Dave on Sayama and watching old footage

[Matt D]

It's a match that has some nice stuff ("Those are nice punches by Goldy and Sid is actually selling them well"), the expected awkwardness, and some really bad stuff. Maybe expectations were lower.

 

John

Now the Jerry Flynn match, on the other hand, holds up!

[rzombie1988]

Hey, no ripping on Jerry Flynn. I enjoyed his match with Goldberg.

[EricR]

I'm a huge fan and was considering doing a Golberg Complete & Accurate at some point. The Elimination Chamber with him in it was amazing, easily my favorite Chamber. Crowd was too hot for him and is offense was so damn dynamic. I really liked the matches against Hak, Chistian, and Mark Henry. There are many more but I'd need to check my tapes.

 

Golberg captured the fans imagination in the ring. Tiger Mask always looked apathetic and got put over everybody so he got over.

[Matt D]

I love Darsow taking credit for the Goldberg gimmick.

[Dylan Waco]

Goldberg v. The Rock is an awesome match

[S.L.L.]

You know, I never mistook Res for an accurate representation of the average....ummm....anything, but it is interesting to see just how fully diametrically opposed his storytelling values are to the rest of humanity. I mean, I never really argued with him with the intent of changing his mind or anything, but still, I've been trying to present an argument based on logic and reason to someone who's saying that up is down, black is white, and absence of dramatic conflict is compelling storytelling.

 

So, en lieu of an actual drawn out explanation of why he's wrong (since, if you're a functioning human being, you should be able to figure it out on your own), I want to provide this excerpt from the Jabootu review of On Deadly Ground to compare and contrast.

 

http://jabootu.net/?p=611

 

Seagal was unlike any movie action hero before. First of all, he looked liked he was actually fighting. His moves were incredibly quick and brutal, designed to put his opponent(s) down quickly. Aside from his speed, Seagal also used his height advantage, beating down on smaller adversaries. No fancy, schmancy spin kicks for Steve-o. No sir, you got in his face, and in two seconds you were on the floor. In fact (and this was the other main difference from his competitors), Seagal was so good that no one ever laid a glove on him. Even when a dozen guys were slugging it out with him, they’d get put down with nary a blow ruffling our hero. He was so formidable that even the criminals in his movies noticed. Each of his films invariably contained a scene wherein a worried thug would exclaim, “This guy’s good!” No sir, not for Seagal the classic “hero recuperates from a savage beating and comes back stronger than ever” bit. Seagal never needed to be any stronger. The closest he ever came to this was in Hard To Kill, when he was all shot up and put into a coma for seven years. Yet once he woke up he only needed about a week to reclaim his super-efficient killing machine status.

 

Still, the seeds of Seagal’s eventual downfall were already noticeable in that first film. They then became more conspicuous with each passing flick, which were produced at a quick clip. First of all, even in his first film Seagal seemed ridiculously perfect. I was willing to buy him beating up an entire bar’s worth of toughs (after all, I was watching an action flick). But Seagal’s convincing displays of brutality only made his perfect “love-machine” status with wife Sharon Stone all the more laughable. There were his omnipresent black clothes and ponytail, constants that became more comical with each film. The way his acting never got any better. The stupid way he would hold his pistol sideways all the time. The fact that no one ever shot him from a distance, but invariably walked up to him so that he could do that gun flipping move he trotted out every movie. The silly way he squinched his face when he was supposed to be pissed off. The lack of an adversary who could even marginally challenge the omnipotent Seagal, which eventually sort of lowered the suspense level. Even Seagal’s trademark fighting move, quickly grabbing and snapping an opponent’s arm, became farcical the forty or fiftieth time you saw it.

[smkelly]

Wait, RE wrote the Seagal piece too? As much flak as Seagal gets, the world would be a sad place without him...because there wouldn't be any Steven Seagal jokes.

[Resident Evil]

Wait, RE wrote the Seagal piece too? As much flak as Seagal gets, the world would be a sad place without him...because there wouldn't be any Steven Seagal jokes.

No I didn't. I couldn't talk about Seagal if I wanted to since I'm not as familiar with his movies as I am with other action stars. Speaking of which, it's be fun to write a piece about the manly action stars of yesterday, the wimpy stars of tioday, Japanese bishonen and their effect on the men and women of today.

 

 

You know, I never mistook Res for an accurate representation of the average....ummm....anything, but it is interesting to see just how fully diametrically opposed his storytelling values are to the rest of humanity. I mean, I never really argued with him with the intent of changing his mind or anything, but still, I've been trying to present an argument based on logic and reason to someone who's saying that up is down, black is white, and absence of dramatic conflict is compelling storytelling.

Not average and never will be. Don't want to be. I have my faults, I have my strenths. I hate the thought of being a sheep but man alive, I am glad I am who I am.

For the record, storytelling is about building tension, releasing ti and than buildin it again.

 

S.L.L, I've seen you get things completely wrong before about weightraining and wrestling. Anyway, everything I wrote is the truth. Like it or not, it's a lot of the reason why Sayama was and is so popular withe the TM persona. Ironcially, if you can't understad why TM was so popular with the general population than it's you who is against the rest of humanity. K, I gotta get back to work now. Forgive spelling, Me in rush.

[S.L.L.]

Wait, RE wrote the Seagal piece too? As much flak as Seagal gets, the world would be a sad place without him...because there wouldn't be any Steven Seagal jokes.

 

Oh, no no....that's Ken Begg of Jabootu, a website dealing in bad movies. Res may not be familiar with Seagal's work, but I can't imagine he would ever have anything bad to say about it if he did. As really, Seagal's approach to action movie herodom - as outlined by Begg - is eerily similar to the dramatic ideal Res espouses, with it's invincible, infallible protagonist steamrolling his way through the competition, theoretically leaving the audience in awe of his greatness. And that worked fine for Seagal for two or three years, just like it worked fine for Sayama for two or three years. The problem, as Begg alluded to, is that stories built around utterly flawless protagonists kinda suck reasons that everyone other than Res already understand, and that Res himself is incapable of understanding, and that the mass appeal of Steven Seagal: Invulnerable God of Destruction could only last as long as the novelty of Seagal's style did. He theorized that had Seagal's career not utterly collapsed after On Deadly Ground bombed largely for unrelated reasons, people probably would've gotten bored of him annihilating everyone put in front of him without ever showing a trace of weakness, and started looking for some actual competition to show up. And when that didn't happen, they would have done what they ended up doing anyway: ditch him and go back to Arnold and Sly, who weren't afraid to deliver on that front. But whereas conflict is generally recognized as the central, critical aspect of good storytelling, it's actually the antithesis of Res' concept, which is that good storytelling hinges upon the protagonist as omnipotent Ubermensch displaying a perfect masculine ideal for him to jack off to. And well, that's Seagal in a nutshell.

[Resident Evil]

Btw, if you're going to compare TM to an action star or movies, it's Bruce Lee who you have to compare him to as this is easily the most accomodating fit.

 

And for teh record, Stallone is my fav action star

 

Edit -- Man, I am tired. I forgot to mention Bruce Lee is one of my all time favs too. Jackie Chan is awesome as well. Recent times, it would be Tony Jaa

[smkelly]

But whereas conflict is generally recognized as the central, critical aspect of good storytelling, it's actually the antithesis of Res' concept, which is that good storytelling hinges upon the protagonist as omnipotent Ubermensch displaying a perfect masculine ideal for him to jack off to.

YOU know I had a similar thing going a year-two ago, but it was never that way. You think, I mean, really think RE is that way?

 

Regarding conflict - without conflict, there is no story. A story cannot exist without some type/form of conflict. If someone tells you a story without conflict, thank them for wasting your time with meaningless words that have no central theme of importance.

 

I'm the antithesis of RE then. I love the flawed protagonist, not the man or woman who can bench press 1,000lbs with their pinky and are invincible. Too bad this forum is wrestling only...

 

And well, that's Seagal in a nutshell.

Hopefully Seagal then, not now. The dude loves him ham sandwiches.

[Resident Evil]

But whereas conflict is generally recognized as the central, critical aspect of good storytelling, it's actually the antithesis of Res' concept, which is that good storytelling hinges upon the protagonist as omnipotent Ubermensch displaying a perfect masculine ideal for him to jack off to.

YOU know I had a similar thing going a year-two ago, but it was never that way. You think, I mean, really think RE is that way?

 

Regarding conflict - without conflict, there is no story. A story cannot exist without some type/form of conflict. If someone tells you a story without conflict, thank them for wasting your time with meaningless words that have no central theme of importance.

.............................................

 

I'm the antithesis of RE then. I love the flawed protagonist, not the man or woman who can bench press 1,000lbs with their pinky and are invincible. Too bad this forum is wrestling only...

 

...........................................

 

 

--- All this stuff would take awhile to talk about, organise and be accurate about. What S.L.L. said about me and storytelling is offbase some so don't assume it's 100 percent true. As I mentioned previously in this thread, I tend not to like blanket statements. Instead, I like to get detailed if I have time and tell things correctly about said statement. And yes I agree, it's too bad this forum is wrestling only.

[Resident Evil]

You know, I never mistook Res for an accurate representation of the average....ummm....anything, but it is interesting to see just how fully diametrically opposed his storytelling values are to the rest of humanity. I mean, I never really argued with him with the intent of changing his mind or anything, but still, I've been trying to present an argument based on logic and reason to someone who's saying that up is down, black is white, and absence of dramatic conflict is compelling storytelling.

K, yes with people generally if someone is too powerful and they have no conflict than they lose interest. At first he's super cool but if things are too easy for him than after X amount of time than interest in his story wanes. Kind of reminds me of fans reasons for prefering Batman over Superman though I never did think that was fair because I think Superman went through a lot of tough things that get looked over because people just think well he's Superman.

 

Anyway, with Tiger Mask as has been discussed was basically Superman/Bruce Lee like in the ring. On a totally different level. HOWEVER, this does not mean there was an absecence of dramatic conflict. FAR FROM IT. In fact, watching his matches from a kayfabe point of view yes he would be winning his matches -- I feel like using an amateur term -- well ahead on points. Still, even with the lesser opponents he never had it easy so people could at least relate to the struggle some. You can't have him too weak either though at the same time because you have to build the SuperTiger persona up. I think they hit it right on the nose here similar to as mentioned before Goldberg. Once you have that built up than you have the dramatic conflict built in. See, in Tiger Mask's matches it's just not about him that makes the match. Because he's now Superman, when he's fighting all the little Batmans (and yes, I am pretty sure that Batman beat Superman in the comics before but just stick with me here) all emotions are amplified making some things worth more. The dramatic conflict often comes from the opponents in these matches. You can't just do this though forever otherwise people would tire of it and the dramatic conflict wouldn't be as intriguing anymore.

 

But that's just the beginning. Than you gotta have someone take it to TM/Superman but still be beneath his level therefore keeping the legend of Tiger Mask as strong as possible. In this instance, we have the excellent wrestler Kobayashi in this role. He had some terrific matches against Tiger (what are the odds someone will say they liked them better than the DK matches hmmm?) where the dramatic conflict was off the hook. Besides them creating that conflict in the match themselves they get a bonus from the fans seeing the dramatic conflict of TM against his "lesser" opponents. Those matches allow this match(es) to be that much better. And this in turn allows the dramatic confict in 4/21/83 to unheard of levels.

 

Than finally in the TM/DK series we get tons of dramatic conflict on a higer emotional level making the series a goosebump producing classic. DK who is inbetween Superman and Batman (which is perfect in this instance for creating more of that good ol storytelling confict stuff) is always the biggest threat to Tiger and you feel that he is the one who can finally beat this guy. Throughout the whole series you feel that DK is closing in on Superman himself and is actually going to be the one who can topple him. And in their last match DK gets closer than anyone ever has before. TM can't get even beat him!! Things are so heated/chaotic and dramatic. The guys are so talented that your eyes are just left wide open pupils enlarged, with your jaw hitting the floor in amazement. Both are going all bleeping out. DK gets the skin ripped off his back. TM gets annihilated, DK takes the sickest irish whip into the guardrails ever and in the climatic finale both wrestlers piledrive each other on the floor in one of the sickest spots of all time. Because of TIger Mask's rep/skill/talent and his history in the wrestling ring the dramatic conflict is at a level that is pretty much untouchable. They just run with it in 4/21/83 and produce one of the best matches of all time.

But whereas conflict is generally recognized as the central, critical aspect of good storytelling, it's actually the antithesis of Res' concept, which is that good storytelling hinges upon the protagonist as omnipotent Ubermensch displaying a perfect masculine ideal for him to jack off to

SO YES, you can have wrestling storyelling that hinges upon the protagonist being a superhuman -- that Dragonball show was popular wasn't it? --, have dramatic conflict and reach a peak like in TM/DK that is untouchable. Hmm, in some ways, this reminds me of why DDP vs Goldberg was/is such a favourite of many.

 

Now you can't have everyone be a Tiger Mask/Superman in your wrestling organization but you gotta have at least someone that can do it.

[S.L.L.]

Btw, if you're going to compare TM to an action star or movies, it's Bruce Lee who you have to compare him to as this is easily the most accomodating fit.

 

And for teh record, Stallone is my fav action star

 

Edit -- Man, I am tired. I forgot to mention Bruce Lee is one of my all time favs too. Jackie Chan is awesome as well. Recent times, it would be Tony Jaa

Been a long time since I've watched any of Bruce Lee's work, and have never watched Jaa's work, though I've heard nothing but good things about it.

 

That said, I can very safely say that Chan and Stallone are about as far removed from your description of what makes Sayama great as you can get.

 

But whereas conflict is generally recognized as the central, critical aspect of good storytelling, it's actually the antithesis of Res' concept, which is that good storytelling hinges upon the protagonist as omnipotent Ubermensch displaying a perfect masculine ideal for him to jack off to.

YOU know I had a similar thing going a year-two ago, but it was never that way. You think, I mean, really think RE is that way?

Eh...it's complicated, to put it mildly. We probably shouldn't take the thread in that direction, anyway. Let's just say that Res definitely likes girls from all I can tell, but I've also never seen anyone quite so non-ironically obsessed with "manliness" and "masculinity" outside of over-the-top camp gay stereotypes from TV and movies. Mind you, most actual gay men don't seem as obsessed with those concepts as Res does, either, so...yeah, it's complicated. Let's leave it at that.

 

And well, that's Seagal in a nutshell.

Hopefully Seagal then, not now. The dude loves him ham sandwiches.

Hey, so does current Sayama. If Seagal's love for bacon cheeseburgers helped his work half as much as it seems to have helped Sayama, I'd probably be watching a hell of a lot more of his schlock.

[Resident Evil]

Been a long time since I've watched any of Bruce Lee's work, and have never watched Jaa's work, though I've heard nothing but good things about it.

 

That said, I can very safely say that Chan and Stallone are about as far removed from your description of what makes Sayama great as you can get.

You should watch the Protector especially if you're an elephant lover. Even if you're not you will be by teh time the movie's over.

 

That said, I can very safely say that Chan and Stallone are about as far removed from your description of what makes Sayama great as you can get

Nope. What makes them great is the same thing. While I might not agree with some of the things they have done in their lives as nobody's perfect, what I like about them all and what makes them great is all the same thing.

 

Eh...it's complicated, to put it mildly. We probably shouldn't take the thread in that direction, anyway. Let's just say that Res definitely likes girls from all I can tell, but I've also never seen anyone quite so non-ironically obsessed with "manliness" and "masculinity" outside of over-the-top camp gay stereotypes from TV and movies. Mind you, most actual gay men don't seem as obsessed with those concepts as Res does, either, so...yeah, it's complicated. Let's leave it at that.

For the record, gorgeous women with healthy looking pussy is what makes me happy. Be careful about calling females girls. Some take offense to it. Ladies is a better word. Nothing about men turns me on romantically/sexually.

 

I know exactly why you are confused. Interesting.

[Loss]

This is nauseating. This was a really good thread at one point and now it's this.

[S.L.L.]

You know, I never mistook Res for an accurate representation of the average....ummm....anything, but it is interesting to see just how fully diametrically opposed his storytelling values are to the rest of humanity. I mean, I never really argued with him with the intent of changing his mind or anything, but still, I've been trying to present an argument based on logic and reason to someone who's saying that up is down, black is white, and absence of dramatic conflict is compelling storytelling.

K, yes with people generally if someone is too powerful and they have no conflict than they lose interest. At first he's super cool but if things are too easy for him than after X amount of time than interest in his story wanes. Kind of reminds me of fans reasons for prefering Batman over Superman though I never did think that was fair because I think Superman went through a lot of tough things that get looked over because people just think well he's Superman.

 

Anyway, with Tiger Mask as has been discussed was basically Superman/Bruce Lee like in the ring. On a totally different level. HOWEVER, this does not mean there was an absecence of dramatic conflict. FAR FROM IT. In fact, watching his matches from a kayfabe point of view yes he would be winning his matches -- I feel like using an amateur term -- well ahead on points. Still, even with the lesser opponents he never had it easy so people could at least relate to the struggle some. You can't have him too weak either though at the same time because you have to build the SuperTiger persona up. I think they hit it right on the nose here similar to as mentioned before Goldberg. Once you have that built up than you have the dramatic conflict built in. See, in Tiger Mask's matches it's just not about him that makes the match. Because he's now Superman, when he's fighting all the little Batmans (and yes, I am pretty sure that Batman beat Superman in the comics before but just stick with me here) all emotions are amplified making some things worth more. The dramatic conflict often comes from the opponents in these matches. You can't just do this though forever otherwise people would tire of it and the dramatic conflict wouldn't be as intriguing anymore.

 

But that's just the beginning. Than you gotta have someone take it to TM/Superman but still be beneath his level therefore keeping the legend of Tiger Mask as strong as possible. In this instance, we have the excellent wrestler Kobayashi in this role. He had some terrific matches against Tiger (what are the odds someone will say they liked them better than the DK matches hmmm?) where the dramatic conflict was off the hook. Besides them creating that conflict in the match themselves they get a bonus from the fans seeing the dramatic conflict of TM against his "lesser" opponents. Those matches allow this match(es) to be that much better. And this in turn allows the dramatic confict in 4/21/83 to unheard of levels.

 

Than finally in the TM/DK series we get tons of dramatic conflict on a higer emotional level making the series a goosebump producing classic. DK who is inbetween Superman and Batman (which is perfect in this instance for creating more of that good ol storytelling confict stuff) is always the biggest threat to Tiger and you feel that he is the one who can finally beat this guy. Throughout the whole series you feel that DK is closing in on Superman himself and is actually going to be the one who can topple him. And in their last match DK gets closer than anyone ever has before. TM can't get even beat him!! Things are so heated/chaotic and dramatic. The guys are so talented that your eyes are just left wide open pupils enlarged, with your jaw hitting the floor in amazement. Both are going all bleeping out. DK gets the skin ripped off his back. TM gets annihilated, DK takes the sickest irish whip into the guardrails ever and in the climatic finale both wrestlers piledrive each other on the floor in one of the sickest spots of all time. Because of TIger Mask's rep/skill/talent and his history in the wrestling ring the dramatic conflict is at a level that is pretty much untouchable. They just run with it in 4/21/83 and produce one of the best matches of all time.

But whereas conflict is generally recognized as the central, critical aspect of good storytelling, it's actually the antithesis of Res' concept, which is that good storytelling hinges upon the protagonist as omnipotent Ubermensch displaying a perfect masculine ideal for him to jack off to

SO YES, you can have wrestling storyelling that hinges upon the protagonist being a superhuman -- that Dragonball show was popular wasn't it? --, have dramatic conflict and reach a peak like in TM/DK that is untouchable. Hmm, in some ways, this reminds me of why DDP vs Goldberg was/is such a favourite of many.

 

Now you can't have everyone be a Tiger Mask/Superman in your wrestling organization but you gotta have at least someone that can do it.

 

Sayama's first match with Kobayashi was, in fact, the only Sayama singles match that that cracked the top 25 of my NJ 80's ballot, and for precisely the reasons discussed here (well, that and that Kobayashi was the one guy who was good enough at reeling in Sayama in such a way that he could prevent him from wrestling like a chimpanzee on crystal meth without completely negating the things he brought to the table).

 

Long story short, while we obviously disagree about the quality of the matches, I think this is a reasonably accurate description of the Tiger Mask I saw in action. Note that this last round of slagging wasn't really about any problems with Sayama. It was about you and your loony description of what made Sayama great and what makes great storytelling from your point of view. Honestly, I thought it was not only inaccurate, but that it was a far more damning criticism of Sayama than anything I actually felt about the guy. I was mocking the fact that you seriously saw it as praise. I don't know that you still do, because this seems a lot more accurate, and consequently, doesn't really jibe with what you wrote before....

 

I have talked a few times about how wrestlers who are so good and better than the rest of the roster that often you have a hard time buying them losing in the ring. See Eddie Guerrero or Chris Benoit. You will see them lose and think a guy who works that hard and that well would never go down that easy. Tiger Mask was in that category. In the junior class, you could never ever buy someone beating him because when wrestling is looked at a kayfabe sense ("and this was much easier to do in Japan at the time) it just doesn't make sense for him to lose.

 

Also, if you look at Tiger Mask's matches from an overall kayfabe sense, the construction in them never fails to give off the impression that his opponents have trouble with him and he is the better wrestler. And truly, it can not be any other way for the most part because he was on such an obvioulsy higher level. Everything here is all important in building up the perception he gives to the audience.

I mean, these claims and the ones you wrote above are mutually exclusive. Odds are, you won't realize why, and you'll defend both viewpoints to the death, so I'm not going to ask you to clarify/retract/whatever. This is more for general illustrative purposes.

[Resident Evil]

First quote is simple. There are wrestlers out there that you just can't buy losing to other wrestlers and when you do you kind of think to yourself, "That's phony, they're too good for that to happen". Perhaps I shouldn't have said "never buy someone" as I was puttina a little extra emphasis on that to make a point that some wrestlers are truly way above the rest. You can and do actually want to buy into someone beating an obvious top of the line wrestler. But still, if you're watching a match from a kayfabe sense, if that guy loses too much it just makes the fan go to himself "That's stupid, that doesn't make sense"

 

 

Second quote is about building up a persona in order for it to be able to hit a higer climax down the road at a future date.

I remember -- was it you? --- had a little debate about the tag team formula. The classic North American tag team formula. Does it work? Oh yeah, certainly but the person I was disagreeing with it thought it should happen all the time. I am of the belief that you can't have it all the time and you gotta do other stuff in your prevous matches so when you finally do the classic tag team formula it works waaaay better than it would've been otherwise. Everything is worth more. I think when you do the same thing over and over and over again as is the most evevident in classic North American tags that it means less and less and becomes way less believable.

So like with TM I think yo gotta have him be strong overall to keep and build his persona so when you finally have someone that can take it to him it means a million times as much. To me, it can't be anotother way.

[smkelly]

There are wrestlers out there that you just can't buy losing to other wrestlers and when you do you kind of think to yourself, "That's phony, they're too good for that to happen".

I can dig that. I thought something similar when Goldberg lost to Nash at Starrcade '98. Actually, most of those types of thoughts were geared towards Goldberg. Like when he lost to Bret Hart a few times. While Bret was an awesome worker, those days had passed him by the time he was beating Goldberg. Nevertheless, I understand your point here. It'd be like Andre the Giant losing to someone like Tito Santana.

[S.L.L.]

First quote is simple. There are wrestlers out there that you just can't buy losing to other wrestlers and when you do you kind of think to yourself, "That's phony, they're too good for that to happen". Perhaps I shouldn't have said "never buy someone" as I was puttina a little extra emphasis on that to make a point that some wrestlers are truly way above the rest. You can and do actually want to buy into someone beating an obvious top of the line wrestler. But still, if you're watching a match from a kayfabe sense, if that guy loses too much it just makes the fan go to himself "That's stupid, that doesn't make sense"

You're getting warmer. I bolded the part you still need to work on. You said that you shouldn't have said "never buy someone losing", but you're saying it in a paragraph where you're still saying "can't buy someone losing".

 

Second quote is about building up a persona in order for it to be able to hit a higer climax down the road at a future date.

I remember -- was it you? --- had a little debate about the tag team formula. The classic North American tag team formula. Does it work? Oh yeah, certainly but the person I was disagreeing with it thought it should happen all the time. I am of the belief that you can't have it all the time and you gotta do other stuff in your prevous matches so when you finally do the classic tag team formula it works waaaay better than it would've been otherwise. Everything is worth more. I think when you do the same thing over and over and over again as is the most evevident in classic North American tags that it means less and less and becomes way less believable.

So like with TM I think yo gotta have him be strong overall to keep and build his persona so when you finally have someone that can take it to him it means a million times as much. To me, it can't be anotother way.

I never said it was the only way to work a tag match. Just that it was a way that worked. You said it didn't work anymore because it had been done to death and they should stop doing it, or at least do it a lot less, because fans were sick of it. I pointed out that fans still reacted strongly to it, you pointed to imaginary surveys...our usual argument. I dunno, maybe you had this argument with a different guy.

 

But that's not really what I was getting it when I pointed to the other paragraph.

 

Also, if you look at Tiger Mask's matches from an overall kayfabe sense, the construction in them never fails to give off the impression that his opponents have trouble with him and he is the better wrestler. And truly, it can not be any other way for the most part because he was on such an obvioulsy higher level.

The new, more accurate argument of Sayama as guy who isn't Steven Seagal, who does show vulnerability, doesn't jibe with earlier claims that he NEVER fails to work matches around his opponents having trouble with him because he's the better wrestler, and that it CAN'T BE ANY OTHER WAY because Sayama is OBVIOUSLY better. It's a sentiment that jumps out more in it's original context than it does in the new argument, I admit, but it still doesn't fit. It's what makes me dubious when you say what makes Sayama great is the same thing that made Stallone great. I have a very vivid picture of what great Stallone is, and it certainly isn't a guy who "never fails to give off the impression that his opponents have trouble with him" because "it can not be any other way for the most part because he was on such an obvioulsy higher level".

[smkelly]

SLL, is this your charity case of the year?

[Resident Evil]

The formula in life on what makes a man great does not change from person to person. From Will Smith to Stallone to Michael Jordan to Sayama to Bruce Lee to anyone on this board to whoever. The key is the same for all.

 

Have a good night.

[Johnny Sorrow]

That's the worst "Six Degrees Of Kevin Bacon" game ever.

[S.L.L.]

SLL, is this your charity case of the year?

Never let it be said that I don't give the devil his due, and honesty is the best policy (though sometimes it needs to be superseded by tact ).

[El-P]

Am I the only one thinking Tiger MAsk IV has been the best thus far ? I heard he's been quite lazy since he's been in New Japan, but in MPro, TMIV was quite the worker. Misawa didn't do much memorable as TMII, and Kanemoto from what I remember wasn't very good as TMIII.