Match quality standards

[MJH]

I really liked Henry/Punk as well, but I wonder (riffing on Coffey's thread in a way but it fits better in here) what it says about wrestling in 2012 when what was basically a nice, little match done rather well is considered a MOTYC. It shows as much as anything how wrong a turn the guys of this era took from the last.

[Dylan Waco]

I really liked Henry/Punk as well, but I wonder (riffing on Coffey's thread in a way but it fits better in here) what it says about wrestling in 2012 when what was basically a nice, little match done rather well is considered a MOTYC. It shows as much as anything how wrong a turn the guys of this era took from the last.

This year has been the worst in ring year in the WWE in a long, long time. Having said that, that match would have been a U.S. MOTYC more often than not. I can think of very few tv matches I've seen in the last decade that I think are definitely better and I'm a guy who actually likes modern WWE

 

Edit: Also should note that the two matches I have above it are matches I would rate as all time great level matches on first watch.

[ohtani's jacket]

Watched Punk/Henry and don't see how it was a MOTYC. It was okay as far as little guy tries to chop down a pine tree goes, but I didn't buy the finish whatsoever and the whole thing was overshadowed by the post-match crap. If they were going to do a countout finish, Henry should've gone out over the rope too. But regardless, why would you rate a match that was basically two thirds of a match without any finishing stretch? The match was pretty much aborted so they could fit the Jericho crap in the quarter hour. And what a dumb angle that is. Can't they do something better with Punk than this straight edge shit? I mean, I kind of admire the guy for cementing himself as a WWE performer as it seems like he did it against the odds, but who the fuck wants to watch angles about alcoholism or drug addiction or anything like that?

[El-P]

This year has been the worst in ring year in the WWE in a long, long time. Having said that, that match would have been a U.S. MOTYC more often than not. I can think of very few tv matches I've seen in the last decade that I think are definitely better and I'm a guy who actually likes modern WWE

This is where I really see how much our views on matches differ. I enjoyed the match quite a bit, I thought it was *good*, hell, as a TV match I thought it was very good despite a shit finish. But MOTYC, no way, that would mean the quality of wrestling dropped to depressing low levels in the last 10 years.

[El-P]

I mean, I kind of admire the guy for cementing himself as a WWE performer as it seems like he did it against the odds, but who the fuck wants to watch angles about alcoholism or drug addiction or anything like that?

Not me. The Straight Edge gimmick is great for a heel character whi thinks he's better than everyone else, but as a face it's trickier to use it in an efficient way. You won't become an alcoholic because you get drenched in beer. It doesn't makes a lot of sense, and really it's not very fun at all. Jericho and CM Punk are better than this.

[Eduardo]

If the alcohol and drug addiction storyline wasn't shitty enough, having Jericho reveal that Punk was born out of wedlock like it's some unbelievable taboo was really lame. It's 2012, jeez. Then having Punk emotionally say how Jericho was "reprehensible" for saying that and saying "I am not a bastard" was just embarrassing to watch.

[MJH]

This year has been the worst in ring year in the WWE in a long, long time. Having said that, that match would have been a U.S. MOTYC more often than not. I can think of very few tv matches I've seen in the last decade that I think are definitely better and I'm a guy who actually likes modern WWE

This is where I really see how much our views on matches differ. I enjoyed the match quite a bit, I thought it was *good*, hell, as a TV match I thought it was very good despite a shit finish. But MOTYC, no way, that would mean the quality of wrestling dropped to depressing low levels in the last 10 years.

 

Exactly this.

 

As far as ten-minute TV matches go, does it really hold a candle to something like Benoit/Eddy 10/95? Granted, that was both much faster-paced, and Punk/Henry aren't even near the same ball-park as workers, but, as great as that Benoit/Eddy match is for a ten-minute Nitro match, no one would have called it a MOTYC in 1995.

 

Like Jerome, I don't see MOTYC at all, but, doesn't it tell you how much these guys fail when they go for something bigger and more complex?

 

I mean, Punk and Henry certainly weren't going for any kind of 'classic' (even by Raw standards), they were just trying to have a very good, little TV match (in the same way Benoit and Eddy were just trying to have a good TV match and put Benoit over strong in his debut), and they nailed it as best as anyone could expect from them.

[anarchistxx]

I know you're pretty much a WWE and Mark Henry fanboy Dylan, but no way was that Henry/Punk match anymore than good, and that's from someone who likes both workers. As has been stated, Nitro from 95 to maybe 98 and WWE ten years ago were putting on better matches than that every week that people just saw as pretty standard.

 

It's like this whole Chris Masters/Superstars love, I went and watched a few of the recommendations since people got so high on the stuff and it was all reasonably standard fare, not even a patch on your circa-2005 Paul London Velocity match let alone up there with the best stuff of the year. Maybe I'm just a jaded cynical ex-fan but more likely it's that standards have dropped. And also that tastes have changed, no doubt, with people turning away from the superworkers with crazy high spots and huge movesets to more 'minimalist' matches that WWE style wrestling is so full of.

[Coffey]

It just seemed like a standard-fare RAW match to me, no different than a lot of weeks when they trot out Daniel Bryan, Dolph Ziggler or Jack Swagger. I mean, it barely made me pay attention as I was distracted by a couple of things and if a match is great, it would draw me in. But to have it as the third best match of the entire year so far? There's no way...

[Matt D]

I know you're pretty much a WWE and Mark Henry fanboy Dylan, but no way was that Henry/Punk match anymore than good, and that's from someone who likes both workers. As has been stated, Nitro from 95 to maybe 98 and WWE ten years ago were putting on better matches than that every week that people just saw as pretty standard.

 

It's like this whole Chris Masters/Superstars love, I went and watched a few of the recommendations since people got so high on the stuff and it was all reasonably standard fare, not even a patch on your circa-2005 Paul London Velocity match let alone up there with the best stuff of the year. Maybe I'm just a jaded cynical ex-fan but more likely it's that standards have dropped. And also that tastes have changed, no doubt, with people turning away from the superworkers with crazy high spots and huge movesets to more 'minimalist' matches that WWE style wrestling is so full of.

I wasn't really watching much in 05.

 

What's a Paul London Velocity match I should track down?

[Loss]

I really liked the match. Not sure I would call it GREAT, but when a match that good is considered "standard fare", it shows how high the standards are for in-ring action in WWE compared to where they used to be.

 

A match at the level of Punk/Henry that happened on Saturday Night's Main Event in the 80s would be praised and remembered fondly today.

[El-P]

A match at the level of Punk/Henry that happened on Saturday Night's Main Event in the 80s would be praised and remembered fondly today.

Lot of Saturday Night Main Event matches that are remembered fondly right now are also overrated. The context is different, back then how many big competitive match did you got every week compared to now ? Times have changed, and it's easier than ever to have a lot of good TV matches. People remember fondly SNME matches because they were a rarity. But I guess a *very good* SNME match like Bret vs DiBiase happening today on TV probably would have people go crazy for it to and name it a MOTYC too, despite not being worthy either, not now, not then.

[Loss]

The point is that because there are more good matches now than there used to be, that makes the standards higher than they used to be. If Punk/Henry is run of the mill, that's awfully impressive.

[El-P]

The point is that because there are more good matches now than there used to be, that makes the standards higher than they used to be. If Punk/Henry is run of the mill, that's awfully impressive.

No, it's exactly the opposite infact. My point is that Punk vs Henry is merely a very good match to me. Ad if a *very good match* can be considered MOTYC, then it means the standarts have dropped insanely. That there are more good matches on TV now than during the SNME days is only a product of the context, and doesn't change the standart.

 

And I wonder how actually good are these *good matches*. If Punk vs Henry is a great match and MOTYC, then we disagree on what qualifies as an awesome match and MOTYC. Which means we probably disagree on the number of what people today consider *good* matches on TV too. And it's not even an issue of me thinking Punk vs Henry sucked, like I said I thought it was really good and enjoyed it a lot. But if that match is that much better than anything else on TV to be considered MOTYC, then I don't think I would enjoy much of what's on TV in 2012.

[cm funk]

I wasn't really watching much in 05.

 

What's a Paul London Velocity match I should track down?

He had a great series with Akio (Jimmy Yang). They're all up on the video sites

 

First match:

 

I liked Punk-Henry, but at no point when I was watching it was I thinking 'MOTYC'

[anarchistxx]

I wasn't really watching much in 05.

 

What's a Paul London Velocity match I should track down?

Haven't seen any of them since they aired, I just remember he was pulling out solid to good matches every week. There was a series of matches with Jimmy Yang (worked as 'Akio' that got a ton of love).

 

Here's the first one with a crazy bump

.

 

I also remember some very entertaining matches with the likes of Chavo, Shannon Moore, Nunzio, Jamie Noble, and an awesome little trios match teaming with Kidman and Ultimo Dragon against Tajiri/Akio/???.

 

They aren't world beaters, but they're nice little TV matches (like Henry/Punk), unless they've aged really badly.

 

A match at the level of Punk/Henry that happened on Saturday Night's Main Event in the 80s would be praised and remembered fondly today.

WWF in the 80s is mostly terrible anyway, so anything halfway decent stands out and gets overpraised. A sentence equally applicable to WWE in 2012.

 

From what I've seen (admittedly little) and read (substantially more) in the last five years, WWE has increased the amount of decent television matches while decreasing the quality of the marquee matches. There's nothing really to suck you in emotionally on a WWE main event, mostly because the programs are booked so terribly. Punk/Cena from last year is probably the main exception, and you have to really put that down to the talent of the two guys.

 

Having said that, I watched a couple of discs of 1996 TV from WWF recently (generally considered a bad year?) and the better Raw matches from that year easily beat out the ones I've seen from the last couple of years. So on both counts (regularly competent/entertaining television bouts and MOTY style main events) the quality is down. What really helps them (in my opinion) is the lack of great stuff going down in Japan and to some extent the indies. If All Japan had the amount of incredible workers and matches as it did in the 90s today, WWE would seem a lot more terrible. Ditto when Ring of Honor was on fire from 2003 to 2006, WWE stuff got judged a lot more harshly.

[Dylan Waco]

This year has been the worst in ring year in the WWE in a long, long time. Having said that, that match would have been a U.S. MOTYC more often than not. I can think of very few tv matches I've seen in the last decade that I think are definitely better and I'm a guy who actually likes modern WWE

This is where I really see how much our views on matches differ. I enjoyed the match quite a bit, I thought it was *good*, hell, as a TV match I thought it was very good despite a shit finish. But MOTYC, no way, that would mean the quality of wrestling dropped to depressing low levels in the last 10 years.

 

Exactly this.

 

As far as ten-minute TV matches go, does it really hold a candle to something like Benoit/Eddy 10/95? Granted, that was both much faster-paced, and Punk/Henry aren't even near the same ball-park as workers, but, as great as that Benoit/Eddy match is for a ten-minute Nitro match, no one would have called it a MOTYC in 1995.

 

Like Jerome, I don't see MOTYC at all, but, doesn't it tell you how much these guys fail when they go for something bigger and more complex?

 

I mean, Punk and Henry certainly weren't going for any kind of 'classic' (even by Raw standards), they were just trying to have a very good, little TV match (in the same way Benoit and Eddy were just trying to have a good TV match and put Benoit over strong in his debut), and they nailed it as best as anyone could expect from them.

 

The window of time Jerome referenced was ten years. I have followed WWE closely over the last ten years and before then. In the last ten years Japan has shit the bed and become nearly unwatchable with a few notable exceptions. I have seen a lot of Lucha I have enjoyed from the period, but I am still fairly new there. I have watched lots of indy stuff during the period.

 

Ten years ago people were still pretending Chris Daniels was good, raving that Angle was an all time great and signing off on every SD Six match as a MOTYC. I have no problem saying Henry/Punk would stand out from that period. Would it be the MOTY every year? Fuck no. MOTYC? In the sense that I use the term, yes.

 

If 2002 seems like I'm being too much of a stickler you can work backward. The low point in U.S. wrestling from a match quality perspective is not now - it was clearly 98-00. A part of me wants to include 01 too even though WWE had lots of good stuff because of the death of the other companies, but it doesn't really matter. The point is that this mythological era when in ring quality destroyed all that exists now is just comical. I mean if you are an AJPW fetishist or a WrestlingClassics style "everything after 89 is shit!" type sure. But I honestly don't see how someone could watch the tv week to week and think "god damn what we need is a return to the golden age of WCW cruiserweights!" Ugh.

 

On the particulars of Benoit v. Eddy I liked their matches and thought they were really awesome for what they were, but none of them ever stood out for me at the time. Benoit always fell flat to me because he was so emotionless and there was absolutely no reason to care about him at all. The exception of course is the Sullivan stuff which I'd rather not even think about. I prefer Henry/Punk without qualification. 95 is really a pretty terrible year to point to because it's maybe the ONLY year from the 90's in the States (besides 99, which is obvious low hanging fruit) where I think if you dropped off Henry/Punk in a time machine it would have been my MOTY in either of the major promotions (I guess DBS v. Bret, Razor v. Shawn and Jarrett would be the top contenders and I'd be willing to grant that they might be better,but I hardly think it's clear they are better)..

 

Also don't understand "weren't trying to have a classic" talking point from someone who has crusaded against "self conscious epics" in the past. Just so I know, are you supposed to try to have good matches or not?

[Dylan Waco]

I know you're pretty much a WWE and Mark Henry fanboy Dylan, but no way was that Henry/Punk match anymore than good, and that's from someone who likes both workers. As has been stated, Nitro from 95 to maybe 98 and WWE ten years ago were putting on better matches than that every week that people just saw as pretty standard.

 

It's like this whole Chris Masters/Superstars love, I went and watched a few of the recommendations since people got so high on the stuff and it was all reasonably standard fare, not even a patch on your circa-2005 Paul London Velocity match let alone up there with the best stuff of the year. Maybe I'm just a jaded cynical ex-fan but more likely it's that standards have dropped. And also that tastes have changed, no doubt, with people turning away from the superworkers with crazy high spots and huge movesets to more 'minimalist' matches that WWE style wrestling is so full of.

I'm begging you to name these litany of Nitro and Raw matches from 95-98 that were better than Punk v. Henry, because they don't exist. I doubt there are many people on the face of the Earth who have watched more wrestling than me in the last five years and that included a fuck load of Nitro. I was a huge WCW fan at the time and really, really wanted to find some off the charts great matches from the show. There were some good ones to be sure and even some that I think were pretty great. But I can't think of a single match from the history of that show I liked better than Punk v. Henry, and this is coming from a guy who was a MUCH bigger fan of WCW then than I am WWE now. I mean I fucking LOVE Mike Enos v. Chris Jericho - it's not close to as good a match. Rey v. Syxx was super fun - not in the same league. Eddy/Jarrett v. Horsemen tags ruled - not even close to as well developed a match as Punk v. Henry. Sting v. DDP from 99 was probably the U.S. MOTY that year in the big two major promotions and it wasn't as good as Punk v. Henry either.

 

Point me to these matches so I can at least get a frame of reference. I want to know what matches I missed. I would ask for the Raw matches to, but I assume that was just hyperbole for effect as no one even pretends Raw was having weekly "classics" during that period (though to be fair they did have some good hidden gems).

[ohtani's jacket]

Punk/Henry was a match of the week type match. What is it about the match specifically that makes you think it was better than any match wrestled in the US in 1995? Was it really better than say Bret vs. Jean Pierre Lafitte or that Vader tag?

[Dylan Waco]

It just seemed like a standard-fare RAW match to me, no different than a lot of weeks when they trot out Daniel Bryan, Dolph Ziggler or Jack Swagger. I mean, it barely made me pay attention as I was distracted by a couple of things and if a match is great, it would draw me in. But to have it as the third best match of the entire year so far? There's no way...

Why not?

 

What matches were better? I mean we obviously look for different things in wrestling since you liked Elgin v. Richards and I thought it was unbelievably shitty beyond belief, but this thread isn't just about my MOTYs. Ideally I'd like other people to toss their's out there as well.

[Frankensteiner]

Man, that is hyperbole. There's at least 6 or 7 Raw matches from 1995 that were just as good if not better than Punk/Henry.

[Dylan Waco]

Punk/Henry was a match of the week type match. What is it about the match specifically that makes you think it was better than any match wrestled in the US in 1995? Was it really better than say Bret vs. Jean Pierre Lafitte or that Vader tag?

I like Bret v. Lafitte, but as I noted when I watched it for the SC poll it's a match that really revolved around Lafitte's big spots and Bret bumping. Nothing wrong with that but the dead time in that match was REALLY dead time, with Lafitte sucking wind and just laying around with holds applied waiting to get to the next spot. I like the match a lot and don't want to slag it, but Lafitte is not Henry when it comes to keeping "dead time" entertaining.

 

The Vader tag is a really awesome match that is even less consequential than Henry v. Punk. I actually thought Henry v. Punk was a great way of re-establishing Henry as a killer/monster type and while I generally don't like Punk as Ricky Morton type, that works v. Henry.

 

I would have to watch all the matches back-to-back-to-back to into a ton more detail, but I obviously liked Punk v. Henry a lot and I know I'm not alone in that regard.

[Dylan Waco]

Man, that is hyperbole. There's at least 6 or 7 Raw matches from 1995 that were just as good if not better than Punk/Henry.

Which ones.

[Dylan Waco]

The point is that because there are more good matches now than there used to be, that makes the standards higher than they used to be. If Punk/Henry is run of the mill, that's awfully impressive.

No, it's exactly the opposite infact. My point is that Punk vs Henry is merely a very good match to me. Ad if a *very good match* can be considered MOTYC, then it means the standarts have dropped insanely. That there are more good matches on TV now than during the SNME days is only a product of the context, and doesn't change the standart.

 

And I wonder how actually good are these *good matches*. If Punk vs Henry is a great match and MOTYC, then we disagree on what qualifies as an awesome match and MOTYC. Which means we probably disagree on the number of what people today consider *good* matches on TV too. And it's not even an issue of me thinking Punk vs Henry sucked, like I said I thought it was really good and enjoyed it a lot. But if that match is that much better than anything else on TV to be considered MOTYC, then I don't think I would enjoy much of what's on TV in 2012.

 

This is a semantics game.

 

I'm doing a running MOTY list, but there is no guarantee that Punk v. Henry will be my U.S. MOTY at the end of year.

 

I don't even take the "there were more good matches on tv back then" claim seriously when it pops up because it's so obviously untrue it's not worth responding to. I can literally name hundreds and hundreds of good tv matches from the WWE in the last decade. We can argue about whether or not they have as many stand out great matches, but on average I see no argument for 90s or 80s WWF being better week to week. I literally think there is a stronger argument for the existence of unicorns

 

I really wish people would use this thread to talk about their own MOTY picks as well, but that ship may have sailed.

[ohtani's jacket]

Punk/Henry was a match of the week type match. What is it about the match specifically that makes you think it was better than any match wrestled in the US in 1995? Was it really better than say Bret vs. Jean Pierre Lafitte or that Vader tag?

I like Bret v. Lafitte, but as I noted when I watched it for the SC poll it's a match that really revolved around Lafitte's big spots and Bret bumping. Nothing wrong with that but the dead time in that match was REALLY dead time, with Lafitte sucking wind and just laying around with holds applied waiting to get to the next spot. I like the match a lot and don't want to slag it, but Lafitte is not Henry when it comes to keeping "dead time" entertaining.

 

The Vader tag is a really awesome match that is even less consequential than Henry v. Punk. I actually thought Henry v. Punk was a great way of re-establishing Henry as a killer/monster type and while I generally don't like Punk as Ricky Morton type, that works v. Henry.

 

I would have to watch all the matches back-to-back-to-back to into a ton more detail, but I obviously liked Punk v. Henry a lot and I know I'm not alone in that regard.

 

How does Henry keep dead time entertaining? By trash talking? Henry looked slow and lumbering in the Punk match. Isn't he recovering from an injury or something? Punk/Henry only really worked for me because Punk's offense is literally too useless to beat Henry. I think I would've enjoyed it more if it had been stiffer but those elbows to the head and some of the other strikes were weak.