat/ Flair '89, Steamboat/ Savage WM3, etc. I know that certain uber-pimped matches lose stock -- Dynamite Kid vs. Tiger Mask comes to mind -- but I think it is possible to reach a stage where things start becoming absurd. When someone genuinely thinks Skinner was a better worker than Ted DiBiase (or whatever). I'm not have a go at anyone or anything in particular, I don't think anyone is obscure for the sake of it, I just think it is possible to lose perspective. i.e. pimping the unheralded and tearing down the pimped, a form of overcompensation I guess. All that said, I'll accept that Flair vs. Arn isn't the best example to illustrate the above. You realize that now I want to take a look at Keirn vs Dibiase.

I know that it could be a completely valid thing. People's opinions change and wrestling is a subjective art form. I could absolutely see myself liking a Paul Roma and Arn vs Bunkhouse buck and Dick Slater match more than Arn vs Flair on PPV(I really like Arn's transition after the Flair Flip, though it's a bit lessened since he does it on TV shortly thereafter, but I agree that the match isn't nearly as good as it should have been). My favorite WCW match of 93 is a Blonds vs Scorpio+Bagwell match from Worldwide, and I feel pretty confident about that. And some of my favorite WCW 95 stuff is WCW Prime tags with the Armstrongs or Lightning Express and Bunk/Slater. And that's not me trying to be obscure or indy or bucking trends. It's because there are elements in those matches I like more. It's only a problem if you try to come up with some reason to make it a problem. There are no objective best matches. There's no dogma here. There's a big note on this very site about why we all like wrestling and what we like about it. I think that we're as self-aware as anyone, and think as metatextually as anyone about this stuff. I don't think there's any big "danger" here at all.

the Luger US Title two-match series was good. I'd have to go back and watch more and I really don't want to. I also wasn't kidding about Tenta. He's not THE BEST, but his stuff is really worth looking at, especially now during the height of the Mark Henry push. He's a guy who seemed to know exactly what to do in the ring all the time, could perform amazing feats of strength, had the most credible looking offense in the country (maybe finisher aside but they built it up so it didn't matter), and knew EXACTLY how much to give and when to give it when selling.

I've always felt great matches is one of the worst ways to judge great workers, especially if we're talking in the US. for WWF it's a little bit easier in the 80s when you had so many taped house shows, but even then.

Since Big Bubba was brought up... I'd probably throw both him and Tenta out there. Tenta was SO good at "playing his role."

So I've been watching Southwest from 83, and one of the things I find interesting is the USA ad. This is early Jan, right after the tournament that Tully one. they announce as the stars on their own in-house commercial: Bruiser Bob Sweetan, Cowboy Scott Casey, the Turk, and the masked Grapplers. I'm still trying to figure out if the guys they brought in for the tournament are sticking around or not, but Adonis, Tully, Mike Graham, Ken Lucas/Ricky Morton seem to be the guys featured. It's not a bad show from what I've seen so far (and the Lou Thesz commentary on the first show was great), but you do kind of think "Wait, THIS is the show on USA? And THIS is how they're promoting it?"

Actually that article was full of stuff that I feel like I should have known, just from being as tuned in as I have been over the last two decades, but didn't.

Maybe they foresee pirating getting a lot worse?

Anyone see Rollins vs Ambrose from the last FCW TV show? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvnVyTj4wOM...feature=related 30 min iron man match. I'm really not THAT familiar with either guy. I think Moxley/Ambrose tries a little too hard, but at least he stands out as something different from all the other guys. And Rollins/Black seems to be a lot of what I wouldn't like about wrestling the last few years. That said, I liked the first 27 mins or so of this decently enough. They sold and slowed things down. The storytelling for the first ten minutes was good. The first set of falls were really good, sort of the Rude-Jumps-Off-The-Top-Rope fall from his Iron Man Match but even more organic to the storytelling of the match. I won't spoil the end but there was a submission that didn't seem to fit the match, even if it was executed well, and too much finisher stealing, and then way way too much burst of energy/no-selling towards the end. Also, Dusty looks so old.

I like broader history or wrestler discussions (often revisionist) more than specific match discussion, if that makes sense. My very favorite thing in the last year was probably the Vince vs the World stuff.

Jimmy Lennon going in with the first class setting a precedent for ring announcers beinv eligible and Fink being the only other one who belongs? Boyd Pierce should get in due to his awesome jackets alone.

I forget that you deal with the outside world with your column. I remembered that when reading your Mark Henry thing and seeing some of the "slow, boring, plodding, no movez" comments. I was about to say "Who the hell do you interact with that wouldn't like that?" Braver man than I.

My favorite no-sell comeback of all time was Piper's. He sold it as if he was out of control and punch-drunk. I buy it more somehow.

I'm sticking to my guns on Andre. I see what you guys are saying, but i am AMAZED how he could do so much with so little athleticism left. I've hit a point where I almost see athleticism as a crutch, or an easy out. I get how that's backwards, but I'm so into working smart the last year or so that I almost see working hard as a drawback. It's just a personal phase I'm going through or something. And really, this note is about flip flopping and I used to hate late era Andre because "he couldn't do anything" or the lack of action or whatever. So my flop has been flipped.

It all comes down to this. Guys sold Andre's every touch as death. When he was a heel and the face was on offense, it lasted just until Andre TOUCHED them, and it was totally, utterly believable. He was a force of nature and it's because they constantly reinforced it. I don't think basic execution is even necessary. It's all symbolic. It's wrestling. All that is necessary is that the guys in the ring and/or you and/or the crowd buys what happens in the match. Obviously you don't, but it seems like we do, and the crowd definitely did.

This is tricky, because at various points in my life, I've liked different things. I think we'll go with just the difference between 05 and now. I've flipped flop on STYLES (and not AJ). I used to only like high action matches with a fairly fast pace and big moves. Now I care a lot more about the little things and logical storytelling. I've also gone away from tracking down GREAT MATCHES to watching more things in context and appreciating great work over time even if the opportunity for "GREAT MATCHES" wasn't there due to other reasons. Also, I've seen more footage. there's a lot of ignorance on my part. I've seen way more Ron Garvin or Ernie Ladd or Dutch Mantel or Rip Rogers or John Tatum or Lawler or Buddy Rose or Adrian STreet. Guys that I like a lot now but that I just hadn't seen much of before. 1.) Demolition. This is pretty much a gimme with me, but I thought very little of them both when I was younger and in my middle wrestling phases. Slow, plodding, few big moves, just clubbering, etc. When I did the project, I saw the sheer range of their matches and work styles, saw just how much a ring general Eadie was, etc, how they changed it up so often, and how every god damn thing they did in the ring made sense and had meaning. 2.) Late-Era Andre. Talk about every move having meaning. He couldn't do much, and everything he DID do took him a lot of effort so he made everything count so god damn much. Warrior/Andre SNME (the Worst match of the year according to WON) is an amazing match because there's not a bit of wasted motion out of Andre. 3.) Late-Era Sgt. Slaughter. I had always discounted Slaughter's 90-92 run and that's a huge mistake. He bumped bigger than any heel in the company not Hennig. His offense was nasty and different from what everyone else in the company was doing, and he was great at stooging. 4.) Flair. I appreciate him as much as ever, but after hearing his thoughts in shoots and what not and seeing a lot more footage. It's just not my thing. A lot of action and spots, telling little stories within a match, but not a big one. A lot of hitting things because the crowd expects it or because he's supposed to. He COULD do other things, but he didn't think he should. Flair did a lot of stuff for the sake of doing it, and it's a testament to his charisma and talent and energy and emotion that he made it so work. I see him as the big superstar band that only gets to play their big stuff in concert, but that's okay because he likes to play it. 5.) Hogan. Wrestling is symbolic and Hogan matches are an animal in and of themselves. They have their own narrative structure. If wrestling is tennis, Hogan matches are badminton, and it's fun to examine them against each other. A lot of the later WWF ones are really well laid out by Patterson and a lot of times they have an escalation from opponent to opponent and the last match is kept in mind. Likewise is 1991 Undertaker. Yes, he mainly choked, but there was a structure to most of his matches based around it and that was pretty neat. 6.) John Nord. JOHN NORD IS FRIGGING AWESOME. I had no idea. By 91-92 he had the best heel offense in the WWF, would bump big, sell big, run around the ring with a ton of energy.

I frigging love Cornette commenting on Lawler vs Sweetan on the wrestling gold set. I haven't seen it in maybe 7 years and I know a heck of a lot more about Lawler now. He just goes on about how brilliant and perfect everything Lawler does in the match is and how the crowd's responding and Dave sort of half grumbles in reluctant agreement and points out how bad Sweetan's being again.

i think we established months ago the lines that they shouldn't cross and how the angle was working because they weren't crossing them. oops.