Current Unpopular Wrestling Opinion(s)

[Guest The Metal Maniac]

You're not allowed to be a TNA fan! Didn't you hear? Samoa Joe is the fattest man on the planet!

 

FOR SHAME.

[Mad Dog]

Yeah, don't you know they'll just be dead in 3 months...

 

and if they're still around by then they'll just be dead in 3 months.

[Ray]

Kenta Kobashi is still a great wrestler.

[World's Worst Man]

That's unpopular?

[Mad Dog]

Hasn't he been winning wrestler of the year for like the last couple of years? I would say it's popular opinion to say he's still good.

[Loss]

I think he's referring to the tOA types who think he's useless now, and guys like Dean Rasmussen who think he wrestles like a teenage girl.

[World's Worst Man]

Amazing what 2 matches in the past 3 years will do to a guy's reputation.

[Loss]

Well, the tOA belief, for some weird reason, tends to be that no good matches happened in Japan after 1998.

[Guest Dorian]

Damn you TMM. You stole my whole argument, made all my points sans one.

 

HHH is what the heel version of Hogan would and should be. He's the guy whom you want to see get his ass kicked, the ultimate bad guy, the epitome of evil. Problem is, no one gets their revenge. And I don't buy it all as HHH having to have the last laugh. Its VKM that's the problem. Because back during 2000 run of HHH during probably his overest period, he was all that he is now, except that even if he had the last laugh, it wasn't closure like it is now.

[Mad Dog]

I don't think he's that good now and I think he just gets a pass due to nostalgia and the fact that he's older. If he was a lot younger and performing like he is now then I think he would be getting shit on by everyone. That's just my opinion though.

[Ray]

That's unpopular?

It's wildly unpopular in some circles. They'd have us believe Kobashi is a complete idiot who has no idea how to wrestle a match anymore.

[World's Worst Man]

I don't think he's that good now and I think he just gets a pass due to nostalgia and the fact that he's older. If he was a lot younger and performing like he is now then I think he would be getting shit on by everyone. That's just my opinion though.

It's hard for me to legitimize that viewpoint when last year he was largely responsible for the best match I've seen in about 8 years, and involved in another that was probably top 5 in that same timespan. Not to mention another match in that group, from 2004. By my count, he's been involved in no less than 8 ****+ matches in the past 2 years (including the 2 best matches from 2005), many of which he played large parts in.

[anarchistxx]

Triple-H certainly had the 'it' factor as a heel before the quad injury, and cut some awesome promos.

 

American Dragon is really overrated and most of the time looks like he's playing at being a wrestler.

 

Jack Evans is in the Top 5 most entertaining wrestlers today, although almost exclusively in tags or multi-man matches.

 

James Gibson's ROH run was superb, and he was the best wrestler apart from Joe while he was there.

 

Jun Akiyama is the best worker in Japan outside of Dragon Gate.

 

I watched 2 full episodes of Smackdown recently. They bored me to tears.

[Mad Dog]

I don't think he's that good now and I think he just gets a pass due to nostalgia and the fact that he's older. If he was a lot younger and performing like he is now then I think he would be getting shit on by everyone. That's just my opinion though.

It's hard for me to legitimize that viewpoint when last year he was largely responsible for the best match I've seen in about 8 years, and involved in another that was probably top 5 in that same timespan. Not to mention another match in that group, from 2004. By my count, he's been involved in no less than 8 ****+ matches in the past 2 years (including the 2 best matches from 2005), many of which he played large parts in.

He's in some good matches but there's always a knee jerk overrating of what he does. Tons of people claim ***** for Kobashi/Joe and it's nowhere near that. It's because it was Kobashi in the U.S. Now I will admit he got a little better without the GHC Title but I still think he's overrated.

[World's Worst Man]

I was more referring to his NOAH work, mainly in tags, where he was absolutely brilliant in 2005. Even outside the much talked about 11/5/05 tag, he was involved in a few fantastic matches that it seems very few people actually saw. Now maybe people have seen a good amount of his recent work, I don't know. All I know is that outside of the real hardcores who actively follow NOAH, I don't see any talk of stuff like Kenta Kobashi & Makoto Hashi vs. Jun Akiyama & Yoshinobu Kanemaru (8/19/05), Mitsuharu Misawa/Kenta Kobashi/Jun Akiyama vs. Naomichi Marufuji/KENTA/Makoto Hashi (4/2/05), Takeshi Rikio & Naomichi Marufuji vs. Kenta Kobashi & KENTA (11/28/04), etc.

 

Ironically, it seems to me like the people who overrate him haven't seen a good chunk of his work and are just going off his ROH appearances and the much talked about "spectacle" matches against Misawa and Akiyama. But likewise, the people who underrate him seem to be in the same boat. Generally, anyway.

[World's Worst Man]

Here's one. Star ratings are better than vague descriptors, as they're more precise and more no-nonsense than simply saying "good, great" etc. The backlash against star ratings seems to have come about due to people not understanding that they're not some mathematical or objective formula to determine the quality of a match, just a different way of expressiong an overall opinion about a wrestling match.

[Mad Dog]

My problem with star ratings is that people throw ***** around like it's going out of style. I'm sorry but ***** should almost never be used for a match. I don't think I've even seen 10 matches that I would give that rating to.

 

And the benefit of star ratings is that it's easier to make your opinion of a match known. If I come in and say something was ***1/2 you would have a pretty good understanding of what I thought of said match. Just writing about a match might not have the same impact. Though I think rating it out of 10 or using a school style grading system would work equally as well.

[World's Worst Man]

My problem with star ratings is that people throw ***** around like it's going out of style. I'm sorry but ***** should almost never be used for a match. I don't think I've even seen 10 matches that I would give that rating to.

Indeed. I suppose a person could have like 100 matches at *****, but what's the point? I doubt that 85 of those will even be sniffing the other 15, so why rate them the same?

 

And the benefit of star ratings is that it's easier to make your opinion of a match known. If I come in and say something was ***1/2 you would have a pretty good understanding of what I thought of said match. Just writing about a match might not have the same impact. Though I think rating it out of 10 or using a school style grading system would work equally as well.

Yea, I like to see a clear placement of a match too, if for nothing else than for personal interest. I guess what eventually gets debated are the finer points of the match as opposed to the rating, but I just like to see it for the sake of reference and curiosity.

[Mad Dog]

I think it's telling with RoH at least that they seem to come out of almost every show with a supposed ***** or **** match yet that match is completely forgotten by the end of the next show when the next ***** or **** match pops up. I guess it wasn't a ***** match if it's so easily forgotten.

 

It's interesting to see a person's bias through their star ratings though. I notice Shanw Michaels has always gotten some really generous ratings from people and the HHH/HBK program has to be the most overrated program star wise.

[Guest Dorian]

This is how I think * ratings should be done and that everyone "slides" it to suit their style, which they shouldn't do. Exceptions to these get bumped up or down only because of the chemistry present and not because of the actual match itself.

 

DUD should be awful in the point you should never watch it.

 

* should be used for a passable match but you still wouldn't remember it. Almost all TV matches.

 

Good Example: Nearly anything on Raw or SD right now.

 

** should be a match that does what it needs to do no flair. Standard PPV match that is just thrown on or a TV match that tells a story.

 

Good Example: Any SD6 match on SD (no PPV match).

 

*** should be a match that tells a story and does it well. Standard PPV match with story and usually a rivalry to go with it. However it lacks the ability to lose yourself in the match.

 

Good Example: Bret vs. HBK (SS92)

 

Example Exceptions: Benoit vs. Austin (10 German), Rock vs. Hurricane, Benoit vs. HHH vs. Shawn Michaels (World Title Championship Match 1)

 

**** should be a match that does everything *** does, but adds to it to the point where you can lose yourself int he match.

 

Good Example: Angle vs. Benoit

 

Example Exceptions: 123 Kid vs. Bret Hart (Raw 94), Rock vs. Hogan

 

***** should be a match that is so surreal you realize why you enjoyed wrestling in the first place. It makes you mark out from opening to ending.

 

Good Example: Randy Savage vs. Ricky "The Dragon" Steamboat

 

Example Exceptions: Austin vs. Rock (WM17)

 

As you'll notice I listed examples of exceptions. These aren't really belonging in those categories but are there because of the chemistry and how everything builds up to that point. But you might also notice that I have one listed as 3*, and that's because of it going from a strong starting point to a sour note ending. I only listed one as it is the most recent one I can think of.

[Guest Cam Chaos]

I agree with Dorian, I kind of have two different scales as relating to technical displays and straight up entertainment.

 

If you asked me to give a five star entertaining match I'd say the Road Dogg vs Al Snow match where they fought in the snow and Road Dogg won by piledriver onto some wooden crate slats on an episode of Raw in 1998. It was unpredictable, brutal and entertaining to the point I didn't know who would win and didn't care because it was some cool shit in my eyes. I'd put Roddy Piper vs Greg Valentine in their chain match up there too because of the same reasons.

 

If you asked me for a five star top technical match with great build and entertainment I'd say probably Steamboat vs Flair 2 or Angle vs Benoit at RR 03. But I marked out hard for Hogan vs Rock and Austin vs Rock at WM 17.

 

I do think that there are different standards wrestling can be held to due to the difference in styles, believability, brutality and performance involved in different locataions and territories that have existed over time around the world. A legendary UWFI match may be more believable than Austin vs Rock WM 17 but is it as exciting? Is it better than Road Dogg vs Al Snow in my opinion compared to others?

 

Any ratings given to anything are only the perceptions of that person. Everyones mileage varies, that's why we have this board in the first place. However I do think that there are different standards held by different groups of people which is why Road Dogg vs Al Snow gets no love except from me.

[Guest DylanWaco]

Five star match used to get tossed around alot..now I see people who will never give anything five stars or so it seems.

 

To me a five star match is a match that is a) Great and couldn't really have been improved upon. There are alot of good matches that you can say "well, if they had done this it would have been even better". With a five star match no thought like that should enter your mind..or at least that's basically my criteria. I don't know how many I have seen offhand, but I know 12/96 is the best match I've ever seen, so take that as an indicator.

 

Unpopular opinions:

 

1) Career v. career, if everything is taken into account, Mick Foley is on the same level as Bret Hart, Owen Hart and Steve Austin (as a worker).

 

2) The Rockers were better than The Hart Foundation and the British Bulldogs

 

3) Peak Undertaker is one of the best wrestlers in the States over the last twenty years and is better than peak Angle and others who are more highly regarded.

 

4) Chris Jericho was the best worker in the WWE in 2002. Goldust and Taker would be in the top five.

[anarchistxx]

On the subject of star ratings...

 

I don't really rate anything as a DUD, well, not since I've started rating anyway. It would suggest they've done nothing of merit.

 

Something at * means it isn't at all good, but it doesn't really make you cringe a whole lot either.

 

Something around ** is pretty average but I usually won't want to watch it again.

 

Around *** would suggest the match is good, I enjoyed it a lot, and would be happy to sit through it again.

 

**** would mean the match is really great, and is a favourite of mine which I may be likely to watch multiple times, depending on the time I have.

 

I haven't rated anything *****, but if I did it would be something everyone needed to see, it would tick every box and I would think it was incredible from start to finish.

 

I think star ratings are good because they give a great indication of the level of a matchs quality.

 

I try and get a mix of factors into my star ratings. I don't just look for story, or psychology, or how the crowd reacts, or how many counters they toss in, I look for all these things, that together, make up a good match.

 

Goldust top 5 worker in WWF in 02? He had some good tags but apart from that I can't see what good stuff he had, esepcially with some of the stuff going on on Smackdown. I don't know how you could put Goldust ahead of Mysterio, Guerrero or Benoit that year.

 

What is 'peak' Undertaker? To me, Taker can pull a great match out, but he's never had a real run of great matches. But that could be put down to him wrestling decent workers, and then going and wrestling largely untelented big men in his next feud.

 

I'll take the Bulldogs over the Rockers. More intensity, could work great as face or heel, great chemistry. The Rockers had those qualities as well, though I haven't seen as much of their heel work as I'd like, but personally I'd take the Bulldogs, especially since I've seen more of them in Japan.

 

I think you could argue that Foley has the same body of work as some of those guys, but I'm not sure you could call him a better worker. I can't see him having better matches then Austin's top matches, I can't see him carrying guys the way Bret did. I would maybe say he's better than Owen.

[Guest Luds]

Unpopular opinions:

 

1) I'm a HUGE Hogan mark, I'd rather see him dump on live TV than see any WWE match. Just bring him back, give him air time on every show, Hogan is the GOD of wrestling.

 

2) HBK sucks. The only time I enjoyed his work was with the rockers. I've disliked his characters, his mic work and his style since then. And I really don't care for his selling ability. It ain't any better than DDP's.

 

3) I think that WCW 2000/2001 was way more entertaining than anything WWE's put on the air in the last 10 years, including all of the "new attitude" stuff. I haven't watched WWE other than a few minutes when I zap since the Invasion angle. I haven't even used my black box to watch the PPV's that I could get for free since forever. Not worth it. WWE sucks major balls. I'd rather watch a match between The Artist FKA Prince Iaukea vs. Maestro any day over any Main event WWE's putting on.

[World's Worst Man]

New Japan produced the largest quantity of "good" wrestling matches in 2005. Most of it just made the cut though (meaning a lot of that was just somewhat dime-a-dozen *** matches), and they probably produce the most original TV of any company in the world, so it's not such a great distinction. NOAH and ROH would be 2nd and 3rd, although going by quantity AND quality, they both had NJPW beat. WWE produced pitifully little considering how much TV time they had.