Match quality standards

[Frankensteiner]

Bret/Owen NHB, Bret-Kid-Holly/Yoko-Owen-Hakushi, Bret/Hakushi, Razor-Savio/Yoko-Owen rematch, Shawn-Diesel-UT/Yoko-Owen-DBS, Bret/Lafitte, Shawn/Owen with injury angle

 

1995 was one of the strongest in-ring years the WWF had in the decade.

[Dylan Waco]

I didn't think anything looked weak in the match.

 

If you don't think Henry's trash talking adds to his matches I don't know what to tell you. If you think a guy in a pirate suit applying a chinlock while sucking wind and looking confused is preferable I really don't know what to tell you.

 

Henry is probably still hurting but I think he moves around smartly for a monster and he is usually good for a couple of very good, well built to bumps per match as he was here

[Dylan Waco]

Bret/Owen NHB, Bret-Kid-Holly/Yoko-Owen-Hakushi, Bret/Hakushi, Razor-Savio/Yoko-Owen rematch, Shawn-Diesel-UT/Yoko-Owen-DBS, Bret/Lafitte, Shawn/Owen with injury angle

Bret/Owen NHB

 

Remember thinking this was good, but clearly the worst of their matches other than maybe the one on Action Zone. Don't remember enough of the particulars though.

 

Bret-Kid-Holly/Yoko-Owen-Hakushi

 

Would like to see that. Sounds good on paper.

 

Bret/Hakushi

 

Not in love with this match or the ppv match. Good match but I don't think they had an interesting dynamic. I am a big fan of matches with decisive segment and also matches with build based around selling and cut off spots. That is why I love Rey so much. I don't think either of their big matches were that compelling in that regard.

 

Razor-Savio/Yoko-Owen rematch

 

I loved the "hanging chad" finish to the first match as a kid. Well I hated it, but it really made me want to see the rematch. I liked this match a good bit, not as much as Henry v. Punk though.

 

Shawn-Diesel-UT/Yoko-Owen-DBS

 

Don't remember it

 

Bret/Lafitte

 

Not as good as their ppv match,which was not as good as Punk v. Henry

 

Shawn/Owen with injury angle

 

Pretty good match, but I don't think it was a standout. I liked their ppv match in96 more than most

[MJH]

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.

OK.

 

By the standards of Free-TV-US Matches, yes, it's a MOTYC. And it'd be a 'nice TV match' in pretty much any era. My point wasn't a critique of the match - me, Jerome, most people, we've almost uniformly liked it and called it a 'good TV match' - but rather 'what does it say about wrestling in 2012 when a nice, simple TV match is considered a MOTYC'.

 

I mean, I agree with you on Japan. I'm less-versed on Mexico, though what I have seen hasn't connected with me as much as stuff from the past.

 

The point is, a 'nice TV match' should never be a MOTYC. It'd be like a nice collection of folk traditionals or blues covers being the best album of the year, or something.

 

I wasn't making a case for Benoit/Eddy as a MOTYC in the slightest, but doing exactly the opposite. Now, maybe if I was limited myself to the US I'd have it in my Top Ten, but that's beside the point. And Benoit's the wrong guy to be having the debate over anyway.

 

As for...

 

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?

Is it not patently obvious that Punk/Jericho were trying to have a great match, significantly moreso than Punk/Henry?

 

I can understand confusion with 'self-conscious epic' and how it might need an explanation, but 'weren't trying to have a classic' seems self-explanatory; it's the same/a similar phrase to one people have used plenty of times regarding matches were guys, not go through the motions as such, but clearly aren't going 'all out'. Punk/Jericho were pretty clearly going 'all out' (and understandably so it being a World Title match on the biggest show of the year) but I don't see how one could think Punk/Henry were.

 

The point is, guys misconcieve (or fail at) the big matches now. Someone on DVDVR - I forgot who - talked about how 'no one knows how to work the body of a match anymore; it's all about the finishing run'. It's the reason why so many people (and you've said so yourself, Dylan) are so apathetic to endless near falls now, because it's become so forced and unnatural - it's how people 'identify' big matches at this point, and so the big matches generally come in two parts: before the near falls, and the near falls.

 

Not to be an 'AJPW Fetishist' (though I see nothing wrong with preferring that), but the difference between a Punk/Jericho (or HBK/Taker I; or even an ROH match :|) and the matches that brought these near falls into vogue (and ignoring a lot of NJ Juniors had the same problems), the difference is night-and-day. The problem isn't the near falls themselves, but how they get to them and what they do between them: in a nutshell, they just don't do it as well.

 

And so, what we're left with is that the best matches are those that don't fail, which are the nice, little TV matches were everything makes sense, a few nice spots, nothing too reaching... I mean, that's quite the negative phrasing for a match I liked (Punk/Henry), and it may well end up a solid Top 10 WWE match, but yeah, it says a lot about the standard that guys are at were it's a MOTYC.

[ohtani's jacket]

I didn't think anything looked weak in the match.

 

If you don't think Henry's trash talking adds to his matches I don't know what to tell you. If you think a guy in a pirate suit applying a chinlock while sucking wind and looking confused is preferable I really don't know what to tell you.

 

Henry is probably still hurting but I think he moves around smartly for a monster and he is usually good for a couple of very good, well built to bumps per match as he was here

Well, I just watched the Bret Hart vs. Jean-Pierre Lafitte RAW match and I don't see how anyone wouldn't put it in the same ballpark as Punk/Henry including the post match Lawler/Yankem stuff v. the Jericho angle. It was a typical sort of Bret gets beaten up but finds a way to win anyway bout and nothing special in that respect, but Lafitte didn't look blown up or confused at any point and who shits on a guy doing a Pirata Morgan gimmick?

[anarchistxx]

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.

Saying they 'don't exist' is simply shorthand for you saying you personally wouldn't rate them on the same level. They exist for me, although I'll admit it's a few years since I watched any Nitro. I haven't got a record of stuff I watched and loved, but in 1996 alone I remember a load of matches with Rey/Malenko, Rey/Ultimo, Benoit/Guerrero, Benoit/Regal, Finlay/Regal, a few Benoit/Anderson tags sometimes with Flair involved, Juventud was in some fun stuff. Now a lot of these are just fun sprints and pretty short from what I remember, but that doesn't make them any worse for it. They fall into the same category of Punk/Henry - enjoyable matches all the more pleasing for being on free television. Not match of the year contenders (although you could make a case for the July 8th Rey/Malenko match and the Benoit/Guerrero bouts as being lower end candidates).

 

As for Raw in 1996, I'd put Austin/Vader, Bret/Goldust, Owen/Mero on a similar level from the disc or two I watched lately, I wouldn't be surprised if other gems showed up if I explored the year further.

 

Just because you watched it all lately and changed your opinion on it doesn't mean I'd feel the same on a rewatch. We have widely differing tastes.

 

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

Where and when did I say Raw was having 'weekly classics'? If anyone is using hyperbole here it's you. The whole point of the argument was that you were arguing Punk/Henry as a great match and I (among others) thought it was merely decent. And by that measuring stick, there are many 'decent' matches on Raw during this period. That's the argument.

 

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.

Your definition of 'good' may not correspond with everyone else's. Have you not considered that people may genuinely watch mid-late 90s TV matches and prefer them to the stuff you trot out as being good from the last few years? We all look for different things in our wrestling. I for one struggle to engage with modern WWE matches because the workers give me no reason to care. Charisma, character and uniqueness are thin on the ground. People like Ziggler, Swagger, Barrett, they're interchangeable. They might be competent workers putting together decent matches on paper but they struggle to put them over in the ring to a guy like myself.

 

A singer with a great range and a nice voice might objectively sing 'Blowin In The Wind' better than Bob Dylan with his crackly whine, but their version will never hold a candle to the original because they can never match Dylan's feel and emotion that he was able to put into it. Which is probably why you prefer watching Jerry Lawler to Davey Richards; one can technically and athletically do a lot more but the other makes the limited stuff that he can do much more important. The workers from the 90s were more varied and distinctive than the workers today. They engage me more, so I enjoy their stuff far more than a bland, modern worker who ostensibly seems to be working a better structure, with better looking offense etc.

 

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.

That's just bullshit. I'm far from an AJPW fetishist - if anything, I prefer NJPW and AJW from that period. But the matches across those three promotions from 92-96 do absolutely slay anything going on today. And unless you're a WWE fanboy (like yourself) or someone who loves Davey Richards style ROH main events it's hard to argue. If those three feds were churning out quality matches week on week today the WWE product would look even worse. They get overrated by optimists because there really is nothing else to jump on these days, especially now it's become uncool to like spotfests and Davey Richards style main events.

 

 

Dylan, you’re the wrestling fan equivalent of a music poptimist.

 

Your usual obsessive music fan (obsessive wrestling fan) will like a few pop songs (WWE matches) a year, enjoying the production (layout) and the lyrics/personality of the pop star (story/selling/character work). They will argue that the particular pop song stands out from the crowd in terms of fun, replay value and is enjoyably catchy rather than annoyingly so, or has depth beyond that of the usual pop song. Often the producer and songwriters (backstage agents) get the credit. As big music fans they take a pride in listening to every genre (styles and promotions) and they pride themselves on their eclectic taste.

 

The poptimist will go further. He/she will enjoy the majority of mainstream chart songs (WWE matches). While the general music fan will find most pop music empty of emotion, boring, derivative, repetitive and formulaic, the poptimist will insist that there are hidden depths to the songs. The general music fan will concede to enjoying the occasional big Beyonce single (the occasional well built, well constructed main event), but the poptimist will insist that even the album tracks (TV matches) are worthy of attention as more than filler, and in many cases outstrip the more popular mainstream song.

 

I will easily concede that Dylan has seen a lot more wrestling than me; he has probably watched more matches some weeks than I’ve watched in five years. That doesn’t change the fact that he has specific tastes (that don’t mesh with mine). He’s probably the biggest WWE fan out of all the mega smarks (i.e. internet wrestling fans who watch Puro and old stuff). He’s also a huge Mark Henry fan. Given those two facts, it’s unsurprising that even a moderately impressive Mark Henry match on WWE TV gets the hyperbolic treatment from him.

 

While Dylan is a great writer and extremely knowledgeable, he’s not someone I would ever take a match recommendation from since he seems so caught up in the styles/workers that he likes. And that’s fine, you likes what you likes and I like what I like. At this stage in my fandom, I like spotfests, hardcore brawls. Dare I say it, I like to watch someone with a massive moveset doing interesting counters and taking huge bumps from athletic offence. If possible it makes sense and builds suspense and isn't just my move your move. I’d much sooner watch the Young Bucks or the Briscoes or Necro Butcher than anyone on WWE television, because they’re exciting, have good, well defined characters, are extremely over and have matches with a lot of heat at a fast pace. I’d much sooner watch WCW cruisers than Jerry Lawler, it's a style that requires less of me. If that makes me a fan stuck in 2004 than so be it.

 

And that doesn’t mean I like Davey Richards; I saw a couple of his matches at a friend’s and they were overlong and over the top. I think he has a good look, works an impressive/stiff style but needs to be reined in by the booking.

 

I’m not really sure where I’m going with all this. It’s 4AM over here, so I’m beginning to ramble and the coffee is wearing off, so I’ll just leave it at this series of scrambled thoughts. Wrestling is subjective anyway – there is a Rock v Rikishi match from late 2000 that I would rate in the top ten in the history of the company, which probably seems far more absurd than calling Henry/Punk an early MOTY contender. Just remember that your opinions (i.e. saying that American TV matches from the mid 90s better than Punk/Henry categorically 'don't exist') are simply opinions and not facts. It's all down to personal taste.

[El-P]

This is a semantics game.

Part of it is, I guess, but I think it's interesting to talk about what should be a MOTYC in 2012, and does that imply that standarts have dropped despite the fact there *may* be more good TV matches than ever (at least from the perspective of people who have followed WWE TV in the last 10 years). Transfer Punk vs Henry in 1997, and although it's a very good TV match, it just won't hold a candle to Owen vs Bulldog from Germany or Bret vs Austin from Mania, which were legit MOTYC. Would it be a notable very good TV match ? Maybe, I'd have to watch back 97 Raw which have haven't since then, I guess there may be some good stuff buried there too, but yeah, it probably would look good.

 

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.

The fact that you consider it a MOTYC to me is already baffling from my perspective. Either we disagree a lot despite the fact I enjoyed it and think it's quality wrestling, either the overall quality of what passes for "great wrestling" has dropped a lot since the 90's.

It's simple, if by the end of the year, Punk vs Henry still looks like one of the top 5 matches on TV, it means that there was no great wrestling on TV, despite the enormous amount of competitive TV match. Which would imply that not only the standarts have dropped so much that a really good TV match is pimped as awesome, but the overall quality of work has dropped a lot too, despite the current WWE formula which makes it easier for workers to work good matches.

 

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 don't think anyone made that claim here. I even said some of the pimped SNME matches are overrated because there was so few of them that all of a sudden a really good match was more remarquable. That being said, you can have a mediocre TV week to week with occasionnal excellent matches (the 90's maybe) and good average week to week TV with nothing better than *good* (the 00's and beyond maybe).

 

The point is : have the standarts dropped ? I think they have, for a number of reasons.

 

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

Well, speaking about what should constitute a MOTYC seems interesting, but maybe this should be cut into another thread.

[Jingus]

The debate got me curious, so I just finished watching Punk/Henry. It's a perfectly good TV match, but I don't see how that's possibly a MOTYC. (And don't respond with "name some recent better matches", because I haven't watched the television since school got back into session; and besides, I liked Punk's match against Jericho at Mania better than this one.) It never felt to me like it got out of second gear. Henry's slow, lumbering, casually-strolling-around-the-ring pace just seems out of place in WWE, which is usually such a go-go-go impatient style. And the finish did suck. Not because it was a countout, but because the referee was way too obvious in counting faster than the refs ever count when the finish is not supposed to be a countout.

[Loss]

The key point is that something doesn't have to "feel" like a MOTYC to be a MOTYC. It only has to be the one of the best matches of the year. Is Dylan hyping this as a MOTD contender? No. So what's the point?

 

I understand his frustration, because if you're going to say it's not a MOTYC, it's up to you to name something you've seen this year that's better.

 

How good Punk/Henry actually is misses the point. How good Punk/Henry is compared to everything else that has happened in 2012 so far is the point.

 

The debate over whether a match has to be shooting for the stars in order for it to be great is an interesting one, but it's a different debate. This is just "best matches of 2012" -- not "Even though I can't point to a better 2012 TV match, this isn't the best because I only thought it was good."

 

Not seeing it the way Dylan sees it is not the issue. Discussion of standards isn't really the point of this thread. Has there been a better WWE TV match this year or not? Yes or no? That's really it.

 

I'm never one to shy away from a discussion of standards, but that wasn't the intent of this thread.

[Matt D]

I think the idea that people have to go out and try to have a MOTYC in order to have a MOTYC is terribly wrong, and in many cases quite the opposite of reality.

[El-P]

Sorry if I got the thread into another direction, that wasn't my intent, but my point is in fact all about asking myself "Have the standarts dropped that much ?" and not "Has there been any better matche on WWE TV yet." I think my point organically derives from the first question actually, because if Punk vs Henry really does look like the best stuff on WWE TV thus far, it means that WWE TV doesn't produce a whole lot of really good matches, and that having this one as a MOTYC thus far means that 2012 MOTYC meets pretty low standards.

[Loss]

When I have a moment, I'll split off the "great match standards" talk on its own. It's an interesting topic and I think worth discussing. That way, this can just be about the best matches of 2012, not what it means to have one of the best matches in 2012.

[Matt D]

Sorry if I got the thread into another direction, that wasn't my intent, but my point is in fact all about asking myself "Have the standarts dropped that much ?" and not "Has there been any better matche on WWE TV yet." I think my point organically derives from the first question actually, because if Punk vs Henry really does look like the best stuff on WWE TV thus far, it means that WWE TV doesn't produce a whole lot of really good matches, and that having this one as a MOTYC thus far means that 2012 MOTYC meets pretty low standards.

I think Dylan's said elsewhere that he'd rather see a well done 10 min match than a well done 30 minute epic right now. And I'm paraphrasing (to the point where I only think it was him who said it). but it does skew things if that's the case.

[El-P]

When I have a moment, I'll split off the "great match standards" talk on its own. It's an interesting topic and I think worth discussing. That way, this can just be about the best matches of 2012, not what it means to have one of the best matches in 2012.

Ok cool.

[El-P]

I think Dylan's said elsewhere that he'd rather see a well done 10 min match than a well done 30 minute epic right now. And I'm paraphrasing (to the point where I only think it was him who said it). but it does skew things if that's the case.

Well, as I have stated on my very first post, I also think there's quite a bit of matter of difference of taste that also plays into it. I understand perfectly. That being said, I do think a 10 minutes TV match can be much better than a 30 minutes epic, especially since the TV match works and the 30 minute epic fails to meet my criteria. To me the format is irrelevant to being a MOTYC or not though. I have seen 10 minutes matches that ended up being legit great match. I have seen countless boring 20 minutes plus main events. And not to mention the modern "self-conscious" epic which I can't stand.

I wish there will be a match on WWE TV this year that I'll find legit great, so I could make a comparison between this one and the Punk/Henry match.

[Frankensteiner]

By the standards of Free-TV-US Matches, yes, it's a MOTYC. And it'd be a 'nice TV match' in pretty much any era. My point wasn't a critique of the match - me, Jerome, most people, we've almost uniformly liked it and called it a 'good TV match' - but rather 'what does it say about wrestling in 2012 when a nice, simple TV match is considered a MOTYC'.

 

I mean, I agree with you on Japan. I'm less-versed on Mexico, though what I have seen hasn't connected with me as much as stuff from the past.

 

The point is, a 'nice TV match' should never be a MOTYC. It'd be like a nice collection of folk traditionals or blues covers being the best album of the year, or something.

 

I wasn't making a case for Benoit/Eddy as a MOTYC in the slightest, but doing exactly the opposite. Now, maybe if I was limited myself to the US I'd have it in my Top Ten, but that's beside the point. And Benoit's the wrong guy to be having the debate over anyway.

 

As for...

 

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?

Is it not patently obvious that Punk/Jericho were trying to have a great match, significantly moreso than Punk/Henry?

 

I can understand confusion with 'self-conscious epic' and how it might need an explanation, but 'weren't trying to have a classic' seems self-explanatory; it's the same/a similar phrase to one people have used plenty of times regarding matches were guys, not go through the motions as such, but clearly aren't going 'all out'. Punk/Jericho were pretty clearly going 'all out' (and understandably so it being a World Title match on the biggest show of the year) but I don't see how one could think Punk/Henry were.

 

The point is, guys misconcieve (or fail at) the big matches now. Someone on DVDVR - I forgot who - talked about how 'no one knows how to work the body of a match anymore; it's all about the finishing run'. It's the reason why so many people (and you've said so yourself, Dylan) are so apathetic to endless near falls now, because it's become so forced and unnatural - it's how people 'identify' big matches at this point, and so the big matches generally come in two parts: before the near falls, and the near falls.

 

Not to be an 'AJPW Fetishist' (though I see nothing wrong with preferring that), but the difference between a Punk/Jericho (or HBK/Taker I; or even an ROH match :|) and the matches that brought these near falls into vogue (and ignoring a lot of NJ Juniors had the same problems), the difference is night-and-day. The problem isn't the near falls themselves, but how they get to them and what they do between them: in a nutshell, they just don't do it as well.

 

And so, what we're left with is that the best matches are those that don't fail, which are the nice, little TV matches were everything makes sense, a few nice spots, nothing too reaching... I mean, that's quite the negative phrasing for a match I liked (Punk/Henry), and it may well end up a solid Top 10 WWE match, but yeah, it says a lot about the standard that guys are at were it's a MOTYC.

 

I agree with most everything here. The problem is that wrestlers today, more so than at any other time I can remember, are enamored with the idea of putting on “five star classics” for their own personal vanity. Whether that stems from increased ‘net smarkness, I’m not sure (but it's really not that important to the discussion). But this absolutely comes through during the big matches on PPV. I think the term “self-conscious epic” is pretty apt. This is why PPV matches are tinged with this transparent desire to put on classics and ultimately always fail to deliver. TV matches are worked in a different manner. I would agree there have been a lot of good and sometimes very good matches produced on WWE TV. I would disagree that these matches are on the same level as the top-MOTYC matches from the 90s and 80s.

[Matt D]

I do think the crowd is also desensitized. Not to go back to Steamboat/Savage, but a lot of what happened there not only seemed fresh, but within the context of the 1987, would have worked as a believable finish.

[El-P]

It will sound like a total cliché, but the disapearance of kayfaybe does hurt the perception of wrestling a lot. Everything is too self-conscious these days, including the audience.

[Loss]

Well, somewhere along the way, the importance of having a great match became that it's important because people are entertained by watching great matches. At one point, it was important to have a great match because it was important to convince the audience of key booking points, make people look good and maintain credibility. It was needed for business. It's pretty known that I don't think what makes a match good or bad has changed, but I do think the thought process behind laying out matches, and what the value is in having a good match to the big picture has definitely changed.

 

I don't think it's something that has its origins in Ric Flair, and this may just be carny nonsense, but Ole Anderson was fond of saying "Flair entertained the people tonight, but we convinced them" on Mid Atlantic shows where Flair was perceived to have stolen the show.

[ohtani's jacket]

I don't think it has anything to do with standards dropping. The lucha matches Dylan has listed in his top 10 would all be legitimately good matches from 1998 onwards and in some cases before then. Lucha is having its best year for matches in quite some time. I just think Dylan overreacted in his excitement over the Punk/Henry match possibly because of his disappointment in WrestleMania the night before, possibly because he really likes CM Punk and Mark Henry or possibly because he really liked the match. Is there anyone else calling it a MOTYC?

 

I always enjoy reading what Dylan has to say about wrestling and have done for more than 10 years now, but if Dylan says that Punk/Henry is a MOTYC why am I supposed to name something that's better? When people claim something is a MOTYC it's not only a match rating but a recommendation as well. There are some of us who didn't watch it live who will check it out based on that MOTYC tag. When I watch a MOTYC I expect to see a match that would be a MOTYC in any given year not just this one. If the best matches aren't MOTYC level then they're not match of the year contenders, does that makes sense? And if I don't agree with the MOTYC tag or can't quite see it, surely it's worth having a discussion about.

[Loss]

Of course it's worth having a discussion about. That's why I separated the talk of it into its own thread.

 

Calling something an MOTYC is not even saying it's good. It implies it, sure. But really, all that it means is that it's one of the best matches of the year. There is nothing inherent in that statement about the quality of the match, other than that it's better than what's surrounding it. A disagreement with that is not saying "The match isn't great", it's saying "The match isn't one of the best of the year". Am I wrong?

 

Maybe Punk/Henry is merely a good match. Fine. That means we have yet to see a great match this year.

 

And we're in April. There are plenty of years where the best matches happen later in the year. Sometimes early on, what the best match is isn't the best match into summer and fall.

[Guest Slickster]

I feel that saying a match is a MOTYC isn't a debatable statement until the end of the year when all the MOTYCs are considered against each other. A MOTYC is generally chosen 'in the moment' right after it happens, so to argue its validity before the end of the year seems to me to be unnecessary.

[jdw]

I do enjoy AJPW fetishist being tossed around as if an AJPW Fan tends to only like AJPW and not, say, something like Backlund-Patera or Toyota-Kong or some flippy-floppy juniors.

 

On the topic, I've long thought the term MOTYC gets tossed around too much, rendering the term meaningless over time.

 

The 1/93 Kobashi-Taue match is a good match, better than people expected at the time. Folks should see it. Historically it's a good lead into the 2/93 Misawa-Taue TC match since it is a "next challenger" match. It almost certainly better than a number of matches that made the 1993 Yearbook, but got cut because of space and there being so much stuff from 1993.

 

Should some of us jumped up and down pimping it as a MOTYC? No. It was just a real good match, pretty damn entertaining, really worth people checking out.

 

There were three matches from that series that made the 1993 yearbook: a six man, and two tag title matches. The tag title matches were #31 and #42 on Loss' year end list, and the six man off the list. Are #31 and #42 truly MOTYC? Does anyone really sit down at the end of the year and go that deep into their list to figure out who they have 1-2-3 as their MOTY choices?

 

I never did.

 

I liked the All Asia Tag Title match a helluva lot at the time. I had a sense that it wouldn't be one of the candidates by year's end. Dittos the World Tag Title match, which I had just a shade below the AATT match simply because watching the rookie Akiyama "fit in" was a bit more compelling that another (all be it great) Misawa & Kawada vs Gordy & Doc match which I'd been watching since 1990. I just sensed that while they were terrific matches, they didn't have that extra something that lifted them into that small circle of realistic MOTYC. That something you get (if you were an AJPW Fan in 1993) watching say Hansen-Kawada, Hansen-Kobashi, the final match of the year, etc. Or as an AJW fan what you got watching Hokuto-Kandori in 1993 or the Toyota & Yamada vs Kansai & Ozaki the prior year.

 

When one tosses 40-100 matches into the "MOTYC" blender, it tends to render meaningless the MOTYC tag being applied to those 5-10 matches that come December you truly are rolling over in your head to determine which really are Win, Place, Show.

 

That's just me. But somehow I've been able over the years to get across 01/24/93 and 12/03/93 as being matches folks REALLY need to see, while also getting across that one of them is a MOTYC while the other is a fucking fantastic wickedly fun match that's a bit mind numbing when you consider one of the guys in it has been working for just 4 months and he really doesn't miss much of a beat in it.

 

I know it's semantics. But words and opinions do have meaning and value.

 

John

[goodhelmet]

When one tosses 40-100 matches into the "MOTYC" blender, it tends to render meaningless the MOTYC tag being applied to those 5-10 matches that come December you truly are rolling over in your head to determine which really are Win, Place, Show.

 

John

On that note, time to release the 2011 MOTYC set. Look in the trading forum today for details.

[FLIK]

Is Dylan hyping this as a MOTD contender? No.

Actually he kind of did

 

I can think of very few tv matches I've seen in the last decade that I think are definitely better