Rey Mysterio

[Dylan Waco]

It's passed you by completely, because I can't see any argument that modern in ring WWE sucks.

There are plenty, they're out there, they've been exposed time and time again.

I think we probably need a spinoff thread on modern WWE with the direction this one has taken, but I think it is telling that the most common criticisms you hear from the anti-WWE people is "everything is overproduced" or "self-conscious epics!" or "they are all the same!"

 

Last year MJH (I think, and to be fair I don't think he is wildly "anti-WWE") made the "every match is basically the same" criticism. So I took five matches from a couple month period that I thought were really high end and showcased how obviously different I thought they were. I can't remember if I got a response or not, but I know for a fact that no one has ever been able to showcase to me the inherent "sameness" of matches as diverse as Goldust v. Regal, Rey v. Tyson Kidd, Cena v. Batista, Drew Mac v. Christian, Masters v. Chavo, et.

 

Everything is overproduced is a criticism that I think is linked to the "everything is the same!" meme, with a little bit of "the camera work is dogshit" mixed in. I'm not a fan of the camera work either, but I can't argue it makes good matches bad.

 

"Self-conscious epic!" strikes me as being a horseshit term that is tossed around when people can't come up with a concrete reason to criticize a match. There are exceptions to this of course, but when people use the term to describe matches as different as HHH v. Taker and Punk v. Cena I it just comes across as a cheap way to cut off discussion and debate without saying anything of relevance.

 

I would ask two things of the guys who think the in-ring product is so weak:

 

a. How much of this stuff do you actually watch? If you think it sucks every time you watch and you watch every six months I don't expect you to stay around. I'm just curious about the sample size here.

 

b. Pick five high end WWE matches from the pre-awful period. I'll pick five from the post-awful period. Let's compare them straight up an try and avoid terms like "self-conscious epic!" or on the flipside generalized platitudes like "great." I want to know where the disconnect is. I want to see why someone like John can think Rock v. Hogan was the last really high end WWF/E match, when stuff like Rey v. Eddy, Cena v. Umaga, Eddy v. JBL, Finlay v. Benoit, et doesn't make the grade.

 

While I'm at it Will I'm gonna troll you into laying out the Bret/Austin v. Punk/Cena comp we made yesterday though that may fit better in the other thread.

 

Admit it's already enough to consider WWE as a pretty poor promotion overall. Add to that the shitty overproduced and übercontrolled in-ring style by mostly boring characters and dull workers, and you get the death of pro-wrestling as I like it. The thing I would agree is that it probably level things up to the point no-one can have really horrible matches (except the women, who are godawful) and if you have some basic talent you can look decent every time around. But I don't care about that. I would take any lively wrestling show with some good stuff and some awful stuff over that land of controled dullness that is modern WWE.

No problem with someone who thinks the overall product sucks, but I quit watching wrestling for the angles/promos years ago. I mostly watch wrestling for the matches now so I'm perfectly fine with a company that puts forth consistent quality.

[Childs]

I've watched a shitload of weekly wrestling TV from the '80s over the past few years and a fair amount from the '90s because of the yearbooks. You can certainly pick years (early '80s Portland, All Japan from '89 and '91-'93, New Japan during the UWF invasion, maybe 1992 WCW) that beat what we're getting now. But I have no problem with the idea of modern WWE as an upper middle class TV product. I mean, if you hate the wrestling style, you hate the wrestling style. But they're giving us regular, easy access to strong renditions of said style. And if you can't stand the presentation, current technology makes it easy as hell to zip to the good stuff.

[Frankensteiner]

Dave pretty much set the tone for how a match was received in '93. Kobashi vs Bossman got a meager ** and isn't talked about despite being part of Kobashi's much-heralded 1993, and the quasi-heralded Bossman-in-AJ run. Any way you slice it, it was a lesser match from '93 AJ. How does WWE TV stack up with peak AJ TV, since we're discussing 'best TV product ever'.

 

I think a better comparison would be WWE TV to, say, three or four '80s territories, since WWE has so much airtime.

Even then it's a poor comparison since the point of TV now is different than it was back then. 80s promotions wouldn't want to give away stuff on free TV. On the other hand, WWE has no problems running through major matches on television (Cena/Rey).

[Dylan Waco]

The point is the expectation dropped so much that average matches from 20 years ago happening today on free TV would have people go ga-ga over it today. Or something like that I guess.

Then watch Rey v. Henry next to Bossman v. Kobashi and make that point.

 

Don't say "hey the same guy that thinks TM v. DK was (and is) the shiznit, thought Bossman v. Kobashi was only 2 stars and I thought it was a "watchable" [what an odd way to pimp a match even in this context]. This means that if that match was held in 2009 WWE people would be talking about how wonderful it was!" (cue the obligatory.."that's not quite what I said...")

 

There is no reason to make the argument that way when you can make it by comparing the matches head to head yourself.

 

In the last five years I have:

 

Gone back and watched hundreds of WCW matches for the SC poll, including tons of tv.

Gone back and watched hundreds of WWF matches for the SC poll, including tons of tv.

Watched a huge chunk of Portland television.

Watched hundreds of discs of AWA.

Watched every available SMW match.

Watched virtually every ECW match ever recorded in any format.

Watched every IWRG handheld from the last two years.

Watched a chunk of Canadian territories.

Watched tons of "classic" Lucha.

Watched the NJPW Set.

Watched the Texas Set.

Watched the AJPW Set.

Watched several other specialty sets from beginning to end (Buddy Rose, Tracy Smothers, Terry Funk, Fantastics, et., et., et.)

 

This doesn't include the huge chunk of random shit I have watched from U.S. indies, to random territory matches, to youtube finds that seemed like they were granted from God.

 

My point in saying this isn't "wow look how much I've seen, I'm such a pro wres smarty pants." My point is I've seen a shitload of stuff, from all over the spectrum. And in seeing that stuff at no point have I felt watching modern WWE that the best matches it provides are exponentially worse than the best matches from ANY of these places.

 

The argument that something like Finlay v. Benoit or Rey v. Cena or Goldust v. Regal wouldn't stand out as anything special in a different context doesn't fly with me because in the broader context of the things I've been watching all of those matches absolutely do stand out.

[NintendoLogic]

I think this is an interesting point and it comes up a lot but I also think it is overblown to a degree.

 

Yes it is true that the overall climate is weaker now than it was in 93. But is it worse than the over all climate in 98? 99? 00? I would say "no" with very little hesitation.

 

If you compare the modern landscape to the very best years it doesn't hold up well. If you compare it to the very worst years it holds up better.

 

My point is I don't think we are at an all time low for in ring stuff. I think we are in the median range and in the context of the promotion Rey works I think - at least week-to-week - we are at an all time high.

 

Would 09 or 2010 Rey have been top five in 92, 93, 96? To be honest I think the answer is "possibly yes" but I'm probably in the minority. Would that have been a top five year in 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 91, 98, 99, 00? I would say "definitely yes" and I think it is hard to argue against (at least going from memory).

 

To be fair, my perspective is somewhat skewed by the fact that 1989 to 1998 is almost certainly the greatest ten-year period in wrestling history from an in-ring standpoint. Still, I do find it somewhat remarkable that there isn't a single promotion in the world that consistently puts on matches that can reasonably expected to be really high-end. I can't think of the last time that was the case.

 

As for a week-to-week perspective, I would argue that it's far less important than it was 15 or so years ago. Back then, something like 6/3/94 was something you had to go out of your way to see. Unless you were on the tape-trading circuit, you were stuck with what WWF and WCW gave you. Nowadays, just about any match you can think of is just a click away, so a good TV match isn't as big a deal.

[MJH]

Last year MJH (I think, and to be fair I don't think he is wildly "anti-WWE") made the "every match is basically the same" criticism. So I took five matches from a couple month period that I thought were really high end and showcased how obviously different I thought they were. I can't remember if I got a response or not, but I know for a fact that no one has ever been able to showcase to me the inherent "sameness" of matches as diverse as Goldust v. Regal, Rey v. Tyson Kidd, Cena v. Batista, Drew Mac v. Christian, Masters v. Chavo, et.

I remember this, but not whether or not I replied. If I didn't, well... I can see your point but I think it's also missing mine/Jerome's. "Every match is basically the same" doesn't mean, literally, every match is moreorless identical. It means, the matches are formulaic. If you've seen a handful of Cena matches you know the general form they're going to take, the general order he's going to do his spots in. Or Christian. Or Danielson. Or anyone. Now, yes, in a wider sense, that's true of a lot of wrestling, and even if you watched 100 straight Terry Funk matches you'd pick up on "how he liked to work"... but it's never been so exact elsewhere. A nice sequence in Cena/Punk SS was that Punk got in shots between the shoulder tackles/"blue thunder"?/5-knuckle shuffle of Cena's comeback. Jericho is/was, also, very good at exploiting/twisting these set sequences. But it only works because they're set sequences. I think I used Danielson as an example rather than Cena the last time? About how he can't just hit the inside-elbow/clothesline off the ropes he has to get switched on a posting, run-up and flip backwards over the heel, hit the ropes, duck a line and then hit the inside-elbow/clothesline thing. That's what we mean. It doesn't vehemently bother me exactly, but it is absolutely there, and is absolutely a weakness of the style.

 

Everything is overproduced is a criticism that I think is linked to the "everything is the same!" meme, with a little bit of "the camera work is dogshit" mixed in. I'm not a fan of the camera work either, but I can't argue it makes good matches bad.

I don't think Jerome/Ditch is arguing that the camera work makes good matches bad... only that it's very distracting. I'm kind-of used to it at this point, but yeah, it can take you out of a match.

 

"Self-conscious epic!" strikes me as being a horseshit term that is tossed around when people can't come up with a concrete reason to criticize a match. There are exceptions to this of course, but when people use the term to describe matches as different as HHH v. Taker and Punk v. Cena I it just comes across as a cheap way to cut off discussion and debate without saying anything of relevance.

It might well be a "horseshit term", but I know what Jerome means and we spoke about it on DVDVR IIRC. HBK/Taker I would be the better WrestleMania example, though, I thought HHH/Taker had more of a singular narrative/story to it than HBK/Taker or Cena/Punk.

 

The general idea, as I understand it, is, "oh, well, if the finish is strong enough we only have to kill time for the first half". There's other aspects to it, but that's the general idea. HBK/Taker was, as I've said before, and I don't see an argument otherwise, 10 minutes of nice but generic "big vs. small" stuff, the reset on the double-dive, and then an escalating run to the finish. I liked the match, I thought it was good and it works perfectly in that setting with guys with their history/connection to the audience. But the drama is caused by the 2.9999s, not by any story.

 

Cena/Punk didn't establish anything early at MitB. They coasted on the crowd (almost to the point of losing them). They did more at SummerSlam (and I thought the work was tighter), but there wasn't any real "storytelling" going on. They brought HHH into the match with the 1-counts in a way that didn't interfere too much - and I liked - and they established that Cena is stronger (duh), Punk is quicker/craftier, etc... but they remained "equals" in so much as no one had any established control for any real period of time. You have to build that to a 'key spot'; a la Misawa/Kobashi 10/97 (early use of TS85) or even Batista/Cena (top-rope legdrop -> powerbomb counter). The "key spot" ended up being the actual finish with HHH not seeing Cena's leg. On the one hand, then, it did build to it, but you could sense the huge deflation in the crowd, it really was a horrible finish. I know they needed to keep Cena strong, and Punk had to stay strong, but it's still fucking you over.

 

One of the main problems is they either seem too forced in putting over the match (HHH/Taker), or not enough (Cena/Punk). And because they only really have 1, maybe 2 finishes, it's one-move a piece at the very tail end which only leads to counter-overkill and guys not being able to really put over the other guy's stuff as well as it should be.

 

Like I've said before, here, elsewhere... I perfectly enjoy HBK/Taker, HHH/Taker, Cena/Punk etc... I think they're good, strong in the current climate/standards... But *great* means a lot more than that to me.

[jdw]

Your post was no sold because I didn't understand the point of it.

I was trying to get a feel for what "quality" means when it's tossed around so freely.

 

Bossman-Kobashi struck me then, and struck me on rewatch, as a pretty watchable match. I could tick off the reasons, and did with some of them in the earlier post. It's a watchable match.

 

Great? No. Good? In the context of 1993 AJPW? Probably not. But pretty decent, it didn't feel like a wasted 12 minutes of my life, and since I like Bossman and really like Kobashi 1993, it was overall fun to watch.

 

Is *that* the standard of what we're talking about when we say that 2006-2010 had shitloads of quality matches? Stuff that's at least at the general level of, in the context of its time, 1993 Bossman-Kobashi?

 

 

I'm still not terribly sure what Dave's opinion on a twenty year old match has to do with Rey Jr.

 

A comp between Rey/Henry and Bossman/Kobashi based on Meltzer's opinion as a reference point isn't something I find relevant.

I simply was tossing out Dave's opinion as an example of how it was thought of at the time. In the big picture of AJPW in 1993, it wasn't thought of as much of anything... a match that anyone needed to go out of their way to see. I actually liked it more than Dave, but it's not like I put it on the old Pimping Post... and lord knows there are a lot of matches on the Pimping Post.

 

So when we toot the horn of the shitloads of "quality" WWE matches from 2006-2010, including the shitload of quality matches that Rey's been in, do we end up with a lot of matche like Kobashi-Bossman that really aren't all that important other than while watching the tube that night you're thinking, "That wasn't too bad"?

 

Compare the matches straight up if you like, but I don't see much value in theorizing about how one match would have rated in a different context using the opinions of a guy who's views on wrestling from the past have been questioned with consistency for several years now.

I was interested in the above. I'm also interested in the notion that the WWF in 2006-2010 tossed out more quality than any other TV in pro wrestling history. That I tossed out what is the Usual Suspect for that title (1993 AJPW), a match including the Usual Suspect for Best TV Wrestling Year Ever (1993 Kobashi), and even provided a youtube link to make it easy to get a response out of you... I'm kind of scratching my head at why I can't get an answer what 2006-2010 "quality" means and how it racks up against a baseline of 1993 AJPW quality, if in fact Kobashi-Bossman is at the level of what you see as current WWE quality.

 

I'm certainly not trying to offer up high end, by pointing to 12/03/93 Kawada & Taue vs Misawa & Kobashi and where it fits in with Rey's best 2006 match. I'm tossing out a very mild level of "watchable" in 1993, and wondering if it fits in with Miz and Alberto Del Rio having a watchable/quality 7 minute Raw match that you go, "Hey... that wasn't bad. Raw gave me another decent match".

 

John

[jdw]

Dave pretty much set the tone for how a match was received in '93. Kobashi vs Bossman got a meager ** and isn't talked about despite being part of Kobashi's much-heralded 1993, and the quasi-heralded Bossman-in-AJ run.

Dave set the tone for people who (i) who read the WON at the time, _and_ (ii) watched it *after* him. By that I mean *both* of those things.

 

He certainly didn't set the tone for me: I watched it before he did, and before he wrote it up in the WON. Lord knows there were plenty of matches we disagreed on: I liked Baba & Hansen vs Misawa & Kobashi more than he did, and his review of the Kawada-Williams Carny Final had a little disagreeing shout out to me that I'd forgotten.

 

I'd go further than that: I doubt he set the tone for people like you who have watched AJ '93 without having his reviews and star ratings in front of you. Dave's views can't have meaning if you don't know them.

 

 

Any way you slice it, it was a lesser match from '93 AJ. How does WWE TV stack up with peak AJ TV, since we're discussing 'best TV product ever'.

It's a lesser match. Haven't argued that it was anything more than watchable and decent, while trying to get a sense for what "quality" means.

 

Perhaps I'll make this easy. Here's Raw this week:

 

John Morrison pinned R-Truth in a falls count anywhere match at 10:48

Kelly & Eve defeated Nikki & Brie Bella at 3:08

Jack Swagger pinned Alex Riley at 4:23

Kofi Kingston & Evan Bourne defeated Michael McGillicutty & David Otunga at 4:43

Alberto Del Rio pinned Rey Mysterio Jr. at 12:50

 

Which of those matches go in the "quality" column? I assume ADR vs Rey. But is it 5 out of 5? 2 out of 5? Are we at the level where 5-6 minute matches can go into the quality column, in which case a lot of JIP matches get to make the cut in AJPW and NJPW?

 

John

[Dylan Waco]

I'm kind of scratching my head at why I can't get an answer what 2006-2010 "quality" means and how it racks up against a baseline of 1993 AJPW quality, if in fact Kobashi-Bossman is at the level of what you see as current WWE quality.

 

I'm certainly not trying to offer up high end, by pointing to 12/03/93 Kawada & Taue vs Misawa & Kobashi and where it fits in with Rey's best 2006 match. I'm tossing out a very mild level of "watchable" in 1993, and wondering if it fits in with Miz and Alberto Del Rio having a watchable/quality 7 minute Raw match that you go, "Hey... that wasn't bad. Raw gave me another decent match".

 

John

Perhaps you should skip the pedantic shit next time and just ask the question you want answered. It's very hard for me to believe you were confused when the question you were allegedly seeking an answer for was drowned out by talk of Meltzer's views on a twenty year old match.

[Dylan Waco]

Dave pretty much set the tone for how a match was received in '93. Kobashi vs Bossman got a meager ** and isn't talked about despite being part of Kobashi's much-heralded 1993, and the quasi-heralded Bossman-in-AJ run.

Dave set the tone for people who (i) who read the WON at the time, _and_ (ii) watched it *after* him. By that I mean *both* of those things.

 

He certainly didn't set the tone for me: I watched it before he did, and before he wrote it up in the WON. Lord knows there were plenty of matches we disagreed on: I liked Baba & Hansen vs Misawa & Kobashi more than he did, and his review of the Kawada-Williams Carny Final had a little disagreeing shout out to me that I'd forgotten.

 

I'd go further than that: I doubt he set the tone for people like you who have watched AJ '93 without having his reviews and star ratings in front of you. Dave's views can't have meaning if you don't know them.

 

 

Any way you slice it, it was a lesser match from '93 AJ. How does WWE TV stack up with peak AJ TV, since we're discussing 'best TV product ever'.

It's a lesser match. Haven't argued that it was anything more than watchable and decent, while trying to get a sense for what "quality" means.

 

Perhaps I'll make this easy. Here's Raw this week:

 

John Morrison pinned R-Truth in a falls count anywhere match at 10:48

Kelly & Eve defeated Nikki & Brie Bella at 3:08

Jack Swagger pinned Alex Riley at 4:23

Kofi Kingston & Evan Bourne defeated Michael McGillicutty & David Otunga at 4:43

Alberto Del Rio pinned Rey Mysterio Jr. at 12:50

 

Which of those matches go in the "quality" column? I assume ADR vs Rey. But is it 5 out of 5? 2 out of 5? Are we at the level where 5-6 minute matches can go into the quality column, in which case a lot of JIP matches get to make the cut in AJPW and NJPW?

 

John

 

The only match this week I really paid attention to was Rey v. ADR which I liked an awful lot. Tag match is something I may go back and watch again. The others are skippable to bad.

 

I have no problem including 6 minute matches in the discussion and can't think of a single good reason not to. I think Hash v. Zangiev was pretty clearly one of the best matches on the NJPW Set and that was what, seven minutes? No clue why length should work against or in favor of a match in and of itself.

[Jingus]

Quick interruption: did this much-discussed Bossman match feature Kobashi hitting approximately nine billion legdrops? I just saw a Bossman/Kobashi match for the first time a couple months back, and don't know if it's the one in question. If so, "not great, not even very good by KOBASHI 93 standards, but certainly watchable and worth about two stars" feels like an accurate summary.

[jdw]

Perhaps you should skip the pedantic shit next time and just ask the question you want answered. It's very hard for me to believe you were confused when the question you were allegedly seeking an answer for was drowned out by talk of Meltzer's views on a twenty year old match.

My comment on Dave was a short part of a longer post and gave context.

 

I don't think I'm the only one in this thread talking about matches that are more than a year old. If I went back through this thread do you think I'd find references to Rey's work in the 90s?

 

John

[Loss]

My problem with the "I don't watch wrestling for the angles and promos" point of view is that you're judging the entertainment value of a whole (WWE TV) based on a portion (in-ring). Of course, anything is good if you ignore the things that aren't good about it. It also really glosses over and downplays the effect good booking, good promos and good angles have on wrestling. Those things exist to make the wrestling seem better, and when done right, it works. I am incapable of divorcing wrestling from everything surrounding it, because the who matters. The why matters. The where sometimes matters. Counters and reversals may get over strong in a Misawa/Kawada match that would not work quite as well with two indy guys executing the sequence equally well in the exact same order, because they don't have the history of interaction that Misawa and Kawada have. To ignore booking, promos or angles is also to ignore the entire concept of a feud or series of matches. Part of a wrestling match. It ignores the value of a finish. Part of a wrestling match. It ignores the value of the history between the two wrestlers. Part of a wrestling match.

 

Look at 2000 WWF. I don't doubt that the wrestling quality is better today -- not because I watch tons of modern WWE, but because quite a bit of the 2000 WWF, when looking at it now, doesn't seem as good as it did at the time. But part of what made the wrestling so good in 2000 was the booking, and I think it's a mistake to ignore that. For example, HHH was pushed hard in 2000. Really hard. And he got over. At the same time, it was his first major run on top, so he was still relatively new in the position. HHH was seen as a strong top guy, but not so much so that fans didn't believe he could be beaten. It's why a Jericho nearfall in a 2000 match meant so much more than a Jericho nearfall in a 2002 match (using that example because it's one I can think of where HHH faced a guy when both were hot, then they feuded later when both were cold). Because in 2000, there was a chance HHH could be beaten. In 2002, everyone knew better. Those things matter.

 

That's not just exclusive to the U.S. stuff. I almost always see the All Japan heavies matches as better than the New Japan heavies matches. I'm hardly unique when it comes to that. But one thing that keeps me interested in New Japan heavyweight matches is that it's not always easy to call a winner -- I am a big fan of Riki Choshu as a booker. It's part of what makes the wrestling matches themselves interesting.

 

I'm all for anyone watching wrestling the way they want to watch it. If that means removing all sense of context, so be it. Where I have disagreement is in taking that fragmented watching approach and using it to make arguments about the overall quality of an era. If the argument was that "For meaningless wrestling, this is pretty great" (and maybe that is the argument -- I don't want to create a strawman or misrepresent what Dylan is trying to say) it would resonate more than calling it "better" than an era that's more fondly remembered.

[jdw]

I have no problem including 6 minute matches in the discussion and can't think of a single good reason not to. I think Hash v. Zangiev was pretty clearly one of the best matches on the NJPW Set and that was what, seven minutes? No clue why length should work against or in favor of a match in and of itself.

 

I'm not against short matches. I've pimped the short Pillman-Barry taped fist match forever.

 

I just want to make sure that 6 minute of match is enough for quality. If that's the case, it's tough to argue that 10:26 of a 23:44 Kobashi-Kawada match doesn't count as quality, or all those JIP Juniors tag matches in NJPW that have a boatload of fun down the stretch for seven minutes isn't enough time to slap a "quality" tag on them.

 

Just trying to wrap my head around what counts for Greatest TV Of All-Time.

 

John

[Dylan Waco]

My guess is Greatest TV Of All-Time is not something you would agree to anyway since you think the last high quality match in the history of the promotion was Rock v. Hogan.

 

Again I think this whole thing probably deserves a spinoff thread at this point.

[jdw]

Quick interruption: did this much-discussed Bossman match feature Kobashi hitting approximately nine billion legdrops? I just saw a Bossman/Kobashi match for the first time a couple months back, and don't know if it's the one in question. If so, "not great, not even very good by KOBASHI 93 standards, but certainly watchable and worth about two stars" feels like an accurate summary.

That would be the match. 5 legdrops to the back of the head at the finish, the last off the top rope for a nice non-standard Kobashi finish. One of the things that made it watchable by the end is we didn't get the standard moonsault finish, and instead Kobashi was a bit ruthless with those legdrops. I like Wada giving the impression at the end that Bossman might be "out".

 

An average ** (in the non-1993 Kobashi standards) watchable match isn't unreasonable. That's pretty much exactly what I was pointing at. No one is claiming that all 1993 Kobashi matches need to be at the level of the Hansen match to be watchable/quality. I also suspect that if people watched the Taue-Bossman one earlier in the year (as one would be watching week-to-week), they'd see the difference between watchable/quality here and one that was duddy/not-so-watchable.

 

John

[Dylan Waco]

My problem with the "I don't watch wrestling for the angles and promos" point of view is that you're judging the entertainment value of a whole (WWE TV) based on a portion (in-ring). Of course, anything is good if you ignore the things that aren't good about it. It also really glosses over and downplays the effect good booking, good promos and good angles have on wrestling. Those things exist to make the wrestling seem better, and when done right, it works. I am incapable of divorcing wrestling from everything surrounding it, because the who matters. The why matters. The where sometimes matters. Counters and reversals may get over strong in a Misawa/Kawada match that would not work quite as well with two indy guys executing the sequence equally well in the exact same order, because they don't have the history of interaction that Misawa and Kawada have. To ignore booking, promos or angles is also to ignore the entire concept of a feud or series of matches. Part of a wrestling match. It ignores the value of a finish. Part of a wrestling match. It ignores the value of the history between the two wrestlers. Part of a wrestling match.

 

Look at 2000 WWF. I don't doubt that the wrestling quality is better today -- not because I watch tons of modern WWE, but because quite a bit of the 2000 WWF, when looking at it now, doesn't seem as good as it did at the time. But part of what made the wrestling so good in 2000 was the booking, and I think it's a mistake to ignore that. For example, HHH was pushed hard in 2000. Really hard. And he got over. At the same time, it was his first major run on top, so he was still relatively new in the position. HHH was seen as a strong top guy, but not so much so that fans didn't believe he could be beaten. It's why a Jericho nearfall in a 2000 match meant so much more than a Jericho nearfall in a 2002 match (using that example because it's one I can think of where HHH faced a guy when both were hot, then they feuded later when both were cold). Because in 2000, there was a chance HHH could be beaten. In 2002, everyone knew better. Those things matter.

 

That's not just exclusive to the U.S. stuff. I almost always see the All Japan heavies matches as better than the New Japan heavies matches. I'm hardly unique when it comes to that. But one thing that keeps me interested in New Japan heavyweight matches is that it's not always easy to call a winner -- I am a big fan of Riki Choshu as a booker. It's part of what makes the wrestling matches themselves interesting.

 

I'm all for anyone watching wrestling the way they want to watch it. If that means removing all sense of context, so be it. Where I have disagreement is in taking that fragmented watching approach and using it to make arguments about the overall quality of an era. If the argument was that "For meaningless wrestling, this is pretty great" (and maybe that is the argument -- I don't want to create a strawman or misrepresent what Dylan is trying to say) it would resonate more than calling it "better" than an era that's more fondly remembered.

The argument is that week-to-week the in ring quality now is higher than it has ever been.

 

I don't disagree with your points about context, but here is the thing - I hated a lot of the booking in 00 too. I hated a lot of the booking in 96. 95. 99. 03. 90. et. et. et. I hated the booking in a lot of different periods. Was it as bad as it is now? Not sure. I know the characters were better than for the most part and that is an area that does matter and one of the reasons why I think the very best stuff from say 91 stands out more than the very best match from say 06. But do I think the very best stuff from 91 is better than the very best stuff from 06? No and even if someone disagrees I struggle to think of how it could be considered better by a wide margin.

 

The point isn't to strip wrestling down. It's that at this point in my life I watch wrestling for different reasons than why I watched it when I was 15. Some of that has to do with changes in the wrestling landscape, some of that has to do with me.

 

I'm not saying "ignore the bad!" Fuck I pointed out the bad. I'm saying the good exists and I'm not going to pretend it doesn't because there are a lot of things I don't like. If that were the case I would have thrown in the towel in 1990.

 

In my view there are plenty of matches that are made better and enhanced now do to context. Punk/Cena is one obvious example but it's not the only one.

[jdw]

My guess is Greatest TV Of All-Time is not something you would agree to anyway since you think the last high quality match in the history of the promotion was Rock v. Hogan.

I actually liked the Shawn-Taker matches a good deal. They happened after the SC voting, so they probably fell under your radar of matches I liked. I also liked the Taker-Batista match a good deal, though not as much as stuff I had on my SC Top 50.

 

People disagree on matches. Three Kobashi-Misawa matches took the WON MOTY. I don't like any of those three. I look forward to seeing where the 1995 MOTY ends up on Loss' list of 1995 matches when that yearbook comes out. Odds of it finishing #1 are probably 100-1, and in the Top 10 are probably 20-1.

 

I liked Rock-Hogan, you liked Taker-Flair. Pretty clear difference.

 

John

[Dylan Waco]

My opinion on both of those matches has shifted a lot over the years. Much more positive on Rock v. Hogan and much more down on Flair v. Taker. Didn't have either on my SC list.

[goodhelmet]

The issue is that if you don't consider the WWE product as great wrestling, then you're doomed, because they're pretty much the only game in town. TNA sucks way too much to even consider them as an alternative at this point.

Then give me another U.S. based federation in the last 15-20 years that was putting on week to week quality matches. Give me YOUR view on what was so great week to week instead of knocking this down. It is really easy to be dismissive yet you give no example of what you consider better. Come on, you can be critical but at least be constructive.

 

You can't just separate Raw from the rest of the product. Its there and it lowers the average considerably. Honestly a lot of the 80s TBS squashes are more entertaining than some of the competitive matches on Superstars and Smackdown.

 

I am not separating RAW from the product but I am not ignoring the other shows either which was my point.

 

Raw/Smackdown/Superstars/NXT is 4hrs per week taking each hour as having ~20mins missing for the ads. Of those 4 hours, how much time is taken every week with good matches that'd score well on, say, the DVDVR Yes/No thread? You get maybe one or two matchs per week going into that, so, 25-30 minutes? ~12.5% isn't something to be celebrating.

The same could be said for WCWSN/Power Hour/Main Event/WWW/Pro era WCW. IN the history of wrestling television in the USA, it is surprising how little quality has come from TV on a weekly basis.

 

Will, you need to knock out the last section of your Rey comp to demonstrate the sheer weight of his WWE excellence.

Yeah I know.

 

jdw stuff

I was talking about US TV. Maybe I didn't make that clear. 1993 All Japan is still great. No one is taking that away.

 

The point is the expectation dropped so much that average matches from 20 years ago happening today on free TV would have people go ga-ga over it today. Or something like that I guess.

 

That isn't the case at all. We are just as excited about finding undiscovered gems from 20 years ago as we are at seeing the next Bryan Daniels match. The awesomeness of modern technology means you can do both. Go gaga over new stuff and old stuff.

 

Even then it's a poor comparison since the point of TV now is different than it was back then. 80s promotions wouldn't want to give away stuff on free TV. On the other hand, WWE has no problems running through major matches on television (Cena/Rey).

This only reinforces the point that the TV matches are better quality today. Also World Class and Portland both kind of destroy that horrible idea of running squash matches for 6 months with the occasional marquee match that was still going when TV time ran out to dust. They were both successful and ran top match-ups on TV every week.

 

To be fair, my perspective is somewhat skewed by the fact that 1989 to 1998 is almost certainly the greatest ten-year period in wrestling history from an in-ring standpoint. Still, I do find it somewhat remarkable that there isn't a single promotion in the world that consistently puts on matches that can reasonably expected to be really high-end. I can't think of the last time that was the case.

Do me a favor. Make a new post discussing that ten year period from 1989 to 1998 and support your opinion with some examples. I would love to branch on a new discussion about the era you are mentioning.

 

My problem with the "I don't watch wrestling for the angles and promos" point of view is that you're judging the entertainment value of a whole (WWE TV) based on a portion (in-ring). Of course, anything is good if you ignore the things that aren't good about it. It also really glosses over and downplays the effect good booking, good promos and good angles have on wrestling. Those things exist to make the wrestling seem better, and when done right, it works. I am incapable of divorcing wrestling from everything surrounding it, because the who matters. The why matters. The where sometimes matters. Counters and reversals may get over strong in a Misawa/Kawada match that would not work quite as well with two indy guys executing the sequence equally well in the exact same order, because they don't have the history of interaction that Misawa and Kawada have. To ignore booking, promos or angles is also to ignore the entire concept of a feud or series of matches. Part of a wrestling match. It ignores the value of a finish. Part of a wrestling match. It ignores the value of the history between the two wrestlers. Part of a wrestling match.

One of the values of the yearbook is that we can remove all the horseshit and keep the good stuff in order to enjoy the product. How is that any different than recording a RAW, watching the good stuff, fast forwarding through the shit and enjoying the good-great matches? If we were to do a yearbook for this year, leading up to the MITB Main Event, we would include Punk's Greatest Promo Ever, the contract signing, the Cena-Vince stuff and it would pay off. We would include a video package summing up the Sheamus-Mark Henry feud to get to the Summerslam match. With access to the internet, DVR, etc., you can easily understand a character, his motivations, the history of a feud without having to sit through it. There is no requirement that you have to sit through every promo to understand the workings of a match. Also, Dylan never said he ignored previous matches in the feud in judging a current match. He just chose to skip all the bullshit... something we have always done and continue to do with wrestling.

 

To Dylan...

 

I'll make that Punk/Cena comparison to Hart/Austin soon.

[El-P]

a. How much of this stuff do you actually watch? If you think it sucks every time you watch and you watch every six months I don't expect you to stay around. I'm just curious about the sample size here.

This is what you don't get, of course I barely watch anything because every time I did for the past 4-5 years, I was so bored out of my mind and hating the presentation of the wrestling so much that what I saw on my screen was mostly repulsive to me. I'm not gonna force myself to watch something I obviously get zero enjoyment or interest from. I watch WM each year (and get bored by pretty much every thing), I watch the occasionnal "great match" because a part of me actually would like to get back into the flow, and I can stumble on french TV from time to time ontop a WWE program, like MitB the other week, which was a total aphazard instance. I can't help it, to me it's unwatchable after 15-20 minutes.

 

b. Pick five high end WWE matches from the pre-awful period. I'll pick five from the post-awful period. Let's compare them straight up an try and avoid terms like "self-conscious epic!" or on the flipside generalized platitudes like "great."

I'm not gonna for simple lack of time and to be honest no desire to put me through watch and analyse 5 WWE match at this point. I know it doesn't click with me, I see why. I have no problem with people liking them, quite frankly, to quote a famous french movie reviewer, "People who like it usually are right to like it.". If I never get deeper into the analysis of modern WWE match, it's because I'm already bored by them, so I have no desire spending any more time to actually deeply analyse them.

 

I want to know where the disconnect is. I want to see why someone like John can think Rock v. Hogan was the last really high end WWF/E match, when stuff like Rey v. Eddy, Cena v. Umaga, Eddy v. JBL, Finlay v. Benoit, et doesn't make the grade.

FTR I don't think Rock vs Hogan was a great match. The Rey vs Eddy matches from WWE are to me vastly inferior to their WCW counterpart although still very good, and Eddie vs JBL was excellent and a great Eddie performances. But we're talking about guys from previous eras who, although they did modify their style for the worse to get into the WWE mold, were (or are) still terrific workers.

 

No problem with someone who thinks the overall product sucks, but I quit watching wrestling for the angles/promos years ago. I mostly watch wrestling for the matches now so I'm perfectly fine with a company that puts forth consistent quality.

I have an issue with the product as a whole. I can't take the matches out of their context, out of their presentation. They're boring already as they are, but the production (by production I don't mean just the directing, I mean the entire production of the WWE product) makes most of them just unbearable to me.

[El-P]

The point is the expectation dropped so much that average matches from 20 years ago happening today on free TV would have people go ga-ga over it today. Or something like that I guess.

Then watch Rey v. Henry next to Bossman v. Kobashi and make that point.

I didn't make the point. I'm guessing that was more or less the point.

[El-P]

Then give me another U.S. based federation in the last 15-20 years that was putting on week to week quality matches. Give me YOUR view on what was so great week to week instead of knocking this down. It is really easy to be dismissive yet you give no example of what you consider better. Come on, you can be critical but at least be constructive.

Ok, here's my point. What I see on WWE TV are *not* quality matches. This wrestling bores the shit out of me. Going from there, it's easy to name any TV delivering more quality match because I don't see any enjoyable wrestling on WWE TV every time I stumble onto it. We have to agree on disagree on the fact the current WWE wrestling is supposed to be "good".

Before the vacations I was watching 1989 NWA Saturday Nights episodes, with mostly squash matches and very few and far between competitive matches. Well, I got tons of enjoyment out of the promos, angles, few good competitive matches and some really fun squash matches. THis appeal to me a lot more that the supposed "great TV" WWE is putting nowadays. And that's not even childhood memories syndrome since I never had access to WCW TV before 1996 and never watched this stuff before. Over the last few years I also watched pretty much all the ECW I could find (a little less than Dylan, but I would say easily 90% of ECW's footage), and I got tons of enjoyment out of it and save an insane amount of stuff on my hard drive. It's not hard for me to find something better than current WWE because I objectively can't stand it.

 

The point is the expectation dropped so much that average matches from 20 years ago happening today on free TV would have people go ga-ga over it today. Or something like that I guess.

 

That isn't the case at all. We are just as excited about finding undiscovered gems from 20 years ago as we are at seeing the next Bryan Daniels match. The awesomeness of modern technology means you can do both. Go gaga over new stuff and old stuff.

Well quite frankly, more power to you then.

I'm definitely turned to the past as far as US wrestling goes at this point, repulsed as I am by WWE and with TNA being so bad and Russorrific. I could download the G1 Climax tomorrow and certainly enjoy it, but I really haven't watched any new puroresu since Misawa died.

[Loss]

My problem with the "I don't watch wrestling for the angles and promos" point of view is that you're judging the entertainment value of a whole (WWE TV) based on a portion (in-ring). Of course, anything is good if you ignore the things that aren't good about it. It also really glosses over and downplays the effect good booking, good promos and good angles have on wrestling. Those things exist to make the wrestling seem better, and when done right, it works. I am incapable of divorcing wrestling from everything surrounding it, because the who matters. The why matters. The where sometimes matters. Counters and reversals may get over strong in a Misawa/Kawada match that would not work quite as well with two indy guys executing the sequence equally well in the exact same order, because they don't have the history of interaction that Misawa and Kawada have. To ignore booking, promos or angles is also to ignore the entire concept of a feud or series of matches. Part of a wrestling match. It ignores the value of a finish. Part of a wrestling match. It ignores the value of the history between the two wrestlers. Part of a wrestling match.

One of the values of the yearbook is that we can remove all the horseshit and keep the good stuff in order to enjoy the product. How is that any different than recording a RAW, watching the good stuff, fast forwarding through the shit and enjoying the good-great matches? If we were to do a yearbook for this year, leading up to the MITB Main Event, we would include Punk's Greatest Promo Ever, the contract signing, the Cena-Vince stuff and it would pay off. We would include a video package summing up the Sheamus-Mark Henry feud to get to the Summerslam match. With access to the internet, DVR, etc., you can easily understand a character, his motivations, the history of a feud without having to sit through it. There is no requirement that you have to sit through every promo to understand the workings of a match. Also, Dylan never said he ignored previous matches in the feud in judging a current match. He just chose to skip all the bullshit... something we have always done and continue to do with wrestling.

 

To Dylan...

 

I'll make that Punk/Cena comparison to Hart/Austin soon.

 

(1) The yearbooks aren't a "best of". In fact, the yearbooks are all about placing everything in its proper context. Even there, it's the attempt, and it's an approach that has occasional gaps that have been pointed out. But it's a really good start. It's hardly a perfect way to watch wrestling. The perfect way would just be to go back and watch all wrestling that has ever happened that's available, but I would like to start a family, advance my career, take up tennis, go to concerts, read some books and generally pursue other interests before I die too, so no way am I doing that, nor am I guessing most will.

 

(2) When did I say here that you have to sit through everything? I was debating the idea that those things are meaningless, not that you have to see them in full. I know you in particular see the value in video packages and have said so many times. I do too.

 

So the argument isn't about what to sit through, as much as it is that I can't keep "in-ring" a separate thing, because booking and general presentation are things that either contribute to or take away from the in-ring for me. Not enough to prop up something bad on its own, but it is a way to make decent seem good, good seem great and great seem classic.

[Dylan Waco]

Again I'm not arguing that in-ring is an island unto itself. What I am arguing is that the over all package has flaws now. It had flaws then. The flaws are worse in many respects now, but it doesn't change the fact that I could sit down and with relatively minimal effort name 500 good matches that aired on WWE TV in the last five years. I can't do that in any other comparable five year period with any other promotion.

 

As far as Jerome's posts I guess the only reply worth making is "ok." If you can't give me any reasons beyond "self-conscious epic!" and "boring" for why you don't like the current stuff that is fine and I can't blame you for not watching something you don't like. No clue why you feel the need to comment so much on stuff you rarely watch and hate when you see but at least now I know that you aren't even going to bother to give my particulars about why older WWF matches are quality and newer WWE matches aren't.