Kurt Angle

[JerryvonKramer]

Outside of PWO, I think Angle's stock is still sky high.

 

Listen to the last Squared Circle Gazette podcast. I have come to enjoy that show for the banter, but in many ways it is a trip back to the 00s internet. Only, I'm pretty sure outside of here and maybe DVDR, that's how most fans still are.

 

They were full of praise for Angle and wouldn't put his TNA career into Room 101 because "he's just so brilliant" or words to that effect.

 

He is one guy who will raise eyebrows when non-PWO regulars look at the final list results.

 

I think it comes back to my point about fans not understanding or appreciating fundamental psychology. People call me a grumpy old man when I say stuff like that, but I find that increasingly true.

[BuryWindham]

Saw someone on twitter arguing about Angle over Lawler because Angle had more "variety" but I really don't see that. Certainly not in his TNA work where from the little I have seen I really haven't seen him work differently when he's a face or a heel. Then there is his insistence that everyone he wrestles from Jay Lethal & Frankie Kazarian midcard types to Sting & AJ Styles main eventers get to have an "epic" match with him including way too many finisher kickouts and Ankle Lock reversals.

 

There was a match with AJ Styles during the attempt at having a second Monday Night War that I thought went so far in that direction that it was to the point of parody in that it was just a finisher, kickout, lay around, get back up and have the other guy hit his finisher just to wash rinse and repeat for about 3-4 minutes. Angle is not a guy I would associate with the word variety at all.

 

That was me and this is a better forum to discuss this in, since I have more than one hundred whatever characters.

 

Variety was an easy way for me to say that Kurt has been able to adjust his style and have more diverse matches with opponents of different with skills sets and match types than Lawler.

 

For the record I would easily put Lawler as the best worker of the 80's and top 10 all time. He was able to sell a match and the psychology of a match better than anyone at the time. Everyone loved the Loser Leaves Town Match because of the story behind it and everyone want to see Lawler kick the crap out Dundee. Not because it was going to be a wrestling masterpiece. That was always kind of the sum of Lawler a guy that could sell a brawl and have a great brawl, regardless he's still a top 15 lock for me.

 

In the context of actual wrestling, I think Angle does that better that most. I'm aware of the suplex redundancy especially in late TNA when he was broken down but there are more than a handful of guys that we could make this argument for and I'm assuming most will be rated very highly in people's top 25. Flair for example...

 

Samoa Joe Lockdown: I personally dig that it's more grounded MMA grappling style match and a pretty decent one at that, I'm comfortable going **** 1/4 on that match.

 

Shane McMahon KOR: That match holds up for me it's a complete and total shit show, no different that what would you see out of concession stand brawl. **** 1/2

 

Jarrett and Angle vs Electroshock/LA Park: a really fun overbooked luchabrawl that got over well with the crowd although I do think that had more to do with Jarrett but Angle's in ring stuff seemed to click with the AAA fans.

 

For the record i have rethought my list and have angle behind Lawler. I think Lawler deserves too much credit and holds a special place in my heart for his ability to sell the match so brilliantly.

[JerryvonKramer]

If you think Lawler was the best worker of the 80s, does that mean you have Angle ahead of all the other workers of the 80s?

[BuryWindham]

If you think Lawler was the best worker of the 80s, does that mean you have Angle ahead of all the other workers of the 80s?

Like I said I have rethought my position.

 

Interestingly enough I have Flair and Fujinami ahead of Lawler, even Hansen, solely on the premise that i feel all 3 were great workers and phenomenal wrestlers.

 

Lawler was never really a guy that would blow you away with athletic or technical matches. It's was building a story of hate, revenge, sympathy and working the match to the story and keeping the emotional investment. A lot of the time that was with brawls.

[InYourCase]

I think it comes back to my point about fans not understanding or appreciating fundamental psychology. People call me a grumpy old man when I say stuff like that, but I find that increasingly true.

Psychology is subjective and context matters in every situation, so that's a pretty lofty claim that I don't find to be true whatsoever.

[JerryvonKramer]

 

I think it comes back to my point about fans not understanding or appreciating fundamental psychology. People call me a grumpy old man when I say stuff like that, but I find that increasingly true.

 

Psychology is subjective and context matters in every situation, so that's a pretty lofty claim that I don't find to be true whatsoever.

Let's not continue this.

[goodhelmet]

 

 

I think it comes back to my point about fans not understanding or appreciating fundamental psychology. People call me a grumpy old man when I say stuff like that, but I find that increasingly true.

Psychology is subjective and context matters in every situation, so that's a pretty lofty claim that I don't find to be true whatsoever.

Let's not continue this.

 

 

If you don't want it continued, don't bring it up.

[JerryvonKramer]

See discussion here: http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?/topic/28804-cesaro/?p=5735219

 

Serves as a decent continuation.

 

I fully maintain and stand by what I've said.

[Woof]

The funny thing to me, JerryvonKramer, is that ever since I started listening to the podcasts and lurking on PWO about a year ago I have sort of considered you my personal avatar, because I way more often than not find myself agreeing with your thoughts on things. I am discovering the Japan scene in the same manner you have and have struggled with Lucha to the same degree you have, for example. The only place we seem to veer off onto different tracks is regards to the modern product. Even then I can generally see what you're on about, I just happen to think that guys like Angle - whether you care for them or not - are indeed working within their own particular brand of psychology.

[JerryvonKramer]

The funny thing to me, JerryvonKramer, is that ever since I started listening to the podcasts and lurking on PWO about a year ago I have sort of considered you my personal avatar, because I way more often than not find myself agreeing with your thoughts on things. I am discovering the Japan scene in the same manner you have and have struggled with Lucha to the same degree you have, for example. The only place we seem to veer off onto different tracks is regards to the modern product. Even then I can generally see what you're on about, I just happen to think that guys like Angle - whether you care for them or not - are indeed working within their own particular brand of psychology.

 

Can you explain what that psychology is?

[Woof]

Jeez, I gotta do HOMEWORK now? You professors are all alike.

I'll try and give it a shot later when I have a chance to actually pop in an Angle match or two. I'm not trying to cop out, I just simply don't have the mental reservoir that most of you do and I need to refresh my memory a bit on why I enjoyed his early 2000's work as much as I did.

[kjh]

I'm sure Angle has a rationale for his match layout, but when your style sees you hit an Angle Slam on the steel steps and an Angle Slam in the ring and your opponent is back on offense 15 seconds later, I think it's a valid criticism of the style that Angle isn't milking what should be major spots for all they're worth and making moves mean less.

[InYourCase]

 

The funny thing to me, JerryvonKramer, is that ever since I started listening to the podcasts and lurking on PWO about a year ago I have sort of considered you my personal avatar, because I way more often than not find myself agreeing with your thoughts on things. I am discovering the Japan scene in the same manner you have and have struggled with Lucha to the same degree you have, for example. The only place we seem to veer off onto different tracks is regards to the modern product. Even then I can generally see what you're on about, I just happen to think that guys like Angle - whether you care for them or not - are indeed working within their own particular brand of psychology.

Can you explain what that psychology is?

 

Angle is a jock, an asshole, and at his best, he plays that up. His heat portions are excellent. He stands over his opponents, he bullies them, he suplexes them into oblivion because he's a legitimate athlete. He gets caught doing the same routine, whether that be by Rey, Edge, HBK, or whoever, and begins to pay the price for it. That's what leads into his finishing stretches. The counters, the quickness, the excitement. It all builds.

[Matt D]

He gets pissed off when Eddy Guerrero takes too long to sell.

[anarchistxx]

This goes back to my "It's not wrestling that's changed; it's us." argument.

 

Except for I think the circle keeps repeating itself.

 

Also, there is the fact we have seen him wrestle so often, debated him, got tired of the style. When I was thirteen The Marshall Mathers LP was the pinnacle of hip hop to me. Argued about it, played it all the time, quoted every song with my friends. Now I think it sucks, and would never think of putting it on.

 

But it is probably me who has changed, not the record. I've heard different styles, got into rap from different eras, been exposed to more stuff, started to appreciate different things. It doesn't mean anything to me anymore. But it meant a ton at the time, so it must have something about it that makes it great or compelling or impactful, even if these days i don't care for it in the least. It is by that kind of rationale that Kurt Angle and Shawn Michaels make my list. Lower than the wrestling equivalents of Talib Kweli or Kendrick Lamar or Nas, but higher than someone like Vince Staples, even though I'm ten times more likely to listen to Vince Staples than Eminem.

[anarchistxx]

I'm sure Angle has a rationale for his match layout, but when your style sees you hit an Angle Slam on the steel steps and an Angle Slam in the ring and your opponent is back on offense 15 seconds later, I think it's a valid criticism of the style that Angle isn't milking what should be major spots for all they're worth and making moves mean less.

 

That is a criticism that can be leveled at a lot of top workers, though. Kenta Kobashi did exactly the same thing in most of his big matches from 2000 onward. Every heavyweight title match in Japan for a while had fighting spirit sections where someone would pop up from a huge head drop, even if they did end up collapsing in a heap afterwards.

 

You can dismiss all the matches as not making sense, or you can just accept it as part of the style.

[InYourCase]

He gets pissed off when Eddy Guerrero takes too long to sell.

+1 for Matt D

[JerryvonKramer]

So Angle is basically a Steiner brother?

[Matt D]

But not nearly as good at implementing matwork.

[Jingus]

Angle's best singles matches are so much better than any Steiner singles match ever that it's a ludicrous comparison. Neither Rick nor Scott ever had a singles match in their entire life that was as great as the Stone Cold masterpiece from Summerslam 2001.

 

Just contrast both Kurt and Scott's overlapping opponents: from Steve Austin to Booker T to Samoa Joe, Angle got better matches out of them than Steiner did. Hell, I'd argue that shockingly great Flair/Angle match on Raw from 2005 was better than Flair/Steiner at Clash 14.

[Matt D]

Just contrast both Kurt and Scott's overlapping opponents: from Steve Austin to Booker T to Samoa Joe, Angle got better matches out of them than Steiner did. Hell, I'd argue that shockingly great Flair/Angle match on Raw from 2005 was better than Flair/Steiner at Clash 14.

That could be more about skill in the utilization of steroids than in pro wrestling, mind you. That's a totally different list.

[supremebve]

 

This goes back to my "It's not wrestling that's changed; it's us." argument.

 

Except for I think the circle keeps repeating itself.

 

Also, there is the fact we have seen him wrestle so often, debated him, got tired of the style. When I was thirteen The Marshall Mathers LP was the pinnacle of hip hop to me. Argued about it, played it all the time, quoted every song with my friends. Now I think it sucks, and would never think of putting it on.

 

But it is probably me who has changed, not the record. I've heard different styles, got into rap from different eras, been exposed to more stuff, started to appreciate different things. It doesn't mean anything to me anymore. But it meant a ton at the time, so it must have something about it that makes it great or compelling or impactful, even if these days i don't care for it in the least. It is by that kind of rationale that Kurt Angle and Shawn Michaels make my list. Lower than the wrestling equivalents of Talib Kweli or Kendrick Lamar or Nas, but higher than someone like Vince Staples, even though I'm ten times more likely to listen to Vince Staples than Eminem.

 

This is pretty much the most fitting analogy of my rap fandom and my wrestling fandom as I've ever read. I don't know whether or not my opinions were wrong in the past, but my opinions have changed drastically. I was 19 when the MMLP came out and I couldn't have been happier with it as an album. It was over the top, vulgar, and packed full of all types of bells and whistles. At the same time I was a big fan of ECW, WCW Cruiserweights, and Kurt Angle. All of those things were essentially the Marshall Mathers LP in a wrestling ring. I was at a point in my life where subtlety wasn't high on my list of priorities. I wanted my music and my wrestling to be "action packed." I don't think the value of those things should be discarded now that I'm older and appreciate different things. Angle is really good at the style he wrestles, despite the fact that I'm not much interested in that style any more. I have him on my list, because at the time in which he was having his most famous matches his style was greatly appreciated. Some things don't hold as well as others, but after reading through this thread it is clear that most of us loved his stuff as it happened. Should we throw things away, because they don't fit in our current view, when they were praised by their intended audience?

[JerryvonKramer]

@Jingus - Masterpiece feels a little strong. Take a look over my reviews of some of Angle's other 2001 matches and tell me if you think I'd still find it a masterpiece: http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?/topic/33658-where-the-big-boys-play-82-top-100-greatest-wrestlers-ever-special-part-2-top-40/?p=5734565

[Matt D]

 

 

This goes back to my "It's not wrestling that's changed; it's us." argument.

 

Except for I think the circle keeps repeating itself.

 

Also, there is the fact we have seen him wrestle so often, debated him, got tired of the style. When I was thirteen The Marshall Mathers LP was the pinnacle of hip hop to me. Argued about it, played it all the time, quoted every song with my friends. Now I think it sucks, and would never think of putting it on.

 

But it is probably me who has changed, not the record. I've heard different styles, got into rap from different eras, been exposed to more stuff, started to appreciate different things. It doesn't mean anything to me anymore. But it meant a ton at the time, so it must have something about it that makes it great or compelling or impactful, even if these days i don't care for it in the least. It is by that kind of rationale that Kurt Angle and Shawn Michaels make my list. Lower than the wrestling equivalents of Talib Kweli or Kendrick Lamar or Nas, but higher than someone like Vince Staples, even though I'm ten times more likely to listen to Vince Staples than Eminem.

 

This is pretty much the most fitting analogy of my rap fandom and my wrestling fandom as I've ever read. I don't know whether or not my opinions were wrong in the past, but my opinions have changed drastically. I was 19 when the MMLP came out and I couldn't have been happier with it as an album. It was over the top, vulgar, and packed full of all types of bells and whistles. At the same time I was a big fan of ECW, WCW Cruiserweights, and Kurt Angle. All of those things were essentially the Marshall Mathers LP in a wrestling ring. I was at a point in my life where subtlety wasn't high on my list of priorities. I wanted my music and my wrestling to be "action packed." I don't think the value of those things should be discarded now that I'm older and appreciate different things. Angle is really good at the style he wrestles, despite the fact that I'm not much interested in that style any more. I have him on my list, because at the time in which he was having his most famous matches his style was greatly appreciated. Some things don't hold as well as others, but after reading through this thread it is clear that most of us loved his stuff as it happened. Should we throw things away, because they don't fit in our current view, when they were praised by their intended audience?

 

Counterpoint: some of the most successful things in the world are pretty terrible but are still praised by their intended audience. Nickelback comes to mind. Nickelback always comes to mind. It's your call whether that's good art or not.

[supremebve]

 

 

 

This goes back to my "It's not wrestling that's changed; it's us." argument.

 

Except for I think the circle keeps repeating itself.

 

Also, there is the fact we have seen him wrestle so often, debated him, got tired of the style. When I was thirteen The Marshall Mathers LP was the pinnacle of hip hop to me. Argued about it, played it all the time, quoted every song with my friends. Now I think it sucks, and would never think of putting it on.

 

But it is probably me who has changed, not the record. I've heard different styles, got into rap from different eras, been exposed to more stuff, started to appreciate different things. It doesn't mean anything to me anymore. But it meant a ton at the time, so it must have something about it that makes it great or compelling or impactful, even if these days i don't care for it in the least. It is by that kind of rationale that Kurt Angle and Shawn Michaels make my list. Lower than the wrestling equivalents of Talib Kweli or Kendrick Lamar or Nas, but higher than someone like Vince Staples, even though I'm ten times more likely to listen to Vince Staples than Eminem.

 

This is pretty much the most fitting analogy of my rap fandom and my wrestling fandom as I've ever read. I don't know whether or not my opinions were wrong in the past, but my opinions have changed drastically. I was 19 when the MMLP came out and I couldn't have been happier with it as an album. It was over the top, vulgar, and packed full of all types of bells and whistles. At the same time I was a big fan of ECW, WCW Cruiserweights, and Kurt Angle. All of those things were essentially the Marshall Mathers LP in a wrestling ring. I was at a point in my life where subtlety wasn't high on my list of priorities. I wanted my music and my wrestling to be "action packed." I don't think the value of those things should be discarded now that I'm older and appreciate different things. Angle is really good at the style he wrestles, despite the fact that I'm not much interested in that style any more. I have him on my list, because at the time in which he was having his most famous matches his style was greatly appreciated. Some things don't hold as well as others, but after reading through this thread it is clear that most of us loved his stuff as it happened. Should we throw things away, because they don't fit in our current view, when they were praised by their intended audience?

 

Counterpoint: some of the most successful things in the world are pretty terrible but are still praised by their intended audience. Nickelback comes to mind. Nickelback always comes to mind. It's your call whether that's good art or not.

 

Nickelback is officially the new Hitler. If you bring them up in an argument you can't claim to have won. At least that is my story and I'm sticking to it.