JvK reviews pimped matches from late 90s-10s

[Loss]

Ok then, maybe that means you are aware of it. It's there and hard to deny. I'm not even necessarily criticizing it. But it's absolutely there.

[Matt D]

We control for it, like any other bias. I think, as far as biases go, it's not at all a major one in the grand scheme of things. I'd be open to other sorts of arguments, like, for instance, that it's easier for someone to portray an intellectual heel, in-ring, than a high flying heel or a monster heel or a stooging one. I think that's an interesting discussion.

 

I don't think "People can't distinguish between a wrestler and his character" is a very interesting discussion. It's how a wrestler plays his character that matters. There are different challenges to playing different characters and it's those challenges we should be looking at (even comparatively).

 

I'm much more of an input guy than an output guy, but I do think it's possible that certain characters make for more consistently good matches. (And that's another interesting discussion).

 

I think there are bunch of interesting discussions to have, just not the "People mistake Kamala for being a sloppy worker because he plays an out of control savage!" one.

[JerryvonKramer]

I think the point I'm making more is the relationship between the character and the work and what it leads guys to do in matches. Kobashi for example, with his character -- all guts and glory, heart on his sleeve, giving 110% in all he does, etc. -- almost has to be excessive. It is who he is, and it plays an inextricable part of the storylines within the matches.

 

Some sort of recognition of that does something to cushion, at least, against claims that he's just this stupid worker who always does too much. Him doing too much is actually part of the psychology, in the same way as Bock outsmarting opponents, Andre relying on his superior size and the perception of his strength, or whatever.

 

I think you have to recognise it, and wrestling is enriched by it. If you see Dory through the eyes of Gordon Solie ... the chessmaster, the cool, calcuated champ ... his matches come more alive because of it. Same with basically anyone.

[Loss]

The only point I'm making -- and it's not at all the Kamala and Norman examples you provided -- is that many of us approach wrestling in a cerebral way, so we like cerebral wrestlers. There's nothing wrong with that. Yes, I do think people either try to control for their biases or embrace them fully, openly and unapologetically. Either approach is fine. There is a certain type of match many of us see as the ideal, be it the Flair-Steamboat or Misawa-Kawada or even Bock-Hennig, that lends itself more to classic matches. The world title match that goes 30+ minutes with the slow build to a hot finishing stretch. That's not a match a wrestler like Kamala is likely to work, nor should he, so maybe he doesn't get his due like he should. But I do think Taue's character wrestles with his head and Kobashi's with his heart, and that absolutely plays a role in how we talk about both of them.

[Matt D]

I think the point I'm making more is the relationship between the character and the work and what it leads guys to do in matches. Kobashi for example, with his character -- all guts and glory, heart on his sleeve, giving 110% in all he does, etc. -- almost has to be excessive. It is who he is, and it plays an inextricable part of the storylines within the matches.

 

Some sort of recognition of that does something to cushion, at least, against claims that he's just this stupid worker who always does too much. Him doing too much is actually part of the psychology, in the same way as Bock outsmarting opponents, Andre relying on his superior size and the perception of his strength, or whatever.

 

I think you have to recognise it, and wrestling is enriched by it. If you see Dory through the eyes of Gordon Solie ... the chessmaster, the cool, calcuated champ ... his matches come more alive because of it. Same with basically anyone.

 

Sure. I don't disagree that we should think about why someone is acting as they're acting. That said, just because it's potentially the right thing for him to be doing, doesn't mean it works to make good matches. Sometimes it hurts a match.

 

That goes back to styles and crowds to some degree. I actually don't think RVD should have worked much differently than he did work. It got him over. It made the fans happy. It doesn't mean that I think his matches are good. In the Benoit vs RVD matches, for instance, Benoit is the one who works the matches wrong, focusing too much on limbwork against a guy who won't sell it properly and who the crowd doesn't really want to see sell it properly.

 

I give Kobashi a lot of credit for getting over with his fighting spirit to the extent that he does. At times, I think it's amazingly effective and at times I think it goes too far and it takes me out of the match. Does it take the crowd out of the match? No.

 

That's one of the biggest theoretically splits in wrestling analysis, isn't it? If it works for the crowd, is it objectively good or are there higher values, be they based on narratives or workrate or whatever?

[Matt D]

The only point I'm making -- and it's not at all the Kamala and Norman examples you provided -- is that many of us approach wrestling in a cerebral way, so we like cerebral wrestlers. There's nothing wrong with that. Yes, I do think people either try to control for their biases or embrace them fully, openly and unapologetically. Either approach is fine. There is a certain type of match many of us see as the ideal, be it the Flair-Steamboat or Misawa-Kawada or even Bock-Hennig, that lends itself more to classic matches. The world title match that goes 30+ minutes with the slow build to a hot finishing stretch. That's not a match a wrestler like Kamala is likely to work, nor should he, so maybe he doesn't get his due like he should. But I do think Taue's character wrestles with his head and Kobashi's with his heart, and that absolutely plays a role in how we talk about both of them.

 

Again, I think it's worthwhile then to think about the opportunities provided to cerebral wrestlers relative to ones more-heart focused, the drawbacks. What does it mean to "wrestle smart" if you're a wrestler like Kobashi? What does it mean if you're Andre? What does it mean if you're Kamala? What does it mean if you're Primo Colon in 2016? Or Mike Jackson in 1984?

 

Working smart, to me, is generally about economy. It's about getting the most narrative and emotional value out of every single movement in the ring, every move, every bump, every bit of selling, every iota of crowd interaction, every two-count or cut off or bit of manager interference or rope break or reversal. It's about value, and then adding up all of that value to create a total effect (and likely over time with all of the context in the world mattering).

 

You can do that in a match like AJ Styles vs John Cena, which was full of spots and kick-outs. You can do it a UWF Fujiwara match. You can do it a southern tag or a lucha trios spotfest or in a thumbtack death match. It's just getting the most out of everything you're doing and conversely, doing the things that you'll get the most out of.

 

I'll admit that it may be easier or harder depending on the circumstance, however. Moreover, it doesn't need to be about intent, but instead what worked within a match (or over a series a matches or a career) or didn't. We can extrapolate backwards through our own lenses (and that's where the bias comes in, since we tend to decide what works and what doesn't and how to judge efficiency. But most of us are consistent between wrestlers at least).

[WingedEagle]

 

 

I can understand the excess accusations, but it sees unfair to make them and not also acknowledge his mid-2000s Chopbashi period where he was more over than ever while doing less than ever. Never seen him credited for how he adapted to his limitations as he got older, something that some people claim to care a lot about.

Part of my personal frustration with mid-late 90s AJPW is just how good and smart they are, with an attention to detail to very small things that can have huge emotional impacts within a match and over matches. There are so many specific elements that are completely down my alley and better and more layered than any other attempt at them I've come across. Then, they just go on too far with too much and lose me and it's much worse than if the match was terrible to begin with. It's, in part, why I gravitate towards Taue, because his physical limitations meant that he could only go so far and he was still awash in the general style and everything else. It doesn't mean his input is better necessarily but that I am more comfortable with his output. It's not a very good argument for him as a better wrestler (he probably wasn't), but it's the argument for him having matches that I'm happier watching.

 

I also recognize my lack of breadth of watching, so I'm not a particularly loud voice on this topic. I should check out mid-2000s Kobashi at some point. Someone suggest me a few specific matches I'd probably be high on?

 

A very interesting side-topic that came out of Chad's discussion with Quentin on Psychology is Dead is the possible uses of "excess" in storytelling.

 

That excess is in someway not only an intrinsic part of Kobashi's character but also one of his fatal flaws like Icarus trying to fly to the sun and having his wings melted every time.

 

It's also a lesson that he (the kayfabe character) consistently fails to learn from charging into Stan Hansen in the early 90s and getting himself near killed, to his battles with Misawa and others. All heart, all guts, all the time, and so "winding it back" isn't part of his role or who he is meant to be portraying.

 

I've said this before but Nick Bockwinkel's character was "smart guy", "wily vet", "sneaky champ", when THAT's your character then of course a lot of stuff you do is going to "smart". But Kobashi didn't have that character. Ric didn't either, but I don't think there are four faces of Bock like there are four faces of Flair ... from a certain perspective Bock is more one dimensional in his actual character work than Flair is.

 

I'm not picking on Bock per se, I mean I had him in my top 10 for GWE, but he's the flag bearer for "psychology", and Flair and Kobashi are the routine whipping boys, but I think the analysis isn't really deep enough in any of the three cases. Bock does MICRO psychology very well, Flair and Kobashi, both I think, excel at layered match-on-match stuff and what I'm going to call "deep character". And hubristic excess is a part of both of those characters for different reasons.

 

You've talked a lot about "purpose" and "meaning", what about cases where the correct artistic choice is something that is over the top or excessive to get a certain idea across?

 

I just think the talking point is completely overplayed as criticism, to the point where I think venerating Taue out of the four pillars for doing more with less has become an eye-rolling cliche. Not a shot at Matt or anyone in particular, but I don't see the talk around that as being particularly enlightening at this point.

 

 

Found myself nodding along with much of this. It also strikes me as a more fair and objective way to evaluate it, as we don't know much about the intentions behind what takes place in a match. All we know is what we see in the ring. We can choose to give workers credit or blame for thinking about and planning it in great detail beforehand, but that requires a whole lot of conjecture and speculation.

 

I voted Kobashi #1 in GWE, but fully acknowledge its possible he only knew one way to approach matches before his body was wrecked, and another way thereafter. Not sure I buy it as there is enough nuance and variation across the career to suggest he gave a lot of thought to his performances, but that could be dead wrong. He may have been a bumbling fool who went out to wrestle the only way he knew how given certain time & card placement constraints.

[GOTNW]

Matt should watch Kobashi vs Masao Inoue from early 2009 , he'll get a lot more out of that than 30 minute epics. Generally I think NOAH would be a lot more up his alley since there's a bigger, more diverse roster, more outsiders brought in, a chance to see wrestlers work in many different contexts and a charm to watching undercard wrestlers that *another long All Japan match* won't have.

[pol]

Everyone should watch Kobashi vs. Ogawa.

[Phil Schneider]

Kobashi v Honda isn't as good as the best Honda matches but Tamon does a nice carry job.

[JerryvonKramer]

Nigel McGuinness vs KENTA (3/21/09)

 

This is from ROH. Hammerstein Ballroom, classic wrestling venue. Proper heel heat and mannerisms for McGuinness in introductions, good start. It's his 37th title defence.

 

McGuinnes has both arms out here due to torn biceps. I'm surprised Jack Tunney even sanctioned this one. He has to rely on things like head butts for his offense and Kenta can go to the arms at any moment to cut him off. I am assuming that McGuinness was legit injured, so if it was at all a long-term sell job it was a great and super consistent one, but legit injury right?

 

I really struggled to get into this. I think McGuinness was SO injured that I wasn't buying the narrative of the match. I mean, for someone who had no arms he spent an awful lot of time on top. From the story this match told, I'm meant to believe that Kenta has the toughness of a manager, and McGuinness beat him with literary both arms tied behind his back. Just seems like a burial of Kenta to me.

 

This also lacked a lot in atmosphere. I mean they are in New York in a venue we know from history can absolutely rock when it wants to, but here everything felt flat and sterile. Crowd never got going. I liked Lenny Leonard on commentary for the Evolve show I watched, but here in ROH with Prazak it's all this "watch this match of the year contender" stuff in front of a crowd who seemed to be role-playing the stereotype of a quiet 70s Japanese crowd. OR these guys just weren't that over.

 

In terms of selling the injury and working around the limitations of having no arms, it's an interesting performance from McGuinness, but I think I wanted Kenta to do more interesting stuff going to work on it. This is where a Hiroshi Hase would really earn his money destroying an arm, but Kenta didn't seem to know how to work it.

 

An injury almost imposes psychology on a match, but I felt like Kenta was trying somehow just to have his normal match despite that. Okay, fine kick him or stomp on the leg, fine, but how about throwing in an arm drag or a full arm drag and twist or a hammerlock or something like that. I just feel like the move selection was off. If nothing else it's just such a wasted opportunity. Disappointing.

 

**1/2

[Dylan Waco]

I'd love to see a breakdown of Bock that has something like the depth of the four faces. I'm not sure that Bock was put in positions to even have them because he was a pure heel. Babyface Bock was just heel Bock who was cheered, whereas Babyface Flair was a genuine hero to a whole area.

 

I'll just say it: I don't think Bock could have done Starrcade 93. It would never have worked, the emotion wouldn't have been there. He didn't have the range in his character to make it work.

 

Hansen v. Bock from Wrestlerock is as close to the feel of Starrcade 93 as AWA could possibly get

[JerryvonKramer]

 

I'd love to see a breakdown of Bock that has something like the depth of the four faces. I'm not sure that Bock was put in positions to even have them because he was a pure heel. Babyface Bock was just heel Bock who was cheered, whereas Babyface Flair was a genuine hero to a whole area.

I'll just say it: I don't think Bock could have done Starrcade 93. It would never have worked, the emotion wouldn't have been there. He didn't have the range in his character to make it work.

 

Hansen v. Bock from Wrestlerock is as close to the feel of Starrcade 93 as AWA could possibly get

I recall liking that match a good bit, 4.5 rating, actually higher to where I've ever had Flair vs. Vader. But I don't think it has the heightened emotion.

 

Bock losing to Hansen and cutting a promo going on about the "championship committee" or whatever isn't quite in the same ballpark as the story going into Starrcade 93 or the end of that match.

 

I'll leave it for people to rewatch the two matches to compare.

[JerryvonKramer]

I just went and had a little look and Bock doesn't lose, it's an over-the-top-rope DQ. Ha never change Verne. They got a huge crowd for that show though.

[NintendoLogic]

Kobashi/Honda is a Honda carry job in the same way that Flair/Luger is a Luger carry job.

[Timbo Slice]

Kobashi/Honda is the great Honda showcase match AND the great Kobashi GHC title match. Causal, not correlation, as Kobashi's GHC title matches weren't all great.

 

The one thing Kobashi did have was the glue to have matches with multiple guys that were at least compelling. The Takayama and Minoru title defenses stand out as Kobashi working "their" match while making sure the other guy forced him out of what had become the norm in his title defenses. That norm started with the Honda match, coincidentally, but it got repetitive over time to an extent.

 

I actually would love to hear Parv's views on Kobashi/Ogawa from November 2003, which is worked in a way I think he'd enjoy.

 

And considering he didn't like the Joe/Styles pairing, might as well see what he thinks of Joe/Kobashi.

[Childs]

I enjoy the idea of Matt watching a bunch of NOAH main events.

 

Also, I assume the universe is about to tilt off its axis when I agree with Nintendo Logic over Phil.

[Matt D]

Someone give me a list of matches that I can find online and I will watch them.

[JerryvonKramer]

Matt go back a few pages, people provided some good lists and they are the ones I'll be going off.

 

In time, I intend on watching all of them and in order. Next one is Misawa vs Kobashi from 03.

[elliott]

I enjoy the idea of Matt watching a bunch of NOAH main events.

 

I've been making him watch shooty inspired stuff like Murakami vs Ishikawa and the big 1/4/00 Dome show Tag.

 

Someone needs to get Otsuka vs Matsunaga online for Matt & Parv both.

[Bierschwale]

Get it online for me! Screw these guys!

 

Who HASN'T watched Antonio Honda-Dick Togo? Everyone go watch Honda-Togo.

[InYourCase]

Kobashi vs. Takayama is the Kobashi match Parv should be watching.

 

And I second Dick Togo vs. Honda. That should be watched by every graps fan, ever.

[Bierschwale]

Working smart, to me, is generally about economy. It's about getting the most narrative and emotional value out of every single movement in the ring, every move, every bump, every bit of selling, every iota of crowd interaction, every two-count or cut off or bit of manager interference or rope break or reversal. It's about value, and then adding up all of that value to create a total effect (and likely over time with all of the context in the world mattering).

 

I would add, combining off of your RVD point, that working to your character/gimmick/role in a match, is also key. Smart workers, to me, are generally ones who do what makes their matches feel like it's one that only they could have. Now, admittedly, it is very hard to reconcile the idea that Masato Tanaka is an all-time smart worker because he's an all-time great at working matches that feel like matches that only he could have, so it might not be a universal concept. But there you get into the question of enforcing your match on your opponent vs. maintaining a character in any setting.

[Bierschwale]

Kobashi vs. Takayama is the Kobashi match Parv should be watching.

 

I prefer the Taue match from that year out of just the "Kobashi GHC defenses against a guy who is taller than he is" genre.

[Childs]

I actually think the entire Kobashi GHC run is a worthwhile watch if you're trying to figure out where he lands historically. He worked a much more diverse group of opponents than he did in All Japan.