Thoughts on Wrestlemania XV-XX

[Loss]

I am going to have to poke my nose in to this now. Basically, I agree with certain things you're both saying and disagree with certain things you're both saying. I'll elaborate. Keep in mind this post may not be very "easy on the eyes", because I'm going to use the quote function.

 

 

Now then ...

 

You call the match crap because its goal is to be a "crapfest" when we both know none of the participants in the match have that set in their minds.

 

No, I called it a crapfest because I didn't think the match was any good... and I do think the participants knew they were going to be in a SPOTfest, not a true wrestling MOTYC.

Preferring a traditional wrestling match to a gimmick match at all times, without exception, is a matter of opinion. I think the three teams went out there with the intention of stealing the show that night, by virtue of competing with other wrestling matches on the show. Benoit/Angle. Austin/Rock. HHH/Taker. Jericho/Regal. Eddy/Test. All non-gimmicked singles matches. Their goal was to make the best of the spotlight and try to put something out better than anything else to take place that evening.

 

So, with that said, I don't think they accomplished their goal. Austin/Rock was the easy match of the night, and I'd probably put Benoit/Angle ahead of TLC II, and I'm not even a huge, huge fan of that match or anything. That said, "spotfest" is not a negative term. It's just a style; a type of match. Deep down, I prefer to watch a match with some substance to it, but I've seen spotfests that had that as well. Look at Rey/Psicosis from the '95 J-Cup. That match is almost totally devoid of storytelling, and I'd still rank it above **** because they accomplished the goal they set, and they made it so irresistibly fun that denying that would be wrong. The fans showered the ring with money afterward. They established roles well, which was really all that match needed to be fucking great. Then, they could go out there and just tear the house down.

 

Then, you have Rey/Psi at BATB '96, which I'm not as big a fan of, and there was more wrestling in that match than there was at the J-Cup. I'd probably call the BATB match ***3/4-****, but it wasn't quite the classic it was pimped as immediately after it happened. You know what the difference was between the two matches?

 

HEAT. Real, tangible heat. At the Bash, the crowd popped for the spots. They did that in WAR too, but that match had more heat. Which match accomplished its goal better? The WAR match. Therefore, I'd consider it the better match. So, in this example, I think Sass has a point. That said, I'm not sure that you're really arguing it either.

 

Depending on who is in the match, the goal is to entertain/win, work/entertain/win, or eat up time until the finish is called in.

 

There are other goals you can tack onto this also. Also, I don't think winning is necessary a goal in the match since it is pre-determined. If you want to look at it from kayfabe, sure.

And you should. As Sass said, it's hard enough to view wrestling as escapism anymore because kayfabe is a dead artform. Wrestling matches aren't intended to be watched with a keenly critical eye. They're meant to involve the crowd and make the audience suspend disbelief, even temporarily.

 

TLC II isn't the best example of this happening, because even if the workers were trying to sell a story, the audience isn't willing in investing in it anyway. They want spots. They want to see someone get their ass kicked and they want to see crazy shit. Sounds like a Sabu match, doesn't it?

 

 

I have to side with Will here.

 

The first one applies to someone like Sabu. His matches consist of big spots with little in between. The second one applies to the people who were in the TLC matches where everyone had their working boots on in between the big spots and kept using transitions in between using a ladder or table spot to pop the crowd big. The spin-the-ladder-around-neck spot is not something I would consider a Sabu spot since it's actually a better spot to set up something big like a drop kick from the tope rope to the guy holding up the ladder or the ladder head worker getting smacked in the head with a chair and falling down. That is a transition spot. The actual big spot is what will happen to the guy once he's attacked everyone with the ladder. I would never consider any of the members on the teams in the TLC matches "great" workers but they worked a very smart match that some of the so-called "great" workers might be hindered with instead.

 

This is where we disagree. I'll rewatch the match again but I have seen it several times and don't think there is that much oif a difference between the TLC matches and a Sabu spotfest. THe main difference is the amount of workers. There is less fileler because there are more guys in the ring that can fill time.

A spotfest is worth watching if they don't let up between the moves, and the moves are executed properly. This is the difference between Rey/Psicosis and RVD/Lynn. Rey doesn't stall the crowd or stop when the match is starting to gather some momentum and start pointing to himself. Psicosis is also a far better worker than Jerry Lynn, but that's another discussion.

 

None of the guys in All Japan, Jumbo included, New Japan, or UWFI ever worked in a cage match. Ric Flair did and he had some very, very good matches within those confines. He excelled in that environment whereas we have no idea how good or how bad the match would have been with guys like Jumbo, Misawa, Kawada, Kobashi, Liger and Takada working in Flair's place. This is why I never wrote off a company like FMW because they had workers who were *smart* and creative within something like a cage match with death match stipulations to it.

 

So, because the majority of the guys mentioned never worked gimmicked matches, they are lacking?

In this category, yes. I think I'm siding with Sass here. Again, though, I don't think Will is writing off the garbage style by not liking TLC II.

 

Truth be told, I believe that the "great" American workers like Flair, the Destroyer, Bret Hart, Vader and Chris Benoit all have a leg up on the guys from Japan in this regard.

 

Sure, they um... worked more gimmick matches. This isn't really up for debate.

I don't think he said it with the intent of it being debated.

 

Now, this isn't something I'd use to brag about but working a "smart" cage match is harder than working within the confines of a normal exhibition match with no-gimmicks.

 

I strongly disagree. In order to elicit the response you want from the crowd, there are cheap but effective ways to get the crowd to respond in a gimmicked match. Ram the guy into the cage and have him bounce off. Grab his leg right as he begins his climb over the cage. Jump off the top of the cage. These are crutches that can be used when all else is failing.

Those same crutches exist in straight wrestling matches. Brawl outside the ring into the crowd. Run interference. Start needlessly kicking out of finishers.

 

Cage matches themselves are limited in the number of spots they can pull off. Ramming someone into the cage face first is essentially the same thing as putting them into the ringpost, or the Spanish announce table. Grabbing someone's leg is akin to kicking out of a pin attempt. Cage matches can't spill outside the ring. Someone like Jushin Liger, who normally does a dive to the floor in most of his matches, couldn't do that in a cage match. How would he work within those limitations? If Taue couldn't do the Nodowa off the apron, what would he do instead? There is intrigue there. The whole point of a cage match is to keep the match in the ring. Most great matches tend to spill outside the ring.

 

For TLC... whack someone with the ladder in the face. Jump off the ladder. Conchairto. Whatever the case may be, you don' have to work as hard to elicit a response. It just might hurt more in the morning.

In some ways, you have to work harder, just not smarter. I do think the guys in TLC II were busting ass. This is why, using this as a base of discussion, taking Shawn/Razor from Summerslam '95, which is an incredibly smart gimmick match that plays off of Wrestlemania X, or War Games from Wrestle War '92, which has so many subtleties that I don't think they've all ever accurately been pointed out, would be a much better example.

 

This is why I use the term "great" in a loose sense because guys like Flair, Benoit, and Hart never worked in an environment like All Japan or New Japan on a full-time basis. There's no telling how more refined each of their in-ring skills could have gotten if those guys had stuck around Japan for as long as Stan Hansen did. Hansen was a worker that showed promise when he was in the WWWF but he wasn't anything special. After a couple years and several NJ and AJ tours later, Hansen became one of the elite gaijin workers in Puroresu history. That's no accident.

 

I see where you are coming from but this is all shoulda, coulda, woulda. What we can evaluate is what stands before us. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed reading this post. I lik the different point of view but this is all speculation. Hulk Hogan could have never touched roids and may have been as good as Flair. Who knows?

Agreed with Will here. They were both fat bastards who their childhood friends describe as lazy and unmotivated before getting into pro wrestling, by all accounts.

 

Garbage matches are garbage matches. Garbage and plunder is used to down your opponent. Possibly, even make them suffer. The point is to prove who the tougher guy is while also trying to out wrestle and out work (in the kayfabe sense) the other guy by shredding their back up with a scythe or using a sickle to slice their arms up. All death matches have a point; a goal. The goal is to win at any means necessary.

 

I think you have the misconception that I don't enjoy garbage matches or death matches or cage matches or any other gimmicked match. You would be wrong. read my thoughts on the Eddie-JBL bullrope match. I love the 6/99 Big Japan Honma vs. Yamakawa bed-of-nails match. The story in that match played out... whoever landed on the bed of nails first was going to lose, regardless of what else they were doing to mutilate their bodies. I can also point out the flaws in that match such as the contrived tiger driver on the bed of chairs or Honma missing the light tube smash when he jumped off the balcony.

Nothing really to add here.

 

Hey guys, what's up?

 

 

The goal is to win at any means necessary. For *that* simple reason, that exists in all other non-gimmicked matches, is why I look at garbage matches and their ilk along the same lines as a normal exhibition match without being gimmicked. Wrestling is already an exercise in escapism because of all the people in the business who expose it, whether through ego tripping interviews (Vince) or by fucking up a simple move that throws off the whole flow of the match (botched ending).

 

You would also have to read my debate with Some Guy in a previous thread where I said the EXACT same thing... all matches can be compared with each other regardless of the gimmick. I have already stated and defeded this assertion. I don't really disagree with any of this. I disagree with your assessment of the TLC match. It's that simple.

This is the heart of the discussion. Right here. These two points of view.

 

Wrestling is already hokey enough to watch. It doesn't matter what decade or what company the match is being put out from; wrestling is still a hokey thing to watch. Everyone involved in the match already knows the outcome and probably has a good idea about the sequence of moves that will be used. That's where the intrigue for watching this crazy stuff comes from. Who is going to win and how? The ending might be predictable at times but if it makes sense and leaves the viewer satisfied with the outcome of the match then the workers have succeeded in the work/entertain/win mindset that all good workers possess. No one is left feeling unsatisfied.

 

Once again, just because I don't like one gimmicked match doesn't mean I don't like all of them. Do you want another example... I specifically stated in this thread I enjoyed the Scramble Cage from Main Event Spectacles but I don't have any delusions on if it is a good match or not.

Okay, now there's a contrast, Will, because even though you've already pointed out that you don't have a problem with gimmick matches, you point to one that's not even a match you'd consider good as an example.

 

I grew up watching FMW and AAA during my formative teenage years. I can appreciate the novelty of a match like TLC 2 but I also look at the match from a critical standpoint. Smart spots, strong transitions, and some clever in-ring psychology are a couple of the things I'll always look for in a match because those are the things that, intentionally and unintentionally, that fans, marks and smarts alike, will always look for in a match. It's what keeps the escapism going in a match. If either of those things is disturbed, then the match comes to a screeching halt and all you can do is wait for the next match to come on. Keep the "hate" real in a match.

 

OK, once again, I disagree with your assessment on TLC2... not on garbage or gimmicked wrestling.

Moving on.

 

Good matches need good stories. Not all of the time. But nearly all of the "great" matches in wrestling history have had some sort of story attached to them. They balance out one another. They need each other. It's like how a body builder needs to do weight training *and* cardio exercises. The dude can get jacked off lifting a ton of weights but he needs to walk on the treadmill or run up a hill a couple times every now and then because one without the other leaves an imbalance that will halt someone from reaching their peak maximum health.

 

In order to be great, neither the storyline build-up nor the match itself can be tainted in any way. Greatness is not achieved with an imbalance. Balance must be found so that all sides match up and leave neither one looking weak.

 

What do I know about Jumbo vs. Funk 76? Jumbo was the student and Funk was the teacher. That is all I need to know.

How do you know that? Compare that to how fans on June 11, 1976, knew that. They knew it because they knew the wrestlers involved, they'd seen them compete, they'd seen their high points and low points, and they were wanting to see what would happen next.

 

It's a little different than reading it in a match review. That's a shortcut. A cost-effective shortcut, but a shortcut nonetheless. If you don't see surrounding footage to see where the standard of work was at the time or what led to it, then you may still love the match, but that's entirely incidental. You're not watching it with the perspective they want you to have. It's hard to evaluate their work when they're not even working you the way they wanted to do so, is it not?

 

That's why wrestling is an art form. Right there. It's about working the audience, not having the audience interpret it however they choose. That point of view has been largely lost, and it's had both its advantages (better quality over time) and disadvantages (impossible standards with the fans in the driver's seat more than they should be).

 

The goal of a pro wrestling fan should never be to see as little footage as possible to understand things, but rather to see as much as they possibly can to "get it" as much as they possibly can.

 

Mascaras vs. Destroyer? I know very little backstory.

"Backstory" isn't really applicable here. "Setting" is more appropriate. If you know, through watching as much as you can (reading here may be the only choice admittedly, just because we don't exactly have a lot of 1973-1974 lucha libre and Japanese footage to watch alongside this), who the Destroyer is and who Mascaras is and why them meeting is monumental and what makes the spots so fun, and why the crowd interprets those spots the way they do (i.e. it was a novelty in that environment), then you're getting the match. If you just think the spots are nifty and that the match was well-worked, that's great, but that's only part of it.

 

Think of it as a circle. Damn, I wish I could draw on message boards.

 

"A" is a small circle. "B" is a medium-sized circle that has "A" inside of it. "C" is a huge circle that has both "A" and "B" inside of it. If you like the spots and the matwork, that's "A". If you like the psychology and the way the crowd reacts to everything, thus enjoying the spectacle, that's "B". If you understand that it's a lucha match in front of a crowd that doesn't get to see lucha matches, and that they are seeing one of their favorites, The Destroyer, go against the most famous luchadore in the world at the time (possibly), then that's "C".

 

I want to have "C" on every match I watch. Otherwise, I'm only cheating myself.

 

Ohtani vs. Ultimo? They wanted to be the winner of the tourney and I am almost 97% positive that Ohtani's father was in the audience and he was seeking his approval.

Otani's 1996 in this case would be "C". He was coming into his own throughout the year and suffered many heartbreaking defeats and also had some big wins along the way. 1996 was a test of Otani's fortitude. This match was a high-profile tournament that was supposed to feature the best of his peers in a tournament and he wanted to win to prove himself. That has as much to do with the match as does whether or not Otani's long-term selling of the arm is effective.

 

Some matches have "C" without having "A or B". Some have "A" without having anything beyond that.

 

In the same sense, some watch wrestling only concerned with "A" and "B", when "C" is crucial.

 

Which is the most important part? I'm not sure I know the answer.

 

Kawada vs. Albright? Kawada kicks ass and Albright wasn't very good. The story tells itself in the middle of the ring.

How do you know Kawada is good and that Albright sucks? By watching other matches from them. Seeing Albright against others in AJPW really puts in perspective how impressive this match is. Without it, one might think Albright is a great worker and that this was just another in a long line of great AJ matches. They wouldn't be wrong, but they'd be missing out on a big part of the picture.

 

I agree that you need some fundamental understanding... heel or face (which can sill be est. in the ring even if you never heard of a guy before (ROH 3 way from the first show); finishing moves or signature moves; the ability to compare and contrast two segments to see if they made snese; but after that, wrestling is fairly simple to understand. It ain't rocket science. Like you said, it is already a hokey premise. As you see more matches, you lose your love of some matches or gain appreciation of other matches. What was once a **** match in your eyes now becomes a ** snore.

And what was once a ** snore can become a ***1/2 match. It works both ways. You're right that the work in the match can go a long way in establishing roles. That said, if it's not consistent with the buildup, that deserves criticism. If it is consistent, it deserves praise. How do you know if it is or not? By watching the buildup.

 

My main problem with what you guys are saying is this idea that a great match is coningent to the buildup of the match. It can add layers that make the eagle eye enjoy it more (6/3/94; Joe-Punk III) but those matches still stand on their own. If a match relies solely on its history then the storytelling in the ring is flawed no matter how much wink wink nudge nudge it gives the fans.

There are no matches like this. Well, there are, but who's calling them great?

 

I like watching wrestling. I like some styles over others. I have a shitload of tapes, have seen a shitload of matches.

 

Maybe balance between buildup and the match is needed for you to enjoy the product. I have seen plenty of good angles and storylines result in shitty matches. No balance, right? So it was all a wash?

Yes. That's not what Sass is talking about.

 

Then there are the matches with no buildup or even poor buildup that can result in GREAT matches DESPITE the buildup. That to me is an even more impressive feat.

It's impressive, but a match can't reach those levels without some type of push or hype. That's part of what wrestling always has been and always will be. I've never seen horrid buildup result in a great match. Never.

 

I just ordered a tape of WWF 1996 TV from some guy. I have read enough to know the basic storlines behind some of these feuds. Others not so much but if the wrestling sucks, then it is wasted time. If the wrestling is superb despite a shitty three months of tv leading up to the match, I am ok with that.

I'm not. If I'm reviewing a match that's great in spite of itself, I'm going to point out that it's great in spite of itself, and the lack of buildup for the match to play off of is going to limit what the workers can do.

 

There is no way that anyone here has seen the months and years buildup to Misawa-Kawada before it happened. No, we were recommended the match by someone else and explored it with our eyes. We were intrigued enough by it to search out the stuff leaing up to it and it added to our viewing pleasure. The match still had to be good enough to capture our attention in the first place.

Yes. But the match shouldn't be expected to be good enough on its own. For the record, I hated Misawa/Kawada the first time I saw it. Thought it was plodding and slow compared to other stuff I'd seen stateside. It does make a difference.

 

Others are great the first time you see them. You are so amped up you watch it again and find the little things that enhance our opinion of the match even more. That makes them greatER.

And if you're not interested in that, if you're content to just like it without loving it, when the potential is there for you to love it, then you're not getting the full experience. You're missing out on a large part of the picture.

 

This really comes down to two things...

 

1. Initially, I disagree with your assessment that TLC2 is a worthwhile match. I'll rewatch it again and reevaluate my position. It may change or stay the same.

 

2. We disagree on the importance of the buildup to the match.

And on point #1, I concede to Will. On point #2, I concede to Sass.

[goodhelmet]

Dman, you're a politician

 

But let me add this to the Loss ABC Wrestling Circle.

 

I absolutely agree 100% that we should want C.... BUT... if I can't obtain B from watching a match then why would I invest my time in the buildup if I was disappointed in the actual work?

 

With regards to the Jumbo-Funk, Mascaras-Destroyer matches, etc, I learned most of that stuff AFTER I watched the match. I go on recommendations and if I enjoy what is set forth THEN I go and pursue a higher understanding of the match. Sorry, but there simply aren't enough hours in the day to watch buildup to something that doesn't live up to the hype.

 

The background knowledge of the wrestlers, the styles, themoves, etc. I learned most of them on the internet. It is a shortcut but I have never denied that. Then agin, time is precious. Over on DVDVR, they are experiencing a Dustin Renaissance. We (You and I) want those matches that are forgotten or never heard of based on ths shortcut. I don't want to own every match for the sake of owning every match. I want to own matches that I think will enjoy based on word-of-mouth, my interest in those wrestlers, etc.

 

 

As for my supposed contradiction for enjoying the scramble.

 

Let me explain it another way.

 

There is a movie with fart jokes. I enjoy it. When I look at it critically, I know it doesn't deserve Oscar consideration. You and I can like American Idol. It may be compellling TVand fun as hell but know it doesn't deserve consideration for the Emmys.

 

I can enjoy a match even when it isn't good. It is why we start those guilty pleasure threads. We may know a wrestler or match that sucks but like him/it for one reason or another. I like bloodletting matches. I like seeing these guys bleed like stuck pigs. Doesn't mean I'll give the match ****. That is just a personal preference. THen there are matches like Homicide-Trent Acid that make me cringe. No transtitions, no logical flow, a Sabu match if there ever was one but one hat kills some of the biggest moves you have ever seen... A bad match by your standard or mine.

[Loss]

Dman, you're a politician

*whispers to MiB that you can't mod the main event style*

 

 

But let me add this to the Loss ABC Wrestling Circle.

 

I absolutely agree 100% that we should want C.... BUT... if I can't obtain B from watching a match then why would I invest my time in the buildup if I was disappointed in the actual work?

Because good booking is even more of a rarity than good wrestling, and it should be celebrated just as much when it happens. When's the last time you saw it? I can't remember the last time I saw it, at least on a consistent, long-term scale. If someone says, "You should really check out OVW, it's some of the best-booked wrestling out there", that means just as much to me as "You should really see Misawa/Kawada. It's the best match of all time!" But I like to fancy myself as a student of the game.

 

 

There's no "wrestling versus angles" point of view from me, because I'm a wrestling fan, and both are major parts of pro wrestling. In the same way I don't make a distinction and choose one over the other, I don't think the average fan does either. The one thing we all have in common is that we want a good product. How we get it is where the disagreements start.

 

There's absolutely nothing wrong with enjoying a match that doesn't hold up to scrutiny, as long as you're not going to falsely say it's better than something that's actually great. That's an important distinction to be made. And chances are, if you see the buildup to a match, and it's good, you're most likely to get lost in the moment, and wrestling is all about getting lost in the moment.

 

Now, you're probably wondering, if it's all about getting lost in the moment, why I even bother to look at it critically. Well, I tend to watch the match now, and ask the questions later. I'd never sit down and take notes on a match on my first viewings of it. I'd do it if I was planning on writing a detailed viewpoint of it later for the purposes of discussion, or if I was doing a review of it or something, but that initial viewing is not something one should rob himself of experiencing. It's the great stuff that makes wading through all the crap bearable, not to mention that all the crap helps put it in perspective how great the great stuff really is.

 

That's why every once in a while, it's not a bad idea to catch an episode of RAW. Or, if you're gutsy, Smackdown.

 

With regards to the Jumbo-Funk, Mascaras-Destroyer matches, etc, I learned most of that stuff AFTER I watched the match. I go on recommendations and if I enjoy what is set forth THEN I go and pursue a higher understanding of the match. Sorry, but there simply aren't enough hours in the day to watch buildup to something that doesn't live up to the hype. 

Believe me, I understand that viewpoint. I agree with it even, but I agree with it hesitantly. But, I'd like to think I'm a leader, not a follower, but I'd also probably like to think that I'm not annoying you with this post.

 

 

That said, I'm not about to sit back and let other people do the dirty work and tell me what to think. Yeah, if something is recommended enough, I'll search it out, but recommendations are most valuable when people are recommending matches that don't look good on paper. Those are the matches I want to hear pimped, not stuff that everyone knows will be good based on the participants anyway. I'll pick that stuff up based on who's involved, and I'll form my own conclusions. They say opinions are like assholes, in that everyone has one, and they very well may be right, but there are tons of matches out there that there aren't even opinions available for. I'm not going to not check it out because I haven't heard anyone else say it's great or that it sucked. I can blaze my own trail, thank you very much.

 

Reviews come in handy, also, when you take footage you've already seen, and compare your thoughts to those of someone else who has seen the same footage. If they've seen it, and your views are largely in line with each other, then you can pretty much take their word on most everything they say. Even that is almost cheating, though, but I totally understand the reasons it would be done.

 

I'm starting to sound like Bill Clinton.

 

The background knowledge of the wrestlers, the styles, themoves, etc. I learned most of them on the internet. It is a shortcut but I have never denied that. Then agin, time is precious.

Time is precious, but I don't consider watching wrestling to be a waste of time, even if it's a bad match, because I love pro wrestling that much.

 

Now I'm sounding like Comic Book Guy.

 

Over on DVDVR, they are experiencing a Dustin Renaissance. We (You and I) want those matches that are forgotten or never heard of based on ths shortcut. I don't want to own every match for the sake of owning every match. I want to own matches that I think will enjoy based on word-of-mouth, my interest in those wrestlers, etc.

Word of mouth is often overrated. Sometimes, it's unavoidable, unless you want to drop $500 a month to keep up with all wrestling around the world (which is about what it would take to get all of Lynch's TV, all the lucha, all the indy shows, all the OVW TV, all the British stuff, tape RAW/SD/Velocity/Impact/Heat and order the WWE and TNA PPVs every month). And if you want to catch up on the old school stuff, prepare to shell out more cash. You could conceivably spend $1000 a month on wrestling tapes for five years, end up with mountains of footage, and still have stuff you haven't seen. So, believe me, I understand why. I do. But I don't need someone else to tell me that a Jumbo Tsuruta match, or a Chris Benoit match, or a Bret Hart match, or a Ric Flair match, or a Jushin Liger match, or a Toshiaki Kawada match, is good -- if I haven't figured that out by now, I might as well give up because I'll never get wrestling. I need them to tell me when marginal workers become great workers, if only for one night, and I need them to tell me when someone new is on the horizon that I should pay attention to. The Dustin renaissance is great for creating a buzz about Dustin, but I'm not going to seek out those specific matches. If I see Dustin against Windham, Steamboat, Vader, Arn, Eaton, Cactus or someone like that from a '92 WCW matchlist, I'll know it's probably good and I'll take my chances.

 

And I'll be happy to filter the good down to you.

 

As for my supposed contradiction for enjoying the scramble.

 

Let me explain it another way.

 

There is a movie with fart jokes. I enjoy it. When I look at it critically, I know it doesn't deserve Oscar consideration. You and I can like American Idol. It may be compellling TVand fun as hell but know it doesn't deserve consideration for the Emmys.

 

I can enjoy a match even when it isn't good. It is why we start those guilty pleasure threads. We may know a wrestler or match that sucks but like him/it for one reason or another. I like bloodletting matches. I like seeing these guys bleed like stuck pigs. Doesn't mean I'll give the match ****. That is just a personal preference. THen there are matches like Homicide-Trent Acid that make me cringe. No transtitions, no logical flow, a Sabu match if there ever was one but one hat kills some of the biggest moves you have ever seen... A bad match by your standard or mine.

You're 100% right. I just wanted you to mention some gimmick matches you've liked, but when I re-read the thread, you already had.

[goodhelmet]

*whispers to MiB that you can't mod the main event style*

I've got my eyes set on a bigger stage.

 

*Pays MIB off and shreds the documents*

 

 

Because good booking is even more of a rarity than good wrestling, and it should be celebrated just as much when it happens. When's the last time you saw it? I can't remember the last time I saw it, at least on a consistent, long-term scale. If someone says, "You should really check out OVW, it's some of the best-booked wrestling out there", that means just as much to me as "You should really see Misawa/Kawada. It's the best match of all time!" But I like to fancy myself as a student of the game.

Goshdarn man, why would I ask you for particualr interviews or angles if I didn't enjoy that stuff? Or ask some guy for the Austin-Pillman angle when I got that comp made? I am not the anti-angle. I enjoy that stuff also but i don't rate it and I look at that stuff the same way I would an episode of Hotel Paradise.

 

There's absolutely nothing wrong with enjoying a match that doesn't hold up to scrutiny, as long as you're not going to falsely say it's better than something that's actually great. That's an important distinction to be made. And chances are, if you see the buildup to a match, and it's good, you're most likely to get lost in the moment, and wrestling is all about getting lost in the moment.

OK, for you, wrestling is all about getting lost in the moment. That isn't necessarily how I derive my satisfaction from the product. That is a very subjective line.

 

Now, you're probably wondering, if it's all about getting lost in the moment, why I even bother to look at it critically.

Because there are MULTIPLE reasons to enjoy OR criticize wrestling. The easy reason to criticize "wrestling is fake". Themore advanced way is o rcognize the fallacy of a move or an action and why it doesn;t make sense.

 

Well, I tend to watch the match now, and ask the questions later. I'd never sit down and take notes on a match on my first viewings of it. I'd do it if I was planning on writing a detailed viewpoint of it later for the purposes of discussion, or if I was doing a review of it or something, but that initial viewing is not something one should rob himself of experiencing. It's the great stuff that makes wading through all the crap bearable, not to mention that all the crap helps put it in perspective how great the great stuff really is.

I agree with everything here. I don't take notes on a first viewing. I really don't compare matches with star ratings. BUT if I need to be critical of a match, I can flip the switch... but even without flipping the switch, I can see if there are flaws in match on first viewing. After that, then I determine if I should go to the next step.

 

Believe me, I understand that viewpoint. I agree with it even, but I agree with it hesitantly. But, I'd like to think I'm a leader, not a follower, but I'd also probably like to think that I'm not annoying you with this post.

So to be a leader, I have to be the first one to see a match or give it glowing reviews?

 

That said, I'm not about to sit back and let other people do the dirty work and tell me what to think.

That isn't really the goal of recommendations. I have always interpreted recommendations as matches other people enjoy that I can then determine if I enjoy. And nearly every match from Japan that you and I have seen, someone else did the dirty work and pimped them here.

 

I'll search it out, but recommendations are most valuable when people are recommending matches that don't look good on paper. Those are the matches I want to hear pimped, not stuff that everyone knows will be good based on the participants anyway. I'll pick that stuff up based on who's involved, and I'll form my own conclusions. They say opinions are like assholes, in that everyone has one, and they very well may be right, but there are tons of matches out there that there aren't even opinions available for. I'm not going to not check it out because I haven't heard anyone else say it's great or that it sucked. I can blaze my own trail, thank you very much.

Whether you believe it or not, you have been influenced, directed and made purchases based from these opinions. You may have seen 80s NWA when you were growing up. I also doubtyou were a smark who knew what a smartly worked match was at the time. You liked the angle, was a fan of a wrestler, etc. On those matches, maybe you have a leg up on the competition because you grew up watching that stuff. For the Puro, there is no way you forged your own trail with any of that stuff. Now... after being exposed through recommendation and review and analysis, maybe you can search out now. But initially? No way man.

 

Also, you act like I am some lazy sloth who doesn't do research or can;t form his own opinion. If that is your opinion of me then that's jacked up. If not, you need to articulate that better.

 

Reviews come in handy, also, when you take footage you've already seen, and compare your thoughts to those of someone else who has seen the same footage. If they've seen it, and your views are largely in line with each other, then you can pretty much take their word on most everything they say. Even that is almost cheating, though, but I totally understand the reasons it would be done.

It isn't cheating. It is being efficient.

 

Time is precious, but I don't consider watching wrestling to be a waste of time, even if it's a bad match, because I love pro wrestling that much.

Hey, I love pro wrestling too but I also have a wife and a kid who need some attention. Unfortunately, my wife doesn't like wrestling but she begrudgingly accepts it. In my spare time I watch it but I also get tired of it and need a break. Hell, you have admitted yourself you get burnt out on it. Then stuff comes along that recharges our batteries and we get on with it again.

 

 

Word of mouth is often overrated. Sometimes, it's unavoidable, unless you want to drop $500 a month to keep up with all wrestling around the world (which is about what it would take to get all of Lynch's TV, all the lucha, all the indy shows, all the OVW TV, all the British stuff, tape RAW/SD/Velocity/Impact/Heat and order the WWE and TNA PPVs every month). And if you want to catch up on the old school stuff, prepare to shell out more cash. You could conceivably spend $1000 a month on wrestling tapes for five years, end up with mountains of footage, and still have stuff you haven't seen. So, believe me, I understand why. I do. But I don't need someone else to tell me that a Jumbo Tsuruta match, or a Chris Benoit match, or a Bret Hart match, or a Ric Flair match, or a Jushin Liger match, or a Toshiaki Kawada match, is good -- if I haven't figured that out by now, I might as well give up because I'll never get wrestling. I need them to tell me when marginal workers become great workers, if only for one night, and I need them to tell me when someone new is on the horizon that I should pay attention to.

Right on all of this. I wouldn't debate any of this.

 

 

The Dustin renaissance is great for creating a buzz about Dustin, but I'm not going to seek out those specific matches. If I see Dustin against Windham, Steamboat, Vader, Arn, Eaton, Cactus or someone like that from a '92 WCW matchlist, I'll know it's probably good and I'll take my chances.

Which is wierd since you said I'll search it out, but recommendations are most valuable when people are recommending matches that don't look good on paper. Those are the matches I want to hear pimped, not stuff that everyone knows will be good based on the participants anyway.

 

So you want to find good matches or you want to just buy all the wrestling you can?

 

And I'll be happy to filter the good down to you.

No need. For example, I just got this comp from some guy. I looked at the partipants and determined what matches I wanted. I didn't have any SK snowflakes to deterimine what I should get. I had never seen most of this footage if any at all. I am quite capable of forming my own wishlists, my own opinions on matches, and am willing to take suggestions. I even told some guy to add any angle or match he felt was worthwhile. I'll take him for his word and trust his judgment. If it isn't worthwhile in my eyes, that is when the discussion will get into full swing.

 

 

You're 100% right. I just wanted you to mention some gimmick matches you've liked, but when I re-read the thread, you already had.

Which is wierd since I know you have read my thoughts on the bullrope match. You know we have talked about the Wargames, HIACs, etc. You know I like the bloodletting matches. I don;'t get where you are coming from.

[Loss]

I've gotta go home for today, sadly, but I will get to this post in full. Before I go, I just wanted to say that I was arguing an ideology more than I was arguing you in that post, which may be where a lot of the confusion came from. I'll explain more later.

[Loss]

I wanted to clarify a few things in that post:

 

(1) I don't think you're anti-angle. I just know that you don't watch RAW and Smackdown because of what you see as the lack of great wrestling, and most of the time, you're right. My only bone of contention is that around Wrestlemania time, everything starts getting hyped on TV, and if you don't at least have some clue what's going on and aren't eager to see the matches because they've made you think you're about to see something special, then you may be missing out on something important. There's a certain obligation I feel that's part of being a wrestling fan for me, obligation to keep up with what's going on in WWE, even if I'm not completely avid about it. I don't expect anyone else to feel the same way, but there was a time when wrestling fans would watching anything as long as it was wrestling, and those times have changed. I miss the old days.

 

(2) Let me rephrase something I said -- wrestling isn't all about getting lost in the moment. It's just that great wrestling will often cause you to get lost in the moment. When a worker can make that happen for you, he's doing his job.

 

(3) Ideally, I watch a match and either like it or I don't like it. If I don't like it, I can usually figure out why immediately, because I am trying to like every match I watch, but sometimes, something so ridiculous is done that it makes it impossible. Sometimes, if I like it, it's something I can't explain initially, which is fine, but if one of my hobbies is talking about this stuff with other fans, it goes a lot further to be able to explain it than just to say "I liked it." I think this is what Bryan Alvarez was getting at with his column a while back -- there's nothing wrong with analyzing this stuff, but there's nothing wrong with not doing it either. The problem comes when you have people on message boards unwilling to explain themselves in a discussion, and the topic goes nowhere as a result. You don't fit this category. At all. You probably prefer people to elaborate more than anyone, which is great. You're good at doing it too. I think with us, when we see something good, we appreciate it so much that we want to understand it. It's worth talking about and looking at. I don't think you'll argue this point at all.

 

(4) I don't think I've ever told you how I came across the Puroresu I've seen, and what the circumstances behind it were. In 1998, around the time I first got online, I came across John McAdam's site, and he had stuff on tape, mountains of it, that I remembered happening, but hadn't seen since it originally aired. It was stuff I loved too. I had some things I had saved through the years, like some PPVs and Clashes, and even a few TV shows, but he had a wealth of footage. I made a huge order to him and purchased a lot of old NWA footage and other footage from other territories. One of those comps had a Windham/Funk match from Puerto Rico on it I wanted to see, since I was a huge fan of both, which is why I picked it up. I watched the tape, and it also had three other matches of note on it:

 

(a) Akira Maeda v Tatsumi Fujinami - NJPW 06/12/86

( Jumbo Tsuruta & Genichiro Tenryu v Riki Choshu & Yoshiaki Yatsu - AJPW 01/28/86

? Lioness Asuka v Jaguar Yokota - AJW 08/22/85

 

That was one tape. There was another tape I picked up because it had the 40-minute title switch from '87 where Flair dropped the belt to Ron Garvin. It also had these matches on it:

 

(a) Ric Flair v Jumbo Tsuruta - AJPW 06/08/83 (2/3 falls)

( Ric Flair & Rick Martel v Jumbo Tsuruta & Genichiro Tenryu - AJPW 10/21/85

? Hulk Hogan v Antonio Inoki - NJPW 06/02/83

 

I watched all those matches and loved all those matches. I then started visiting the tape trading message boards. I found a guy getting rid of about 50 comps he had made of 80s footage, mixed in with some other stuff, along with a copy of the 1994 and 1995 Super J-Cup. I hadn't heard anything about these shows, but they had Benoit, Eddy, Liger, Rey, Ultimo and Jericho on them, so they couldn't have been too bad, right? So I picked them up. And those comps had matches from the '92 G-1 Climax, more Jumbo matches, some Liger stuff (who I remembered and loved from WCW), Doc/Kobashi from AJPW (which I knew was the '93 Observer MOTY), and the Thunderqueen match. There was also a high-flying comp (RF master) in there that had Liger/Samurai from 04/92 and Jericho/Ultimo from 07/95 on it, among other stuff. It was all going for $100. I picked it all up. I watched it all. I loved it. That's how I got into it. I then started reading looking for other recommendations and people talked about Misawa/Kawada from 06/94 and stuff like that, and I wanted to seek that out as well. I wouldn't recommend that path, because it put me all over the place, but it did expose me to a nice cross-section of matches that I happened to see because it was additional footage on other tapes I wanted.

 

(5) PWI. Remember that magazine? I know you do. It shaped the way I viewed wrestling, even at a young age. They were very anti-WWF and talked about how Hogan looked winded after 15 minutes while Flair could go 60 believably. They talked about how the WWF was all show while the NWA and AWA had true pro wrestling. That rubbed off on me. I may not have known why what I was watching was good, but I knew the difference between a good match and a bad match even then. I knew why Hogan was Hogan and why Flair was Flair. I knew the difference between Savage and the Ultimate Warrior, between Bret Hart and Diesel, between the Midnight Express and the Road Warriors, because of PWI. They didn't come out and say wrestling was fake, and I bought wrestling as a shoot until I was in my teens because I WANTED to believe, but they pointed out that the WWF had a lot of crap. Who knows how differently I may have seen wrestling without it?

 

(6) It doesn't take a "smark" to know the difference between good wrestling and bad wrestling. Otherwise, HHH would be a huge draw right now. The hardcore fans are the only ones who differentiate any of that stuff. The casual fan just sees the show and considers it good or bad based on if the right people won and nothing happened that made him feel stupid for caring.

 

(7) You're not a lazy sloth. I know you do research -- tons of it. I just think that sometimes, you have to break from the pack and take a chance on a purchase. There are no guarantees you're going to like anything you haven't seen. That's when, if you come across a match no one has ever heard of where Ric Flair and Terry Funk went 90 minutes on a house show in 1989, you'd check it out, wouldn't you? I know I would. I know you would too, because one of the reasons you got the Misawa episode of AJ Classics was because you were curious about that Koshinaka match.

 

(8) The point of the Dustin thing is not to pimp those specific matches, but to clue people in about Dustin's work and tell them to check out all the footage they can from his 1991-1995 run in WCW. Therefore, I don't need them to tell me Dustin v Barry Windham going 20 minutes in 1993 is good. I know it will be anyway. The one time it will come in handy is when it's a match where Dustin is facing someone like Tex Slazenger who isn't regarded as being great. That's consistent with what I said.

[Guest Some Guy]

I don't think marks really enjoy good in ring wrestling.

This was the only thing you said I beg to differ with. They may like other things too, but liking Sid doesn't mean they hate everything that isn't Sid. Benoit is over too, and it's because people know they're going to see a damned fight when they see him. Same for Michaels -- at one time, he had charisma, but he hasn't done a good interview since returning. He's the veteran that somehow manages to defy the odds on a regular basis, fighting age and injury, and you know his matches are going to take you on a ride. Shawn would be booed out of the building if he couldn't somewhat deliver.

 

EDIT: Oops. I accidentally edited your post instead of quoting it, Some Guy. I'm very, very sorry. I'm trying to fix it.

 

-- Loss

[Loss]

SG, I accidentally edited your post instead of quoting it. My apologies.

[Guest Some Guy]

I don't think marks really enjoy good in ring wrestling.

This was the only thing you said I beg to differ with. They may like other things too, but liking Sid doesn't mean they hate everything that isn't Sid. Benoit is over too, and it's because people know they're going to see a damned fight when they see him. Same for Michaels -- at one time, he had charisma, but he hasn't done a good interview since returning. He's the veteran that somehow manages to defy the odds on a regular basis, fighting age and injury, and you know his matches are going to take you on a ride. Shawn would be booed out of the building if he couldn't somewhat deliver.

 

EDIT: Oops. I accidentally edited your post instead of quoting it, Some Guy. I'm very, very sorry. I'm trying to fix it.

 

-- Loss

Yes, but Benoit and HBK are established characters who happen to perform well in the ring. Benoit has a certain appeal because he is smaller and won't back down. I think he's more over now then he was last year because he keeps learning how to impress the WWE crowds. The multiple headbutts that he's added are way over now, bit it's not like the crowd pops for everything he does in the ring. Shawn has mastered crowd psychology and timing, he knows how to build drama in a match and that's what is keeping him over, well that and the constant push.

 

But lets look at Sid. If the crowd cared about who was the better worker they never would have booed HBK and cheered Sid at MSG in 96. The crowd obviously chose to cheer one gimmick and boo the other. They wanted to see the heel win and they probably wanted it to happen quickly. They didn't care that Shawn was dragging one of Sid's best matches ever out of him. They wanted the pretty boy champion to lose.

[Loss]

You're going to find examples on both ends. A great match provides that suspense and drama that involves the crowd. When I say "great match", I don't mean "technical exhibition", which is a mistake people seem to make. Savage/Warrior from WM VII >>> Eddy/Rey from WM XXI, for example. Fans are going with the intent of watching wrestling and getting involved in the matches.

 

And I actually consider HBK/Sid an overrated match for that very reason -- the crowd *didn't* buy into Shawn as the babyface at all. Wrestling isn't mechanics, it's making people suspend disbelief, and if that match didn't do that, it's not any good.

 

As for an opposite example, look at how the company tanked when Diesel was champ in '95. Look at how house show business immediately picked up when the belt was put on Bret Hart.

 

Just to clarify my stance, I think Hulk Hogan is a better worker than Dean Malenko.

[goodhelmet]

1. I see where you are coming from BUT there simply aren't enough hours in the day. Let me give you a little background. I never missed wrestling on Monday nights from late '96 until Jan. 99. Not once. Then from mid-99 until early 2002. If I wasn't home, it was being taped. This was WWF and WCW mind you. I have sat through alot of crappy wrestling. This was while I was single and married. I think my WCW PPV streak extended from Souled 97 until Starrcade 98 (I may have missed one or two shows due to work). MY WWF PPV streak lasted from Summerslam 99 until Wrestlemania 2002. Then my cable box was useless because of the switch to digital from analog. But I was still watching the TV. I was still hoping to find some friends who were interested in wrestling so I could relive those Monday Night Wars. The best I could come up with was watching the PPVS for free at a local bar every other month.

 

You are absolutely right. I used to watch wrestling because it was wrestling. Now, I have too many good wrestling matches available and in my collection to worry about sitting in on an episode of RAW and watching the HHH show. because of message boards, you tell me there were two worthwhile matches on RAW. I'll put those in my gotta-see file and move on. Last night on SD!, I knew there were two matches I wanted to see. I saw them and taped them. NOw, there are too many alternatives and means to get tapes for me to worry abou hit-or-miss TV. Some of the shows may be hit-or-miss but I am getting them on my terms. Some Guy just taped me the 1996 WWF tv comp. Some of it misses while some hits. But I chose the matches while being flexible enough to take suggestions. I am not going to order all 200 plus hours of Some Guy's wwf TV (I imagine he has more than 200 hours). Earlier, you said it was taking shortcuts but I consider it efficient.

 

My steps for finding wrestling take into consideration word-of-mouth, controversy, debate generators (ie Eddie-JBL) and reviews from around the net. THen, there is that litle thing I call wrestling knowledge. Obviously, I haveto know something about he wrestlers. Sometimes that comes with my own viewing pleasure. Other times, it comes from being well-read on the net.

 

 

2. I agree completely.

 

3. No argument here

 

4. I came across puro like alot of people came across it... starting off by reading Baisden or that Wrestleline guy. I ordered it based on message board recommendations and have never looked back. Before I was married and then, when I was finishing up school, I was on the computer ALOT. I would read, research and make tape lists of all the wrestlers I needed to seek out. I eventually came to the point where I would buy a show based on the characters and not the recommendations of others. We are still going through that today as I try to dissect Lynch's list and find that hidden gem we value so much.

 

5. PWI... I had a subscription from '86 to '88 I believe. I was obsessed with the rankings and the sighting of wrestlers in the different territories I had never seen on TV. I don't really remember them moaning about Hulk Hogan although I do remember a pic of Missy Hyatt on the edge of a bathtub that John Tatum in it. I remember the picture of Magnum TAs car wrapped around a pole on the cover of the Insider. I remember all of the Apter mags and how I wanted to order all of the back issues. I was also an avid NWA fan around this time even though I loved the WWF also. Then there was World Class and the UWF which I loved even more. As we had already discussed, this was before the WWF became a complete circus.

 

I have to laugh at your comment "I wanted to believe it was real" because I felt the same way even though I knew it was fake. The times changed by the late 80s though because WWF was firmly entrneched in cartton land and I think it would be a little bit easier to make the distinction between the bad workers and good workers. If I recall, and I could be wrong, THE Apter mags used to pimp the s*** out of whever they wanted as long as they thought it would make them a buck.

 

6. Agreed... but being a smark allows you to articulate better why you liked a match or not... what worked and what didn't. Much of it is the vocabulary you use to express yourself.

 

7. Right. And there are tons of matches on my wishlist I have never heard pimped. Others I want to judge for myself... but more often than not you need a starting point of reference if you want to obtain the most without paying out lots of cash. If you or Tim Cooke or jdw or Chris Coey recommend a match, I'll be more inclined to purchase it than if someone with an Ultimate Warrior tattoo recommended it. Justin Baisden gave the 6/9/95 tag match *****. I completely agree with that rating but I don't respect his writing or his analysis or his opinion. Did I break from the pack because I agreed with his rating? No, he just happened to pimp an already pimped match. If Loss says that I need to see 123 Kid vs. Bret Hart and I initially have no interest in that match, I am going to give it a try based on your recommendation. Hell, to this day, I think the only match you and I have been on complete opposite ends of the spectrum is the Ultimate Warrior-Randy Savage Wrestlemania match.

 

8. OK, we agree here... except I never thought of Dustin as a great worker. Then again, during his peak (92-93) I was not watching wrestling at all. So for me, it gives me dates, sometimes the event (PPV, Sat. Night, Clash) and maybe a match that everyone overlooked like the Tex matches. So, in that regard, you seek them out because you may have not known that Windham faced Dustin on a particular date. Because of that thread, now you do.