WrestleMania Weekend - Everything but Mania

[BillThompson]

Yeah, as a former grappler myself, it's not a complaint that really registers with me. Thatcher is snug, and within the context of pro wrestling the way he, and many others, implement grappling makes perfect sense.

[Shining Wiz]

I'm still trying to figure out how Thatcher looks loose. I can get not liking the style, but odd to criticize Thatcher for working light in a World filled with DragonGate, Marufuji, Cena and Tanahaahi strikes, et.

When I watch him, for example, work a Kimura. In order to work that move in a way that makes it worthwhile for pro wrestling, you can't put it on for real. Because no one doesn't tap to a properly applied Kimura. So, in order to not actually hurt the guy, he puts the arm in the wrong position. Takes me out of a match more than light striking does.

 

His version of grappling looks like what someone who never watched an mma fight thinks grappling looks like. And that's not really a knock on him, it's just that I don't like that style. To each their own.

 

Now, comparing that to Busick/Perkins, they grappled more in a pro wrestling context without having to obviously avoid actually doing the moves since they avoided moves you have to obviously not do properly in order to do them in a wrestling match.

[donsem43]

The Matthews vs. Nakagawa title match from the Shimmer show should be good. Nakagawa is retiring in a few weeks so she will probably go all out here. Melissa vs Havok looks good on paper but they probably do a tribute to the Melissa vs Wesna matches from a few years ago. Those matches were a real chore to watch.

[Shining Wiz]

Slightly off topic, but I found a thatcher match I liked. This graves guy looks like a decent blue belt or something, and takes advantage of the openings Thatcher leaves. I've never heard of him before, but dumb nickname aside, pretty good.

 

[Lee]

 

I haven't seen Evolve from last night but it's getting really mixed reviews with some really liking it and others basically hating it. Gargano v. Fox and Gulak v. Thatcher seem to be the most divisive matches which isn't really surprising.

 

Not being a dick when I say this, but generally when the VoW guys or Rob Viper (all of whom I like and respect very much) say they thought a match was boring and sleep inducing I know I'm going to like it. Thus, I'm pretty sure I will really like Thatcher/Gulak and hate Fox/Gargano.

 

What is it about said sleep inducers that you enjoy? I can understand entirely why people wouldn't dig AR Fox (I'm not his biggest fan) or Johnny Gargano (generally quite like him), but I don't see where the appeal lies with the 'charisma-deficient dudes who roll around a lot' club? What am I missing when I watch them and and struggle to maintain interest? I heard Meltzer put Thatcher over strong for the Tommy End match and my feelings usually jive with Dave's, but I like End way better, so where am I going wrong?

[Hector]

Not to be a dick, but why are asking people to explain why you don't enjoy something other people enjoy? As far as I know you're not actually watching the match because you're too busy expressing your outrage on internet about people actually daring to wrestle on a pro wrestling show. I don't know and neither would anyone else. I know why I enjoy watching these guys, and that's because it's a throwback to the days when wrestlers would actually work in concert with each other but not necessarily choreograph everything so that it feels entirely rote and predictable (e.g. Gargano and Fox). I for one would love to see more Billy Robinson types and less Davey Richards types.

 

 

[BillThompson]

 

 

I haven't seen Evolve from last night but it's getting really mixed reviews with some really liking it and others basically hating it. Gargano v. Fox and Gulak v. Thatcher seem to be the most divisive matches which isn't really surprising.

 

Not being a dick when I say this, but generally when the VoW guys or Rob Viper (all of whom I like and respect very much) say they thought a match was boring and sleep inducing I know I'm going to like it. Thus, I'm pretty sure I will really like Thatcher/Gulak and hate Fox/Gargano.

 

What is it about said sleep inducers that you enjoy? I can understand entirely why people wouldn't dig AR Fox (I'm not his biggest fan) or Johnny Gargano (generally quite like him), but I don't see where the appeal lies with the 'charisma-deficient dudes who roll around a lot' club? What am I missing when I watch them and and struggle to maintain interest? I heard Meltzer put Thatcher over strong for the Tommy End match and my feelings usually jive with Dave's, but I like End way better, so where am I going wrong?

 

 

I think the first issue of disconnect between you and I comes down to charisma. To use Thatcher and Gulak as examples, I think they have loads of charisma and it comes through in their matches. They don't have to do anything of the idiotic take me out of the match bullshit that a Fox or Gargano does, they just wrestle and their charisma shines through in that. This has played out how in every EVOLVE event the crowds are more and more behind Gulak, Thatcher, and Busick.

 

Mostly what you describe as rolling around a lot I describe as snug wrestling where an actual struggle of holds is taking place. When Thatcher and Gulak wrestle I get the sense they are trying to win the match, they aren't just putting on a showy exhibition or attempting to leave with the crowd saying, "Man, that was a great match they worked!" Now, often that is how people leave a Gulak, Thatcher, or Busick match, but they leave because through their style those three have managed to put on a great match. They've produced a hard fought struggle, a strategic back and forth, and a match with ebbs, flows, highs, lows, and everything in between.

 

That's what I look for in my wrestling and that's why I find guys like Thatcher, Busick, Gulak, Sabre Jr., Gallagher, Gresham, and some others to be the best thing going in wrestling today.