Match quality standards

[MJH]

FTR, I don't think the literal definition of a MOTYC in anyway affects the initial point; if anything, it was the point. Punk/Henry might very easily end up being one of the best WWE TV matches of the year. Whether one thinks the term 'MOTYC' is bandied about too much, and I'm liable to agree, it is far more specific/statistical (is that a word?) than calling something 'great': it's one of the best 5/10/~20 matches of the year. And qualifying it as 'free TV (or even WWE) matches' is besides the point - Dylan's list in the initial thread is all-encompassing.

[S.L.L.]

This thread makes no sense to me.

 

Dylan calls Punk/Henry a MOTYC. MJH, Jerome, etc. watch the match, and they like it, but think calling it a MOTYC is greatly overstating the case, and they ask what this says about match quality standards in 2012.

 

It says their standards are different from Dylan's standards. Personally, I thought that was kinda obvious, but I guess not, because apparently, there are people in this thread who think that one guy's esoteric tastes in wrestling not jiving with their own esoteric tastes in wrestling can somehow be extrapolated to a much larger statement about the tastes of wrestling fans in general.

 

One can argue the merits of one set of values against the other, but "this guy whose opinions I usually disagree with expressed an opinion I disagreed with, so clearly there's some sort of larger change going on" is a very silly argument.

[jdw]

We're in the first week of April, roughly 1/4 of the way through the year. Looking at the first post in the thread, there have been 15 "MOTYC" for Dylan. That's a burn rate of 60 in the year. Obviously he won't get to 60 since there won't be 15 matches in the last quarter of the year that he lists as the "Top 10" gets firmed up.

 

Still... 15 in a quarter with the knowledge that a good chunk of those will get kicked to the curb as the year goes on tends to render "MOTYC" pretty meaningless.

 

John

[Coffey]

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.

This is certainly valid, but it does seem a little odd to me when we can get through both The Royal Rumble & Wrestlemania (not counting Elimination Chamber) without there being some sort of buzz. I suppose there is some recognition for The Undertaker Vs. Triple H & maybe C.M. Punk Vs. Chris Jericho, but I don't think anyone is wetting themselves over either. Usually one of those shows seems to have a breakout match and that's just WWE.

[Dylan Waco]

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.

 

I'm not going to respond to all of this for a variety of reasons just wanted to note three quick things.

 

I have gone out of my way to talk about how bad WWE has been in ring this year previously. Just sayin.

 

Like everyone I am caught up in the styles/workers that I like. I just commit the horrid sin of publicly declaring who I do and don't like and why, something that often treated as trollish behavior no matter what tone it takes. Having said that, I don't feel like that I'm terribly narrow in terms of what I do and don't like. And for the record I rather like spotfests.

 

I wasn't being hyperbolic about the match at all - it's a great match. If others don't agree that's fine, but don't work a "your opinions aren't facts" gimmick if you are going to turn around and claim that my actual opinion is hyperbole. It's not.

 

Interestingly I was talking to someone who has been watching a lot of MNW weekly tv over the last couple of years last night. Offhand he could think of one Nitro match he thought was definitively better than Punk v. Henry - and he's not even a fan of modern WWE.

 

Also I find it fucking hilarious that I am being called a potimist for two reasons. The first is that on other boards I am trolled for liking "obscure" Southern wrestlers and Lucha guys. The second is because aside from wrestling the only thing I'm nearly as obsessive about is indy music, particularly punk/hardcore (though not exclusively). Aside from my irrational love for Kelly Clarkson singles, there is probably no one on this board LESS interested in pop music than me.

[Dylan Waco]

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 got two text matches immediately after the match, both declaring it the best WWE match of the year (which I think it clearly was). It has gotten high praise from multiple people.

[Dylan Waco]

We're in the first week of April, roughly 1/4 of the way through the year. Looking at the first post in the thread, there have been 15 "MOTYC" for Dylan. That's a burn rate of 60 in the year. Obviously he won't get to 60 since there won't be 15 matches in the last quarter of the year that he lists as the "Top 10" gets firmed up.

 

Still... 15 in a quarter with the knowledge that a good chunk of those will get kicked to the curb as the year goes on tends to render "MOTYC" pretty meaningless.

 

John

It's a running MOTY list. If I see a match I like a lot for one reason or another I plug it into the list. I write at least something about all of these matches at WKO for those who care enough and will drag them over. Would it be better to wait til the end of the year? Maybe, but I am obsessive and hate forgetting shit. Plus I see no harm in a thread where people discuss various matches that they liked an awful lot rather than pedantic points about whether or not a match was "effective" or "good."

[ohtani's jacket]

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.

I don't see a MOTYC as the best match to have happened thus far. To me, a MOTYC ought to be good enough to still be in consideration at the end of the year. If the best match thus far is a three star match then there haven't been any match of the year contenders yet.

[El-P]

I don't see a MOTYC as the best match to have happened thus far. To me, a MOTYC ought to be good enough to still be in consideration at the end of the year. If the best match thus far is a three star match then there haven't been any match of the year contenders yet.

My point exactly.

[Matt D]

I don't think it's a point so much as an opinion. There's no right answer here.

[NintendoLogic]

The way I see it, calling something a MOTYC just means that it's better than most of what's come along so far, not that it's objectively great. It's a relative judgment, not an absolute one.

[Daniel]

I have lurked for a while and this is as good time as any for a first post on PWO. I've just watched Henry/Punk and reading through this thread was rather interesting.

 

It seems that there are two different ideas that are being proffered specifically in relation to Dylan.

 

1) That the evaluative standards of Dylan/wrestling fans have lowered (lower standards)

2) That the actual quality of pro wrestling has declined (lower match quality)

 

The first thing to note is that both statements are 'trend' statements, and therefore require a very large sample size for comparison and statistical significance. Dylan and one match doesn't get that required information (something SLL hinted at earlier).

 

Also, judging from Dylan's posts, #1 is pretty clearly inaccurate. His comments about 2012 being a weak year for WWE quality blows that idea apart completely, he also indicated that he sees almost nothing of value in current Japanese wrestling. Those aren't statements consistent with the ideas that Dylan has lowered his standards for valuing wrestling.

 

As a wider trend, I think standards for match appraisal are in fact higher now. We have access to a large number of matches from decades worth of pro wrestling. The days where I could watch any old match and be impressed are long gone, and I've been a fan of wrestling for a really really short time compared with many here. The availability of comparison material means that expectations go up.

 

Have the actual in-ring standards decreased? Yes, I think so. I'm primarily a fan of Japanese wrestling, and there aren't many people not named Alan who think that 2010-2012 is better than any years from 1989-1997 from a puroresu viewpoint. Consequently, a match that might be a MOTYC in 2012 might not be a MOTYC in 1993. I think that's a pretty simple and reasonable line to follow. "MOTY" is a relative statement; neither absolute nor threshold-based.

 

In terms of Henry/Punk, I'm not quite as high on it as Dylan, but it was a really solid match. On the forum where I spend the most time, the match has 12 votes in favour of it being a WWE MOTYC and zero votes against that proposition. I don't think it's unreasonable that someone would think of it as an early MOTYC (a relative statement) even if I don't. I might prefer the two SD matches Henry had with Bryan last year, but nothing Dylan writes seems to suggest to me that he's trying to establish the idea that Henry/Punk is a great match as a true fact that all reasonable persons must acknowledge.

[El-P]

The way I see it, calling something a MOTYC just means that it's better than most of what's come along so far, not that it's objectively great. It's a relative judgment, not an absolute one.

Back then, when snowflakes used to be thrown around for every match talked about, MOTYC meant an absolute judgment. To me a match could be MOTYC if the ratings was no less than ****1/4. I know this kind of thinking is a bit passé, but to me the term MOTYC still means a certain absolute quality. It's a same thing when I judge movies. If I don't have more than 2 or 3 movies that I can say are Movies-of-the-year candidates, it means that it's a pretty weak year. If I have zero and that the best movie I've seen is no better than *very good*, then it's a winner by default, but not really a MOTYC. Throw it a year back and it wouldn't be a MOTYC. Well, it's the same thing there.

[Matt D]

This might be presumptuous but I do think what some of us look for in a match is different ten years ago than it is now. If it's changed for some and not as much for other people, that could create some dissonance in this exercise.

 

Dylan, are the matches you called MOTYs 10 years ago still things you consider to be that good?

[El-P]

This might be presumptuous but I do think what some of us look for in a match is different ten years ago than it is now. If it's changed for some and not as much for other people, that could create some dissonance in this exercise.

Sure, but really, I would have enjoyed Punk vs Henry just as much ten years ago. Ok, maybe not as much, I think I actualy enjoys it more today than I would have then, because I'm more open minded and loose now.

[NintendoLogic]

Have the actual in-ring standards decreased? Yes, I think so. I'm primarily a fan of Japanese wrestling, and there aren't many people not named Alan who think that 2010-2012 is better than any years from 1989-1997 from a puroresu viewpoint. Consequently, a match that might be a MOTYC in 2012 might not be a MOTYC in 1993. I think that's a pretty simple and reasonable line to follow. "MOTY" is a relative statement; neither absolute nor threshold-based.

Just out of curiosity, is this ダニエル?

 

Anyway, this reminds me of a point I've made a view times in the past. The 1989-1997 period is almost certainly the best period from a match quality standpoint in history all over the world, not just Japan. Personally, when I compiled my personal desert island top ten match list a while back, every single match came from between 1990 and 1997. So if you're going to write off a 2012 match as a MOTYC because it wouldn't have stood out in 1993, you might as well resign yourself to never seeing another MOTYC ever again. It's like writing off a right fielder for the Yankees because he isn't on the same level as Babe Ruth.

[Dylan Waco]

The way I see it, calling something a MOTYC just means that it's better than most of what's come along so far, not that it's objectively great. It's a relative judgment, not an absolute one.

Back then, when snowflakes used to be thrown around for every match talked about, MOTYC meant an absolute judgment. To me a match could be MOTYC if the ratings was no less than ****1/4. I know this kind of thinking is a bit passé, but to me the term MOTYC still means a certain absolute quality. It's a same thing when I judge movies. If I don't have more than 2 or 3 movies that I can say are Movies-of-the-year candidates, it means that it's a pretty weak year. If I have zero and that the best movie I've seen is no better than *very good*, then it's a winner by default, but not really a MOTYC. Throw it a year back and it wouldn't be a MOTYC. Well, it's the same thing there.

 

Well it's not really the same thing here because my top two matches are tremendous matches that I think are easily better than Punk v. Henry.

[Dylan Waco]

This might be presumptuous but I do think what some of us look for in a match is different ten years ago than it is now. If it's changed for some and not as much for other people, that could create some dissonance in this exercise.

 

Dylan, are the matches you called MOTYs 10 years ago still things you consider to be that good?

Trying to remember what I would have called a MOTY 10 years ago. I definitely have shifted opinions some over the years, but I was never as high on the SD Six as others, was already souring on Angle, and hated Raw with the exception of Blondes v. Bookdust stuff. I did love Lesnar though. I'd really have to think about this more.

[goodhelmet]

Good time for a shill... buy my SD! 6 comp. Judge for yourself if you like that style of wrestling

[jdw]

I don't see a MOTYC as the best match to have happened thus far. To me, a MOTYC ought to be good enough to still be in consideration at the end of the year. If the best match thus far is a three star match then there haven't been any match of the year contenders yet.

Ding ding ding.

 

John

[Ryan Faulconer]

Is this whole thread just about semantics? If Dylan had said he had the match in question at the top of his list of "best matches of 2012 so far" or "Favourite matches from 2012 so far" would there be any debate at all here?

 

I thought this place was better than that

 

I wouldn't really consider it as a memorable match though. If I watched the PPVs or more of the TV more regularly it would get pushed down among the matches with more meaning. I've dug Henry since the beginning of his "poetry push". He had this really fun handicap match against Chyna and X-Pac around that time. He actually wrestled like a monster for probably the first time under that particular heel persona. The next week or so on Sunday Night Heat they really flushed that gimmick down the toilet. It wouldn't recover until 2004ish.

[ohtani's jacket]

C'mon, it went from being the best WWE TV match since Rey vs. Cena to being a US MOTYC in any given year and one of the best TV matches in the past decade. You'd expect a match like that to be pretty damn good.

 

I watched it again and it's a good match, but it's missing a finishing stretch. If there hadn't been two minutes or however long cut for commercials and they'd done a proper finishing stretch instead of aborting the match for a Jericho angle then I could understand the hype, but as it is I don't see how it was better than Benoit/Finlay or Rey/Finlay to name two WWE TV matches I really liked. Punk/Henry was a tight little match with an obvious story thread, but it seems to me that little things like Punk selling the back or Henry trash talking are receiving excessive praise. Now since we're often guilty of excessive criticism that's no bad thing, but I just didn't see anything above what you'd expect from the booking. I mean, wasn't the whole point of the match for Johnny Ace to book Punk in a tough match where he was going to take a beating because Punk called him a toolbox or something like that? It's a hop, skip and a jump from a great territorial studio segment and they were never MOTYCs.

 

I dunno, maybe it is semantics, but I was expecting something along the lines of the good WWE I watched from last year but it was only two thirds of a match. But yeah, if he'd said it was the best TV match so far this year or even the best WWE match so far and put it in his top 10 for the year we probably wouldn't have this thread.

[Kostka]

I thought the finish worked perfectly... If it actually set up a Punk/Henry PPV title rematch. I still think it was a really good match, though, with well timed comebacks, nasty cut off spots and crazy crowd heat. Henry's trash talking deserves all the praise it gets. It's amazing.

[EricR]

Is this whole thread just about semantics? If Dylan had said he had the match in question at the top of his list of "best matches of 2012 so far" or "Favourite matches from 2012 so far" would there be any debate at all here?

I'm with this. When I call something a MOTYC, it's a short way of saying "I liked this match, and it happened this year. It is one of my favorite matches that I have seen this year." I can't believe we've gotten this far into a thread because somebody thinks a match is great, while others just the match is merely good-very good.

 

I thought the match was awesome, personally. I don't understand the criticism of Henry as "slow and lumbering" but it's a critique that pops up an awful lot. What should he be doing differently? Running more? How does moving slowly and doing everything deliberately make his matches worse? I've been loving the pace of his matches ever since his heel run started, "slow" has never popped into my brain. It makes him come off more like Michael Myers. So what should be happening? Should he pick up opponents faster? Move from spot to spot quicker? When I hear lumbering I think of Khali, awkwardly stumbling into position, clearly lumbering due to his physical limitations. Henry always comes off as extremely athletic to me, never lumbering. What am I not seeing?

[Matt D]

It's a critique that I think is understandable only due to the tradition that we come from. I've read my share of old 80s observers, and matches basically had to be "Action"-packed, hard-hitting/headdroppy, or have some sort of epic real sports feel. Matches with a lot of negative space or that slowed things down, were generally considered to be less worthwhile, even when there were good, logical reasons for the slow down. It still boggles me years later that a match as smartly put together was Warrior/Andre from SNME was considered the worst match of the year.

 

I think one of the most amazing things about Henry is exactly how he uses that negative space. He seems to grasp exactly when to act directly and when not to. His timing, in that sense, is great, as is WHAT he does when he's not actually directly attacking his opponent. All effective are the trash-talking, the ref intimidation, the crowd interaction, and the basic transmission of presence. This is all stuff that we don't usually even think about in matches with other people.