Cena v. Tanahashi

[Dylan Waco]

Picking up where we left off in the other thread.

 

 

I'm a bit confused. You love Cena. I've got no problem with that, but what part of Tanahashi's offense is so terrible vis a vis Cena's?

This is not meant as a troll, but what part of Tanahashi's offense is actually good? I'll accept the frogsplash variation he does, though I don't think it looks all that great in the grand scheme of things. Other than that...? I think the hooking clothesline thing he does looks as bad and/or hokey as pretty much every single Cena spot that is widely panned. This is obviously unknowable, but I can't envision any scenario where Cena would bring that spot into his moveset without it being condemned across the board as a weak/phony looking spot. His dragon screws don't look particularly sharp, though I wouldn't count that as a major mark against him because some of that goes to the guy eating the spot. On the other hand he has a bunch of variations of it that all look silly/non-hurty which annoys me to no end because he could seemingly work holds or strikes to a similar effect....except he's pretty bad at working holds and his strike are just terrible (more on that later). One of the reasons I like the last couple of Tanahashi/Okada matches less than others (though I did surprisingly think the G1 draw was pretty good all things considered) is because Tanahashi is just god awful working over an injury. I have watched hundreds and hundreds of indie matches this year and it is actually shocking the number of over-the-hill, just there to collect a pay check, vets and scrubs have more believable and compelling body part attacking offense then Tanahashi. Again I don't say that to be hyperbolic or melodramatic - I say that because watching the matches and watching him sort of slap down an arm on a canvas, loosely apply a weak hold, or manage to make a Texas Cloverleaf look something other than awesome really does stick out like a sore thumb.

 

But beyond that there is another key difference to note about any comparison between Tanahashi/Cena offensively - the style and what is expected of them is very different. Both have obviously been successful aces regardless of how we feel about them as workers, but inside the confines of their own promotions and countries the expectations are vastly different. Cena is not now, nor has he ever been cast as a guy where high quality offense was expected or even a major part of the equation. Pretty much from the very start of his role as ace Cena has been a guy who's matches have been built around selling and overcoming odds. Of course we can find many exceptions to this, but my experience is that when Cena has to adapt and work a more offensively "heavy" style he is excellent at mixing in different and unexpected spots. He basically works the ritual of his schitck to his advantage for the matches that call for more "stuff" and gets big pops for his surprise variation. On the other nights he sells his ass off and builds to his comebacks. Tanahashi on the other hand comes from a scene that is much different in that regard. Often times he is called on to carry a match with his offense (this almost NEVER happens with Cena, even in matches that deviate from the overcoming the odds formula) - and his offense just isn't very good. Incidentally this is one of the reasons why I am uncertain that a Cena heel turn is a good idea - I'm not sure he can carry a match offensively through a heat section unless he's up against a very compelling babyface and/or a babyface who's size disadvantage can be played up dramatically (Rey being the obvious example here).

 

The fact that his strikes don't look like they'll concuss his opponent? You also recently touted the slapfest in Cena/Bryan at Summerslam as a highlight. I agree that that spot can be overdone, and personally found it crossed the threshold of ridiculous in Ishii/Shibata, but outside of Kojima matches where its one of his signature spots (which the crowd goes wild for and thus more than justifies it for me, especially given its hardly a high risk spot), where is it overdone these days?

This really could have gone in either thread but I'll respond to it here.

 

First on strikes two things:

 

1. I don't expect a move to look like it will concuss an opponent, but I don't think it is asking too much for a trained wrestler to have punches or strikes that look like they might hurt a premature child with brittle bones. It's a pretty low hurdle to clear admittedly, but the point is I want something that I can believably accept a human being hurt by. There was a moment in the Tanahashi v. Ishii match from Day 3 of the G1 where Tanahashi had Ishii in the corner and started throwing body shots and it was actually jarring how awful they looked. The sort of thing where had I been watching with someone else I would have been embarrassed when they inevitably laughed at how transparently fake it was even within the confines of a wrestling match. That gave me flashbacks to when I was a kid and I saw a live match where Jimmy Valiant was throwing punches that missed by a foot - it wasn't quite that bad, but awfully close.

 

2. Context matters. Tanahashi works in a country filled with matches involving undercard and mid-card acts who are stiffing the shit out of each other or at least appear to be. Then the main event comes on and it's low impact ballet. It obviously works for him as he's a big star and very over, but for me as a fan it's just comes across as business exposingly terrible.

 

I get that part of this is just expectations and the way we come to accept or not accept various things by the way. Like in other thread you mentioned how La Magistral cradles look innately fake to you because presumably one guy should just shove the either guy off. I started to respond to that and stopped myself because I really didn't know what to say to that. I get your point in a sense, but why don't people just duck when Tanahashi comes off the top rope? Why do people spring forward off of ropes back first, when they are whipped face first into them? To some degree or another there are things we have to accept in pro wrestling and I think every person is a little bit different about where they draw the line.

 

Otherwise, I'm not sure where that kind of contempt comes from. On the recent WC pod, you mentioned you haven't exactly followed NJ that closely. Unless you're simply opposed to someone who's not throwing faux-MMA strikes, maybe go back and rewatch some of this stuff.

I can't remember exactly what I said on the show, but my point wasn't that I haven't watched all that much NJPW, but that I don't follow the storylines/hierarchy of the promotion very closely. There are several reasons for that, but the key reason is that I don't like the two top stars, nor do I care for the new guy getting the main event push either. That also means it's not likely I'm going to go back and rewatch a ton of stuff that I have already watched because here is the thing - I've watched a lot of New Japan. In fact I've probably watched more NJPW than a lot of the bigger NJPW fans on the net I'm not going to do a full run down of what I've watched from them this year, but I think I've seen at least one match from every single NJPW show that's made tape this year, I've watched several in full, and several others almost completely through. It's entirely possible that I"ve actually seen more NJPW from this year than Meltzer which is kind of funny actually.

 

If you want Frye/Takayama from your strikers, then you're probably going to dislike most pro wrestling these days. With good reason.

I want guys who aren't good strikes to either not use strikes or not suck at it. The false dichotomy of "faux-MMA, concussion causing strikes" v. "everything else" isn't one I subscribe to, because within the category of everything else you have everyone from Jerry Lawler who has the best punch in history to Tanahashi who brings strikes that look like they would put him at a severe disadvantage against my ten year old daughter in a boxing match.

[WingedEagle]

Moving this here from the Sasaki thread --

 

Snipping out most of your response for the other thread, but since this is non-Cena related I will just note that I have seen Tanahashi in exactly one match that I would call a classic, the match with Suzuki from last year where I honestly can't come up with a single thing he added to the match of note (other than addition by subtraction, i.e. not doing a lot of the worst things he tends to do).

Let me get this straight. The match was a true classic in your eyes, yet only one of the participants had anything to do with it? That kind of statement can probably stand on its own quite strongly, but let's flesh it out a bit. Let's assume we both find the structure of the match stellar -- the body part work, transitions, the absence of any pinfall attempts until the finish. Since you think the match was a classic, I assume you think Suzuki did a masterful job of selling his leg. I know I did. But if Tanahashi's offense was really that poor, how is this match a classic? If Suzuki was selling dragon screws, elbows to the knee and other offense so preposterous that it looked absurd, is the match really that great? If Tanahashi is ignoring Suzuki's offense, not selling his arm at all and constantly working his comebacks as though he didn't sustain any damage, despite crisp and believable offense from Suzuki, what is so fantastic about the match? I don't see how you have a classic where one guy is in your eyes simply avoiding crapping himself.

 

I am not high on Sasaki actually, I was just (and still am) confused some by the fact that people hate him so much. To me he was a perfectly decent wrestler, good on his best days, boring on his worst days, but not the sort of guy one would hate. And I agree with SLL's point about Sasaki/Kobashi being the lift off point of much of modern Japanese heavyweight wrestling, though I understand there is variation/nuance to be debated

I can see pointing to Sasaki and that style as a forerunner of some of the Goto, Ishii, Shibata, et al. style that's out there, but what does it have to do with the matches put on by Tanahashi, Suzuki, Okada, Naito, Kojima, and just about every other heavyweight?

[Childs]

I would honestly be interested in reading an intelligent rendering of Tanahashi's case as one of the best guys in the world. I've never thought he was irredeemably awful, just really uninteresting for a guy who's routinely described as the best of the best. He's the clear ace of a fairly hot promotion, so he's obviously doing something right for somebody. I just never see it.

[Dylan Waco]

Let me get this straight. The match was a true classic in your eyes, yet only one of the participants had anything to do with it? That kind of statement can probably stand on its own quite strongly, but let's flesh it out a bit. Let's assume we both find the structure of the match stellar -- the body part work, transitions, the absence of any pinfall attempts until the finish. Since you think the match was a classic, I assume you think Suzuki did a masterful job of selling his leg. I know I did. But if Tanahashi's offense was really that poor, how is this match a classic? If Suzuki was selling dragon screws, elbows to the knee and other offense so preposterous that it looked absurd, is the match really that great? If Tanahashi is ignoring Suzuki's offense, not selling his arm at all and constantly working his comebacks as though he didn't sustain any damage, despite crisp and believable offense from Suzuki, what is so fantastic about the match? I don't see how you have a classic where one guy is in your eyes simply avoiding crapping himself.

What does Tanahashi do in that match that is good? At the time I said that he avoided most of his more annoying traits and he added to it by virtue of the fact that he's the biggest star in Japan which gave the match a big match feel. But the match was all Suzuki. Incidentally that's not even a particularly controversial view. Even some of the bigger Tanahashi marks I've seen on the web gave Suzuki the bulk of the credit for the match. Tanahashi wasn't bad in the match, but when even those who think every match he's in is four stars, are heaping praise on his opponent far more than him, it's a pretty good sign who the clear star in the match was. And yes a guy selling the shit out of weak/middling offense, especially if they have great facials or body language can drastically elevate a match. Hell there are guys who have made entire careers off of that.

 

Expanding beyond that, I don't think it's terribly controversial to believe that all time classics can involve one great worker in there against another guy who is just there and/or holding court without fucking up and/or a complete carry job (which is verbiage I avoided here). Offhand I can think of matches like Warrior v. Savage (where I thought Warrior added more than Tanahashi in the Suzuki match to be honest) or Bret v. Davey that are very highly regarded, where people either don't want to give one guy credit or don't think one guy deserves any credit. It's not as if it's some off the wall, completely absurd view, that no wrestling fan has ever expressed.

 

But all of that misses the real point which is that there is exactly one match Tanahashi has had in his career that I think approaches/reaches that classic level and even his biggest fans concede he wasn't the best guy in the match.

 

 

I can see pointing to Sasaki and that style as a forerunner of some of the Goto, Ishii, Shibata, et al. style that's out there, but what does it have to do with the matches put on by Tanahashi, Suzuki, Okada, Naito, Kojima, and just about every other heavyweight?

How is Kojima not in the Sasaki inspired group?

 

I will grant there are differences between what you see out of Okada/Tanahashi/Naito and someone like say Goto or Makabe, but a lot of your fighting spirit no sells, back and four tempo, strike trading is near universal in Japan.

[WingedEagle]

This is not meant as a troll

However,

 

I don't think it is asking too much for a trained wrestler to have punches or strikes that look like they might hurt a premature child with brittle bones.

Also,

 

I don't expect a move to look like it will concuss an opponent, but I don't think it is asking too much for a trained wrestler to have punches or strikes that look like they might hurt a premature child with brittle bones.

Finally,

 

Tanahashi who brings strikes that look like they would put him at a severe disadvantage against my ten year old daughter in a boxing match.

So which is it? Do you want to troll or do you want to say Tanahashi's strikes suck and I don't know better because I haven't fought your daughter?

 

I have watched hundreds and hundreds of indie matches this year and it is actually shocking the number of over-the-hill, just there to collect a pay check, vets and scrubs have more believable and compelling body part attacking offense then Tanahashi.

I also don't want to troll. Which is why I'm going to ignore this point and not include what I initially typed. If you think most indy wrestlers that you seek out in all corners of the world are better than Hiroshi Tanahashi, we should just agree to disagree.

 

I want guys who aren't good strikes to either not use strikes or not suck at it. The false dichotomy of "faux-MMA, concussion causing strikes" v. "everything else" isn't one I subscribe to, because within the category of everything else you have everyone from Jerry Lawler who has the best punch in history to Tanahashi who brings strikes that look like they would put him at a severe disadvantage against my ten year old daughter in a boxing match.

Yet in the same breath:

 

2. Context matters. Tanahashi works in a country filled with matches involving undercard and mid-card acts who are stiffing the shit out of each other or at least appear to be. Then the main event comes on and it's low impact ballet. It obviously works for him as he's a big star and very over, but for me as a fan it's just comes across as business exposingly terrible.

If I'm missing the point here, correct me, but it sounds like you do enjoy guys stiffing the hell out of each other and can't tolerate it when on the same show someone else fails to bring their strikes to that level. Maybe I'm lucky in that after watching Goto/Shibata/Ishii I can then catch a Tanahashi match later in the night and not find that it exposes anything other than good wrestling.

 

I get that part of this is just expectations and the way we come to accept or not accept various things by the way. Like in other thread you mentioned how La Magistral cradles look innately fake to you because presumably one guy should just shove the either guy off. I started to respond to that and stopped myself because I really didn't know what to say to that. I get your point in a sense, but why don't people just duck when Tanahashi comes off the top rope? Why do people spring forward off of ropes back first, when they are whipped face first into them? To some degree or another there are things we have to accept in pro wrestling and I think every person is a little bit different about where they draw the line.

I couldn't agree more. But this is you arbitrarily choosing what offense you find cool and calling what you don't trash rather than an objective analysis of said offense or merely stating that it isn't for you.

 

I've probably watched more NJPW than a lot of the bigger NJPW fans on the net I'm not going to do a full run down of what I've watched from them this year, but I think I've seen at least one match from every single NJPW show that's made tape this year, I've watched several in full, and several others almost completely through. It's entirely possible that I"ve actually seen more NJPW from this year than Meltzer which is kind of funny actually.

No issues if you don't want to watch much NJ. But what you've described above is someone who's watched all TV main events, and the PPVs either partially or in a couple cases almost completely. That doesn't sound very thorough for someone looking to rank the top 500 wrestlers in the world. Again, the point here is not to tell you to spend more time watching wrestling. But that sounds roughly like a couple hours of NJ every month, give or take a bit (August probably heavier due to the G1). Is that enough to have fully fleshed out opinions on the roster?

[Dylan Waco]

Nothing I said was meant as a troll, if you took it that way that's your problem not mine. I gave my honest opinions and tried to be as explicit as possible about why I think his strikes suck and gave a very explicit example to illustrate a case of when I thought they looked really terrible. I'm not a bullshitter who pretends to like things because I'm supposed to, nor am I the type to qualify everything I say about a wrestler with generous prose or "well it works for some people and not for me!" just because I assume we all know that is true about everything (for example some people think Bob Brown is an all time great...seriously). I always try to give Tanahashi credit as a star and over all act when that sort of thing comes up because I do think it matters, but that is irrelevant to this discussion

 

On the indie wrestler point, we can agree to disagree, but it is bad form to work the "you don't watch enough NJPW to have a real opinion" gimmick, in the same thread where you are basically saying "these indie guys I don't watch can't be better than Tanahashi because....they can't be." You also are wrong about what NJPW I have seen, but your whole argument so far has been strawmen and assumptions and you haven't even offered a mild defense of anything Tanahashi does, so I'm not even sure it's worth my time to continue engaging. Still I will if only to hammer home things I thought were obvious.

 

Again the point is not that you need to drop concussion level shots on your opponent to have good strikes. I thought I was clear on that, but maybe not. The point is that A. they should be believable at least in the universe in which they exist B. if the lightest working guy on your entire roster is the main event star it is extremely distracting. If it makes you feel better to read a "to me" at the end of the last sentence you can just know that of course that's what I mean, as that is what everyone means in every opinion based statement they make here or in life, including the vast majority of such statements that people don't feel the need to qualify in such a manner. Whatever the case may be I don't subscribe to a binary world where everyone is either Futen-level shootkicking people or in another camp that ranges from Jerry Lawler to 1988 Jimmy Valiant (I left Tanahashi out so as not to offend).

 

Top 500 talk doesn't seem like it belongs in this thread, though I will grant there are problems inherent in such a project when you don't have as much footage from certain guys, you prioritize other things more, et. But if it makes you feel any better I've watched more NJPW than that (some kind folks have uploaded house shows on youtube before, juniors tourney, et.). In any case the way I think about comparisons and stuff like that is something I have zero problem people questioning, criticizing, et., but I'd prefer to do it in that thread.

[Jimmy Redman]

To chime in, I'm someone who doesn't hate Tanahashi, but does see significant problems with his offense. And the short answer is that yes, context matters. Having sh*tty offense in the main event of New Japan is different to having sh*tty offense in the main event of WWE.

 

I mean, I am personally someone who rarely cares about "sh*tty offense" as a talking point, I love Cena, don't see the problem with Edge's moveset, etc. I don't even completely hate Khali and he can't even move. But the way WWE is presented and how matches are presented is different to NJPW and puro. Expectations as far as what a guy does in a match is different.

 

It's the same the other way around too. If Curtis Axel was in Lance Archer's position, he would probably look like a decent pro wrestler (like, amazingly, Lance Archer does), because his charisma and promo problems wouldn't matter so much and he could get by just clubbing folks. In WWE, he looks like a piece of sh*t because he can't talk, can't act, has no charisma and can't get crowds into his matches.

 

Context matters.

[EricR]

Out of guys Jimmy Redman mentioned, I would rank it

 

Cena>Khali>Tanahasihi>Edge

 

in terms of offense. Tanahashi's offense may be distractingly bad, but Edge had maybe the worst offense I have ever seen in main event pro wrestling. Nothing about that guy was believable or good or watchable. Not only did he execute every single move worse than any other worker I've seen (meaning that every move he attempted, looked worse than any other worker I've seen attempt the same move) but his facials are the most annoying thing I've seen within the context of pro wrestling. So you combine awful looking wrestling with a man who you can't stand looking at...

 

Fuck I have no idea what this really has to do with Tanahashi, only that I rarely like Tanahashi but would gladly watch him over Edge.

[Matt D]

Neither here nor there, but one guy who was exceptionally good at making Edge's offense look worthwhile was Cena.

[NintendoLogic]

If you expect a certain level of stiffness from Japanese wrestling, I can see how Tanahashi's offense would be an issue. Stiffness is something I neither expect nor particularly desire, so I have no issue with him working light. I wouldn't call him a strong offensive wrestler, but he's adequate.

[MJH]

Whilst I agree that being the ace of New Japan demands better offence than being the ace of WWE, my problems with Tanahashi matches have generally been in their lay-out more than anything else; and, to be fair, I could say (and have said) the same for Cena's more near-fall-heavy matches too. Though, yes, @ShinyaHashimotosGhost: @TanahashiROCKSTAR Lay your shit in, bro, it's TV.

[tim]

Tanahashi's offense really doesn't particularly bother me but I recognize it isn't at all "good" and is oftentimes bad. My main gripe with Tanahashi is more often than not he's just absolutely boring. I mean just some of the most nondescript, uninspired Japanese style work you can think of. I have no idea how he got the rep as a great workers, and though I don't want to be too dismissive of people who think so I think it has a lot to do with them heaping love on him for being a super over, charismatic ace of their favorite company.

 

He can participate in a near-fall heavy, back and forth puro home stretch adequately. It's not the kind of thing I particularly like but he's fine at that stuff; it's the whole working a match outside of the 5-10 minute back-and-forth homestretch that Tanahashi is absolute garbage at. Really garbage might not be the right word because it implies he is actively offensively bad, which he isn't, he's just completely boring and lacking in any positive qualities in that regard. I don't know if I've ever watched a Tanahashi match and thought "hey that's a cool thing Tanahashi did." Though I did think his performance in the Suzuki match was good. Suzuki was the better man in that match to the point where even saying that is a comical understatement, but I did think Tanahashi was baseline good.

[NintendoLogic]

I'd like to be pointed to some examples of Tanahashi fans giving Suzuki the bulk of the credit for their match. Because I've only heard it from people inclined to dislike Tanahashi.

[Dylan Waco]

I'd like to be pointed to some examples of Tanahashi fans giving Suzuki the bulk of the credit for their match. Because I've only heard it from people inclined to dislike Tanahashi.

I don't have access to The Board at the moment, but I know I saw some of it there. My memory is that Meltzer gave a ton of credit to Suzuki for the match and came across as more praiseworthy of him than Tanahashi at least on the audio, though I could be wrong. Dave Musgrave hated Suzuki prior to the match and said the match turned him around on Suzuki and he came out thinking he was great (any time we talk about the match Suzuki gets brought up and not Tanahashi regardless of which one of us brings it up). I had at least one private conversation with one of the most vocal NJPW fans on the web, where he told me Suzuki was the star of the match (use your imagination) and at least a couple of other people I know who are much more personally inclined to like Tanahashi and NJPW than me who were raving about Suzuki post match and wouldn't even disagree with my comments on Tanahashi's contribution to the match when we discussed it.

 

Offhand I actually can't think of any review I saw or discussion I heard about the match that didn't talk up Suzuki's performance more than Tanahashi's. I suppose they exist, but I don't remember seeing them.

[stomperspc]

I agree with those pointing out that the style Tanahashi is expected to work in New Japan makes his less than impressive offense a bigger issue than it is for someone like Cena in WWE.

 

I get the Tanahashi offense argument and generally agree with it, although some people carry it a tad farther than I would. I think for me it is less that his offense is weak and more that he does very little else to compensate for those shortcomings. The easiest way for a wrestler to compensate for a weak offensive playbook is to limit what he does and really concentrate on making a few things look good. The best way to do that is to not work matches where you are expected to be on offense for a long period of time. Unfortunately, Tanahashi generally works (and is expected to work) longer matches where he is in control for a significant portion of the match. His IWGP title matches were expected to have long significant stretches of near falls at the end. Tanahashi just does not have the offense to pull those things off well.

 

Plenty of very good wrestlers have gotten by with a limited amount of moves because what they do have looks good and the style they work allows them to get by with a limited amount of moves. I’d count Cena among that group. I am a big Cena fan but it is not because he has a great array of offense. It is because of his selling and very good timing mainly, with his offense being passable when added to those other elements. Cena can and does spend the majority of his matches selling. He then makes a well-timed and short comeback most of the time or does the trading/reversing finishers bit to end his matches. Cena is effective because he is a face that sells a lot and makes short-ish come backs. That style compliments his strengths and hides his weaknesses. The style in New Japan, on the other hand, exposes Tanahashi’s weak offense.

 

I like Tananashi’s offense better than Dylan and others. I would add his cross body blocks to the splash as moves of his that I generally like and don’t have any real issues with some other stuff he does. I also don’t think he is terrible at working over body parts. I thought he was perfectly fine working over Okada’s arm in their April match. At the same time, I have watched Tanahashi matches where his periods of offense have detracted from the match. I’d be hard pressed to name recent Cena matches where that has been the case. Again, environment might have as much to do with that as anything else but it does not change the fact that Tanahashi’s offensive shortcomings hurt his matches more than they do Cena.

[WingedEagle]

your whole argument so far has been strawmen and assumptions and you haven't even offered a mild defense of anything Tanahashi does, so I'm not even sure it's worth my time to continue engaging. Still I will if only to hammer home things I thought were obvious.

How is this:

 

The point is that A. they should be believable at least in the universe in which they exist B. if the lightest working guy on your entire roster is the main event star it is extremely distracting.

Not subject to the exact same flaw as your chief contention with my argument? Tanahashi's strikes are junk to you. Because in your eyes your 10 year old daughter is better and a segment of the NJ roster is intent on nearly stiffing each other as opposed to working punches. Whether that's because you don't buy that his opponent is hurt, or because you have a more critical eye and can see him actually missing his strikes as opposed to delivering those on the level of a Lawler or HOF-type striker, I do not know. I also don't care.

 

If it makes you feel better to read a "to me" at the end of the last sentence you can just know that of course that's what I mean, as that is what everyone means in every opinion based statement they make here or in life, including the vast majority of such statements that people don't feel the need to qualify in such a manner.

But again, let's not troll.

 

Top 500 talk doesn't seem like it belongs in this thread, though I will grant there are problems inherent in such a project when you don't have as much footage from certain guys, you prioritize other things more, et. But if it makes you feel any better I've watched more NJPW than that (some kind folks have uploaded house shows on youtube before, juniors tourney, et.). In any case the way I think about comparisons and stuff like that is something I have zero problem people questioning, criticizing, et., but I'd prefer to do it in that thread.

It belongs firstly in the sense that you haven't in any way qualified your attempt to put out such rankings with the fact that in perhaps many cases, you're basing your entire evaluation on perhaps less than 30 or 60 minutes worth of work for some people. Whether you've watched more than someone else who isn't touting their rankings of wrestlers and matches is irrelevant. You're doing that. Secondly, its relevant because you've compared Tanahashi to all of the greats on the South Carolina and surrounding indy scene who do what he does better than him. I could watch the CFl. I could go to Rucker Park, tune into some NBDL games or watch QMJHL or MLS for my sports fix. I don't. I prefer to watch the elites in these fields do what they do. Are their exceptions? Yes. Are there reasons why certain talent in wrestling doesn't make it to the major league level at a greater proportion to actual sports Yes. But you're swimming against the current if your argument is that the minor leagues in wrestling present a superior product. Which was a point you brought up with respect to Tanahashi.

 

Again, I loved the Suzuki match. I also thought this was unquestionably moreso due to Suzuki's performance than Tanahashi's. There were 2 wrestlers in the match. Aren't the odds likely that one will contribute more to the match than the other? You also said the match was a classic, but beyond acknowledging that Suzuki had more to do with it, said that:

 

I honestly can't come up with a single thing he added to the match of note (other than addition by subtraction, i.e. not doing a lot of the worst things he tends to do).

I'm still waiting for the explanation of how Tanahashi was the broomstick carried to this classic.

[WingedEagle]

If you expect a certain level of stiffness from Japanese wrestling, I can see how Tanahashi's offense would be an issue. Stiffness is something I neither expect nor particularly desire, so I have no issue with him working light. I wouldn't call him a strong offensive wrestler, but he's adequate.

Perhaps that's my issue as well. I don't mind stiffness when built into the match and can even appreciate it as a different version of a spotfest, but its just not at all an important criteria to me, especially when it comes to punching or head shots.

[Jimmy Redman]

Surely we can agree that there is a middle ground between stiffness and weak-looking offense where your stuff actually looks...good.

 

My main problem with Tanahashi isn't his offensive moves per se - as in the fact that this move or that move looks silly or weak or whatever, although I see why it is a problem for others - but moreso his offensive strategy. He's terrible at working over the leg, and practically any Tanahashi match I see has him working over the leg. He can't make it compelling in any way, nor can he seemingly find someone who will actually sell it long-term, so it renders the middle portion of most of his matches a waste to me. I think one of the main reasons Invasion Attack turned out better than all the other Okada matches is because he worked the arm instead of the leg, it looked marginally better and it actually worked with the story of the match and was sold all the way through.

[WingedEagle]

Agreed, his work on the arm was a lot more effective there than his leg work often is -- though you've got the Suzuki match (obviously aided by a world class performance from Suzuki) and I believe the G1 draw where he also worked over Okada's leg, where I thought Okada sold the absolute hell out of it. Hopefully I'm not mixing it up with another Okada match from the G1.

[Jimmy Redman]

I did think Okada sold a little better in the G1 match than in their first three matches. I don't think Tanahashi's leg working performance was any better though.

 

It's just something he shouldn't do really, unless he's in there with a MiSu and they work a compelling body part match. As 'first 20 minutes filler' that will get blown off anyway, it leaves a lot to be desired.

[Dylan Waco]

So basically jastrau97 is going to feign outrage at everything I write, refuse to respond to massive passages that he is unwilling or incapable of grasping/arguing the merits of, present no interesting thoughts on Tanahashi or Cena himself and instead argue against fantasies he's concocted in his head that he feels comfortable attributing to me. Yep, I should have just ignored him the first time around.

[Childs]

And still no one has stepped in to make a case for Tanahashi. Does the man have no fans on this board?

[WingedEagle]

I guess you win, Dylan. Screaming loudly, hanging your hat on your daughter's striking skills and going out of your way to snap at people is clearly the mature way to discuss any topic. You are correct. You should ignore me and anyone else you disagree with right away.

[Dylan Waco]

I guess you win, Dylan. Screaming loudly, hanging your hat on your daughter's striking skills and going out of your way to snap at people is clearly the mature way to discuss any topic. You are correct. You should ignore me and anyone else you disagree with right away.

I have written tons in this thread, with explicit examples, and responded to every point you made or question you brought up. You have consistently ignored the meat of my posts, cherry picking through them, while accusing me of trolling even though you have yet to actually engage any of my points. You pretty clearly took it personally that I was explicit with my criticisms of a wrestler you like, but have really said nothing on the wrestler in questions behalf. Now you are playing the martyr and engaging in more blatant lies. Get off the cross, we need the wood.

 

I have zero problem arguing/debating things, even with people with whom I disagree intensely, but I do expect people to actually argue the points presented. That's not a ton to ask. I've had vehement, nasty disagreements with half of the people on this board if not more, do a podcast with a guy who is a huge fan of tons of wrestling I hate, and generally don't mind being called an asshole, crybaby, et, so long as the person doing it is actually doing it in the service of an interesting debate/argument. But I have no patience for people who feign outrage and then dodge, dodge, dodge. The only thing worse than a keyboard warrior, is a keyboard coward.

[WingedEagle]

Cool. I think you're wrong and massively overstating any case you've made in this thread, which consisted of two actual points and lots of potshots. Best of luck if you think otherwise.