Wrestling Observer MOTY Collection 1980 - 2005

[anarchistxx]

So recently purchased this set; I wanted to watch the matches again, there were some matches I actually hadn't seen, and the VQ on a lot of the stuff was better than what I already had. Some of my copies of the matches were still on VHS.

 

Anyway, thought I'd write about the matches and discuss whether they still held up.

 

It'll be constantly updated...

 

DISC 1

 

1980 - Bob Backlund vs. Ken Patera (No DQ) (5/19 - Madison Square Garden) (WWF)

 

1981 - Pat Patterson vs. Sgt. Slaughter (Alley Fight) (4/21 - Madison Square Garden) (WWF)

 

This match is all about the blood and the heat. If you like those, you've got them in droves here. The match is otherwise nothing out of the ordinary, but the rabid crowd and blind hatred take it to another level. Offensively too simplistic for my tastes, but nthey sent the crowd home happy, and remains a great spectacle, even if it is a bit overrated. *** 1/2

 

1982 - Tiger Mask vs. Dynamite Kid (8/5 - Tokyo) (NJPW)

 

1983 - Harley Race vs. Ric Flair (Cage Match) (11/24 - Greensboro) (NWA)

 

1984 – The Freebirds vs. The Von Erichs (Street Fight) (7/4 - Ft. Worth) (WCCW)

 

DISC 2

 

1985 - Tiger Mask II (Mitsuharu Misawa) vs. Kuniaki Kobayashi (6/12 - Tokyo Nippon Budokan) (AJPW)

 

1986 - Ric Flair vs. Barry Windham (2/14 - Orlando) (NWA)

 

A lot of people think of this as the best of their matches, but I prefer the 20/01/87 match. This is a little too Flair formula for me, so much so that you can predict most things that are going to happen in the final 15 minutes. There's a fair amount of strong matwork at the start, and then it picks up into a very good match, with both guys bleeding and a regular TV match turning into an epic championship battle. One thing they do great is sell the fatigue towards the finish, but it's just a little too similar to other Flair matches to be that good. ***3/4

 

1987 - Ricky Steamboat vs. Randy Savage (3/29 - Pontiac) (WWF)

 

1988 - Ric Flair vs. Sting (3/27 - Greensboro) (NWA)

 

DISC 3

 

1989 - Ric Flair vs. Ricky Steamboat (2/3 Falls) (4/2 - New Orleans) (NWA)

 

I'm not usually a fan of long matches, but this really is the exception to the rule. This is a match that manages to be realistic, and in the biggest sense conveys that both guys really want to win. At the same time, they don't go overboard with the psychology so it is at the expense of creating a match that will entertain the entire audience. It's hard hitting, features two awesome characters, and is 55 minutes of wrestling that is done so well that you actually believe these guys want to hurt each other. So many great moments; the multiple pin attempts by Flair, the Steamboat elbow barrage, and everything else in between. It isn't perfect, as it suffers the fault of many long matches in that you become a little restless and bored towards the end, and Flair's formula stuff looks out of place and quite frankly silly at times. The first fall is maybe the best US wrestling I've seen though, and the others aren't too far behind. If I had a longer attention span, this could have been the best match I'd ever seen. ****1/4

 

1990 - Jushin Liger vs. Naoki Sano (1/31 - Osaka) (NJPW)

 

1991 - The Steiner Brothers vs. Kensuke Sasaki & Hiroshi Hase (3/21 - Tokyo Dome) (NJPW)

 

I'd never seen this bfore, and it is, well, fun. They all look like they're being completely reckless here; Scott in particular. They just throw each other around, and in the case of the Steiners, there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or rhythm to their offence at all. It's as if they just think of a move, and do it, without any forethought. It makes the match unpredictable and fairly real though, as you sense that even their opponents don't know what's coming next. There is some sloppy stuff in here, which was probably to be expected, but also some completely random stuff like Rick and Hase suddenly having a messy matwork battle in the middle of a Steiner's beat down. Sasaki is easily the most over guy in the match, and he's all kinds of fun when he gets in with his power offence. The Steiners are also great to watch, just taking Hase apart with a variety of suplexes and bombs, even if Hase doesn't sell it that well. Never a great match, but fun to watch. Kind of confusing that it won an award like this though. ***1/4

 

DISC 4

 

1992 - Dan Kroffat & Doug Furnas vs. Tsuyoshi Kikuchi & Kenta Kobashi (5/25 - Miyagi) (AJPW)

 

If only this wasn't so clipped. The action we get is fantastic, but my favourite part of these AJ tags were always the FIP sections, and the snippet we see of them here leaves me thinking how great this could have been if they left the whole of that in. As it is, it's a hot tag team match in the truest sense, with Kikuchi putting in a master performance, and the rest able to keep up. You know what to expect from these matches by now, I always look for action rather than story in AJ stuff, and this didn't disappoint. Still not my favourite AJ 90's tag, as I saw a brilliant 6-Man from 1991 that I'd rate higher. ****

 

1993 - Manami Toyota & Toshiyo Yamada vs. Dynamite Kansai & Mayumi Ozaki (2/3 Falls) (4/11 - Osaka) (AJW)

 

1994 - Razor Ramon vs. Shawn Michaels (Ladder Match) (3/20 - Madison Square Garden) (WWF)

 

The first half of this is probably the best thing these two guys ever did. There's frenetic wrestling, fresh and painful ladder spots and all the elements of a great match. The second half is still awesome, but it doesn't live up to the opening stages. Nothing feels forced in this match; all of the ladder spots are natural, everything looks like it hurts, they both appear like they want to win the title. I thought they could have built to Shawn's jumps a lot better, especially the initial elbow, and this does drag at timkes towards the end, but you can't say this wasn't a revoloutionary match. Not as entertaining now though. ***3/4

 

1994 Runner Up: Mitsharu Misawa vs. Toshiaki Kawada (6/3 - Toykyo Nippon Budokan) (AJPW)

 

With matches like this, that are generally accepted as 'greatest match ever' material, it's hard to not give that opinion once you've watched it. It may not move you or even entertain you, but you usually go with the popular consensus in saying what an awesome ***** classic it is. Actually, this isn't. It was a bloody good match, no doubt about it, but it doesn't evoke any feelings in me. Misawa is lacking in character, and even the wrestling can be faulted at times; too many kicks, random stuff like Misawa following up a Tiger Driver, one of his main moves, with the stretch plum, one of the shittiest legitimate finishers ever. Misawa blowing off a lot of Kawada offence, to start working on the legs. Stuff like the leg work; it plays off previous matches, and is solid as hell psychologically, but it isn't all that interesting. Misawa works over dull holds and adds little too them, despite Kawada's terrific selling. The hot stretch at the end is fantastic, and there are many great moments and nice touches. Fact remains though, this isn't the greatest singles match ever, not by a long way. ***3/4

 

DISC 5

 

1995 - Manami Toyota vs. Kyoko Inoue (60:00 Min Draw) (5/7 - Tokyo Korakuen Hall) (AJW)

 

1996 - Mitsuharu Misawa & Jun Akiyama vs. Johnny Ace & Steve Williams (6/7 - Tokyo Nippon Budokan) (AJPW)

 

For all the hype about this match, it isn't really all that worthy. It's a match built on well defined roles; Akiyama is the underdog kid, Misawa is the dominant champion, who struggles because he's teamed with someone who isn't actually that good, and the gajins play the typical roles of the evil foreigners. To be fair, they all play their roles perfectly, and it's great to watch, but apart from that, the match is fairly standard stuff.

Whatever people might argue, there was no complicated story in this, and I think you miss the point of the match if you looked for one. It was solid, stiff action reminiscent of many All Japan matches of the 90's, but its substance has been vastly overstated. There is so much stuff they could have done better; shit, I know Misawa is stoic, but I'd like him to show at least a shred of emotion. Here, he merely looks lazy. Jonny Ace looks like his 'talent relations' job didn't come a moment too soon, with a lacklustre display only saved by a great moment where he gets pissed and murders Akiyama.

 

Akiyama is decent enough in this match, but it's Doc who really saves this, with his usual awesome performance as the monster heel. I love the way he totally disrespects Jun, and he's so good that it ends up being more disapointing than satisfying when Misawa takes him out with some less-than-compelling offence. The final stages of the match are overbooked, and I couldn't decide whether it was five minutes too long or five too short, as I felt distincly underwhelmed by the finish. What you get out of this match depends what you look for. There are some neat moments, and if you love stiff All Japan tags building to an action-packed finale, you'll love this. And if you're some over emotional angst ridden teenager, I'm sure there's some complex and inspiring story for you to drag out of this; although, in reality, it's merely a pro wrestling match, and one with little emotional content at that. It's pretty good though. ***1/4

 

DISC 6

 

1997 - Bret Hart vs. Steve Austin (I Quit Match) (3/23 - Chicago) (WWF)

 

1998 - Mitsuharu Misawa vs. Kenta Kobashi (10/31 - Tokyo Nippon Budokan) (AJPW)

 

1999 - Mitsuharu Misawa vs. Kenta Kobashi (6/11 - Tokyo Nippon Budokan) (AJPW)

 

DISC 7

 

2000 - Atlantis vs. Villano III (Mask vs. Mask) (3/17 - Arena Mexico) (CMLL)

 

2001 - Keiji Mutoh vs. Genichiro Tenryu (6/8 - Tokyo Nippon Budokan) (AJPW)

 

2002 - Chris Benoit & Kurt Angle vs. Edge & Rey Mysterio Jr. (10/20 - Little Rock) (WWE)

 

I fully expected to like this match less on a rewatch, but it's actually still a superb bout. It's the little things that make it, the things you don't expect to see in the WWE, like Angle's wry smile to the corner as he has Rey Jr's number. Rey excels in this match, conveying his emotion from under the mask, busting out intricate high spots and working his usual great FIP sections. Angle has his best performance in forever, Benoit is fucking Chris Benoit, and Edge puts on his best display of the year. It all comes together, the reversals don't feel overbooked, it has suprise moments, such as Angle rushing to the top to suplex Rey as he was about to win the match, it has Benoit working over an opponent. It has a good amount of faults as well, but I thought this was a v ery complete match, and easily the best WWF/E tag ever. ****1/4

 

DISC 8

 

2003 - Mitsuharu Misawa vs. Kenta Kobashi (3/1 - Tokyo Nippon Budokan) (NOAH)

 

Fantastic match. Hard hitting, huge spots, good wrestling, great strikes, the story of Misawa passing the torch, everything. Too much non-selling and overbooking, but I liked this a whole lot, and nearly as much of their two 1997 matches. ****1/4

 

2004 - Kenta Kobashi vs. Jun Akiyama (7/10 - Tokyo Dome) (NOAH)

 

2005 - Kenta Kobashi vs. Samoa Joe (10/1 - New York) (ROH)

 

Still didn't care for the tribute spots, but this was very good. Too much striking perhaps, Joe never really had a realistic chance of winning, especially after they blew the Muscle-Buster so early; nobody ever believed Kobashi was going down to the choke. Wasn't a squash though, and Joe even dominated the early staged, even if it did lead to Kobashi geting back on offence really lazily, with an elbow off the Ole Ole. Joe bumpred like crazy to get this to work, and the hot crowd certainly worked in its favour. The lack of commentary worked against it though; the answer is not to blank out commentary, it's to get better commentators. Anyway, this was very good, as you'd expect with Joe, the best in the world, and Kobashi, a man who's been one of the best for 15 years. And we were spared any FIGHTING SPIRIT! ***1/2

[Loss]

I must admit to being pretty blown away by criticizing Misawa/Kawada for lack of character work in 6/3/94 and loving the No Mercy match so much in the same breath. As much as I love Benoit, Benoit did NOTHING to play to the audience in that match, and it was a really strange case of him bringing a match down for me and Angle outworking him, something I can't say I'd ever say about any other match.

[anarchistxx]

I agree with Benoit not doing anything to get the audience into it, but he had other people who were great at that in the match, especially Rey Jr.

 

Misawa was just bland to me in 06/03/94; you shouldn't have to look deep into a match to find a story and find what his character is meant to be thinking or doing. He merely looked bored at times, and considering he was facing a huge threat to his title, it seemed a little lazy.

 

What can I say, I like strange things.

[gordi]

Frank Caliendo has a nice bit in his comedy routine where he says that he likes John Madden, because listening to Madden makes him feel smart.

 

Reading your reviews always reminds me of that quote. Don't ever change, annie.

[anarchistxx]

It hardly makes me not 'smart' because I have a different opinion on a match than you.

[gordi]

It hardly makes me not 'smart' because I have a different opinion on a match than you.

 

 

1) I'm pretty sure that Frank Caliendo didn't mean that listening to Madden made him feel like a Pro Wrestling insider.

 

2) It's not so much your opinions that I find endlessly amusing so much as it is your reasons behind those opinions and your stubborn refusal to learn from what others are trying to tell you. Just for example, I know that others have tried to explain that Misawa's stoicism is an important part of his character and the role that he's playing, and why... but I am not surprised to see that you are stubbornly sticking to your "Misawa just looks bored here..." guns.

 

3) Here are two other things that people have been telling you as long as I've been aware of your presence online, and which I also understand will never sink in: A. You need to either be consistent with your star ratings, or drop them altogether. B. Deliberately giving low star ratings to great matches doesn't show that your tastes are highly refined.

 

4) None of this should stop you from posting your opinions and reviews, of course. I am mildly interested in reading what you have to say about the other matches in this collection.

 

5) It's nice to see you engaging in actual discussion with Loss about your reviews. Reading people's discussions with others is far, far more interesting to me than just reading one person's opinions. You obviously have a passion for wrestling, but I would strongly urge you to try and learn from the other wrestling fans on these boards by engaging in friendly debate with them. If your knowledge ever catches up with your passion, you might eventually become an good wrestling writer.

[Tim Evans]

Good to see you on this board Gordi.

[gordi]

Good to see you on this board Gordi.

 

Thanks Tim. Nice to see you here, too.

[Phil Schneider]

Misawa has sort of a semitic face for a Japaneese guy. Maybe Annie finds his stoicism "sneaky"

[gordi]

Misawa has sort of a semitic face for a Japaneese guy. Maybe Annie finds his stoicism "sneaky"

 

 

[anarchistxx]

ried to explain that Misawa's stoicism is an important part of his character and the role that he's playing,

I know he's meant to be stoic. Doesn't mean I have to like it. The vibe I get from watching the match isn't that he's stoic, it's that he looks uninterested. Personally I like to see a little more emotion in matches.

 

You need to either be consistent with your star ratings, or drop them altogether.

My star ratings are pretty consistent. I don't rate much above **** because there isn't much that I feel is that great.

 

Deliberately giving low star ratings to great matches doesn't show that your tastes are highly refined.

Except in the case of Misawa/Kawada, I didn't think it was that 'great', whatever the widely accepted view may be.

 

Misawa has sort of a semitic face for a Japaneese guy. Maybe Annie finds his stoicism "sneaky"

That'll be it.

 

Oh, and this forum is Pro Wrestling Only.

 

See this thread for that sort of thing...

 

http://ccgi.simania.plus.com/forums/index....c=3470&st=0

[gordi]

You just don't get it, do you? You are looking for something in those matches that isn't there because it isn't supposed to be there.

 

Misawa doesn't show emotion because his whole character is based on not showing emotion. That's a Japanese male archetype, and he plays it to perfection. You downgrading him for being stoic is every bit as dumb and off-target as someone knocking Jack Evans for not Hulking up or Hulk Hogan for not doing flippy planchas. Different wrestlers have different styles. You probably need to come to terms with that.

 

Patterson vs. Slaughter doesn't have a lot of high end US Indy type offense because it's one of the last of the great 1970s style hate-filled brawls. They are supposed to brawl. They are not supposed to reel off a ton of intricate high spots. It wouldn't make sense for them to do that, given the way the match was built up and given the kind of matches that they were known for and that the crowd was expecting. What you have to say about it ("Offensively too simplistic for my tastes...") shows a complete lack of understanding about what works in that situation. It's (again) every bit as dumb as saying that Chris Benoit & Kurt Angle vs. Edge & Rey Mysterio Jr. (10/20 - Little Rock) was a let-down because they never broke out the light tubes.

 

Good wrestling is about more than flashy offense, but it really seems that big offense is all you understand. You need to look for what's supposed to be there, anarchistxx, your reviews might start to be better received if you could start to see the other ways that wrestling can be fun to watch.

 

Saying that Kind of Blue isn't a great album because there are no long guitar solos, or that Ghost World is a bad movie because it isn't about international detectives driving fast cars... those are opinions, but they are neither interesting nor informed. Those opinions are dumb and off-point. So is most of what you have to say about wrestling.

[anarchistxx]

I don't care if it meant to be there. The fact that it is meant to be there doesn't mean I have to like the match.

 

Yellow Submarine is meant to be a humorous song. The fact I don't find it funny or entartaining means it hasn't succeeded in my eyes. I'd rather the Beatles had put a more serious song on Revolver.

 

Misawa is meant to be stoic in his matches. The fact I don't get that vibe from him and he looks merely bored means it hasn't succeeded in my eyes. I'd rather he showed some emotion.

 

I know why Slaughter/Patterson doesn't have high end offence. It doesn't mean I should like it for not having high end offence.

 

I don't judge matches on high-end offence in the first place. It's just I'd rather they did more than punch each other, and actually busted out a few moves. I understand that in the context of the match, it was a hate filled brawl and it made sense to punch. But it doesn't mean I have to like it.

 

There are tons of ROH spot-fu matches that I hate because they have high-end offence and nothing else. There's also a lot of matches that are without high end offence that I love, Flair/Steamboat being an example.

 

I don't particularly 'look' for anything in matches. I watch a match and hope to be entertained, then invariably write my opinion of what I saw on the internet. In Misawa/Kawada what I saw was no complex story or intricate psychology, but I saw a very good match with a few flaws that prevented it from being one of my favourites.

 

I shouldn't have to 'look' for what's supposed to be there, it should scream out at me. Matches are performed in different contexts, where the fans want different things. Put I don't plan to rate Patterson/Slaughter on a different system from Sayama/Dynamite, just because one is not meant to have high end offence in.

 

I'm glad you think my opinions are dumb and off point. I toss your opinion on the proverbial woodpile...

[Phil Schneider]

I'm glad you think my opinions are dumb and off point. I toss your opinion on the proverbial woodpile...

 

Man the only thing more repellent then a self serious teenage Neo-Nazi, is a self serious teenage Neo-Nazi who uses tOa speak.

[anarchistxx]

teenage Neo-Nazi

Change the record old timer.

 

http://ccgi.simania.plus.com/forums/index....c=3470&st=0

 

who uses tOa speak.

I have never heard of or been on 'tOa'.

 

Indeed, this is the first time I used the said phrase.

 

Perhaps I should have said; 'Your opinions mean nothing to me'. God knows I don't want to become an internet stereotype courtesy of a man who has written over 160 of the 'mighty' wrestling reviews.

 

Self serious? Not really. I write my reviews as a hobby, just as I watch wrestling as a hobby. I watch perhapd one match a day, if that, hence why I look for entertainment rather than other factors.

 

Whether people like them is largely inconsequential. I have better things to worry about than what people think of my wrestling reviews.

[Resident Evil]

I enjoy your reviews. It's great to hear someone be so honost and straightforward in them. I'd be interested in seeing reviews on your fav matches of all time.

[gordi]

 

 

Whether people like them is largely inconsequential. I have better things to worry about than what people think of my wrestling reviews.

 

 

So, let me get this straight: You are posting your reviews on a public discussion board, but you would prefer the posters here not to discuss them.

 

...and I thought it was the reviews that lacked intelligence and missed the point.

 

Anyway, if wp is getting some pleasure out of this, keep at it. I'll leave you be, as it's clear you'd prefer just to keep doing what you're doing.

[jdw]

Let's leave tOA out of this. It's not like I've commented on this thread or anything.

 

 

John

[DGinnetty]

Let's leave tOA out of this. It's not like I've commented on this thread or anything.

 

 

John

 

Elitist!!!

 

;-)

 

Dan

pot-stirrer

[anarchistxx]

You are posting your reviews on a public discussion board, but you would prefer the posters here not to discuss them.

 

I enjoy discussing them. The point was that whether people like them or not is really of little consequence to my every day life.

 

I'm pleased that WP liked my reviews. But if he didn't I wouldn't be losing sleep over them.

 

I try to be honest and just write them as I see it, rather than having to adhere to any popular consensus.

 

And hopefully it creates some discussion.

 

and I thought it was the reviews that lacked intelligence and missed the point.

 

The reviews don't 'miss the point'. There shouldn't be 'a point'. People should watch matches and get what they get out of them, not get something they're supposed to get.

 

I'll leave you be, as it's clear you'd prefer just to keep doing what you're doing.

Well yeah, as I shouldn't need you to be telling me what I should be seeing in a match.

[Bix]

and I thought it was the reviews that lacked intelligence and missed the point.

The reviews don't 'miss the point'. There shouldn't be 'a point'. People should watch matches and get what they get out of them, not get something they're supposed to get.

There IS supposed to be a point: Wrestlers do X at Y point in the match to get Z reaction.

[Resident Evil]

and I thought it was the reviews that lacked intelligence and missed the point.

The reviews don't 'miss the point'. There shouldn't be 'a point'. People should watch matches and get what they get out of them, not get something they're supposed to get.

There IS supposed to be a point: Wrestlers do X at Y point in the match to get Z reaction.

 

Not always. A lot of times X is done just because it is what you're good at.

[jdw]

There IS supposed to be a point: Wrestlers do X at Y point in the match to get Z reaction.

 

Not always.

 

Sometimes the do Q at Y point to give opponent B and themself (Wrestler A) a breather. You know... the old resthold.

 

Restholds aren't always poorly worked. It's one thing that comes through in watching a chunk of matches like the DVDVR WWF 80s set - there are wrestlers who can put on a resthold to give both a breather while also working it in a fashion that doesn't lose the crowd. I'd have to go back and look at some of my comments, but Dibiase comes to mind as someone who took a breather well.

 

That's one example where things are done in the ring not exactly to get a reaction. I'm sure we can think of others.

 

 

John

[gordi]

This thread is getting too interesting for me to leave myself out of it. Plus, I want to argue/discuss this with Bix, wp, and John again.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I enjoy discussing them.

 

 

No you don't. You like getting praised for your opinions, but you apparently can't handle being criticized. That's not really discussion. I am under the impression that you just want people to read your reviews and enjoy getting your take on matches. If that's the case, you should get a column somewhere instead of posting reviews on discussion boards... but I'd warn you, readers will still write to disagree with you.

 

 

 

I try to be honest and just write them as I see it, rather than having to adhere to any popular consensus.

 

 

 

I don't think that anyone has issue with your reviews because you don't hold the consensus opinion on many matches. I think the problem is that you have really poor reasons for holding those opinions, reasons that clearly show that you do not understand what is supposed to be happening in the match in question.

 

The reviews don't 'miss the point'. There shouldn't be 'a point'. People should watch matches and get what they get out of them, not get something they're supposed to get.

 

 

This is the point where we disagree, obviously. I think that it takes a whole lot of ego to really believe that all that matters is your take on a match. Wrestling matches don't take place in a vacuum, and it simply isn't the case that they should all be judged according to a single set of criteria.

 

I'd ask you, anarchistxx, to please really think about this and not take it as a personal attack. I'm not trying to insult you (here at least), I'm sincerely trying to discuss pro wrestling with you: Very often, there is much more to a great match than what first meets the eye. I fully agree with you that you shouldn't have to search for the meaning of a match. Furthermore, I would agree if you wanted to argue that a great match should be able to stand on its own and that you shouldn't need to know all of the stuff that led up to a great match in order to be able to appreciate it. What I would argue, though, is that many matches are much better when appreciated in context, that opening up to appreciating great matches in context will increase your enjoyment in watching them, and that reviews that are written without taking the context into account end up being nothing more than just one person's opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well yeah, as I shouldn't need you to be telling me what I should be seeing in a match.

 

I guess you don't need anyone to tell you anything... but I am genuinely sure that if you were willing to listen to what other people had to say and take it into account, you would both deepen and broaden your ability to appreciate pro wrestling, and you'd get a great deal more out of it.

 

 

and I thought it was the reviews that lacked intelligence and missed the point.

The reviews don't 'miss the point'. There shouldn't be 'a point'. People should watch matches and get what they get out of them, not get something they're supposed to get.

There IS supposed to be a point: Wrestlers do X at Y point in the match to get Z reaction.

 

Not always. A lot of times X is done just because it is what you're good at.

 

Oh, come on, wp! You of all posters have to understand that, for a good pro wrestler, 'what they are good at' has to be understood as 'what they do that gets a reaction.' Teddy Hart doing backflips to no reaction (or a negative reaction) is an example of a wrestler doing X at Y point for another reason, but coming up with examples like that doesn't make for a good argument that top pro wrestlers in classic matches are doing things for any other reason than to work the crowd.

 

 

There IS supposed to be a point: Wrestlers do X at Y point in the match to get Z reaction.

 

Not always.

 

Sometimes the do Q at Y point to give opponent B and themself (Wrestler A) a breather. You know... the old resthold.

 

Restholds aren't always poorly worked. It's one thing that comes through in watching a chunk of matches like the DVDVR WWF 80s set - there are wrestlers who can put on a resthold to give both a breather while also working it in a fashion that doesn't lose the crowd. I'd have to go back and look at some of my comments, but Dibiase comes to mind as someone who took a breather well.

 

That's one example where things are done in the ring not exactly to get a reaction. I'm sure we can think of others.

 

 

John

 

I don't quite follow this argument, John. Sure, bad wrestlers will put on a rest hold just to catch a breather or to talk to their opponent, but what you are describing is another example of a good wrestler doing X at point Y to work the crowd. For example, Nick Bockwinkle may throw the arm bar on to grab a breath... but I'd bet that much of the time he's also doing it at a point where it makes sense to bring the crowd back down, and furthermore he's also probably working that armbar with movement, body language, and facials... and why? To get a reaction from the crowd.

 

I think that if we modify Bix' post just a bit, to read "Good wrestlers do X at Y point in the match to get Z reaction" than it would be difficult to disagree except out of sheer argumentativeness.

 

 

None of this really addresses my core argument with anarchistxx, which is now that there really is more to a given match than just his opinion of it, and that matches and wrestlers are better understood in context.

 

I guess I could re-phrase it like this: "A good wrestler will do X at point Y to get Z reaction in match A. In match B, it may make more sense for a good wrestler to do N at point Y to get Z reaction. If N is the right thing to do, it's bad criticism to knock them for not doing X, even if that's what the reviewer has come to expect." I think you could go on for hours with variations of that argument, but I assume you get my point.

 

So, do any of you agree with anarchistxx that the problem with Patterson vs. Slaughter Alley fight was that it was "Offensively too simplistic"?

[jdw]

I don't quite follow this argument, John. Sure, bad wrestlers will put on a rest hold just to catch a breather or to talk to their opponent, but what you are describing is another example of a good wrestler doing X at point Y to work the crowd. For example, Nick Bockwinkle may throw the arm bar on to grab a breath... but I'd bet that much of the time he's also doing it at a point where it makes sense to bring the crowd back down, and furthermore he's also probably working that armbar with movement, body language, and facials... and why? To get a reaction from the crowd.

No, even good workers will slip on a resthold and do very little for 20-60 seconds or even more while letting themselves and their opponent take a breather. Even good workers will do things in the ring that aren't instantly intended "to get Z reaction".

 

I tend to think that Ric Flair is a "good worker". But there are times even at his peak where he would slip on the Mid-Atlantic Armbar or a headlock and do very little while taking a pause to give the opponent a breather. Or, in the case of the famous "didn't grab a hold for sixty minutes and were constantly doing spots" match with Brody, taking *long* pauses in restholds that weren't there to get a reaction out of the crowd. They were there to keep Brody from having a heart attack since he was sucking wind so hard.

 

I agree with Bix's general point - stuff in wrestling matches are done for a reason. There basically is some thought behind it. But it's not 100% to get reactions. That is clearly the Overall Goal of Working. But it isn't done in 100% of the "stuff" in 100% of the matches.

 

On the specific of Bockwinkle, he actually was at times pretty boring when it came to rest holds. I've seen Nick look good working holds, and other times I've seen him look like paint drying.

 

 

John