Current Unpopular Wrestling Opinion(s)

[Coffey]

Speaking of ROH, I haven't really followed them this year. I followed them through all of '05 and thought it was the best wrestling that I'd ever seen. I loved damn near everything, if not everything, that they were doing. Abyss & the Embassay. Gibson, Joe, Homicide, etc.

 

I went to a live show in Dayton back in January. That was the last show I've seen. I've read some results and opinions about Am Drags reign and such. Have I really missed out on a lot? Anything better than '05? I thought Kobashi/Joe & Manhattan Mayhem were amazing.

[Guest DylanWaco]

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.

I think peak Taker was 02-03, when he seems to have a shitload of good matches with a variety of opponents. He does have some duds during that period, but his best matches during that run are better than the best matches during the run of alot of other peak guys. Very good to great matches during that run with Trip, Jeff Hardy, Ric Flair, Cena, Angle, The Rock and Lesnar. If you go back and watch the matches Taker was as good or better than his opponent(s) in nearly everyone of these matches.

 

I loved Goldust in 02. Thought he made a hilariously bizaare gimmick great and I felt like he was pretty clearly the better, more consistent worker on the BookDust team. He had multiple believable finishers, was great at pacing and his selling during that stretch was awesome. I wouldn't shit on the SD six, but I have never enjoyed it quite as much as others, since it felt like they just went out wrestled variations of the same match over and over to me. I'd rate Eddie over Dust and maybe Benoit, but not Rey or Angle. At least not at first glance. If I went back and rewatched things it's possible my opinion could change.

 

I think Bret's carrying is overrated. In fact I think Foley was way better at carrying people than Bret. Trip never had a great match pre-Foley. Foley had good matches with people like Van Hammer and Lee Scott. He got more out of late stages Paul Orndorff than anyone else. He had fucking good matches with shit in Herb Abrams fed. He has two of the better tag team brawls you'll ever see with Sullivan and Payne respectively v. The Nastys..their is exactly one identifiably good worker in those matches, and those are matches that are almost universially thought of as very good to great. His ECW brawls are some of the only ones that really come close to holding up. Hell Foley made Chamber of Horrors seem like a good match. Bret had that amazing performance against Drugdog at SS 92, and a couple of good matches with Diesel that are overrated, but really, where are all these other legendary Bret carryjobs? He had good cage match with Sid, but I'm having trouble thinking of anything else off the top of my head. Sure he had watchable matches with guys like Kamala and he got a very good match out of previously dormat Bob Backlund, but at the end of the day I'm more impressed with the guy who had a memorable series Van Hammer of all people. We can argue that Foley's way of carrying people was not good for the business or that his matches were predictable or whatever, but I still think he was a better carrier than Bret.

 

I agree that Austin's best matches are better than Mic's, but alot of that is circumstance..I don't think Foley ever found his ideal partner (actually I think if Michaels/Foley had had a series it may have gone down as an all time great, but alas they didn't). Plus Foley didn't get to be a part of WarGames 92 so....

 

I like The Rockers over the Bulldogs, mainly because The Rockers pulled off the "updated Rock N Roll Express" thing really well and I don't know that the Bulldogs ever carved out a niche as anything more than "guys with muscles who do big spots". It's wierd because the existance of The Steiners in later years, probably effects my view of the Bulldogs, but The Rockers don't effect my view of The R and R's. In the end it comes down to preference in styles also, but The Rockers were really good in multiple settings against totally different teams. They just seemed like a less "one size fits all" team than the Bulldogs.

[Coffey]

I didn't used to give zero stars or five stars. I didn't think there was such a thing as "perfect match" or a match that brought zero to the table. Just entrances alone and a headlock would give a match a ?*. If they show up and try, they get something. Whereas, I didn't ever want to rate a match 5 *'s because, to me, that means it's "perfect." So, what then when another match down the road comes along and I like it more? One has to be better than the other.

 

Eventually, with a lot of viewing of matches, you get a slew of matches that are rating in someway similar but then when you look at the list as a whole, it seems to lose a lot of credibility. For example, you'll have one match at *** and another match at *** and you'll think "well, this match was better than that match" so you start tinkering with the *'s. It's a never-ending process.

 

That's why I kinda got out of the habit of doing the little snowflakes.

[Mad Dog]

I'll give out duds for matches but I won't do negative stars. I find that scale to hard to properly use. So if it's a dud it's a dud.

 

I thought Goldust was clearly the best worker on Raw in 2002. His comebacks, his selling and his gimmick was just off the charts. It was a shame that he wasn't quite as good in TNA though his match with Kid Kash at Final Resolution featured him doing some awesome selling.

[Guest Dorian]

A ***** match should not and DOES not equate to = perfect match. You'll never get one and frankly no one will ever agree that this is the perfect match.

 

A ***** is a match that has very few if any glaring flaws, and as I stated, it should be a match that you can watch at any point in time and still mark out like you first did (although, you already know what's happening, so not as high, but you still mark out like a bitch).

 

Also, a hotel company did a study (I forget which one) and asking its customers how big a difference a ***** hotel is to a **** hotel (the actual question wasn't that, but the question amounts to the same) and the results came back that 68% of them prefered *****s more.

 

So if you rate something a ***** it better be that much better than a ****.

[anarchistxx]

Very good to great matches during that run with Trip, Jeff Hardy, Ric Flair, Cena, Angle, The Rock and Lesnar

 

HHH? The KOTR match was terrible, but did they have a hidden gem on Raw or somehting?

 

Jeff Hardy? I don't like the match as much as others, though I enjoyed it.

 

Flair? Yes, he took Flair to his best match since the comeback.

 

Cena? Yes, he had some decent matches with Cena, but nothing special. They did a good job though.

 

Angle? Yes, the 2003 SD match is my MOTY for that year and the 3-Way with Rock is all kinds of fun.

 

I agree he was good in this period, although apart from the Angle Smackdown match, none of his matches were great.

 

. I wouldn't shit on the SD six, but I have never enjoyed it quite as much as others, since it felt like they just went out wrestled variations of the same match over and over to me. I'd rate Eddie over Dust and maybe Benoit, but not Rey or Angle. At least not at first glance. If I went back and rewatched things it's possible my opinion could change.

 

I enjoyed Dust, be he doesn't have nearly the amojnt of stuff they had in that year. Yes, admittedly they wrestled the same match a lot, and it showed by the end of the year, especially on TV, but in my Top 50 matches of 2002 in the WWF, only 2 Goldust matches made my list whereas loads of matches from other guys did. Goldust didn't have any matches as good as Rey/Angle or Rey/Benoit, or even Eddie/Edge or Eddie/Rey or the Benoit/Angle v Rey/Edge tags and the Angle/Rey series.

 

I think Bret's carrying is overrated. In fact I think Foley was way better at carrying people than Bret.

 

I toot hink Bret's carrying was overrated, but he took so many guys to decent matches it's hard to argue he wasn't at least a good carrier. Foley is a good carrier as well though, his match with Orton in 2004 was amazing, and a lot of it down to him. Bret took Davey to a great match, Diesel to some good matches, and loads of midcard guys to passable matches.

 

Foley does have some ECW stuff that holds up, but he's really awful in some of it. I hated most ECW though, and his matches with Sabu and Sandman I thought were awful for the most part.

 

I agree that Austin's best matches are better than Mic's, but alot of that is circumstance..I don't think Foley ever found his ideal partner (actually I think if Michaels/Foley had had a series it may have gone down as an all time great, but alas they didn't). Plus Foley didn't get to be a part of WarGames 92 so....

 

But Austin has so much high level stuff it's incredible. He may have the best body of work in the entire WWF.

 

v Angle, v Benoit, v Hart, v Foley, v Taker, v Rock, v HHH plus Wargames 92. Austin 2001 beats just about anyone.

 

Foley has a whole lot though, and him and Austin are very similar in the way that they were great at emotion and character and getting the crowd into a match. I'd still take Austin though.

 

[Guest Monday Night Jericho]

Genichiro Tenryu and Akira Maeda are way overrated.

[Guest DylanWaco]

Very good to great matches during that run with Trip, Jeff Hardy, Ric Flair, Cena, Angle, The Rock and Lesnar

 

HHH? The KOTR match was terrible, but did they have a hidden gem on Raw or somehting?

 

Jeff Hardy? I don't like the match as much as others, though I enjoyed it.

 

Flair? Yes, he took Flair to his best match since the comeback.

 

Cena? Yes, he had some decent matches with Cena, but nothing special. They did a good job though.

 

Angle? Yes, the 2003 SD match is my MOTY for that year and the 3-Way with Rock is all kinds of fun.

 

I agree he was good in this period, although apart from the Angle Smackdown match, none of his matches were great.

 

. I wouldn't shit on the SD six, but I have never enjoyed it quite as much as others, since it felt like they just went out wrestled variations of the same match over and over to me. I'd rate Eddie over Dust and maybe Benoit, but not Rey or Angle. At least not at first glance. If I went back and rewatched things it's possible my opinion could change.

 

I enjoyed Dust, be he doesn't have nearly the amojnt of stuff they had in that year. Yes, admittedly they wrestled the same match a lot, and it showed by the end of the year, especially on TV, but in my Top 50 matches of 2002 in the WWF, only 2 Goldust matches made my list whereas loads of matches from other guys did. Goldust didn't have any matches as good as Rey/Angle or Rey/Benoit, or even Eddie/Edge or Eddie/Rey or the Benoit/Angle v Rey/Edge tags and the Angle/Rey series.

 

I think Bret's carrying is overrated. In fact I think Foley was way better at carrying people than Bret.

 

I toot hink Bret's carrying was overrated, but he took so many guys to decent matches it's hard to argue he wasn't at least a good carrier. Foley is a good carrier as well though, his match with Orton in 2004 was amazing, and a lot of it down to him. Bret took Davey to a great match, Diesel to some good matches, and loads of midcard guys to passable matches.

 

Foley does have some ECW stuff that holds up, but he's really awful in some of it. I hated most ECW though, and his matches with Sabu and Sandman I thought were awful for the most part.

 

I agree that Austin's best matches are better than Mic's, but alot of that is circumstance..I don't think Foley ever found his ideal partner (actually I think if Michaels/Foley had had a series it may have gone down as an all time great, but alas they didn't). Plus Foley didn't get to be a part of WarGames 92 so....

 

But Austin has so much high level stuff it's incredible. He may have the best body of work in the entire WWF.

 

v Angle, v Benoit, v Hart, v Foley, v Taker, v Rock, v HHH plus Wargames 92. Austin 2001 beats just about anyone.

 

Foley has a whole lot though, and him and Austin are very similar in the way that they were great at emotion and character and getting the crowd into a match. I'd still take Austin though.

 

I was actually talking about the Mania match with Trip.

 

I just don't agree with you almost across the board on your particulars. I think he got better matches with Cena than anyone else. I think the Flair match is nowhere near Flair's best match since the comeback, and I actually think it's the most diputabe of the high quality matches Taker put on. I love the Hardy match. I think the Veangance Triple Threat, match with Angle, and Lesnar HITC are all easily legit great matches.

 

So basically we just disagree.

 

On Dust, he had two matches that year teaming with Book v. The Blondes that I like better than all the more hyped SD tags.

 

I think 01 Austin is monumentally overrated, in fact probably more overrated than any wrestler ever from a singular year. I'm not saying he wasn't great that year, but I think he was better in 96-97 and his supposedly unreal match with Trip from that year is about as overrated a match as I've ever seen. I do love the Angle matches and there is no doubt he had a great, great year, but Austin 01 doesn't beat "just about anyone" IMO.

[The Thread Killer]

Genichiro Tenryu and Akira Maeda are way overrated.

By who?

 

Tenryu had a good stretch in AJPW from maybe 86-90. His matches against Chosu's Army and then his Triple Crown Matches were good. From there, he's been a big pile of MEH. He's awesome in his current cranky old guy role, but he hardly puts on good matches anymore, with the very rare exception.

 

Maeda really only had his series of fights with Takada in the UWF, and then what else? I would say that he had a lot of influence on the course of puroresu with the advent of the UWF and his push for more realistic matches and clean finishes, but other than that, I've never seen a lot of people pimp him up as one of the all time greats.

[sek69]

People who stop watching WWE because of the wrestling quality confuse me. Match quality has never been a priority since Vince Jr has run the company, hell good matches tend to come from people who had nothing else to lose than to go out and bring the house down.

 

Think about it, what's the most lasting memories of WWF/E and how many of them involve wrestling? Piper hitting Snuka with the coconut, Quake squashing Hogan, Warrior's insane promos, Jake's creepy promos, etc.

 

Hell, wrestling quality in the WWE has never been higher than it is now. Don't believe me? Watch the houseshows on WWE 24/7 one day and see all the endless jobber vs jobber matches and complete borefests that filled up most cards from the 80s up til the Monday Night Wars era.

[World's Worst Man]

Kurt Angle is the most overrated wrestler OF ALL TIME. Followed closely by Steve Austin circa 2001, who never even came close to being involved in a ****+ match during that time spawn (other than the May '01 tag, which was close..). I couldn't help but chuckle at his terrible offense and overbooked matches when I finally got around to seeing a bunch of those matches. If Austin in 2001 was great, Nagata in 2001 was the best wrestler of all time, and Kawada of 1994 was some nutty, cuckoo super being who transcended time and space.

[anarchistxx]

. Followed closely by Steve Austin circa 2001, who never even came close to being involved in a ****+ match during that time

I'd call Austin/Benoit and Austin/Angle and Austin/Trips **** matches at least.

 

Austin/Rock and the May Tag I'd say were **** last time I watched them but I haven't seen them for a bit.

[World's Worst Man]

Austin vs. Benoit and Austin vs. Trips were good matches that really didn't have any big problems, but I saw nothing in them that would make me think they were anything better. Maybe I'm being too hard on them, I don't know. That's just where they sit compared to other stuff I've seen. Austin vs. Rock was incredibly overbooked, didn't make a lot of sense (no-DQ mostly), and was about 10 minutes too long considering how poor each guy's offense was. The May tag match was up there, but mostly because of the other 3 men as opposed to Austin. I just don't see anything in Austin at that time. He was able to get a reaction from the crowd by doing anything, because he was so over. But most of what he did wasn't very good, so I can't really give him credit for it.

[Guest Monday Night Jericho]

By who?

I've seen many people call Tenryu one of the best ever, and Maeda one of the best shoot-style workers ever.

[Guest Luds]

People who stop watching WWE because of the wrestling quality confuse me. Match quality has never been a priority since Vince Jr has run the company, hell good matches tend to come from people who had nothing else to lose than to go out and bring the house down.

True, I can't answer for everyone else who quit on the WWE but in my case, it has as much to do with the actual match quality than the workers themselves. I simply don't care for the majority of WWE workers anymnore.

 

I like a few: Angle, Benoit, Edge & Booker somewhat, the cruiserweights, Finlay, Regal, Benjamin and a few others, but I can't stant some of the ones who get all the air time. Cena and Orton should be feuding for the Euro belt as they're not even IC material. Well Cena is but still needs more time. Trip, Kane, Taker, Show, Henry are just plain stale and boring, and that sums up the main eventers. So liking the wrestler does tie in with liking the matches. When I say "like" a wrestler I don't mean mark for him, simply care enough for him and his ability to watch the show...

 

I already know that out of 2hours, we'll get at least 45 minutes of McMahon vignettes & interviews combined with the Trip promos, vignettes, match and celebration, and the other main guys that I don't care for. Add to that the women division match, the commercials, and we're left to about 40 minutes of material I may care for... Not worth the watch.

 

I certainly want to like the WWE but I'm not just gonna watch & be served crap on a plate and keep watching.

[sek69]

That kinda ties in with my next unpopular opinion: Vince McMahon might actually know something about professional wrestling, at least the business side.

 

You'll get no argument from me that Vince is a flop in pretty much every other enterprise he tries, and that he's probably got a first class ticket to Hell already punched, but the guy seems to know a thing or two about pro wrestling. It seems to really get under a lot of people's skin that his brand of SPORTZ ENTERTAINMENT has taken over the industry in North America. East Coast J had an excellent post at DVDVR about how the territory system wouldn't have been able to work on a national TV level, and that the way WWE does televised wrestling is pretty much the only way it could succeed on a 24/7/365 basis.

 

Individual angles or gimmicks may be lame or pointless, but by and large the WWE does wrestling on TV better than anyone else has ever done from the 70s on. I don't know the exact date he retired, but I wouldn't be surprised if the decline in the product of late started around the time Pat Patterson stepped aside as Vince's #2 guy. No one since has had the career confidence Pat had (he had the reins when Vince was on trial, after all) to tell Vince when something is flat out stupid. The only people who have the security to step up when something's idiotic usually don't unless it involves them directly.

[Guest Some Guy]

***** 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)

By this logic Hogan/Rock would be a 5 star match. I marked from begining to end and it made realize why I started watching wrestling in the first place. That type of match is not why I watch wrestling now, but it was why I started watching.

 

Star ratings are so subjective that I don't really pay much attention to them. I'll read Loss' reviews and check what he gave a match because I've seen enough matches that he's reviewed to know what he does and doen't like. However, the star rating is not going to make me seek out a match. A review like Will's one of JBL/Eddy would and did.

 

BTW, Rick Rude was the coolest motherfucker on the planet and fine worker in his prime.

[Guest Dorian]

***** 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)

By this logic Hogan/Rock would be a 5 star match. I marked from begining to end and it made realize why I started watching wrestling in the first place. That type of match is not why I watch wrestling now, but it was why I started watching.

 

Star ratings are so subjective that I don't really pay much attention to them. I'll read Loss' reviews and check what he gave a match because I've seen enough matches that he's reviewed to know what he does and doen't like. However, the star rating is not going to make me seek out a match. A review like Will's one of JBL/Eddy would and did.

...did I put Rock vs. Hogan as a four star example...? *checks, sees that I did*

 

Bah, fuck. I meant to put that as five star. Dammit, that's what I get for pasting it from a discussion I had with someone on the subject and not proof-reading it.

 

I'm not saying that * should be the way to judge review, just saying that the way they should be done should be in such a way that there shouldn't be that much difference between the two, and you should know when someone bumps a match up or down a * due to the entertainment factors. Which really shouldn't drop a match more or less than a *.

[goodhelmet]

I think star ratings are useful but only how they correlate to other star ratings by the reviewer. For example, Loss and I have argued numerous times about star ratings. However, when I argue with him, I argue with him about his own ratings in relation to ratings he has given to other matches. For example, we both agree that certain matches are ***** but he thinks one is better and I may think another match is better. The biggest disagreement we have is on the Ultimate Warrior-Randy Savage WM match which I think is horrid. However, he has it ranked above matches I think smoke it including Kobashi-Kawada 1998.

 

The worst kind of star rating is one given by someone like Scott Keith who would recap a match but not explain why a match deserved a particular rating. Hell, opinions are like a$$holes but at least defend it.

[gordi]

People who stop watching WWE because of the wrestling quality confuse me. Match quality has never been a priority since Vince Jr has run the company...

I don't think it's that people think that WWE wrestling is declining in quality so much as it is that people are getting exposed to more great wrestling through DVD trading, and are subsequently discovering that WWE's stuff isn't always as interesting in comparison.

[Resident Evil]

Kurt Angle is the most overrated wrestler OF ALL TIME. Followed closely by Steve Austin circa 2001, who never even came close to being involved in a ****+ match during that time spawn (other than the May '01 tag, which was close..). I couldn't help but chuckle at his terrible offense and overbooked matches when I finally got around to seeing a bunch of those matches. If Austin in 2001 was great, Nagata in 2001 was the best wrestler of all time, and Kawada of 1994 was some nutty, cuckoo super being who transcended time and space.

No.

 

 

 

I was hard on Austin in 2001 mostly because of his execution but there's no denying that the guy knew how to construct a match, worked his but off, was fantastic at being animated (he was beyond awesome at this in the Benoit match) and had terrific charisma. There was no way Austin was overrated in 2001. In fact on an overall basis I think he maybe underrated. More people should be studying his best stuff and learning from it.

 

The HHH bout is indeed overrated though.

 

Kurt Angle isn't the most overrated wrestler of all time either. Not even close. In fact, he's probably not overrated at all.

[Guest Dorian]

When Angle wants to be, he's nearly is the best damn wrestler there is.

 

But only when he wants to be. He's more akin to Triple H in this respect that he can be so much more, but only brings the work boots once in a while. Hell, Triple H brings the work boots more often then Angle does.

 

...yeah, I just said that.

[World's Worst Man]

It doesn't matter if he brings the work boots, he just isn't a very smart wrestler. He has no sense of how to pace a match that goes longer than 10 minutes, and his long-term selling is atrocious. He also isn't any good at logically building his moves. He'd be better off just having 10 minute matches, where his multitude of weaknesses are covered up. In 20+ minute matches, he's just masturbatory and contrived.

 

 

I must be one of the few who is getting sick of Chris Benoit's cookie cutter matches. It doesn't help that many of the same people who praise him, are also the first to criticise ROH for being fake and contrived. I guess having the same match for 3 years is just completely natural and a sign of someone who is the best in the world. Excluding vs. Regal/Finlay, which while different than the typical, mind-numbing WWE Benoit match, end up being the same old matches that they've had against each other for years.

[Resident Evil]

It doesn't matter if he brings the work boots, he just isn't a very smart wrestler. He has no sense of how to pace a match that goes longer than 10 minutes, and his long-term selling is atrocious. He also isn't any good at logically building his moves. He'd be better off just having 10 minute matches, where his multitude of weaknesses are covered up. In 20+ minute matches, he's just masturbatory and contrived.

 

 

I must be one of the few who is getting sick of Chris Benoit's cookie cutter matches. It doesn't help that many of the same people who praise him, are also the first to criticise ROH for being fake and contrived. I guess having the same match for 3 years is just completely natural and a sign of someone who is the best in the world. Excluding vs. Regal/Finlay, which while different than the typical, mind-numbing WWE Benoit match, end up being the same old matches that they've had against each other for years.

Austin not a smart wrestler? A smart wrestler makes enthralling, memoarable matches through his work. The fact that Austin can do this while being injured in the ring is a sign of a smart wrestler.

 

Eh, I don't mind his pacing, selling or the building of his moves. I think some of his matches are great at building. I remember the Angle match back in 2001 being great at this.

In fact, I think Austin's pacing when he's on is one of his strong suits.

 

 

Your second comment is exaggerated somewhat for attention and probably to get underneath my skin since you seem to get easily irritated and don't like me for some reason. However, that technique is useless because I don't get upset at that type of thing. I know what I like, why I like it and I think have a good perception on why things work with the crowds a good portion of the time so these kind of comments don't bother me. If I did let it bother me than I could never read the internet because there are so many different opinions out there.

 

Benoit like Ric Flair, Kobashi, Austin, Marc Rocco, Rip Rogers or the Dynamite Kid will in 15 seconds in the ring will show why they are/were better than the majority of wrestlers out there. All true great wrestlers have this intangible factor. Trying to describe it here -- It's like being legit alive inside the ring -- One can only become a great wrestler once they have this. It is why Sabu is comfortably leading AJ Styles in the DVDVR tournament they got going there. And no, it's not because DVDVR "is home of the contrarian viewpoint". This is partly why some of the ROH wrestlers are criticised for coming off as contrived while some other stars aren't. Someday, they may get better at this.

 

 

 

 

Benoit's repitiveness is overexaggerated and although it would be nice every once in awhile to see Benoit or other WWE superstars expand on their reportoire we know it's not going to happen. I think some openess would help the WWE some. But still, it's not quite a big a problem as some think. Everyone's got to be repitive in wrestling for various reasons. American Dragon is not going to stop doing his trademark stuff just like Fit Finlay isn't. The WWE guys have got to stick to their trademark moves while not throwing everything out there a little more than others do but even than it does have its advantages. For the average or less than average viewing fan (or even the hardcore fan) it's going to bring about better pops because of the recognisation and importance factor with the trademark moves. Personally, I too as a fan would like the WWE to open up some but I see why they do what they do.

 

How was Benoit vs Finlay at Judgement Day which was one of the better matches in quite awhile similar to their other matches? From Europe in 91 to WCW in 97 and 98 to the WWE in 2006 I am seeing a difference there. I mean besides the opening, face gets beat up and than makes a comeback bit which happens in almost all wrestling matches?

 

The Benoit vs Regal matches were different from each other too specifically the last one.

 

I don't know, if you can't see why Benoit is praised while ROH is ctricised at times for being contrived than I think you're missing out on what a lot of wrestling is. But that's okay; we like what we like and we don't what we don't. I know I miss out on stuff that others like but that's okay. Life as a wrestling fan would be boring if I liked what everyone else did.

[Guest Kevin Cook]

I would rather watch Raw than the current CMLL Arena Mexico shows. The restrictions on time and the homogenization of the style have gotten so out of hand over the last six months I really have a hard time watching them.