Wrestle Kingdom 11

[Benbeeach]

And this might be damning with faint praise but omega does literally everything better than Seth Rollins

[Quentin Skinner]

The table spot, which was built to beautifully, was the point where I said "oh okay, so he's legitimately willing to die for this. I'm all in" It was Misawa/Kobashi tiger suplex off the ramp levels of, different territory.

 

 

Yes, I think this is such a perfect comparison. It's an all time "what the fuck" level spot that made it clear Kenny was willing to give literally anything for this night. The build to the spot was genius and the table involvement in the match was even a callback to when Omega put Okada through the table with a One Winged Angel off the apron on one of the Road To Tokyo Dome shows.

[southofheavy]

Benbeeach, that was a great post, and you hit the nail on the head.

 

I went into watching it despising what I've seen of Kenny Omega, and it was good to see him drop the goofy bullshit. All I've seen out of Okada is a tag match on RoH tv recently that he pretty much sleptwalked through. I didn't come out of this a fan of either guy, and this match is not my bag at all. But, it is a spectacle, that's for damn sure. And if one is a follower and fan of New Japan, there's an emotional investment there that I just don't have. It's a polarizing match, and a pretty flawed one, but I get why so many people love it.

[Benbeeach]

 

 

The table spot, which was built to beautifully, was the point where I said "oh okay, so he's legitimately willing to die for this. I'm all in" It was Misawa/Kobashi tiger suplex off the ramp levels of, different territory.

 

 

Yes, I think this is such a perfect comparison. It's an all time "what the fuck" level spot that made it clear Kenny was willing to give literally anything for this night. The build to the spot was genius and the table involvement in the match was even a callback to when Omega put Okada through the table with a One Winged Angel off the apron on one of the Road To Tokyo Dome shows.

Not to make any allusions towards omega and okada being misawa and kobashi level workers, or this being anywhere near the stratosphere of their feud. This probably the first time omega has touched anything even vaguely approaching that level. It was just the first thing that popped into my head regarding generally straight worked matches with insane suicidal level bumping

[southofheavy]

 

(I don't mean to imply that it's impossible to make a defense of Okada/Omega as a great match primarily from 'appreciation' rather than 'involvement', but seeing this laid out did ease some of my frustration with people who rave about matches yet seem unable to launch an aesthetic defense of them.)

 

 

There's another board I post on which is centered around music, but contains a wrestling thread. To a man, everyone in that thread loves current New Japan and is flipping out about this match. They were absolutely bewildered that I didn't like Kenny Omega. I watched the match and walked through what I liked and didn't like, and they literally would not address any criticism with an actual defense. They don't see any flaws with it at all. They even think the selling is great. One of the posters said "I implore anyone to find something 'better' recently or in the past." I took him up on it and dropped a list of about 25 matches off the dome, including Bret vs Austin at Mania 13. I included Rey vs. Eddie from Havoc '97, thinking that it would be the closest analogue I could come up with that is unequivocally a great match, and so far, it's been met with "I don't think so, but whatever, different strokes."

 

I don't post much at all here and pretty much never get into match discussion or critiques here. I mostly read and learn. But, damn, the only criticism I really see there is against Roman Reigns, John Cena and the like. There is a pretty wide variety of stuff being pimped and people there are generally pretty positive about most everything, which is cool. But as far as actual, substantive match discussion, that's just not where their heads are at.

[JerryvonKramer]

And this might be damning with faint praise but omega does literally everything better than Seth Rollins

I'm just going on the one match for Omega, but I can't see that really. I'm honestly not trolling but to me he didn't even seem like a *good* worker, let alone a great one. I'd be willing to watch maybe more matches of his to try to make a fair assessment, but if this was his career work, I'd rank him below someone like Mike Enos (Blake Beverley). Might be laughable to some people that I think one of the Beverley Brothers is better than this guy but it's something I do think.

 

I'd be interested to know how Dylan would compare Omega with someone like Enos.

[stro]

And this might be damning with faint praise but omega does literally everything better than Seth Rollins

Lol, damning with faint praise indeed, since nothing Rollins does in or out of the ring is any good.

[JerryvonKramer]

I seem to remember rather a lot of hype around the Shield and their matches not too long ago and from people on this board. Are all those six mans people raved about suddenly shit then?

[Grimmas]

I seem to remember rather a lot of hype around the Shield and their matches not too long ago and from people on this board. Are all those six mans people raved about suddenly shit then?

Easier to hide faults in trios matches and stro I'd a troll.

[GOTNW]

They weren't that good and everyone who hyped Rollins and Ambrose as these great workers was wrong. Reigns only became the worker he was hyped as a year or so later. Some fun trios matches, but one's saying Mephisto is a world class worker, and he actually knows how to structure singles matches.

[SomethingSavage]

They weren't that good? Come on. Someone's reaching now.

 

Some of those Shield matches were more than just "fun trios" matches. Some of them were WAYYY better than they needed to be - or even really had any right to be, at times. Some of the random Main Event tags - like the extended squashes against Sin Cara & Los Matadores? Sure. Those were simply fun TV bouts.

 

But when you're talking some of the Wyatts matches - especially the Elim Chamber and Main Event matches - were fucking fantastic. It's a lot easier to look back on them and see how that style has become "the" style of WWE now, but even just three short years ago, that stuff felt so refreshing. It was a real kick in the teeth. THAT is why people were raving in the first place.

 

But then they went on to have a great run against the Usos, the Rhodes Bros., the Real Americans, and just about everyone else that tagged up for a year and a half there.

 

The Shield were essentially the Horsemen of WWE television there for awhile. Plug any combination of them into any match at any level of the card, and you were getting a good match at worst.

 

But, of course, the best of that run came from their six-man tags. Within the structure of those matches, it's easy to understand why Rollins got so much hype for his flashy babyface style. Plus Ambrose as the face in peril took a lot of people by surprise. That's what garnered those guys attention at that point.

 

They worked well within that six-man structure. You can't retroactively go back and say they weren't good workers in THOSE matches, based on their work as singles performers later. How does that make any sense whatsoever?

Why are some guys "allowed" to be considered good tag workers or great trios workers & others aren't?

 

There are some elite level tag workers that never transitioned to anything near that level in singles. But nobody's trying to discount their tag work, based on what they accomplished (or failed to accomplish) as singles. Because that'd be stupid.

 

I mean, look. I realize it's trendy to bash these guys for their more recent work, and that's fine. But it's incredibly stupid to try to pretend they weren't contributing quality work at another point in time based on what they've done lately - or whether you like their characters at the moment. It's off-putting and honestly undermines your opinions overall when you do something like that. It's reaching. It's reaching to make the evidence fit your case for today.

It makes one think that - if Rollins suddenly strung together this series of awesome fresh matches against, let's say AJ Styles and the like - then you'd suddenly be on the bandwagon and start "reminding" people that you first noticed his greatness back in those Shield six-man tags.

 

This is why I get a kick out of Parv, or anyone really, calling bullshit on contradictory and hypocritical stuff.

[W2BTD]

I find much of the criticism and praise for this match both equally valid. I personally ended up loving it, if not as one cohesive 40 minute epic than as the sum of some really good/great parts. For all the flak it's catching online, I don't think anyone would argue it's abjectly BAD. Too much? Sure, but bad? Hardly

 

Like quinten said, and Dylan, the attachment to the wrestlers themselves I think can and does go a long way. I think Kenny gets judged on the same sort of scale that Zayn and Owens and a couple others of that indy generation past do, where their quirks get seen as weaknesses by some despite crowds and the majority of fans eating it up. The "why does it have to be a Muta elbow?" question I think you can always answer in a "why not?" Why did Muta's elbow have to be a muta elbow? It looks like it adds torque and hurts more and is visually cool to look at.

 

But beyond that, while I think the match is far from a one man show, and Okada did add that almost Cena-esque quality of making the stakes higher just by simply being there, this thing is all about Kenny. It is the culmination of his meteoric rise, from goofy junior to legitimate main event level superstar. To think the guy who was throwing hadokens (in and out of the ring), taking pile drivers from dolls and 9 year old girls, and wrestling in falls count anywhere matches on dirt mounds in the middle of nowhere, became the top gaijin not necessarily in spite of, but probably because of the fact that he is still that worker, still has that imagination, that zeal, that willingness to experiment, to give, to not be afraid to look stupid, to push, to think outside of the box. The table spot, which was built to beautifully, was the point where I said "oh okay, so he's legitimately willing to die for this. I'm all in" It was Misawa/Kobashi tiger suplex off the ramp levels of, different territory. (Top rope Dragon suplex aside, aren't there numerous instances of new seemingly would-be death finishers getting kicked out of on their debuts? Aj gave a top rope AA a sturdy two count. I can recall the ganso bomb getting kicked out of like 2 or 3 times. Did an apron version of a finisher ever finish a match in AJPW/NOAH? Its garrish, but it's also not some huge departure from the norm the last 25 years)

 

More is more, excess is excess, but like everyone said, I can't think of many other instances where I could recall seeing a workers entire lifes work manifest into one match. If a match is going to be damn near obscene in it's levels of decadence, then let it be in the legit biggest match of your life on the second biggest stage in all of wrestling. It was the most...and this is a your mileage may vary observation...shawn michaels esque performance I can recall seeing. But without the over the top look at me in total disregard of my opponent working for 2, feel that some of Michaels best performances can sometimes come with. Kenny just left it all out there, to cap what had been his career year. This felt alot more earnest, and far less insidious. And the crowd which I didn't think was quiet at all, ate it up. The first 20 minutes they weren't making the camera shake or anything but I don't think anyone in that stadium had been conditioned to believe that the main event of the tokyo dome was going to end via backslide 4 minutes in. Trapping of the style perhaps, but I'm not sure that's a fatal flaw. There's something to building the heat (in the cheapest most holy shit high spots way possible, but sometimes its about the destination, not the journey)

 

For all the things this match did in glut, I thought there were lots of little things it nailed too. A running top rope moonsault to the outside, is by no means a "little thing", but to make it look like it killed the guy taking it and not some pretty catch exercise is impressive. They still saved the one winged angel for what I assume is essentially kenny's crowning achievement. They made the crux of that avengers end battle finishing run a fight over a wristlock. A scratching clawing primal fight for escape only for kenny to lean in and get wrecked and level himself by the final rainmakers. The finishing stretch was equal parts headscratching as it was captivating but I much preferred it to 4 high fly flow to the knee variants of main events we'd be getting for the past couple years.

 

It's not a flawless match, it's not a flawless style. It's certainly not 6 stars, it's not 5 stars, but it's comfortably upper echelon, if not all time, than for the here and now. There's a certain level of, I guess acceptance, that I think these matches are going to make us all come to (or not come to grips with). Wrestling has always been a "can do it, will do it" exhibition. It's why guys don't still work like lou thesz. In 2017, main events, with super athletic workers might have poison ranas as transition spots. It just is what it is. You can push back or you can shrug and deal with it. We aren't that far removed from what many consider the best match of all time having all time great workers treat german suplexes like arm drags. This is just what happens.

 

If its going to be this kind of showcase than I'll accept it when it's one worker pouring his all into it on the biggest stage there is. It's match that accomplished things. Preserved okada as an ace. Proved Kenny as a (albeit psychopath) capable top guy in the company. Saved a future finish. Fititngly closed the show. Generated the kind of buzz a match like this has to. Has people all over the world, talking about new japan, and what they have, not just what they've lost.

 

As a match, I loved it despite its flaws. As an individual performance, seeing what it meant to omega, if kenny never has another match better than this, he can be proud. billion stars.

 

...and this'll make one appreciate it the short concise tight match all the same

 

This is a great post, from first word to last.

[GOTNW]

 

They weren't that good? Come on. Someone's reaching now.

It's what I thought in real time as they happened while folks on DVDVR and WKO were calling Seth Rollins and Dean Ambrose these amazing workers, it's what I think now.

 

But when you're talking some of the Wyatts matches - especially the Elim Chamber and Main Event matches - were fucking fantastic. It's a lot easier to look back on them and see how that style has become "the" style of WWE now, but even just three short years ago, that stuff felt so refreshing. It was a real kick in the teeth. THAT is why people were raving in the first place.

 

But then they went on to have a great run against the Usos, the Rhodes Bros., the Real Americans, and just about everyone else that tagged up for a year and a half there.

I haven't forgotten any of those matches. Maybe to someone the EC tag is a match of the decade candidate, it probably wouldn't make my top 10 of 2014. Same with the TLC match they debuted in and the Cody/Goldust title switch and so on. I don't think their best matches are really much better than stuff like the Usos-Harper/Rowan tags and from a week to week standpoint I got way more out of the time where the focus was more on other times like Cody/Goldust, Cesaro/Swagger and whomever else.

 

 

But, of course, the best of that run came from their six-man tags. Within the structure of those matches, it's easy to understand why Rollins got so much hype for his flashy babyface style. Plus Ambrose as the face in peril took a lot of people by surprise. That's what garnered those guys attention at that point.

 

They worked well within that six-man structure. You can't retroactively go back and say they weren't good workers in THOSE matches, based on their work as singles performers later. How does that make any sense whatsoever?

 

Why are some guys "allowed" to be considered good tag workers or great trios workers & others aren't?

 

There are some elite level tag workers that never transitioned to anything near that level in singles. But nobody's trying to discount their tag work, based on what they accomplished (or failed to accomplish) as singles. Because that'd be stupid.

 

I mean, look. I realize it's trendy to bash these guys for their more recent work, and that's fine. But it's incredibly stupid to try to pretend they weren't contributing quality work at another point in time based on what they've done lately - or whether you like their characters at the moment. It's off-putting and honestly undermines your opinions overall when you do something like that. It's reaching. It's reaching to make the evidence fit your case for today.

Cody Rhodes was a great hot tag during his run with Goldust. He's also been incredibly mediocre for most of his career. I have no problem acknowledging his good work during that run. If their performances had been more impressive to me I'd have vouched for them, but I was sceptical fo Reigns as well, and it turned out with good reason, and him eventually becoming as good as he was claimed to based on playing a specific role in trios matches doesn't change that.

[stro]

I seem to remember rather a lot of hype around the Shield and their matches not too long ago and from people on this board. Are all those six mans people raved about suddenly shit then?

 

I'm talking about Rollins as solo guy. He's been terrible in that role as a face and a heel. Couldn't get any real heat as a heel because he wrestled like a face trying to get pops, doesn't get much heat as a face because he's boring as shit, offense is either light as a feather or actually hurts people, no sense of pacing or flow or selling. Plus, after 2 years of getting 20 minutes of promo time a week, he's still awful at them. But yes, Grimmas is correct, I'm just a troll.

 

Rollins has been a legitimate blight on WWE since Shield broke up. At least Dean got to regress without being on TV for 50% of any given Raw. Seth Rollins is a dude who injured himself because he had to get his shit in even on a house show and felt the need to powerbomb Kane while he was in the role of chicken shit champ and Kane was booked as the most monstrous he had been in a few years. And Seth is out there like, "but I have to powerbomb him".

 

The issues I have with Seth are pretty much the same I have with Omega: Wrestling for this is awesome chants and being more worried about getting your shit in and praised as opposed to putting on a good match. When given freedom, Rollins will do shit like vertebreakers on house shows.

[Benbeeach]

I have no problem with Seth in tags and trio's but as a singles worker, drek for the last two years. He's like the epitome of the "cross fit" style Phil dubbed it. His matches always seem like this disjointed mess and series of movez with no rhyme or reason, and doesn't even come with the added benefit of hitting hard or being charismatic. Omega could at least get something out of stooging or "working a nose" or something ridiculous when it isn't 2.9 sprint sprint sprint. Seth does a couple Phoenix splashes and all is well, but it's not. Sub diva offense (unless it's actually hurting ppl) those gutteral "come on" groans as some kind face comeback offense signal. 1/4th young buck superkicks.

 

There are things Seth does well, but yeah. Omegas not without fault, but he's better than THAT. I can't think of anything Seth does as galvanizing as...Kenny's running knee, nevermind as an overall worker

[Coffey]

As long as the internet has been around, within the confines of the wrestling community or not, you will have people that vary wildly in their opinions. The nature of the internet, due to anonymity sometimes, leads to some pretty outlandish remarks.

 

If a bunch of people say that a match is great, you saying it is "pretty good" suddenly becomes something that people can attack. If a bunch of people say a match is great, you saying it is "the greatest ever" suddenly gets people on your side & talking about you. Like Meltzer's bullshit 6-star rating. But if you think a highly praised match was "just OK" or "not my cup of tea" or whatever, suddenly you're the bad guy & there's something wrong with you & your opinion is wrong.

 

Some people relish on being the bad guy & I think purposely try to get people against them for attention. It's hard to tell the difference between someone being a troll, or someone with a legitimately varied opinion. Especially in a text-based medium, or when you're limited to 140 characters, and you can't look them in the eye.

 

PWO is no different.

[fxnj]

They weren't that good and everyone who hyped Rollins and Ambrose as these great workers was wrong. Reigns only became the worker he was hyped as a year or so later. Some fun trios matches, but one's saying Mephisto is a world class worker, and he actually knows how to structure singles matches.

I remember watching the EC 2013 6-man when it was getting shitloads of hype, wondered what the big deal was, and went straight back to ignoring WWE as it just didn't seem that great compared to the other wrestling happening in the world at the time.

[ragemaster]

This thread gone off track, maybe someone wants to split the talk about the shield into its own thread.

 

I've only watched the omega vs Okada match so far, as there's been so much talk about it.

I think the big issue I have with it, is the crowd take so long to invest into it.

Until they turn the crazy level up, they just sat on there hands.

 

Also Okada seems to have no charisma, hard to invest in any match when the wrestlers are just going from spot from spot.

I need to feel the wrestlers are trying to win a match, not just set up spots.

 

I think this is why people like savage are look back on so fondly, you believe they trying to win a fight.

 

Did get caught up in it, like the crowd from the spring board to the floor Moonsault and the backdrop though the table when it went up to another level.

 

Not sure its any crazier than Styles 450 springboard though a table, but wouldn't surprise me if Styles try's the back drop at the Rumble.

 

Not the greatest match I've seen this year, let alone the best match ever.

[JerryvonKramer]

The crowd talking point is a bit weird, I can think of a lot of highly rated matches during which the crowd were sitting on their hands a bit for portions.

 

What happened to the idea of bringing the crowd up and down?

[W2BTD]

When it comes to breaking down matches, picture a Venn diagram with the following components of what people value when reviewing a match:

 

1. Detailed critical analysis of execution, including close attention to psychology (i.e. everything "means something", a clear story being told, etc), snug work or perception of stiffness in holds and moves, logic, escalation, selling, etc. Almost purely intellectual, with little or no use for what Group 3 looks for in a match.

 

2. Emotional investment in the characters, promotion, story, booking, or all of the above (or at minimum, an intellectual understanding of these things). pol referred to this a few pages back as the "melodrama" of a match, which I thought was perfect, as it speaks to an emotional investment often beyond just that of which is being created in the course of the match with the work. Visceral enjoyment.

 

3. Drama, "hot moves", excitement, dangerous spots, etc, pure visual stimulation. Little or no use for what Group 1 is looking for.

 

I don't think any of the three groups are the "wrong" way to enjoy or break down a match. To each his own, you do you, etc.

 

If you picture a Venn diagram, I think you'll see a lot of crossover between 1 & 2, and a lot of crossover between 2 & 3. The tiniest crossover will be 1, 2, & 3 together. You'll see almost zero crossover between 1 & 3 independent of 2. The more crossover you have, the more thorough and useful the review is going to inherently be. The fewer the groups involved, the less valuable to review is going to be, because all of these things have some contributing value (even if your mileage will vary on each) to the quality of a match

 

When parachuting in on wrestlers or a promotion that you know little or nothing about (or even don't actively follow), #2 is completely eliminated. You are either going to be a #1 or a #3. You are either going to use strict analytical analysis, or come to be entertained by the visuals, maybe a little of both, and then move along and never think about it again. I believe this is where you see some disconnect with the Omega/Okada match. Group 3 is going to love it, and then move on to their WWE watching or whatever and never watch NJPW again until next 1/4. Some of Group 1 is going to have some level of issues with it, but for the most part, think it's good at minimum, while others (Phil Schneider or rzombie come to mind) are going to actively think it's shit.

 

I think everyone strongly values one of the three groups over the others, and most have varying levels of crossover. But I also think we adjust how we approach matches on a case by case basis.

 

#2 is the most interesting one to me, because that group drives analysis in either direction more than anyone probably wants to admit. I am thoroughly invested in NJPW, watch almost everything that makes tape, understand all of the nuance, have emotional investment in the characters and stories, callbacks almost never go over my head, etc etc etc. Anyone who has read or listened to my reviews know that I spend the most amount of time talking about #2, about how a match makes me feel, what it means to the bigger picture, those sorts of things, and while I factor in the other two groups, I find them less interesting to talk about. Phil's review was almost strictly #1.

 

Dylan Hales's thoughts were a lot of #1 with a tiny bit of the other groups. If I dropped into some indie that he follows day to day that I know little or nothing about, say CWF Mid Atlantic, I would break down those matches much differently than I do NJPW, and so would Dylan. Our approaches would be reversed.

 

You have to know your reviewer. I could have told you Phil wasn't going to like the match before I even read his review because I read his reviews and know what he values and how he was going to approach wrestlers/a promotion he doesn't care about. Anybody familiar with me knew I was going to love it, it was just a matter of how much.

 

It's important to understand how much of a role #2 is playing in a review before you decide how valuable it is to you personally.

[W2BTD]

The crowd talking point is a bit weird, I can think of a lot of highly rated matches during which the crowd were sitting on their hands a bit for portions.

 

What happened to the idea of bringing the crowd up and down?

 

Also NJPW fans are conditioned to know when to react in main events. To me that is to their credit in this match, because the rhythm of this main event was completely flipped on it's head, which is why the crowd was going so mental for what turned out to be an incredibly long closing stretch.

 

I think it's a weird talking point too, because they actually did a great job manipulating the crowd. It feels like a nit pick to me.

[pol]

Great post, Joe. I hope people start to become more aware of these differences, as I think it's responsible for a lot of the "talking past each other" we see in wrestling discussions. There's so much room for disagreement even within a single category, but first we have to be clear on where we're actually coming from.

[ragemaster]

Most matches last about the 20 to 30 mins mark for a main event at the dome, it was over 20 mins into this match before the crowd really invested ito it.

 

I get its not 1993 AJPW where the fans are going crazy from the bell for Misawa.

Or 1980's going crazy for Hogan vs Bossman.

 

But they should be investing before the 10 min mark or why wrestle for so long if people aren't into it.

If you can't get the people up before then what you doing is just filler, its not like they did leg work for 20 min's which added to the drama at the end.

 

Just for a comparison, when Cena vs Styles happens at the rumble.

Even if it not there best match or as good as this one, the crowd going ape shit from the start is going to make it feel like a bigger and a better match.

 

Why do you think so many on the board are re watching 70's and 80's wrestling.

Yes the story telling and believability in the matches, but I argue its the crowds reactions which add so much to them.

[WingedEagle]

When it comes to breaking down matches, picture a Venn diagram with the following components of what people value when reviewing a match:

 

1. Detailed critical analysis of execution, including close attention to psychology (i.e. everything "means something", a clear story being told, etc), snug work or perception of stiffness in holds and moves, logic, escalation, selling, etc. Almost purely intellectual, with little or no use for what Group 3 looks for in a match.

 

2. Emotional investment in the characters, promotion, story, booking, or all of the above (or at minimum, an intellectual understanding of these things). pol referred to this a few pages back as the "melodrama" of a match, which I thought was perfect, as it speaks to an emotional investment often beyond just that of which is being created in the course of the match with the work. Visceral enjoyment.

 

3. Drama, "hot moves", excitement, dangerous spots, etc, pure visual stimulation. Little or no use for what Group 1 is looking for.

 

I don't think any of the three groups are the "wrong" way to enjoy or break down a match. To each his own, you do you, etc.

 

If you picture a Venn diagram, I think you'll see a lot of crossover between 1 & 2, and a lot of crossover between 2 & 3. The tiniest crossover will be 1, 2, & 3 together. You'll see almost zero crossover between 1 & 3 independent of 2. The more crossover you have, the more thorough and useful the review is going to inherently be. The fewer the groups involved, the less valuable to review is going to be, because all of these things have some contributing value (even if your mileage will vary on each) to the quality of a match

 

When parachuting in on wrestlers or a promotion that you know little or nothing about (or even don't actively follow), #2 is completely eliminated. You are either going to be a #1 or a #3. You are either going to use strict analytical analysis, or come to be entertained by the visuals, maybe a little of both, and then move along and never think about it again. I believe this is where you see some disconnect with the Omega/Okada match. Group 3 is going to love it, and then move on to their WWE watching or whatever and never watch NJPW again until next 1/4. Some of Group 1 is going to have some level of issues with it, but for the most part, think it's good at minimum, while others (Phil Schneider or rzombie come to mind) are going to actively think it's shit.

 

I think everyone strongly values one of the three groups over the others, and most have varying levels of crossover. But I also think we adjust how we approach matches on a case by case basis.

 

#2 is the most interesting one to me, because that group drives analysis in either direction more than anyone probably wants to admit. I am thoroughly invested in NJPW, watch almost everything that makes tape, understand all of the nuance, have emotional investment in the characters and stories, callbacks almost never go over my head, etc etc etc. Anyone who has read or listened to my reviews know that I spend the most amount of time talking about #2, about how a match makes me feel, what it means to the bigger picture, those sorts of things, and while I factor in the other two groups, I find them less interesting to talk about. Phil's review was almost strictly #1.

 

Dylan Hales's thoughts were a lot of #1 with a tiny bit of the other groups. If I dropped into some indie that he follows day to day that I know little or nothing about, say CWF Mid Atlantic, I would break down those matches much differently than I do NJPW, and so would Dylan. Our approaches would be reversed.

 

You have to know your reviewer. I could have told you Phil wasn't going to like the match before I even read his review because I read his reviews and know what he values and how he was going to approach wrestlers/a promotion he doesn't care about. Anybody familiar with me knew I was going to love it, it was just a matter of how much.

 

It's important to understand how much of a role #2 is playing in a review before you decide how valuable it is to you personally.

 

Lot of great points here that I think hold true for how most people view a given match, whether they realize it or not. We all go into a match or show with certain concepts, points of reference, expectations and and levels of familiarity. Especially going into something completely cold -- at times it may very well accentuate or hinder what you take away from a match, but its no less of a distinct perspective.

[pol]

Thinking about it, I think that the first and third categories are two sides of the same coin. To go back to the excerpt I posted earlier, they're both about aesthetic enjoyment, rather than emotional. They're just two common approaches to appreciating the aesthetics of pro wrestling; we might say ideologies. It's possible to imagine other approaches, too, or ones that combine aspects of each.