Toshiaki Kawada

[elliott]

I think one problem with Kawada in really long matches is that, at a certain point, he runs out of different stuff to do and can become rather repetitive. He never had as big a bag of movez as Misawa and especially Kobashi did; hell, Akiyama and Taue might've had more varied offenses as well. When Kawada goes past the half-hour mark and into the finishing stretch, sometimes it starts to feel like an Onita match. "I'm just gonna KEEP hitting powerbombs, eventually ONE of them should get the pin!" The only part of 6/9/95 that I don't passionately adore is that last few sluggish minutes, where it felt rather arbitrary that This Powerbomb is what finally pins Misawa rather than Those Other Powerbombs.

 

I just watched the last 10 minutes of 6/9/95 and given the selling, the individual characters of the 4 wrestlers, etc I could not disagree more about the last few minutes of the match. If you watch that finishing stretch and tell me Kawada is arbitrarily throwing out powerbombs until one randomly beats Misawa, then you and I are watching different matches.

[Jingus]

I went back and rewatched it; and yeah, there were fewer actual powerbombs than I remembered. I think the number of times Kawada tried to go for the move is what was making me remember more of 'em than what actually happened, he was failing to get it twice for every time he actually hit it.

 

Actually, they did a good job of establishing that if Kawada could hit a third powerbomb in a big match, he'd usually win. So it wasn't really arbitrary.

They did? In a dozen years of discussion about this match, this is literally the first time I've ever heard anyone mention that. And is the psychology really that clear-cut, considering that Misawa soaked up a bunch of other finishers during the match from both of his opponents?

[jdw]

I agree with much of that jdw, but I think you overplay the point, or over emphasise it. By that, I mean many of the matches do have effective storylines and Flair does have psychology in them.

 

 

Oh, of course Ric's matches have storylines. It's usually that the babyface kicks the living shit out of heel Ric and he looks like a weak champ at the end. Which is effective in the sense that it makes the fance thing that the next time the face will beat Ric. Until they get tired of waiting for the next time.

 

That's Ric's pysch: make the face look good.

 

I'm just saying that there are chunks of Ric's Got Shit To Do that fill up long matches ends up being "mindless in terms of adding up to much from a storyline standpoint or being terribly interesting for me to watch". We get the point that Ric is weak. I don't need the 5th Gorilla Press or the 4th begging off in the corner to tell me that. It becomes not terribly interesting.

 

 

Also, if you are not high on high end Flair matches, then fine, we have nothing else to talk about.

 

 

I was high on high end Flair matches before you watched your first Flair match. If you chose to shutdown listening to discussions Flair's work other than those that wax poetically about him, it's a bit more of a sign of you not being terribly objective about him as opposed to one who can seeing the goofiness while still saying he was a great and effective worker.

[Childs]

Maybe I'm wrong but I always thought the powerbomb formula was pretty clear.

[Jingus]

Maybe you're right, I just never noticed it.

[JerryvonKramer]

I'm just saying I have literally nothing to say to someone who doesn't consider the high end stuff high end.

 

Like I'm a Dylan fan and I also have literally nothing to say to the guy who doesn't think his five star albums are five star. I'm a Shakespeare lecturer too and have literally nothing to say to the guy who doesn't think Hamlet or King Lear are all that. Like nothing at all, I'm so not interested in conversion, or convincing someone about a particular work. If it's not obvious to you, then so be it. These are conversations I'm not willing to have because too much work to be done with those people and life is just too short.

 

I can have a Flair vs. Kawada debate with someone who takes their high end stuff as a given, but not with someone who'd deny that one set of matches is high end. It's a basic non-starter for me. So there it is.

[jdw]

 

Actually, they did a good job of establishing that if Kawada could hit a third powerbomb in a big match, he'd usually win. So it wasn't really arbitrary.

They did? In a dozen years of discussion about this match, this is literally the first time I've ever heard anyone mention that. And is the psychology really that clear-cut, considering that Misawa soaked up a bunch of other finishers during the match from both of his opponents?

 

 

I've talked about it for years (decades?) in the 06/03/94 tying into the Carny Final that year with the 2 vs 3. Whether it was a point hammered home in the commentary or in the mags, beats the shit out of me. But just sitting there watching it as a fan, Kawada hits the two big power bombs for the two big extreme near falls, and Misawa avoids it the rest of the way.

 

However... and this is a big however...

 

I've not tied that into slews of other matches, or even the 06/09/95 match. I don't think I've ever bothered counting the power bombs by Kawada in it. There's other stuff going on to the point where I've never seen it as a key part of the match.

 

Nor have I bothered to look for it in other matches, so don't look to me to pimp it outside the bubble of two matches less than two months apart.

 

Even then, I admittedly might just being seeing what I'm seeing, and it's just how things worked out. Wrestlers often don't think this shit through as much as we do.

[Jingus]

If he does do that, he's far from the only one. The Rule of Three is one of the most common tropes in all of narrative storytelling, including wrestling. Plenty of matches end with finisher-kickout-finisher-kickout-finisher-pin: Brock beating Taker at Mania, for just one example.

[jdw]

I'm just saying I have literally nothing to say to someone who doesn't consider the high end stuff high end.

 

 

 

I find this to be contrary to one of the key values of online message boards. We're always meeting people who don't see things like we do. Among the reasons we engage in discussions is to learn things from others, have them convince of us their views, convince them of ours, or just come to the realization there is no agreement.

 

I was in a discussion on a sabermetric based baseball website about Tim Raines vs Tony Gwynn. Most people came to the discussion set in their view of the players. Some of us hashed it out, why we saw it as a close and very interesting call. In the end some people saw things differently, others didn't, but it was a useful little discussion. Which it was: a very little, short discussion relative to some of the longer ones that I've seen not just on comps like that, but on specific discussions about one or the other of those two players.

 

Ric isn't any different.

 

 

Like I'm a Dylan fan and I also have literally nothing to say to the guy who doesn't think his five star albums are five star.

 

 

 

I'm a Dylan fan. Longer than you have been. Ages ago I saw some list of ***** albums you gave him. I disagreed with a good deal of it.

 

Being a fan doesn't mean you see everything eye-to-eye. I'm a Misawa Fan, and have seen more good Kobashi matches where he was a positive in the goodness than I'll ever remember... so I guess I'm a Kobashi Fan as well. Yet up use a few minutes ago I pissed on five Kobashi MOTY winners, three with Misawa in it. Look, if some Misawa or Kobashi fan wants to dismiss everything I have to say about Misawa and Kobashi because I happen to be bored by those matches, and think a couple of them are shit, well... that's less my problem than his. There are a few hundred thousand words words that I've written on those two over the decades. If one wants to get hung up on the stuff I don't like rather than pick up the other info and opinions I'm tossing out that would be useful, that's a rather closed off mind.

 

 

I'm a Shakespeare lecturer too and have literally nothing to say to the guy who doesn't think Hamlet or King Lear are all that.

 

 

I'm a Shakespeare fan, ago long before you. I'm at the point of being bored by Hamlet, though will always acknowledge that's it's great even if I'd just as soon not watch it again or pull one of my several copies of it off the shelf. Lear is something I'm less bored with, but am leaving it up on the shelf for another decade until I want to get good an depressed with age and reflection.

 

On the other hand, I completely enjoyed pulling Hal off the shelf earlier in the summer, with the father-son aspect hitting home.

 

Different things hit you at different times. And even Greatness can bore the living fuck out of us at various points in our lives.

 

 

Like nothing at all, I'm so not interested in conversion, or convincing someone about a particular work. If it's not obvious to you, then so be it. These are conversations I'm not willing to have because too much work to be done with those people and life is just too short.

 

 

I tend to think life is too short not to be open to think and rethink shit through.

 

There was a time when I thought Backlund was a shit worker. I never thought I would think otherwise. I'm rather thankful to the person who made me reconsider, as it's opened up a great deal of enjoyment for me.

 

Your Dory thread isn't for everyone. Plenty of people will never like Dory, and think he's as fun as watching paint dry. But you are putting the effort into it, and explaining it, and engaging people with it. There's not doubt that you've probably swayed some people into seeing Dory as better than they thought he was.

 

So...

 

I'm not buying the life it too short stuff.

 

 

I can have a Flair vs. Kawada debate with someone who takes their high end stuff as a given, but not with someone who'd deny that that one set of matches is high end. It's a basic non-starter for me. So there it is.

 

 

Eh. I still see Flair-Steamer in Chicago as high end. New Orleans was the last time I saw it. If forced to sift through his body of work, I'm sure that there's other stuff that I would point to as high end work.

 

The difference is that I don't see all the high end matches that you do as high end. But that's normal: you don't see some matches as high end that others do. You just did it with at least one match that Loss has as high end, and I don't doubt there are plenty others.

 

You're basically saying it's okay for you to go "not high end" and others have to listen and engage you, but refuse when on the flip side.

 

That's odd and inconsistent, Parv. Kind of think you know it is, and that "life's too short" doesn't cover it.

[JerryvonKramer]

I'm still waiting for a single post where you don't try to put your age over.

[jdw]

If he does do that, he's far from the only one. The Rule of Three is one of the most common tropes in all of narrative storytelling, including wrestling. Plenty of matches end with finisher-kickout-finisher-kickout-finisher-pin: Brock beating Taker at Mania, for just one example.

 

I would agree with that.

 

Just to be clear:

 

I'm not sure that he (and by extension Doc, Misawa and/or Baba) were thinking on that level. They're wrestlers, and unlike some wrestlers in the past few decades who get overly masturbatory in overthinking their shit¹, I'm not sure Kawada thought on that level in those two matches.

 

Simply that it's the way it played. We often project our own bullshit onto matches. That could be projection. It could just be a cool thing that happened, without thought.

 

A similar example:

 

I've said for years that the 12/93 Misawa & Kobashi vs Kawada & Taue harkened back to the 12/88 Tenryu & Kawada vs Hansen & Taue, a match that was in the exact same spot in the All Japan calender in their respective years. I've also said that in 12/93 that Kawada "played both roles" (or more accurately *storylines*) that Tenryu and Kawada did in the 12/88. In other words:

 

* 12/88 Kawada destroyed knee = 12/93 Kawada destroyed knee

* 12/88 Tenryu fighting to the death but worn down & pinned = 12/93 Kawada fighting to the death but worn down & pinned

 

Did Misawa & Kobashi & Kawada & Taue and Baba sit down before the match and chart stuff out to do a storyline at that level?

 

Highly unlikely.

 

It's more that *if* you'd been watching All Japan for a while, and if you had that early match as one of your memorable reference points, you might just see similar things unfold because...

 

All Japan used storyline structures like that from time to time. We all recall Terry getting knocked for a loop on more than one occasion and Dory having to "go it alone". We'd see it again in the final match of 1996. Etc.

 

We as fans often think about this in far greater depth than the wrestlers.

 

John

 

¹ "You see... it was a No DQ Match." -Carlos Espada

[jdw]

I'm still waiting for a single post where you don't try to put your age over.

 

http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?/topic/28585-toshiaki-kawada/?p=5704430

 

Almost certainly can find more from just today.

[dawho5]

Re: stuff to do, yeah I see what you are saying there. And your pegging of Kobashi as a "stuff to do" guy is not wrong at all. He wants to keep things moving and fill the time with things the fans are going to appreciate. Kawada was not that guy and I think I'm starting to understand where Parv's preference in the Kobashi/Kawada fandom comes from. It's not an overly uncommon thing for people to pick Kobashi over Kawada for the same reasons so I can't argue too much with the choice.

[elliott]

I went back and rewatched it; and yeah, there were fewer actual powerbombs than I remembered. I think the number of times Kawada tried to go for the move is what was making me remember more of 'em than what actually happened, he was failing to get it twice for every time he actually hit it

 

Which is smart work worth praising.

[jdw]

Re: stuff to do, yeah I see what you are saying there. And your pegging of Kobashi as a "stuff to do" guy is not wrong at all. He wants to keep things moving and fill the time with things the fans are going to appreciate. Kawada was not that guy and I think I'm starting to understand where Parv's preference in the Kobashi/Kawada fandom comes from. It's not an overly uncommon thing for people to pick Kobashi over Kawada for the same reasons so I can't argue too much with the choice.

 

Kobashi is extremely accessible and enjoyable. Similar to Toyota in joshi, or the juniors in general.

 

Nothing wrong with being a big fan of anything of those things. Folks may be critical of them, but they did put up a load of entertaining matches for their fans.

[JerryvonKramer]

 

I'm still waiting for a single post where you don't try to put your age over.

 

http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?/topic/28585-toshiaki-kawada/?p=5704430

 

Almost certainly can find more from just today.

Glad to see you haven't lost your flair for literal-mindedness.

 

I have to sleep, but will address your post properly tomorrow morning.

[Loss]

Doing stuff that pops the crowd is pretty smart. At the very least, it's smarter than doing stuff that doesn't.

[Childs]

Just watched the 5/21/94 tag and they definitely went with the same dynamic of Kawada failing to hit the third powerbomb.

 

Btw, those 40 minutes flew by. Parv, I know you loved that match. Does that not count as going long in your mind?

[JerryvonKramer]

Yeah, I think there's a big difference between 40 mins and 60 mins. For whatever reason those workers and that style can carry 40 mins, but not 60. They seem to run out of ideas or go to the same wells too often over 60.

 

Now for that response to jdw.

[JerryvonKramer]

 

I'm just saying I have literally nothing to say to someone who doesn't consider the high end stuff high end.

I find this to be contrary to one of the key values of online message boards. We're always meeting people who don't see things like we do. Among the reasons we engage in discussions is to learn things from others, have them convince of us their views, convince them of ours, or just come to the realization there is no agreement.

 

I do reviews, I put them out there. I wrote my massive 20,000-word Dylan article. I put the arguments forward for why I consider things to be great. I make podcasts and do my best to be clear about why I think things.

 

But for the person who is not swayed -- after all of that -- that Highway 61 isn't an all-time great album or that Clash 6 isn't an all-time great match, I literally have no comeback and no desire to continue the conversation beyond that. We're just too far apart for meaningful dialogue. Sometimes you see it the other way around too -- I am probably lower on El Dandy vs. Angel Azteca than any other poster here. I didn't see a strong desire from anyone to debate it beyond a "you're mad Parv" or "you just don't get Lucha". I totally get that and wouldn't want them to try to convince me of it either.

 

I find comparisons BETWEEN great works to be more interesting than disputing the fact that the great work is great in the first place.

 

You might say that's my limitation as a person, but I when I was a younger guy (let's say early 20s) I really did want people to accept that certain albums were great and GOAT level and all that. Now, after reading, and indeed writing, books about how the human mind works, I understand that once opinions are formed they are hard to change and dislodge. People more likely to dig their heels in about not liking Dylan or his albums, than accepting his and their greatness.

 

So the non-Dylan fan is a non-starter for the argument. I will only debate guys who accept that the works in themselves are self-evidently great. You are a Dylan fan you told me, I'd be happy to debate you. I have really great mates who are massive Dylan fans, bigger than I am, and we have had real disagreements over things. I'm really low on Infidels, I'm high on Nashville Skyline. I don't like the Planet Waves period. I hate Empire Burleque. There's loads of scope for great debate within the framework of Dylan fan to Dylan fan. But the non-Dylan fan is a non-starter. I'm just not interested in having that discussion again, it's like talking wrestling with a non-wrestling fan. I can't stand it. "You know it's fake right?" "Dylan can't sing" same sort of deal. Patience wears thin.

 

I hope you appreciate what I'm saying.

 

I'm a Shakespeare fan, ago long before you. I'm at the point of being bored by Hamlet, though will always acknowledge that's it's great even if I'd just as soon not watch it again or pull one of my several copies of it off the shelf. Lear is something I'm less bored with, but am leaving it up on the shelf for another decade until I want to get good an depressed with age and reflection.

 

On the other hand, I completely enjoyed pulling Hal off the shelf earlier in the summer, with the father-son aspect hitting home.

 

Different things hit you at different times. And even Greatness can bore the living fuck out of us at various points in our lives.

And I guess this is the point some of us make: the fact you are bored by Hamlet literally shouldn't and doesn't diminish the greatness of the work. All it says is "jdw is bored by Hamlet".

 

And so it is with Clash 6 and so it is with Flair in general.

 

Your boredom should not factor into where you place Hamlet in the overall scheme of great literary works. Doesn't mean you can't place Lear or Paradise Lost or whatever above it, but your own personal boredom is hardly fair to the work. It makes the list too "swingy" for me. I appreciate it is ALWAYS subjective, but things like burn out push it to an extreme point which to me seriously undermines the process.

 

I can't believe I just used Hamlet as a stand in for Clash 6, lol.

 

I tend to think life is too short not to be open to think and rethink shit through.

I'm happy to consider opinions -- it's basically what I do every day. I am sitting next to a mountain of Shakespeare criticism. Sometimes I read insights that make me see something a different way. But not one of those critics is sitting there saying "y'know Hamlet wasn't all that". Again it's a basic non-starter.

 

Clash 6 vs. 6/9/95 is a really interesting comparison, but only if it's coming from someone who thinks both matches are undoubted 5-star affairs. It is much less interesting from someone who loves one but doesn't think the other is all that.

 

I don't think The Who are all that. Never have, never will. A Dylan or Beatles or Kinks vs. Who argument is of zero interest to me because I point-blank don't recognise the Who as being great. Hope that makes sense.

 

There was a time when I thought Backlund was a shit worker. I never thought I would think otherwise. I'm rather thankful to the person who made me reconsider, as it's opened up a great deal of enjoyment for me.

 

Your Dory thread isn't for everyone. Plenty of people will never like Dory, and think he's as fun as watching paint dry. But you are putting the effort into it, and explaining it, and engaging people with it. There's not doubt that you've probably swayed some people into seeing Dory as better than they thought he was.

 

So...

 

I'm not buying the life it too short stuff.

Yes, I'll accept that we can influence each other. People have influenced me on here -- a lot. I have probably influenced people. When I see Jack Brisco making people's lists, I do think I've at least helped his case.

 

But ... and this may appear counter-intuitive, I strongly believe that people HAVE to come to their own conclusions based on their own viewing. My reviews, my podcasts, etc. can only have as their overall aim the will to get people to watch the stuff themselves.

 

No one is going to think "Brisco is great because Parv said so", they are going to sit down watch the stuff, maybe see some of the stuff I've been saying, and maybe see some stuff for themselves. They come to their own conclusions, and then the opinion is formed. I've influenced rather than swayed.

 

Debates and arguments with sides is different. Seldom do people change their view in an embattled argument, it is human psychology to become more entrenched and to defend your existing view much more than it is to accept the view of your "opponent". Basic psychology. And because of that, when it comes to putting over stuff I really like, I prefer the form of the monologue, the review, the lecture, the podcast talking to my friend who is going to give me space to put across my ideas. I think these are more effective mediums for "influence" than the debate is, especially when it comes to putting over the greatness of individual works or matches.

 

In a sense, here we are arguing with sets of already-formed conclusions. And in some cases, I don't wish to do that because it can seem futile.

 

What I wanted to do here was to subject Kawada to a little bit of scrutiny, just to see what sorts of arguments might emerge. Not a troll, just to see how quickly and readily Kawada-advocates would rush to his defence. Note: not a terrible thing, it's a good thing. We can all come out of it thinking more about Kawada, his strengths and weaknesses. I would prefer every GOAT-tier candidate thread to be a bit like that -- people asking questions and poking at the candicacy in interesting ways -- than for that only to be happening for Flair. That is much more "interesting" to me, than arguing over whether the high end matches on which Flair's case is largely built are really high end.

[Jetlag]

jdw has made great post after great post in this thread. I'm still not sure what JvK is going for here.

[ohtani's jacket]

 

I am probably lower on El Dandy vs. Angel Azteca than any other poster here. I didn't see a strong desire from anyone to debate it beyond a "you're mad Parv" or "you just don't get Lucha". I totally get that and wouldn't want them to try to convince me of it either.

 

This isn't true. You said you would time code an example of what you didn't like about it and never did.

 

A Kawada critique is a worthwhile thing. It's the constant comparisons to Flair that irk.

[JerryvonKramer]

A Kawada critique is a worthwhile thing. It's the constant comparisons to Flair that irk.

Well it should make you happy that since I've set my will and testament on that topic pretty much in stone with the 5-part series, I'd really rather not rehearse the debate ever again. It's there if anyone wants to go through it all.

 

I really am for critiques of other candidates, without necessarily comparing across to Flair. My hope is that with time it won't even be a case of "fairness" to Flair, people will scrutinise every candidate to the same level.

 

Re: El Dandy vs. Azteca, I did decide against doing the whole time stamp thing because it seemed tiresome and I got the impression no one would have particularly appreciated that. Another example of how I'm generally disinclined to have debates on that sort of granular level. I might ask people to explain why they are high on a match I consider to be not far above a piece of shit (see LA Park vs. El Mesias), but after they have done so that's where it ends for me. I don't want to change their mind, just understand it better. I really dislike Nicholas Roeg's Don't Look Now, a film typically given 5 stars by film buffs and horror fans alike. I really hate the film, but that doesn't stop me trying to gain an appreciation of why people rate it so highly. I'm not going to debate them on it though, I'd rather just read their thoughts.

[ohtani's jacket]

My comment about Flair was perhaps churlish, but I don't get why Flair is used as a barometer for everything. I'm listening to a Rod Stewart album at the moment. It's the first Rod Stewart album I've listened to in my life. It's pretty good, actually, but I'm not comparing it to any sort of standard. Subconsciously, I may be comparing it to the music it sounds like, but I don't have any fixed standard in mind. The last movie I watched was Preston Sturges' Hail the Conquering Hero, which I probably compared to other Sturges films and maybe other screwballs, but I didn't really give a damn how Sturges' direction compared to anybody else. Wrestling is a strange thing in that we seem to compare workers to other workers and not to our collective understanding of wrestling as a whole. I agree with a lot of your criticisms. You know I don't like long All Japan tags, though you tolerance is clearly higher. But to me the argument is about broadway wrestling in general and not whether others were great at it.

A dissenting view on Dandy/Azteca is a great thing. I will take people by surprise at first because it's been so well received after being anonymous for *years*, but in order to digest your criticisms you do need to give examples. I don't believe people are as set in their ways as you claim. MJH once critiqued Santo/Psicosis and I kind of balked at first, but I rewatched it and thought he was right. If you really want to critique matches, you have to get your elbows dirty. If you time stamped that, I think people would have watched it and offered an interpretation.

[JerryvonKramer]

OJ, two things:

 

1. If it's just you listening to Rod Stewart on your own cool. If it's you having to rank your top 100 artists of all time, that's where the comparison factor comes in. It is kind of forced by the terms of the project. Although why Flair is the only barometer I don't know, I prefer multiple barometers.

 

2. Okay, maybe I will do the time stamps if I get some time. I prefer to be positive and talk up things I like than run things down that I don't, but since you asked I'll make some space to do it.